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

To that I say....

[Anonymous Coward]

SHUT UP AND TAKE MY VOTE!

Re:To that I say....

[Anonymous Coward]

But Julia Gillard is quite a MILF...

Re:To that I say....

[Ghaoth]

Then take her and go...far, far away..another galaxy would be good...and don't let her return.

Re:To that I say....

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't be a MILF if you're not a M.

Re:To that I say....

[TheInternetGuy]

You can't be a MILF if you're not a M.

Are you saying she isn't a Mutant?

Re:To that I say....

[Macgrrl]

I'm a voter in Gillard's electorate. Last election we nearly voted an Austrlaian Sex Party candidate into the Senate and the Greens candidate had by far the largest increase in votes for the Lower House seat.

I don't see this particular piece of stunt electioneering being very effective. They'd be better off throwing their weight behind Fiona Patten or the local Greens candidate. Both of whom are sympathetic to their cause and more likely to get in.

Go Assange!

[Anonymous Coward]

Go Assange! I wonder if they would trust him with secret documents!

Re:Go Assange!

[MichaelSmith]

He already has them.

Re:Go Assange!

[Lennie]

Atleast now he knows not to use the same private key for different purposes like last time.

Re:Go Assange!

[fahrbot-bot]

I'd be more interested to know if he won would he be eligible for Diplomatic Immunity; be able to leave Britain and prevent any extradition to Sweden or the U.S. while in office.

Re:Go Assange!

[vintagepc]

And if anything, that should give him an advantage - No need to learn about all the hidden intricacies of what's going on when starting the job!

Joking aside, it would be interesting to see whether this results in a more open government than before.

Re:Go Assange!

[Pseudonym]

No, because he isn't part of a diplomatic mission. What you're thinking of is that which is known as parliamentary privilege, parliamentary immunity or legislative immunity. In Commonwealth countries such as Australia, parliamentary privilege generally only extends to protection from slander or libel for statements made in the legislature. Legislators are not immune from criminal actions for the simple reason that all are equal under the law. This is pretty much the same as in the US.

Re:Go Assange!

[fahrbot-bot]

I did not know that, thanks. Though I imagine extraditing a sitting Senator would be diplomatically problematic - especially on the weak cases against him in Sweden (for now) and the U.S.

Re:Go Assange!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in the US you cannot detain a sitting legislator while the legislature is in service. This is to prevent the 'authorities' from detaining a legislator or group thereof from getting to a key vote.

They can still be charged, and I assume tried, but I would guess cannot be made to serve time until the legislature recesses.

Yeah...I don't like this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whistleblowers and muckrakers shouldn't be a part of the government.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that rot.

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

[DesScorp]

Whistleblowers and muckrakers shouldn't be a part of the government.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that rot.

You're assuming that he's a reformer. I think he's an attention whore. If I'm right, politics is the perfect profession for him.

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

[Ihmhi]

An attention whore who gets said attention by exposing the flat-out evil things all of our governments do on a near-daily basis.

At least he does something for society compared to any of those reality show retards.

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

[sjames]

By definition, a whistleblower IS part of the organization he blows the whistle on. Sometimes the muck needs a close up raking.

That doesn't eliminate the need for outside muckrakers as well in case the insider goes over to the dark side.

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

[dbet]

Whistleblowers and muckrakers shouldn't be a part of the government.

Neither should liars and assholes. But guess what?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

An attention whore who gets said attention by exposing the flat-out evil things all of our governments do on a near-daily basis.

At least he does something for society compared to any of those reality show retards.

Close! He's an attention whore who gets attention by exposing the things all governments do on a near-daily basis and pretending that they're flat-out evil. If they don't seem evil enough, just edit the videos until they do. Journalistic ethics should never stand between a whore and his attention.

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

[Zibodiz]

I think he's the real life version of Gaius Baltar. Do whatever will get you popular and get you women.

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

[Luckyo]

Because US government goes around shooting journalists and kids from attack helicopters on near-daily basis and then cover it all up.

What?

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

[cold fjord]

Since you're badly confused, and misinformed, this should help:

    'Collateral Murder' in Baghdad Anything But

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

[cold fjord]

Case Closed: Weapons Clearly Seen on Video of Reuters Reporters Killed in Iraq
You may want to read the documents from the official investigation which are seen at the bottom or the link above.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Close! He's an attention whore who gets attention by exposing the things all governments do on a near-daily basis and pretending that they're flat-out evil. If they don't seem evil enough, just edit the videos until they do. Journalistic ethics should never stand between a whore and his attention.

Just like mainstream journalists then. Yet they aren't being detained, because they tell the right lies.
While wikileaks is in no way immune to this, mainstream journalism is much worse.

You shouldn't just trust any information, whether that's your local newspaper or wikileaks. Get all the facts from all sources, and make up your own mind.

That said, think about this : if all goverments are doing such a good job, and aren't evil at all, why is there so much suffering,poverty and violence in this world.
And what can YOU do about it ?

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

[Confusedent]

I'm sorry, did you forget about the part where the US government covered it up and lied to Reuters about the investigation? Do you particularly think it's all ok just because it was in their "Rules of Engagement"? If the government says that torturing and killing your family is part of their "Rules of Engagement," is that ok with you? Weekly Standard is neoconservative propaganda founded by News Corp and supported solely by people like Rupert Murdoch (according to Wikipedia the magazine has NEVER been profitable, citing the NY Times), the same liars who spread the same government propaganda that started the Iraq War (remember those WMDs? Whatever happened to those, hm?). US apologists make me sick.

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

[niftydude]

Whistleblowers and muckrakers shouldn't be a part of the government.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that rot.

Dude - Maxine Mckew winning Bennelong off John Howard was one of the sweetest moments in Australian politics.

In case you've already forgotten - she also was a journalist, and has definitely been a muckracker and whistlebower in her time at the ABC.

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

[91degrees]

Just like mainstream journalists then. Yet they aren't being detained, because they tell the right lies.

That, and they aren't charged with unrelated crimes. The ones that are charged with unrelated crimes tend to be arrested and tried.

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

[Max Littlemore]

Attention whore, maybe. Idealist, certainly.

Maybe he gets in the senate, get's on a committee (doubt that but anyway) and learns why secrets are kept.

I personally agree with everything he's done. If we were all completely open about everything we have done that directly effected at least one other human, I don't reckon there would be war. If there were, they would be very short. Courts can be great things when they're not bogged down in IP law and drugs.

spoken as someone with no direct interest in the money for killing tea towel heads consortium.....

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude - Maxine Mckew winning Bennelong off John Howard was one of the sweetest moments in Australian politics.

The only thing that would have made that sweeter, would have been the Liberals winning the election anyway. I'm kind of hoping for something similar in Queensland next weekend, the Lib's taking the State but Campbell not winning his seat.

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

[cheaphomemadeacid]

Yeah! right! And you are also confused about the drones in pakistan, when they crash a terrorist wedding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan). But good thing that the U.S could make us those magic drones, somehow, whoever those drones kill, they magically become terrorists post mortem. So, these drones are only used for antiterrorist purposes!

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

[Confusedent]

Actually, they really should be, the same way they should be a part of big pharma and big tobacco and any other large, profitable organization that damages the lives of others through corrupt practices. Whistleblowers are the ones who expose corruption. Saying they shouldn't be a part of the government is basically saying you don't want any corruption that goes on exposed.

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

[Fluffeh]

I think he's the real life version of Gaius Baltar. Do whatever will get you popular and get you women.

That might be the case, but even though Baltar was a whore for popularity and generally spineless, he served humanity well when it was needed and although not all people liked him for the most part (in the show and in the audience) he played an important part in making things better.

I don't care if the guy sleeps with a newly imported Swedish prostitue (sorry, friend) each night. If he brings some accountability and causes the Australian government to go in a better direction, then I can't say that I am anything but delighted. I don't care what the hell politicians do once they are off the clock - I want my politicians to work and do their best for me as a faceless, anonymous member of the public.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

"At least he does something for society compared to any of those reality show retards."

May be a little more respect for the political elite is is order don't you think?

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

God, I wish I haven't read that article.

Sooo... Your argument is, they go around shooting journalists and kids from attack helicopters on nearly basis by accident and then cover it all up?

Look, I don't know why everyone is so keen on missing this fact, but, we are in a privileged position of having watched that video. Do you think it's the only incident that ever happened? What's the possibility of such a video being leaked? Let's say 1/l. And what ratio of all incidents are recorded? 1/r. Do you think all l*r incidents were by accident? How about the torture? How about mercy killings? How about the lies that weren't as blatant as the WMD lies?

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

[Hatta]

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.

Which is why we should cover casualties, military and civilian, accidental and intentional, as much as possible. The more aware people are of this simple fact, the less likely they will be to tolerate war.

Vote for me, I'll put our allied troops in danger just because I don't like war.

Really now. Who's more concerned about the safety of the troops? The ones who want to send them to war, or the ones who want to end it?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea.. wisdom...

But the desperation for good news is bigger than your worries.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

People with arms in Iraq... one doesn't suspect such a thing.

Likewise, Mr. Fascist, I bet this means all Iraqis are in their right to kill every American with arms in the USA?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously because of previous moderation.

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.

Then perhaps we should not treat our opposition to a terrorist organization as a war.

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

[rbrander]

>in a war that innocent people die

I like that, "in a war" like "in a rainstorm" or other event that had no human cause.

Your google for today is "robert jackson kingpin", and search the top link for "kingpin". Jackson was a US Attorney general that thought (as official US policy) that plotting aggressive war was the greatest crime possible, which he prosecuted before, and as a greater crime than, the Holocaust. In the case of this war, the plotting of aggressive war was made possible by secrecy and lies. The secrecy and lies then continued to deepen and extend the war, and to cover up the thousands of smaller crimes it made possible.

