Julian Assange To Run For Australian Senate

New submitter bozman8 writes "Announced recently on social networking platform Twitter, Julian Assange has found a way to run for the Upper House of the Australian Senate, despite being detained under house arrest in Britain. Along with Julian's candidacy, WikiLeaks has announced that they are going to run a nominee against current Prime Minister Julia Gillard in her local electorate."

Comments

Re:Yeah...I don't like this.

[jellomizer]

By flat-out evil you mean things like... Leaders from other countries acting like spoiled brats when a camera is not in front of them with. Or in a war that innocent people die and the government doesn't want to release the official numbers and the names of the troops who are still in harms way? Kinda evil.

You must live in Lollipop Land if you conseder that Flat-out-evil.

I am sorry the real world people are jerks, they are not evil just self entitled. And people die in war, when you have a war with a terrorist organization the line between civilian and insurgent is thin mistakes are made. The stuff that Wikileaks released anyone with a half a mind knew it was going on anyways. All he did was put troops in danger.

Hey that can be his headline. Vote for me, I'll put our allied troops in danger just because I don't like war.

Re:Yeah...I don't like this.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Case Closed: US Weapons Clearly Seen on Video of Reuters Reporters Killed in Iraq

FTFY. Iraqis were on their turf. US genocidal invaders had no interest being there. Yet, they were, used chemical weapons, shot at everything that moved - militants, women, children and made jokes about it.

Re:Yeah...I don't like this.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq

Re:Yeah...I don't like this.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Reading comprehension fail:

White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".

WP can burn (as in "cause chemical burns").

Re:Yeah...I don't like this.

[cold fjord]

WP, as used in weapons, causes thermal burns, not chemical burns. It is the difference between: burned by a chemical itself versus being burned by the heat of a chemical on fire. Stick your hand in a bucket of gasoline - are you burned by it? No. Light it on fire - now will you be burned? Yes. Change the bucket to hydrochloric acid. Try to light it on fire. Does it burn? No. Stick your hand in it. Will it burn you? Yes, badly.

Chemical burn

A chemical burn occurs when living tissue is exposed to a corrosive substance such as a strong acid or base. Chemical burns follow standard burn classification and may cause extensive tissue damage. The main types of irritant and/or corrosive products are: acids, bases, oxidizers, solvents, reducing agents and alkylants. Additionally, chemical burns can be caused by some types of chemical weapons e.g. vesicants such as mustard gas and Lewisite, or urticants such as phosgene oxime.

Chemical burns may:
- need no source of heat,
- occur immediately on contact,
- be extremely painful, or
- not be immediately evident or noticeable
- diffuse into tissue and damage structures under skin without immediately apparent damage to skin surface

Note that WP does not appear in the above. Why? Because WP produces thermal burns.

WP is not a chemical weapon as that term is generally understood. It is a chemical being used as a weapon because it burns.

Although you no doubt put great stock in the opinions of writers in the Guardian, the treaty is authoritative.

White phosphorus: weapon on the edge

The CWC is monitored by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, based in The Hague. Its spokesman Peter Kaiser was asked if WP was banned by the CWC and he had this to say:

"No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.

"If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the Convention legitimate use.

"If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the Convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

Chemical warfare

Falklands War

Technically, the reported employment of tear gas by Argentine forces during the 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands constitutes chemical warfare.[58] However, the tear gas grenades were employed as nonlethal weapons to avoid British casualties. The barrack buildings the weapons were used on proved to be deserted in any case. The British claim that more lethal, but legally-justifiable as they are not considered chemical weapons under the Chemical Weapons Convention, white phosphorus grenades were used.[59]

In summary, WP and Napalm are not chemical weapons as that term is understood. They are incendiary weapons, chemicals used as weapons because they burn (thermally).

Re:Yeah...I don't like this.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Treatment of white phosphorus and other chemical burn injuries at one burn center over a 51-year period. Fail.