As to your argument that "anyone with a half a mind knew it was going on anyways", clearly people have a remarkable capacity to fool themselves, as you can see years later right here on slashdot, with the link to the two bodyguards that were carrying weapons, and the CentCom "investigation" that exonerated, well, CentCom and all its loyal employees. But the huge majority of those present were NOT carrying weapons, which means to anybody who'd been on a street in Baghdad that year, that they were civilians with the indispensable bodyguards, not a militia where everybody would of course have been armed.

When people don't WANT to believe something, you have to pry their eyes open like Alex in Clockwork Orange and then you still have to rub their noses in it. Twice.

This war will be admitted for the crime it was only long after the last participant has died of old age.

And never mind your "troops in danger" crap, that was trashed using the Pentagon's own admissions about day 2.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't reckon there would be war. If there were, they would be very short.

Any nuclear war is going to be very short.

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

[number11]

Just like mainstream journalists then. Yet they aren't being detained, because they tell the right lies.

That, and they aren't charged with unrelated crimes. The ones that are charged with unrelated crimes tend to be arrested and tried.

If the power structure wants to find crimes, they will find crimes.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him. "
      - Cardinal Richelieu (Prime Minister of France, 1624-1642)

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. The US didn't use chemical weapons. Pictures or it didn't happen.

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you don't understand Australians AT ALL.

Our culture is one of 'fuck the man and anyone who thinks they are better than anyone else'. We have a history of resistance to anyone who seeks to control us, be they government or tyrants.

What Assange is doing is very typically Australian - not bowing down to bullshit, lies, or the opinions of idiots. Something our North American and Brit friends need to find - a backbone.

The whining about arrogance or attention whoring is simply people who have been brainwashed by the world's zionist controlled media and the 'cult of personality' nonsense that they turn any issue into - to distract from the story and focus the easily distracted unthinking idiots onto the messenger.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Assange has said, over and over and OVER again that governments DO need secrecy to perform certain tasks. This is yet another example of people making an opinion based on what they've picked up through the lying zionist owned media.

But he's also said that secrecy should not be used to hide criminal activity, warcrimes or other incompetence.

All of those who think that any of our western nations are democracies need to wake the fuck up - we're not. We're presented with the SHOW of democracy, while elections results are falsified and the governments that are mostly corrupt to the core, work to facilitate our exploitation for the profit of the 'monied interests' (ie rothschilds) who control the central banks and corporations.

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

[kbg]

And why? Shouldn't the people have information what actions their own government is doing? The government is for the people, not the other way round.

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

[cold fjord]

Nice try, but White Phosphorous and Napalm are not "chemical weapons", the Guardian notwithstanding. They are not being used to poison, but to burn. They are incendiary weapons, also known as flame weapons, and are not covered under the Chemical Weapons Convention in that capacity.

Legal Status of Incendiary Weapons

The use of flame weapons, such as Fougasse, the M202A1 Flash, white phosphorous, thermobaric, and other incendiary agents, against military targets is not a violation of current international law. They should not, however, be employed to just cause unnecessary suffering to individuals.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care what the hell politicians do once they are off the clock - I want my politicians to work and do their best for me as a faceless, anonymous member of the public.

If what they do off the clock involves interaction with people they do not work with, in any manner, they have some level of motivation that their job is to provide for that interaction according to their own benefits. I'd rather a morally-upstanding person who legitimately wants to do good makes it into office than someone cutting deals left and right to look better than they are and fuck everyone over in the process.

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]

I don't think you have a firm grasp of the subject you raised.

Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome

Here are words that you never thought you’d hear a Pakistani general utter about the drone strikes that batter Pakistan’s tribal areas: “A majority of those eliminated are terrorists, including foreign terrorist elements.”

That would be yawn-worthy if it came from the CIA, which never misses an opportunity to credit its drone strikes with taking out al-Qaeda and its affiliates. But it was the main message of an official briefing from Maj. Gen. Ghayur Mehmood in Miram Shah. He’s the commander of Pakistan’s Seventh Division, charged with leading troops in North Waziristan.

“Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many,” Mehmood said, according to Dawn, “but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners.”

He even brought stats. According to the general, “about 164 drone strikes have occurred since 2007 — the New America Foundation tallies 226 since 2004 — have killed “over 964 terrorists.” Of those, 793 were Pakistanis and 171 were foreigners, “including Arabs, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens, Filipinos and Moroccans.” (Filipinos? Huh.) Only “a few civilians” have been killed, he said.

It's a pity you apparently didn't actually read the Wikipedia article you quoted, or you might have thought twice about posting it.

al Qaeda response

Messages recovered from Osama bin Laden's home after his death in 2011, including one from then al Qaeda No. 3, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman reportedly, according to the Agence France-Presse and the Washington Post, expressed frustration with the drone strikes in Pakistan. According to an unnamed U.S. Government official, in his message al-Rahman complained that drone-launched missiles were killing al Qaeda operatives faster than they could be replaced.[434][435][436]

In June and July 2011, law enforcement authorities found messages on al Qaeda-linked websites calling for attacks against executives of drone aircraft manufacturer AeroVironment. Law enforcement believed that the messages were in response to calls for action against Americans by Adam Yahiye Gadahn.[437] . . . .

Reactions from people in Waziristan

Between November 2008 and January 2009 Pakistani Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy conducted a survey of the public opinion about the drone strikes in Federally Administered Tribal Areas. 5 teams of 5 researchers each interviewed a total of 550 people from all walks of life. Most people thought that the drone attacks were accurate and did not lead to anti-American sentiment and were effective in damaging the militants.[399]

Based on the responses the researchers concluded 'The popular notion outside the Pakhtun belt that a large majority of the local population supports the Taliban movement lacks substance'. Most people thought that the drone attacks were accurate and did not lead to anti-American sentiment and were effective in damaging the militants. In addition the locals wanted the Pakistani forces to also target the militants.[443] According to Farhat Taj a member of AIRRA the drones have never killed any civilians. Some people in Waziristan compare the drones to Ababils, the holy swallows sent by God to avenge Abraha, the invader of the Khana Kaaba.[444]

In an analysis published in Daily Times (Pakistan) on 2 January 2010 Farhat Taj, a research fellow at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Research, University of Oslo and a member of Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy discussed the issue of drone attacks with hundreds

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.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he gave a link. You ranted about the evil Team Red. Grow up. Form your own team with your own opinion.

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.

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

[cold fjord]

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

If you're going to try to claim that White Phosphorous (AKA yellow phosphorous) doesn't burn by thermal action, you are fighting a losing battle.

I've highlighted the parts below that refer to heat producing chemical reactions (burning).

A review of chemical burns

Phosphorous is a waxy and translucent solid that undergoes spontaneous ignition on contact with air. Burns result from contact with either the solid or liquid form.

Spontaneous ignition results in rapid oxidation forming phosphorus pentoxide. This then combines with water to form phosphoric acid www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm).

When phosphorus comes into contact with skin the resultant burn causes a painful, necrotic, yellow wound with a garlic-like odour. Particles of phosphorus embedded in the skin continue to
burn as part of an exothermic reaction until the products are removed.

Exothermic reaction

An exothermic reaction is a chemical reaction that releases energy in the form of light or heat.

Q&A: White phosphorus injuries

In its solid form, white phosphorus burns on contact with oxygen and can reach temperatures of 800C.

Your soy burger would be a cinder rather quickly at 800C, wouldn't it? What do you think happens to skin?

A youtube video helpful to understanding: Elementary Productions: White Phosphorus . Pay special attention starting at 1:38.

WP is used in weapons because it spontaneously ignites in air and burns very hot while producing large amounts of smoke.

The writer in the Guardian either doesn't know what he is talking about, or is lying for political purposes.

You seem to think you are fighting me, but you're not. You are fighting chemistry and a treaty with specific meanings. The fact that you and the Guardian don't like what is, doesn't change it.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

You get both?

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

[kermidge]

Huh? Seems to me to one of the better places for them to be.

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

[rtb61]

I know you are going for the bullshit baffles brains crap but suck it up, when White phosphorus is used to generate smoke or in a flare, it is not considered a chemical weapon but when it is targeted at people it is a chemical weapon, end of story. Forget the silly propaganda crap.

Carbon monoxide is produced by motor vehicles, people that drive cars and not considered to be using a chemical weapon. However if you put people in a room and fill that room with carbon monoxide from a car exhaust you have used a chemical weapon to kill them. See, double plus points for using a car analogy to blow holes in your crap let's fuck with literal interpretations to hide murderous criminal actions behind propaganda bullshit.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

By your logic every explosive is a "chemical weapon". It takes a chemical reaction to detonate C4, TNT, ect. White phosphorus, napalm, and thermite are all incendiary devices that cause thermal heat burns not chemical burns. Chemical burn occur as a result of some kind of irritant and/or acid base reaction hence an acid burn is a chemical burn. Treatment protocol for chemical burns is much different than thermal burns. How do I know? I am training in medicine. Also I work for the navy and have a strong background in chemistry so I have training in basic explosives/ordinance and a background knowledge of the mechanisms that make them work. Geneva convention aside(I am not an expert in it) what you describe would classify every conventional non-kinetic weapons as a chemical weapon. And realistically people who are victims of napalm vs victims of mustard gas aren't going to feel too different in the end, they are both royally fucked up. Chemical weapons aren't even that effective because most strong military's in the world possess good countermeasure against them. Chemical weapons are usually classified as such due to delivery mechanism(gaseous form being the most common) and they work on a molecular level(i.e. neural inhibitors) not a dermal level(thermal burns).

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

[Pseudonym]

Whistleblowers and muckrakers shouldn't be a part of the government.

Dude, politicians are some of the worst muckrakers of them all. He'll fit right in there. As for whistleblowers, at least he'll have one person to keep him company.

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

[dwywit]

Yes, and didn't she last a long time? Her election to parliament was a protest vote, no more. Look at her share of the vote when she got tossed. She can't have been a very effective representative, hmmmm?
 
I have a great deal of respect for her as a journalist, but the election results speak for themselves.
 
Now if you want to talk about Peter Garrett's brilliant career.....(crickets).....Assange couldn't be worse (I hope).

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

[Forty Two Tenfold]

I understand you claim phosphorus smoke is not an irritant. Good background in chemistry then. Military. Carry on, soldier.

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

[Luckyo]

Parent is only partially correct. WP is indeed an incendiary weapon in the first stage of its impact on the living victim. It however becomes a chemical weapon in the second stage, as WP that burns through skin into tissue will likely be absorbed by normal human metabolism, causing severe damage to kidneys, liver and heart.

Essentially even if the victim survives the being burned, he/she will likely need treatment for severe chemical poisoning (phosphorous poisoning) or risk heart/kidney/liver/multiple organ failure.

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

[cold fjord]

It however becomes a chemical weapon in the second stage, as WP that burns through skin into tissue will likely be absorbed by normal human metabolism, causing severe damage to kidneys, liver and heart.

Essentially even if the victim survives the being burned, he/she will likely need treatment for severe chemical poisoning (phosphorous poisoning) or risk heart/kidney/liver/multiple organ failure.

Not according to this source:

Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, 2nd edition, Volume 1, by Robert Irving Krieger, p. 1400

Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion

Phosphorus is absorbed from the respiratory and gastrointestinal tracts. It can cause severe burns to the skin, but it is said that not enough is absorbed from the burned areas to cause systemic poisoning. The dead tissue may be protective by permitting time for complete oxidation to phosphoric acid. Whether dilute formulations such as may occur in the gastrointestinal tract would be absorbed from the skin in harmful amounts has not be tested.

Unreacted elemental phosphorous may be demonstrated in the tissues of people who die several days after ingesting phosphorous but not in those who die after longer periods.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Likewise, Mr. Fascist, I bet this means all Iraqis are in their right to kill every American with arms in the USA?

I think you have a point there. Since Americans have a right to bear arms under a provisions which contemplates the defence of the state, all Americans who own guns are arguably combatants and therefore legitimate targets. But since you are stressing the reciprocity that fairness demands, you would have to admit that Americans have the right to kill armed Iraqis too, wouldn't you?

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

[Capsaicin]

I have a great deal of respect for her as a journalist, but the election results speak for themselves.

In all fairness Bennelong is a natural Tory seat. You are right that her election was largely a protest vote. But I think her loss was neither unexpected, nor particularly any reflection on her personally.

Yes, Peter Garrett ... hmm.

....Assange couldn't be worse (I hope).

As a parliamentarian he runs the risk of resembling that unguided missile from Denison. But I don't think the point of voting for him (which I am seriously considering btw), would be to ensure good governance. Rather it would be to put the US administration in the uncomfortable position of potentially imprisoning|executing a member of parliament of an allied nation, thus hopefully safeguarding Assange and his invaluable work.

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

[Luckyo]

This talks about phosphorous in pesticides, which is a different allotrope of phosphorous known as yellow phosphorous.

Here is a quote about white phosphorous from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp103-c2.pdf

White phosphorus is the most active allotropic form and is extremely toxic when inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through burned areas (Eldad and Simon 1991). It is fat soluble, glows in yellow-green light, and ignites spontaneously upon drying and exposure to air. Storage of white phosphorus in water prevents it from burning spontaneously (Eldad and Simon 1991). White phosphorus can cause thermal injury and hygroscopic damage by absorbing water from surrounding tissues. It reacts with oxygen and water to form strong acids (H3PO2, H3PO3) and combines with metals like copper to form dark-colored inactive salts (Eldad and Simon 1991).
White phosphorus particles can burn on the surface of the skin or penetrate deep into the tissues when carried on shrapnel particles. Local destruction of tissues continues as long as white phosphorus is exposed to oxygen. White phosphorus smoke with a garlic odor is characteristic of white phosphorus burns (Eldad and Simon 1991). High mortality rates seen following white phosphorus burns can be due to its absorption from the burned surface, which may result in multi-organ failure (mainly liver and kidneys), hyperphosphatemia, hypocalcemia, and electrocardiogram (ECG) abnormalities (ST depression, QT elongation, microvoltage of QRS and bradycardia) (Bowen et al. 1971; Eldad and Simon 1991).

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

[Luckyo]

Correction: the book speaks about phosphorous which is mixed with other chemicals (which among other things elevate flash point). It's the same allotrope.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes and all that rot.

And who exactly is watching them now?!?
The media? The opposition? Ha!

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes seems more like an argument for why he should be in the parliament than why he shouldn't.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

and look where that got us

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

[cold fjord]

This talks about phosphorous in pesticides, which is a different allotrope of phosphorous known as yellow phosphorous.

White phosphorus and yellow phosphorus are the same substance called by two names. The other allotropes are black, red, and violet. Although it doesn't really matter, the section I quoted is about white phosphorus.

Next, thanks for the link. It is an interesting paper. However, I will draw your attention to this section, which is the scenario under discussion, which is dermal application of solid white phosphorous, not ingestion or inhalation of various forms:

2.2.4.1 Death
A high rate of mortality (12 of 27) in humans occurred following accidental explosions from ignited white phosphorus in munitions factories (Walker et al. 1947). The workers that died had third-degree burns over 35-90% of their body surface. Those surviving had burns over 19% of the body surface. These burn cases followed a course that was “indistinguishable” from that of nonphosphorus related third-degree burns. Thus, death apparently resulted from the burns alone, with no contributing factor from white phosphorus.

This agrees with the text I quoted.

So, we are once again back to the point: White phosphorous is an incendiary that produces casualty effect through thermal burns, and that is the overwhelming effect. White phosphorous is not a chemical weapon as that term is understood by treaty and common understanding, even when used against troops. Flame weapons are not grouped with chemical weapons.

Some people are politically compelled to call white phosphorous a chemical weapons, but it isn't true.

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

[Falconhell]

Having seen that video I firmly believe that there were no arms. The fact that you quote a US investigation as
a reliable source. Only a blind man or a fool sees weapons in that video.

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

[cold fjord]

I know you are going for the bullshit baffles brains crap

No, what I'm going for is to be correct on the subject, something you aren't achieving, and don't seem interested in.

White phosphorus is used to generate smoke or in a flare, it is not considered a chemical weapon but when it is targeted at people it is a chemical weapon

No, it is never a chemical weapon as defined in treaty and common usage in the military. It is an incendiary, a flame weapon - it sets things on fire - it burns at 800C. When you get a chunk of it on you as it burns at 800C, you get burnt - that is how you are wounded.

Here is a list of chemical weapons. Could you point out all of the chemical weapons that create their casualty effect by burning at 800C? 500C? 300? 100C?

Blister Agents: Phosgene Oximine, Lewisite, Sulfur Mustard, Nitrogen Mustard
Nerve Agents: Tabun, Sarin, Soman, Cyclosarin, VX
Blood Agents: Cyanogen chloride, Hydrogen cyanide
Choking Agents: Chloropicrin, Phosgene, Diphosgene, Chlorine

You can't, because they don't. Blister agents produce chemical burns, nerve agents interfere with the central nervous system sending messages, blood agents prevent you blood from carrying oxygen, and choking agents damage the lungs.

There aren't any flame weapons in that list - white phosphorous isn't there, and neither is napalm. Flame weapons are a different category of weapon. White phosphorous doesn't poison, choke, cause you to suffocate because it binds the hemoglobin in your blood, or damage your lungs - it burns at 800C.

. . . literal interpretations to hide murderous criminal actions behind propaganda bullshit.

If white phosphorous is used as a weapon during a battle in a manner consistent with the law of war, it isn't criminal, or murderous. The only propaganda BS here is yours.

This is a question of fact, not your personal opinion, not your political beliefs. This is a question of treaty, not the names you call. You want the treaty and common usage to say something else, but they don't. Too bad.

White phosphorus is not a chemical weapon as defined in the chemical weapons convention and as understood in the military. Its use is completely legal as long as proper guidelines are observed, much as they have to be for any other weapon.

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

[cold fjord]

Watch the video full screen, go to time 3:37, look at the group of men above the cursor. Several of them are pretty clearly carrying weapons. The hefty guy on the left is swinging an AK. The guy to his right is carrying an RPG. Look again at time 4:50 at the man at 11:00 above the cursor, and watch him carefully. As he ducks down at 4:52-4:53 you can see his weapon.

Only a blind man or a fool sees weapons in that video.

Some men will not see what is plainly seen to avoid having to question their own beliefs.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I've come to the point where I've figured it's best not to care, America's inability to succeed militarily in the vast majority of conflicts it engages in is a problem that's slowly eating away it, as a country.

I used to think it was awful hearing about American casualties in conflicts, but now it's hard to care. It's a problem brought entirely upon themselves, and it's a lesson Americans fail to learn, including the nutjobs here even who defend the idea of brute force at all costs, and who insist defending their military even when they commit the most gross atrocities is somehow a civilised or rational thing to do.

The fact is, America can't do war. It tries a lot, but it fails time and time again. From Korea, to Vietnam, Cambodia, Lebanon, Somalia, Iraq, and now Afghanistan America's lack of understanding that "It's the people, stupid" that matter when you want to win a war is what is at the heart of repeated American military failure. You can't do things like burn Korans, and when one of your soldiers massacres 16 innocent civilians immediately try and get him out the country. You're in their country, if you want them on side, so you can win the war, you need to play by their rules.

It's the treatment of civilians in countries America has invaded as lesser beings compared to their own. The dehumanisation of the enemy is a way soldiers cope with killing, but the fundamental problem is that US military doctrine is too indiscriminate about dehumanisation such that US soldiers have been taught that anything that isn't another US soldier isn't human. This is also why America has such a horrendous friendly fire record against it's allies too - because if they aren't US soldiers, they're not as human and so indiscriminate firing "just in case" is seen as okay.

The only way things will change is if America does a root and branch re-evaluation of it's fundamental military doctrine. This would involve teaching that life is precious, that civilian lives should be protected whatever the cost- militaries where soldiers are more willing to die ironically have a far better success rate than America's kill first, ask questions later way of doing things does. This is because it's better a soldier dies saving a civilian, than a civilian dies because a soldier didn't want to risk death - the former turns the civilian's family on the enemy, the latter turns the civilians family on the soldiers, which ultimately means more soldiers will die regardless. America pursues the latter scenario, and worse, then exacerbates it by refusing to allow justice to be carried out against it's own soldiers.

America's position in the world is in decline, and those defending actions like the blatant murder of civilians in the video being discussed blindly think they're going to somehow reverse that decline. The sad reality is they're only further aiding that decline by making the rest of the world hate them more and more, whilst simultaneously strengthening the position of their global competitors.

So leave them to it, it'll sort itself out. Either they'll wake up and start pushing for their country to change it's ways, and become a force for genuine good again, or they'll continue to aid the decline of their own precious nation.

For the rest of us, either outcome is just as good - an America that no longer has either the will, or the force to pursue engagements that lead to the unnecessary deaths of civilians, and greater destabilisation of the world. Americans just have to decide which, and whether they want to continue to matter and enjoy the benefits of greater standards of living that that brings anymore.

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

[Luckyo]

Again, you are wrong. The case quoted was when workers suffered severe burns in factory explosions. In most cases of weaponized WP, you are not going to get 35%+ burns. You're going to get small, localized burns as WP is used in small quickly burning pieces as these burn more efficiently. As a result, you have a pretty good survival rate from initial burns.

Finally, the argument is also irrelevant. Just because nuclear weapon kills most of its victims conventionally (shockwave, shrapnel, burns) doesn't mean it still has a radioactive potential. Same goes for chemical weapons.

Also, I corrected myself long before your post, it's the same allotrope but different chemical. Read the other reply.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy to his right is carrying an RPG. Look again at time 4:50 at the man at 11:00 above the cursor, and watch him carefully. As he ducks down at 4:52-4:53 you can see his weapon.

Watched it, looks more like a SLR camera to me. Pretty small for an RPG.

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

[cold fjord]

Watched it, looks more like a SLR camera to me. Pretty small for an RPG.

Well, that must be it then. Apparently 1.3m (52") long SLR cameras can be found in poor countries emerging from sanctions these days. Are SLR cameras known for stretching from a man's arm pit to the ground? Are their owners are prone to both swinging them around, and resting them lens first on the ground? Oddly enough, 1.3m also happens to be the length of an RPG. Hmmm, do SLR cameras have pistol grips and go boom? If not, you probably saw one of these".

An Unholy Alliance Down Under

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

[cold fjord]

Again, you are wrong. The case quoted was when workers suffered severe burns in factory explosions. In most cases of weaponized WP, you are not going to get 35%+ burns. You're going to get small, localized burns as WP is used in small quickly burning pieces as these burn more efficiently. As a result, you have a pretty good survival rate from initial burns.

You seem to have gone off on a tangent, so, let me restate things a bit more explicitly. I have taken the two passages in question and excepted them to focus on the matter at hand. As you can see below, in both references, systemic poisoning from phosphorus is discounted as a contributing factor in death following phosphorous burns. The paper you noted explicitly states that the course of burns from phosphorous follows a path "“indistinguishable” from that of nonphosphorus related third-degree burns." There is no second phase of an injury from phosphorous burns that makes phosphorous a chemical weapon in the formal sense anymore than the lead content of bullets makes them a poison.

2.2.4.1 Death

. . . These burn cases followed a course that was “indistinguishable” from that of nonphosphorus related third-degree burns. Thus, death apparently resulted from the burns alone, with no contributing factor from white phosphorus.

Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology, 2nd edition, Volume 1, by Robert Irving Krieger, p. 1400

Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, and Excretion

Phosphorus . . . can cause severe burns to the skin, but it is said that not enough is absorbed from the burned areas to cause systemic poisoning. The dead tissue may be protective by permitting time for complete oxidation to phosphoric acid

Finally, the argument is also irrelevant. Just because nuclear weapon kills most of its victims conventionally (shockwave, shrapnel, burns) doesn't mean it still has a radioactive potential. Same goes for chemical weapons.

For nuclear weapons you are correct. The physical manifestation of their explosion results in multiple effects that can injure or kill. Chemical weapons tend to have a single mechanism for causing injury even if there are multiple ways in which the damage can manifest itself. Hydrogen cyanide prevents the blood from taking up oxygen, for example. Nerve gas, in its various forms, impedes the communication of the nervous system, resulting in a variety of symptoms. In a similar vein the overwhelming primary effect of flame weapons is to burn, not poison, even if their substances are poisonous when ingested.

Also, I corrected myself long before your post, it's the same allotrope but different chemical. Read the other reply.

I see that, and acknowledge it. Thank you.

I must tell you that I am finding this an interesting discussion. You are obviously intelligent, resourceful and determined. I doubt that we will come to a common understanding, or agreement, but it is interesting.

Maljanne

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

[Luckyo]

I will readily admit that actual chemistry for this particular burn agent may be unique enough for me to not fully understand at where my basic university chemistry lessons and online resources end and I have to extrapolate from memory. Full disclosure: I am a trained sergeant in reserve of FDF and my field is command of small medical team of three people assigned to armoured or infantry division. As a result, I received quite a few lectures on topic of various burns caused by incendiary weaponry and triage and treatment of victims in the field and in the hospital.

WP was, as far as I recall, always considered a banned substance for anti-personnel use in lectures that I recall and might have been mentioned in the ABC lectures talking about chemical weaponry. But these lectures have been over ten years ago, so my memory may not be correct.

Most of the burns we would have to treat in war scenario and be trained for are typically for molten pieces of metal hitting the crew/personnel inside/immediately outside of armoured vehicle after it is hit by anti tank munitions or set on fire. There was also significant amount of lessons on napalm. WP being metallic would likely obey same rules as molten metal flying off the hit armoured vehicle (extrapolation backed by images on wikipedia and google when searching for pictures of WP-inflicted trauma in conflict), meaning it will cause shrapnel wounds and localized burns around the area. I would extrapolate that since it will keep on burning inside the wound until it runs out of oxygen or burns out, that the burns would cover wider area then those caused by molten metal used in armoured vehicles, but would retain the same general structure: localized, extremely painful, exceptionally susceptible to infection and potential harmful chemical agents. And if victim survives the burn itself, the biggest problem is going to be infection or poisoning through the weakened immune response in the burned tissue as well as necrosis. WP appears to be especially nasty in regard that it is absorbed through the tissue which is severely burnt but not yet necrotic, something that most metals do not do.

And as far as I remember, while chemical weapons are not always the type designed to actually kill the victim. Quite a few of them are meant to cause other kinds of damage, such as debilitating sickness, based on the fact that it's much more effective to painfully disable rather then kill the victim, forcing allocating resources to evacuation and treatment in addition to much greater demoralisation factor of survivors. In this regard, WP seems to be very suitable both due to horrific wounds it causes as well as debilitating and likely slow and eventually lethal chemical poisoning it will cause for survivors.

So it's very hard to agree on how to classify it. On one hand, it's a great (and thankfully mostly outlawed) anti-personnel incendiary. On the other hand, it can be viably classified as a chemical weapon due to after effects on the victims.

Good luck with that.

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

I hope he wins.

I don't personally think there's a giant paranoid conspiracy out to get him but I hope he wins so we can shut up the conspiracy minded.

Plus for the massive disagreement I have with his approach to politics at least he's on the right side of history. Even if he is a scumbag rapist.

Re:Good luck with that.

[dbIII]

He has no chance of winning but the number of votes he gets will be noticed and may influence policy. Runing for the senate in Australia is not the Billionaire's game that it is in the USA. Last election I recall something like six canditates standing on shooting and fishing issues in my state, as well as a few other single issue canditates. You could just about use the senate ballot paper as a tablecloth.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope he wins.

I don't personally think there's a giant paranoid conspiracy out to get him but I hope he wins so we can shut up the conspiracy minded.

Plus for the massive disagreement I have with his approach to politics at least he's on the right side of history. Even if he is a scumbag rapist.

( Even if he is a scumbag rapist )

common you cant really believe that crap do you . . . .

Re:Good luck with that.

[Anonymous Coward]

The phrase is, "Come on", sometimes written "C'mon" for slangy effect.

(E.g.:) C'mon, don't tell me you can completely fuck up a phrase as common as that one!

Re:Good luck with that.

[GloomE]

You could just about use the senate ballot paper as a tablecloth.

I somehow miss-read tablecloth as toilet paper.
We have to vote on this coming Saturday, I hope it's both soft and strong.

Re:Good luck with that.

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Isn't that pretty much the exact thing you'd want. At least you get to vote on actual issues, as compared to "liberal" versus "conservative" like most of us. Where the liberals are about as liberal as the conservatives are conservative.

Re:Good luck with that.

[LordLucless]

I somehow miss-read tablecloth as toilet paper.

Unless you have severe bowel problems, using the senate ballot paper as TP is overkill.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess again. Andrew Wilkie, the infamous Australian intelligence whistleblower who was hammered in the press by the government of the day, is now one of the power-broker independent members in the federal lower-house.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Anonymous Coward]

I somehow miss-read tablecloth as toilet paper.

Remind me to never invite you to dinner.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Confusedent]

I wasn't aware that anyone actually took those allegations seriously. They basically amount to a condom having broken and claiming that he intentionally broke the condom, or that he began having sex with them while they were asleep. IIRC, after originally issueing the warrants (or whatever) in Sweden, a higher up judge later dismissed it for lack of evidence, which was then later overturned by another higher up. These women were openly bragging about their relationship with him only days before filing charges, and only did so once they found out he was involved with both of them. They were both seen attending one of his speeches and comfortable watching (this is on video) a few days later. It's rather transparent that the US government (among others) are using BS sex-crime allegations to try and silence someone blowing the whistle on their corrupt practices. Try this, if you'd actually like to hear the other side of the story (that doesn't involve the political motivation to shut down wikileaks and scare off other whistleblowers).

Re:Good luck with that.

[peragrin]

How do you go from two women scorned to US government involvement being transparent?

Read this carefully. The US government can not take him out of Sweden PERIOD. He is required by extradition to be return to the UK FIRST.

It also shows just how little slashdotters know about pissing off women. They will stab you in the back if you scorn them by sleeping with other women and lying to them about it.

Also Sweden's Laws on rape are very very much in favor of Women. She can change her mind after the fact lie about it and still have you found guilty.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Confusedent]

Oh trust me, I am aware. I've been arrested (case later dismissed) because of women lying about me, and even had to call the cops three months ago to explain how another girl I'd been involved with was trying to spoof emails to frame me for "harassment" in order to avoid paying me the money she owed me. But the US government has wanted to get Assange extradited to the US so they could try him under the Espionage Act ever since the Collateral Murder video. I don't see how they'll be able to do that just from this, maybe they think they can put more pressure on the Swedish government than the UK, or maybe they think discrediting him as a rapist or putting him in Swedish jail is satisfactory. Sure, I admit I can't prove it's part of an ochestrated smear campaign or conspiracy, but given the fact that the accusations are based on an apparently obscure and rarely used "surprise sex" law, the timing of the incidents, the fact that at least some people in the Swedish legal system wanted to just throw the case out when it originally happened (this is from memory, sorry I couldn't find a link), I think I'd have to be gloriously naive to think the US didn't play a role in all this, even if they weren't directly involved with the two women making the accusations.

If this is unreasonable, call me out on it, but honestly how can anyone take these charges seriously?

Re:Good luck with that.

[Confusedent]

Correction, I was able to find the original news reports of the allegations against him being dropped and then reinstated.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Lennie]

Also if I'm not mistaken he is the only rapist on the Interpol list (or was it the European equivalant ?). Whatever.

It could indicate their might be an other reason he is on the list.

Re:Good luck with that.

[ae1294]

In the US it's a major crime to interfere with a senator travailing back to the senate for the purpose of making a vote. I wonder if Australia has a similar law and if Assange plains on getting the fuck out of the UK this way?

Re:Good luck with that.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't he need to be able to actually BE in Australia in order for it to matter?

It may not be a big financial deal but considering he's wanted by one country and being detained by another tells me he hasn't got a shot in hell at actually doing what he's signing on to due.

If you ignore EVERYTHING else wrong that he's done, and just assume he's a shining star from his past (which already qualifies you as an idiot) ...

Then you have to be a real fucking moron to vote for someone who literally can not carry out his responsibilities because he's not even in the same country and has no idea when that will happen ... and hasn't lived there in fucking years anyway.

Appreciate his ideals or not, anyone voting for him is just telling the world how stupid they are for following ideals well past the point of practicality.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Pseudonym]

He has no chance of winning [...]

They said that of Andrew Wilkie.

Re:Good luck with that.

[Anonymous Coward]

You could just about use the senate ballot paper as a tablecloth.

Pity the muggins who has to sort and count them. Last three elections that was my job. Handling 4000+ of them is back-breaking work, though knowing radix sort helps.

Re:Good luck with that.

[mjwx]

Isn't that pretty much the exact thing you'd want. At least you get to vote on actual issues, as compared to "liberal" versus "conservative" like most of us. Where the liberals are about as liberal as the conservatives are conservative.

Not really,

We get to vote for candidates, not issues unless there is a referendum. It's still a two horse race in Australia despite the balance of power in the senate being held by the greens. We have the Liberal party (supports business) or the Labor party (supports workers).

Re:Good luck with that.

[mrxak]

I'm pretty sure even if Australia has that law, Australian law does not apply in the UK.

Re:Good luck with that.

[ae1294]

I'm pretty sure even if Australia has that law, Australian law does not apply in the UK.

That wasn't my point. It would be a major diplomatic issue if a sitting senator was not allowed to leave a country where he has not been charged with anything.

No way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait... what?
Did I miss something? I feel like I've missed something really big.

He should be Ron Paul's running mate

[Spiked_Three]

I'd vote for the pair.

Re:He should be Ron Paul's running mate

[donscarletti]

This isn't doubles tennis. Two people of different nationalities rarely make appropriate running mates as they are both only eligible for government in different countries. That said, American politician King O'Malley had a great career in Australian politics after pretending he was from Canada and thus a subject of the crown, so there may be hope for them yet.

Re:He should be Ron Paul's running mate

[Anonymous Coward]

are you single ? can we go out ?

Re:He should be Ron Paul's running mate

[mjwx]

I'd vote for the pair.

He was born in Australia, can he even run in the US presidential elections.

In Australia that doesn't matter, our current PM was born in Wales and the opposition leader was born in England.

Re:He should be Ron Paul's running mate

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but they are both Australians. There are plenty of people who were born in Australia but not Australian citizens. This is not true for the US.

If that works...

[Dainsanefh]

we should draft CmdrTaco for PM!

News

[vencs]

Theres' gonna be an Oz Spring or a lot of harassment cases followed by mass deportation post voting..

Sentate?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll vote for him.

Re:Sentate?

[MichaelSmith]

For the lulz if nothing else.

Fair enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair enough. If they're going to accuse the man of having the lowest character, they might as well give him the office that goes with it.

Clever

[Anonymous Coward]

If elected he'll have immunity (or so I think, I don't know Australian law) and can be rid of the false charges against him (for a few years, anyway). Knowing Australia, though, I'd be surprised if they don't vote for Cthulhu instead.
Australia, don't fuck this up.

Re:Clever

[deniable]

No immunity, just ask Mary Jo Fisher.

It'll make a stir once the news breaks here

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the next electorate across from Ms Gillard's electorate, so I won't get the privilege of helping stir the pot... but if I could I'd definitely vote for anyone promising the level of transparency Wikileaks represents.

The other important point here is that Julia has done a shameful job of supporting a high profile Australian in trouble, pretty much towing the pro USA line (Australia traditionally lives in the US of A's pocket) which means she hasn't acknowledged the important community service roll that whistle blower organisations such as Wikileaks fill in a open and honest democracy. Good luck to Julian, he's a national hero!

Re:It'll make a stir once the news breaks here

[Antarius]

I'd move to fucking Werribee for a few months, just for the chance to vote her out of office and the Wikileaks candidate in!

Re:It'll make a stir once the news breaks here

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd move to either Bennelong or Werribee because, dude, "Bennelong". "Werribee". How can anyone in Australia be anything other than free and easy when you have names like that? It's like the polar opposite to German - how can anyone speak such a harsh language and /not/ be a Nazi?

Re:It'll make a stir once the news breaks here

[GameboyRMH]

Those names actually mean "the dying fields" and "place of war" in the Aborigine language.

Nah I just made that up. But I made you think, right? ;-)

Re:It'll make a stir once the news breaks here

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean the kind of transparency where his organization turned into an opaque mudslinging contest with him abusing leaked material for his personal gain and won't release them?

Re:It'll make a stir once the news breaks here

[Anonymous Coward]

I think there's something to that.

When I speak German, I sound either like Hitler ranting in a speech or when I stop myself from doing that, I sound like Colonel Klink.

Re:It'll make a stir once the news breaks here

[jonwil]

As an Aussie I believe we need a government in this country that is no longer the lap dog of the Yanks and the vested interests they represent.

We DON'T need American troops or facilities on Australian soil.
We DON'T need an American spy base in the Australian outback.
We DON'T need to keep signing up to us-lead "free-trade" agreements that are anything but free (the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement did NOTHING to open up US markets to Australian agricultural exports)
We DON'T need to continue to spend money on security measures at airports, seaports, train stations, bus stations, important buildings and elsewhere when those measures do nothing to improve actual security and in some case can potentially make it worse.
We DON'T need to make it easier for the big media companies to sue people they believe are violating their copyright (or to allow them to force ISPs to kick people off)
We DON'T need to censor the internet for ANY reason (no content, no matter HOW bad it is justifies censorship of any kind)
We DON'T need to continue following the US into wars that dont directly threaten Australia (like a possible future war in Iran)
We DON'T need to keep Australian troops in Afghanistan any more (especially with the Afghan government making noise and saying they want coalition troops to leave or at least downsize their forces and stay in their bases more)
We DON'T need to blindly follow the US on foreign policy and the need for increased military presence in the region to deal with so-called "threats" (instead of considering countries like Indonesia or China a threat, we should be looking for ways to sign peace treaties and military cooperation agreements with these counties and make them our allies in the fight against terrorist groups wherever they may hide)
We DON'T need to water down the mining tax just because a few vested interests want it watered down (it should apply to ALL minerals, not just a select few)

Re:It'll make a stir once the news breaks here

[guises]

The Australian government has been gunning for Wikileaks longer than the Americans, since the March 2009 leak of the Australian internet blacklist. It's no surprise that they're not sticking up for Assange.

Re:It'll make a stir once the news breaks here

[Anonymous Coward]

Elect Julian. You will go a long way in your wishes if Julian gets elected.
Running for Parliament was the wisest thing and he should have done it a long time ago by having a sitting rep vacate his/her seat. If he gets elected and I sincerely hope he does, the Swedes would find it extremely hard to go on yelling for his extradition.

Re:It'll make a stir once the news breaks here

[jonwil]

I am in the wrong state so I cant vote for Julian.

Re:It'll make a stir once the news breaks here

[Macgrrl]

Werribee is in the 'City of Wyndham', the electorate is Tarneit. I live in the suburb next door - Hoppers Crossing. It sounds like it should be some rural hamlet somewhere rather than it's current sprawling suburbia.

Senate

[deimtee]

I hope he runs in Vic. I'd vote for him.
The senate has proportional voting.
Everyone ranks all the candidates, then they start counting. As soon as a candidate has enough to get elected, any further votes move to the second preference. You can end up with some funny results if everyone puts the major party they don't like last.

Re:Senate

[MichaelSmith]

OTH he would make a great celebrity candidate for the greens and with their organisation behind him, Assange might have a good chance of getting in.

Re:Senate

[benjamindees]

Wait, so you're saying that who gets elected depends on the order in which the votes are tallied?

Re:Senate

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, so you're saying that who gets elected depends on the order in which the votes are tallied?

No.

It's not the order that they're counted in - it's that votes are redistributed when it becomes clear that no single candidate has enough to be elected. It's turn-based, not real-time.

- an Australian who is too lazy to log in.

Re:Senate

[LordLucless]

When you vote in Aus, you don't cast a single vote - you give a list of preferences. In the Senate, there are generally over 100 preferences to rank (if you chose to vote by individual) or 20 or so (if you choose to vote by party). I pretty much always but the major parties in the bottom few places in my preferences (also Greens and Communists - if there's a difference).

Re:Senate

[Anonymous Coward]

No, all ballots where the elected candidate was the first preference - both already counted and not - are taken aside and the second preferences on the ballots are counted. However, these votes are reduced by a "transfer value", which attempts to find the real value of the preferences after determining how many votes were required to get the first candidate elected.
http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/counting/senate_count.htm#surplus

boring

[pbjones]

most people in Oz see him either as a criminal, or some nutter. A senate seat requires a large number of votes across a single state, it just isn't going to happen, it's just hot air and crap.

Re:boring

[Anonymous Coward]

Where do you get your statistics from?

Re:boring

[pbjones]

talking to people, reading the press, seeing how little real interest there is in him. He isn't a 'hero' in Australia. I'm pretty neutral on him and his actions, and I can't see him offering any thing of value. I am also under the impression that he had a criminal conviction for 'hacking' which, IIRC, rules him out of holding a seat in parliament.

Re:boring

[deniable]

So someone like Steve Fielding could never get elected. I'm so relieved.

Re:boring

[Antarius]

Actually, the Senate is a great springboard for small parties.

It gives us (the people) a safety net by allowing a diverse amount of views to vote on a Bill. Well, that's the theory.

But take a look at the different parties that run for the Senate, such as Xenophon, the old Democrats and even the Greens. Many of these groups end up holding the Balance of Power in the Senate, so it's not to be thought little of.

And if Xenophon can get in on the "No Pokies" ticket, then surely Assange can get in on the "Open Government" ticket?

Re:boring

[Anonymous Coward]

I see him offering a lot more value than the fucktards we have at the moment. Some one to stand up for our internet rights (some one that understands tech at all), offer more transparency in politics, defiantly wont be as inclined to bend over and take it from america. I'm Australian and in my eyes he is a hero, any one that stands up to some of the most terrible acts in history against the most powerful players and goes through hell for it deserves my respect.

Re:boring

[Anonymous Coward]

a criminal, or some nutter

Then he'll be in great company as a politician..

Re:boring

[Dodgy G33za]

Most people I know think he is a force for good. Maybe you should stop hanging out with rednecks.

A couple of percent will get you a senator. Hell, I would put Julian first because if he got in, it might shake things up a bit, and if he didn't my vote goes to my second preference anyway.

Dontcha just love preferential voting?

Re:boring

[bug1]

After confusing fical policy with physical policy Steve Fielding calmly explained he had an good excuse, that he has a learning disability.

To think he was one of a few that held the balance of power for the whole country, disturbing.

Re:boring

[Anonymous Coward]

If he can convincingly pull it off, yes. But the comments on talk-back radio (ABC Jon Faine show) and The Age Newspaper seems ~50% anti wikileaks. Personally, I doubt that he'll be able to convince the average voter who probably doesn't care. (Some people were under the impression that Cablegate was a result of wikileaks/Julian doing the hacking).

Re:boring

[Anonymous Coward]

Xenophon got in for his first term in SA on the back of getting rid of poker machines. Since then we keep voting for him because he keeps asking the government "Why?" and seems to actually be an honest man.

Re:boring

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah damn bastard, how come he is trying to stop us killing all the A-Rabs?

Re:boring

[Antarius]

You're right, it was a bad example in the fact that he actually had more than one policy...

I had been trying to use the old grey-matter to find an example of a loonie party getting in, but couldn't think of one at that moment. Now a better example would be the "Family First Party," who gave us the wonderful Steven Fielding.

The ability for them to get into the Senate was a springboard to being seen as a "legitimate" party, instead of the bunch of ultra-conservative homophobes.

Re:boring

[Anonymous Coward]

Evening Ladies and Bruces,

I just want to remind the faculty of the rules. Rule number 1: NO POOFTAS!

Re:boring

[Anonymous Coward]

Dontcha just love preferential voting?

only when at least two of the candidates aren't dicks.

Not bad compared too others running...

[Kplx138]

Remember pauline hanson?
Yeah he's not that bad really, just a massive ego like most hackers. Compare to others running in politics
  he's not that bad, look at bob katter and his wing nut party. Remember Sir Jo from QLD back in the day? I do
and so does julian. Remember the publicity stunt of Peter Garret joining the labor party, where is he now?
More power to him, I'd certainly vote for him

He may have a while to wait ...

[baileydau]

He may have to wait a bit to try for the Senate.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Australian_federal_election it must by held by 30 November 2013. Whilst there is *some* possibility of it being called early, I wouldn't be holding my breath.

Despite being under house arrest

[Anonymous Coward]

Being a British criminal has never kept anyone out of Australia, quite the contrary. ;)

And what better place than with all the other criminals that run the country?

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you might be confusing Australia with the US

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting that the UK seems to lie at the root of both problems :)

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[Hyperhaplo]

No, he's not. Just a bit over 200 years ago England exported a lot of criminals to Australia.

It's a real I don't live in that electorate .. voting for Assange would be a double whammy - get rid of Gillard and introduce new blood into what is now essentially two party system (liberal and labour are about the same, only the greens offer anything much different excepting minor parties and independents).

If he sides with Liberal he'd be in good standing to cash in on the liberal landslide vote expected next elections (to get rid of the useless labour government we have right now)

Last, but not least, I wouldn't put it past Assange to require Gillard to put be through the new full body scanners being installed in Australian airports and post the pics of her online as an example of why the scanners are a bad idea.

Go Assange! I'd vote for you

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[bug1]

to get rid of the useless labour government we have right now

Useless is a relative term, Labour are doing quit well compared to the liberal (blueblood) governments we have had recently, they done an increadible amount of work undering the damage that had been done to this country and its reputation in the previous decade.

Do you seriously want Abbott in charge instead, or maybe bring Howard back ?

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[Hyperhaplo]

I would go Howard over Gillard.

Actually, for as much as I disliked Rudd, I'd definitely prefer Rudd. I am willing to support someone I personally dislike if they can do the job.

Abbott is a waste of space and oxygen. Liberals are going to cause serious strife at the next election if he is still the leader. Lots of people want Labour out, lots of people hate Abbott. The vote could easily spread out to Greens and Independent just to avoid both of them. Most of the people I know won't vote for either now.

If Assange steps up to lead the liberals.. who knows.. he could take the election.

Even better: If he is elected then his current problems will be much easier to solve. Screw over a random Australian citizen? Sure. Screw over an elected official for whom every single activity is likely to make the daily newspaper's front page across the county? No.

As for the 'incredible amount' it depends what you mean.
  - Integration of major government agencies - Medicare, Centrelink, DHS, CRS is a huge waste of money
  - Can't stop the boats - millions wasted, still being wasted. Stupid amounts of money blown on 'solving the boats' problem, and yet people are still dying trying to get to Christmas Island. Nearly a whole boatload of illegal immigrants died and.. nothing is done.
  - School 'building' scheme was a real waste of money in many places. Heart is in the right place, governance and oversight isn't
  - Batts - Wonderful idea, very bad execution. A real rort in many areas. Bad governance.
  - Carbon Tax??? Seriously? After making an election promise that there would never be a carbon tax in Gillard's Government?
  - RTD tax - No seriously, this is just stupid. The RTD market has hit rock bottom, and now all the kids buy top shelf instead. Great result. Proven that this tax doesn't work, and still it is not rescinded
  - Labour signed ACTA - How is this even legal?

Yes, some good things have been achieved.. but they don't outweigh the bad.
  - Plain package cigarettes

Yes, at this point Howard would be good to have back.

On the other hand, Assange looks like a promising choice.

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[Dr Max]

I don't like Abbott one bit probably less than Gillard (wait i don't think that's possible) but don't belittle liberals work we wouldn't of had a snowballs chance in hell of dealing with the gfc if the liberal party didn't get rid of our debt. What has the labour party actually done apart from give us a one time tax break and take rights away from the people left right and centre? Personally i think we were much better off 10 years ago, although I'm not a big fan of Howard either because of his bitchy exit of the party and driving away our chance at a kick ass PM Peter Costello (he would of mopped the floor with gillard, rud, or abbot).

Not that any of this really matters, your going to vote for whoever your parents voted for because it's far to complicated to sift through all the crap each party says (not that what they say has much relevance to what they will do) to make an informed decision. It's easier to go with what you know, gather only the positive things said about your party and only the negative about the opposition (referred to as group polarization).

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Australia got the criminals (Botany Bay). The US got the religious colonists.

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap, go make a slashdot.au - this is an American website and we don't follow your backwater political affairs.

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[Anonymous Coward]

So you don't like stories about Australian politics but you have not only read this one and the comments but took time to post replies. You know you can just read the headline (or even look for the crocodile dundee hat) and if it's Australian then skip it. It's not all that hard but then again i guess you are an american.

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[Dr Fro]

He'll also get a healthy supply of Iocane powder.

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, for as much as I disliked Rudd, I'd definitely prefer Rudd. I am willing to support someone I personally dislike if they can do the job.
The reason they got rid of him was because he couldn't effectively manage the country. He was a complete psycho, that reacted instead of planned. He sounds exactly like the kind of boss that reads the finance report, sees a bad number and throws a hissy fit, calls the entire company into an office at 3am and shouts at them for 3 hours.

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[bug1]

What has the labour party actually done apart from give us a one time tax break and take rights away from the people left right and centre?

One time tax break, which one are you refering to, the $500 handout ?

I know Labour is increasing the tax free threashhold from $6,000, to $18,000, a $1500 tax break every year.

What rights have they taken away, the greens are better than both libs and labour of that is your main concern.

Personally i think we were much better off 10 years ago

Because of the GFC.

I dont vote for who my parents vote for, i think for myself, my views are very much in the minority in my electorate.

You tell me not to belittle liberals and claim im into group polarisation, yet you bag Labour and dont get them any credit for good things they have done. NBN not even on your radar ?

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[bug1]

Integration of major government agencies - Medicare, Centrelink, DHS, CRS is a huge waste of money

Good reform.

Can't stop the boats

(they takin our jaaabs?)
Howard solved the problem by making everyone HATE us and think we are all racists, is that the sort of govenrment you want back ?

I think the Malaysia deal would have been good, but Libs wont sign up for that because they have their corrupt backroom deals to shovel heaps of money to Narau.

School 'building' scheme was a real waste of money in many places. Heart is in the right place, governance and oversight isn't

"The final report into the Building the Education Revolution (BER) scheme says about 5 or 6 per cent of the $16 billion program was not value for money." - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-08/nsw-victoria-rate-poorly-in-ber-report/2787644

Batts - Wonderful idea, very bad execution. A real rort in many areas. Bad governance.

I still dont see how its the governments fault that their are bad tradesman. Do you have figures of how much of it was waste ?

Carbon Tax

RTD tax

Agree, do gooders dont get it.

Labour signed ACTA

Probably their biggest mistake, almost as bad as the FTA with the USA that forces us to implement some of their stupid laws. I wish they would run these things past Scott Ludlum ;)

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[Dr Max]

Yes i was referring to the $900 dollars that they bought their votes with, which every one spent on a flat screen from Korea. Not that a tax free threshold for an incredibly slim number of the population (how many people do you know that earn under $18000?) isn't great.

As far as rights go how about all the increased police powers, the fact that they no longer need a search warrant to walk in to any house they want. Also the greens are one of the main supporters of no r18+ games and why we can't have nice paint ball guns.

I admit i am a victim of group polarization as well (not that i vote cause it will never change anything), because as i explained there is far to much to absorb and not enough facts to make a proper decision, but none the less you shouldn't belittle the liberals work because labour wouldn't be looking any where near as good if they hadn't laid the ground work. So apart from some tax breaks for people i don't know (while they jack up the other rates for the rest of the people) what has labour done for me? By the way NBN was Howard's idea, don't get me wrong i love that Rudd picked it up and ran with it, but do we really need fibre run all through out our mostly unused country.

Also what the hell how did the liberal party destroy our international reputation?

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[bug1]

Yes i was referring to the $900 dollars that they bought their votes with, which every one spent on a flat screen from Korea.

I thought that was $500, but if they did it to buy votes, they are failers, because it happened just after an election, not just before.
Do you remember the family payment Howard granted shortly before calling an election for a similar amount (not the $5000 baby bonus), there where lots of overpayments, when questioned about reclaiming the money in the elcetion campain, he stated "its too late now", meaning its too close to the election.

Not that a tax free threshold for an incredibly slim number of the population (how many people do you know that earn under $18000?) isn't great.

You need to learn more about the tax system, everyone who earns over the $18000 gets the full $1500 benefit every year.

Pensioners have done well by Labour, they didnt get a real wage rise in 10 years under howard, pensioners get enough to live on nowadays.

Labor has increased funding to hospitals by %50 or something, fat abbott was the scrouge to them.

It is hard to keep up with politics, if you watch Q&A (mondya night) and Insiders (sunday morning) both on ABC, your off to a good start.

I know libs are good financially, but i dispise the extremes they go to get have all that extra money, it may well be that you should be Libs, its better than not voting at all.

Our international reputation was damage due to all the boat people talk, the race riots that happened in sydney, our neighbours labeled us the US's deputy sheirif because we ran around doing their bidding in the region. We farmed out our problems to them, cut back on aid, probably other stuff.

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[Dr Max]

I miss read your comment on the tax break, I've been in Thailand for a little while now so i missed the news first hand, but it appears that the tax break is only to partly cover the fact that everything is now going to cost more because of the carbon tax. Pensioners getting more money is of no use to me since i have super. Giving the nurses more money is fair, those people do a tough job. I've seen Q&A it's ok but the ABC is a little pro labor, but it doesn't matter if they weren't because people would only ever listen to the pros of their party and the cons of the opposition (every time you sit down to watch do you think hey maybe the liberals have come around and are a better party now? my guess is no). Talking of group polarization it's obvious you subscribe because you look at all the negatives of the liberals in international relations (which wasn't half as bad as you make out (how exactly are the race riots Howard's fault?)) and completely ignore how labor is currently fucking it up. We are now even more of America's bitch, and they are getting US army bases on our soil as well as acta. Also please explain how my ONE vote on a PERSON is in any way control of the country i live in, or be able to change anything?

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[bug1]

Checkout the following link to see how the carbon tax will effect your situation, there more to it than jsut that tax free threshhold increase.
http://www.carbontax.net.au/household-compensation/

And no im not going try and explain why democracy is important and how it works on this forum, if you havent worked it out for yourself i dont think i can do a good enough job.

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[Dr Max]

If you can't see why i think it's a scam, then your a waste of my time.

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[Anonymous Coward]

they takin our jaaabs

Queue jumping rapists more like it

What other culture besides these muslims condone rape and force rape victims to marry their rapist?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/002-rape_adultery.htm

http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.couriermail.com.au/travel/news/queensland-woman-tells-of-her-jail-hell-in-united-arab-emirates/story-e6freqwo-1226028684306&date=2011-03-27

http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/1856/bangladesh-sharia-brutality-raped-girl

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/04/france.jonhenley1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7708169.stm

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sydney-nsw/sharia-law-applied-secretly-in-sydney/story-e6freuzi-1226057808947

and, of course, this is where it is all going to end up:
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/01/05/australia-islamic-leader-wants-to-implement-sharia-law-in-heavily-muslim-suburb/

Do you want to have these people in your country?

No, seriously. Australia takes all sorts of refugees from all over the world. Having thousands of muslims forcing their way in is not good.

Someone knocks at your door. Your daughter opens it. A muslim man bashes his way in and rapes your daughter. Your daughter is now forced to marry this rapist or face death by stoning. How do you feel about this?
Just don't say anything to your local cleric or you will stand in the pit with your daughter as they stone her to death.

If you think this is complete horse shit then you either need to read more about the topic, or go live in a muslim country for a while

Australia has taken in the English, the Italians, the Greeks, and a whole host of other countries. So far as I can see they are friendly and welcoming to just about anyone. But. Can you blame them for not wanting a bunch of self admitted rapists?

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[Anonymous Coward]

you missed the one about the old geezer marrying an 8 year old and the recent story about the girl who was forced to marry her rapist

while you are at it how about some good news

Re:Despite being under house arrest

[Hyperhaplo]

Good reform? Doesn't look like it so far. Perhaps it is a case of wait and see.

Taking jobs? No. Breaking the law.
No issues with refugees, serious issues with people whos first act is to break the law. Good introduction right there. Anyone who doesn't want to blend with Australian culture doesn't have to come here.

5%? Fair enough. I think I've just heard of the bad cases then.

Batts waste? I was referring to the government putting up a scheme and not properly managing it. Yes, there is waste when so many houses claimed more than they needed to. For example, reports that they were not measuring houses, and just claiming the maximum.Fraud of several types. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/thousands-of-pink-batts-rorts-exposed/story-fn59niix-1225939385270

Numbers?
http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/ato-turns-heat-on-pink-batt-tax-cheaters/story-e6frfmd9-1226103882689

There's a bunch more articles floating around.

I wasn't saying it was the Government's fault for bad trandesmen practices. I'm saying that it was a good idea that they just didn't think through.

Bloody RTD tax :(

Perhaps in future they will have no choice but to run it all past the greens.. only question will be is whether or not Australia will be better or worse off.

When justice is for the popular

[Anonymous Coward]

it makes sense to be famous.

From the Department of Redundancy Department...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Upper House of the Australian parliament is the Senate, "Upper House of the Australian Senate" doesn't make any sense.

The dark side of democracy

[Maimun]

The populists can get considrable support. Only for a short while, of course -- a society of Assanges, or at least run by Assanges, cannot last very long time. There are certain objective laws of nature (that includes human nature as well) and the utopists that ignore them are doomed to extinction.

Re:The dark side of democracy

[MRe_nl]

Always good to see a Dystopian "explain" how the Utopists are doomed, doomed I tell you ; ).

Re:The dark side of democracy

[Xtifr]

Heh, reminds me of the TVTropes Renamed Tropes entry for The Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism: "used to be '...Versus Realism'. It was changed by idealists. To be fair, it was probably named by the cynics."

mod +down

[Anonymous Coward]

the most. Leeok at

Stunt

[Arancaytar]

Controversial candidates, even popular controversial ones, don't win. So this isn't really anything to consider seriously.

But if it were, I would be against Assange being a member of any government - or any group that might be subject to whistleblowers, at that. Not because of any suitability, but because it would compromise his position as an independent helper of whistleblowers, and that position is far more necessary than any political office.

If Assange joins a government, a corporate board, or hell, even the board of a non-profit organization, and a whistleblower then wishes to disseminate inside information from this group, how could he trust Assange? As it is, if someone has to blow the whistle on Wikileaks itself, she'd have to find another organization to send information to. That's inevitable, but every additional organization Assange is involved in is an additional conflict of interest.

Re:Stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Cough,

Pauline Hanson,

Cough...

Easy target for opponents

[Anonymous Coward]

All his opponents have to do is run a campaign saying he;

was accused of rape in Sweden and has been under house arrest, (make him look like a criminal)
has not lived in Australia for 6 years (wiki says he hasn't lived in australia since starting with wikileaks [founded in 2006]), (make him look unaustralian)
released private diplomatic cables relating to Australia, (make him look like he doesn't care about australian national security)

and they'd get pretty easy boost.

Re:Easy target for opponents

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because clearly he wouldn't have any dirty secrets on them, would he?

No one has been paying any attention to Julian...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not been getting any headlines recently.

He's IMPORTANT!

We MUST listen!

The whiney little bugger craves attention of any sort, this is just another publicity stunt for a third-rate creep.

Actually its quite funny. Given the amount of angst in the UK at the moment over perceived imbalances between US and UK extradition practices, I'd have thought he would prefer to get over to Sweden before he UK gets a scrap of paper off the US saying "Assange is a lying traitorous creep. Hand him over!". And we would. Unless of course, he actually IS guilty as hell of sex crime and knows it.

Otherwise, the worst he could expect from Sweden is a brisk birching and an instruction to go and roll in the snow for a while. And he may enjoy that....

A little help here?

[PopeRatzo]

Excuse me. It's still pretty early here and I'm still a bit sleepy and I can't find my reading glasses, but does that headline say, "Australian"?

What a weird wonderful world we live in.

Re:A little help here?

[Arancaytar]

Well, he is Australian. Running for any other senate in the world would probably be a bit of a problem.

If he opens his tax records, ok

[retroworks]

The irony is that I know virtually nothing about him.

Haters,

[Anonymous Coward]

gonna hate.

Convicted Felons are eligible?

[nurb432]

Ya, i know hes not been convicted yet, but lets say he wins, then is convicted.. that mean he loses his position?

Transparency

[blubadger]

If "we were all completely open about everything we have done that directly affected at least one other human" (and that definition leaves few deeds uncounted) then there might indeed be little war. There would be fascism instead, because information is power.

Transparency begets freedom when applied to those in power. When applied to private citizens, it destroys freedom. This is the nuance that some transparency absolutists have yet to understand.

Obama's "Hitler Reacts" Moment

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be hilarious to get a copy of the "Hitler reacts" video sequence and morph-in Obama's face for Hitler's, keeping the little mustash of course. :D We could call ti "Obama Reacts to Assange Senate Candidacy".

LoL

Swedish prosecutor is a CIA asset

[EnergyScholar]

Also the Swedish prosecutor who re-instated the charges, and who has been pushing them ever since, is a US CIA asset. In fact, he's the same attorney who defended the CIA during the "Extraordinary Rendition" torture trials in Sweden. He has a few other items in his CV and history which indicate a cozy relationship with the CIA.

Re:Swedish prosecutor is a CIA asset

[cavreader]

Prove your CIA assertion or shut the fuck up. It's arguments likes yours that obscure the truth to make a political point. If the US really wanted this guy they would have taking him already.

Re:Swedish prosecutor is a CIA asset

[Anonymous Coward]

"he's the same attorney who defended the CIA "

Re:Swedish prosecutor is a CIA asset

[cavreader]

Oh well that proves he in league with all the CIA nefarious deeds without a doubt. If that is the proof for your accusations you best keep it to yourself so no one finds out what a gullible idiot you are. Conspiracy theories, blog echo chambers for extremists on all sides, and innuendo is tearing this world apart every day. As far as Assange goes the purpose of Wikileaks was to release information to protect the identities of the source. Instead he took ownership, strong armed media organisations, released selective information in order to boost his viewpoint, and asked for millions of dollars to support Wikileaks. Why the hell do you need that kind of money to serve as a conduit to getting something posted on the net anonymously? A fucking Internet connection should suffice. People need to see the raw facts and make their own decisions based on what they see. You can't achieve that goal by selectively editing and putting more emphasis on someone's opinion rather than just releasing the data as is. And he did not give a shit about putting any one in danger. There is a reason so many people left his organization when they started to realize that Wikileaks is no better than any other media site who shapes the data to represent an editorial opinion. Assange's only goal was gaining attention to himself. He did nothing to be congratulated for. The data was given to him freely and it's not like he is some sort of super spy who got the information all by himself. He can run for any political office he chooses because he certainly displays the same characteristics as most elected politicians today in any country. Does Australia even allow people with a criminal record to run for office?

News headline:

[BitZtream]

Attention whore seeks further attention by running for a political office he has no chance of winning ... while being detained ... in another country ... with warrents out from yet another ...

How many times does he have to do shit like this before you guys realize he has no interest in transparency and only is concerned with his fame.

The only difference between Assange and the guy I voted for is Assange is promising transparency and the guy I voted for promised more jobs ... and both of them have no intention of doing any more work on their campaign promises than required to get them re-elected.

Thinking this is anything else is just naive.

How is he running agains Julia Gillard?

[JazzXP]

Julia Gillard is part of the Lower House, so if Assange is running for the Senate, they're not directly in competition with each other.

first of a kind

[necode]

Assinate Assange can become first Ass in Aussie Senate.

Why? He's an anarchist who hates all government

[gelfling]

What would his platform be? "Like Ron Paul but with even fewer rules and moral obstacles!"

Some actual facts

[Anonymous Coward]

1- the Australian Senate is elected on a proportional representation basis using the single-transferable vote (instant runoff) method. A good estimate is that he would need 5% or more of first preference votes in his state. If public opinion polls are correct that might be possible, depending on exchange of preferences.

2-even if convicted of a crime in Sweden, he could still be eligible to stand since, under section 44 of the constitution, only offenses against Australian law count against him. He is not bankrupt, so that also makes him eligible.

3- if convicted of a crime in Australia (and he did 12 months or more) he would be ineligible to stand but not ineligible to vote. He could even vote from prison.

3-if he did time he could lose his Senate seat under section 20 if he is absent from the Senate for more than 2 months without permission of the Senate. But this would get interesting since under section 15 his replacement must be appointed by the parliament of his state, conventionally from the same party (so he needs a running mate). If the state parliament broke convention I could see a High Court case coming.

OZ too

[Falconhell]

Same here except I hear nothing but admiration. I wonder why you feel the need to lie?

Re:OZ too

[pbjones]

thanks for the baseless accusation. A quick poll around the office confirms what I have been hearing for months, average people don't think that much of him, it's as simple as that.

Re:OZ too

[cold fjord]

I wonder why you feel the need to lie?

That is always an interesting question, isn't it?

Rendition. Borrowing.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US government can "borrow" him from Sweden and there is evidence that the US government has already had the relevant talks with the Swedish government and judiciary to ensure that this happens with the minimum of fuss. i.e "they" are already applying the grease in Sweden to ensure that he does indeed end up in the USA after a brief stay in Sweden.

This is all due to a special arrangement that the USA has with Sweden that allows it to "borrow" people when they are wanted by the US government.

won't work

[crutchy]

voters in Gillard's electorate don't give a flying fuck about assange or internet freedom or whatever. unless his party can lower their rates, improve their roads, etc better than Gillard, they're just pissing in the wind. twatter is just a shoutbox for retarded publicity stunts. and assange won't be able to do much for voters while he's locked up, so that won't go down well

move along... nothing to see here

He's not even been charged.

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind convicted, he was not even charged.

Wikileaks: Secrets & Lies documentary

[sstair]

I saw the documentary "Wikileaks: Secrets & Lies" at SXSW, which seemed fairly unbiased, but Assange didn't come off well in it.

I know

[NewYork]

Politics is the only profession where you can cheat/loot people (poll promises/insider trading/front running etc) and yet you'll not be prosecuted/punished.
Go and start your own political party in your free time.