Julian Assange Runs For Office In Australia

I like it! by acidfast7 · 2012-12-12 22:36 · Score: 1

I hope that JA has the fortune that the Pirate Party has had in Germany.

Viel Erfolg!

Re:I like it! by FriendlyLurker · 2012-12-12 22:57 · Score: 1

Some reasons why:
Leaky geopolitics the ruptures and transgressions of WikiLeaks
The Contributions Of Julian Assange To The Debate On Intellectual Property
Re:I like it! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-12 23:18 · Score: 5, Informative

Alleged != Guilty - Not that it matters in the court of public opinion, as you just clearly illustrated ;)
Re:I like it! by FriendlyLurker · 2012-12-12 23:18 · Score: 2

Wikileaks, Julian Assange sex life explained.
Re:I like it! by phayes · 2012-12-13 00:52 · Score: 1

He ran away from the UK authorities who let him out of custody betraying his sworn statements that he would not do so.
His justifications for betraying his word so are murky as hell (he mustn't allow himself to be extradited to answer questions as it'd be easier for the USA to extradite him from Sweden is patently false in addition to the fact that no charges have even been filed in the USA).
He let himself be used by fascists in the Kremlin.
etc, etc, etc.
The public's lack of faith in him is his own fault.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Re:I like it! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-12-13 01:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

I wonder if that's what he's afraid of.
He's probably afraid of the curiously broad Swedish definition of "rape".

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:I like it! by jkflying · 2012-12-13 01:34 · Score: 1

Maybe he knows something we don't...

--
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Re:I like it! by Hyperhaplo · 2012-12-13 01:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Okay, correct me if I am wrong here, but from what I understand Assange doesn't want to enter Sweden because the next step, regardless of the outcome in Sweden, is extradition to the US.
So, yes, he is fleeing the US courts and I don't blame him.

--
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
Re:I like it! by mufflon · 2012-12-13 02:02 · Score: 1

extradition from sweden as per european law would require that england (a far stauncher ally of usa) to agree. Extradition to sweden would thus decrease his chances of extradition.
Re:I like it! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-12-13 02:28 · Score: 3, Informative

There is nothing curiously broad about it - unless you consider the whole of Europe's definition of rape curiously broad
I'm European, and I think it is broad. Our courts would throw out something like that outright.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:I like it! by racermd · 2012-12-13 02:35 · Score: 1

As an "enemy of the state" the U.S. government likely doesn't even need to file any sort of charges before "bringing him in". Besides, since when does the U.S. government worry about pesky little things like due process, particularly with regard to non-citizens? (hint: it stopped when the towers fell.)
However, I think it is interesting that he's looking to enter political life in Australia. If he can get on the ballot and/or get elected, he might be considered a diplomat (or some other protected political figure) and be able to leave the embassy without being (legally) snatched by law-enforcement.

--
My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
Re:I like it! by Pav · 2012-12-13 02:48 · Score: 1

*sigh* Let me tell you a secret my friend - humans can be absolute scum, and can also be the most wonderful creatures.
Churchill let himself be "used by the Kremlin" during WWII, was a notorious racist who wanted to see Ghandi dead, backstabbed a french fleet in harbour, was a drunkard etc... etc... etc... Nelson Mandela was a terrorist before his change of heart, and even Mother Teresa supported harmful Catholic doctrines (eg. no condom use etc...) while presiding over not-particulary-effective care of the sick and dying, all the while secretly having lost her faith.
Assange is a self righteous annoying prick who treats women like hand towels BUT there are plenty on both the right and left who are pretty damn sure he doesn't deserve extradition. In addition he is frankly the only real and effective voice worldwide on open government and protection of whistleblowers. Take a moment to understand how hugely important that is to us all. If you don't like him, place your butt in that sling and see if you can do better because right now there's noone else.
Re:I like it! by molleradura · 2012-12-13 03:42 · Score: 2

No. Thats not true. :-)
Re:I like it! by ifiwereasculptor · 2012-12-13 03:43 · Score: 1

Assange is a self righteous annoying prick who treats women like hand towels
Do you mean he drowns his sexual partners or - worse - he doesn't ever wash his sexually abused hand towels? I'm confus... wait, what does that say about you and your use of hand towels? Dude, there's such a thing called tissue paper. It's disposable, so you don't have to worry about washing it (not that you do, apparently, but put it this way - your visitors don't have to worry about drying their hands) and it works better as a metaphor in this case.
Re:I like it! by GameboyRMH · 2012-12-13 03:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

It's worth noting, one of the biggest stories that didn't make Slashdot is that Assange's DNA wasn't found on the condom presented as evidence.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:I like it! by phayes · 2012-12-13 05:17 · Score: 1

Assange is a self righteous annoying prick who treats women like hand towels BUT there are plenty on both the right and left who are pretty damn sure he doesn't deserve extradition.
You're ambiguous on where he doesn't deserve extradition to but it doesn't matter because only the deluded believe that an extradition to Sweden implies that he will be magically extradited to the USA afterwards as he pretends as swedish law forbids it. Assange is not above the law. He agreed to accept the decisions of UK courts & is attempting to weasel out.

In addition he is frankly the only real and effective voice worldwide on open government and protection of whistleblowers.
Bullshit. He lost all credibility necessary to fulfill that role long ago.

Take a moment to understand how hugely important that is to us all. If you don't like him, place your butt in that sling and see if you can do better because right now there's noone else.
Us? Who is his "us"? Is it the same who try to claim that by exclude the top 1% earners that they somehow speak for me? Yes, responsible whistle-blowing is a useful service to society but in no way is Assange the person we need to be involved with that.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Re:I like it! by phayes · 2012-12-13 05:22 · Score: 1

The confidence you have in Obama & the rest of US society to to stop such goings on is really quite charming.
Come on, let us have the real truth, The truthers were right all along & Obama in an alien controlled from alpha centauri, right?

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Re:I like it! by phayes · 2012-12-13 05:25 · Score: 1

How exactly does this presumption place him above the law? Is it because he has a sekret "I can do whatever i like" card in his wallet?

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Re:I like it! by Darinbob · 2012-12-13 08:22 · Score: 1

He's also omniscient now?
Re:I like it! by Pav · 2012-12-13 12:57 · Score: 1

At least in my country (Australia) the public wrote him off, but now have come around even though our prime minister has denounced him. Even for those against him Wikileaks is an excellent talking point when discussing transparency because they leaked responsibly and used traditional media to filter what came out. Even when the UK Guardian leaked the encryption key and EVERYTHING was out there the sky didn't fall. It's sadly ironic that a politically motivated malicious leak which actually put lives in danger (Valierie Plame) has no chance of being prosecuted while a case is being prepared against Assange in the US. The public is much more likely to keep operatives safe through responsible transparency than politicians playing toy soldiers behind the curtain.
Re:I like it! by phayes · 2012-12-13 20:53 · Score: 1

The encryption key leaked because assange refused to follow basic security protocols & use different keys for different correspondents. The journalists leaked it first but others were on the same trail.
The story's told by journalists have shown that assange was always more about hurting the west & using WP as a tool to that end & not as a tool for bettering societies around the world. It's why Assange works almost exclusively against the USA & it's allies & almost never elsewhere. It's not because whistle blowers don't send info to WP it's that Assange isn't interested.
VP's exposure had the potential for harm but only for one person: her & the only harm that happened was that her CIA career is over. Assange's sloppiness has had harmful repercussions around the word for all those mentioned confidentially in the cables & that have suffered for it in Zimbabwe, Russia & elsewhere where their lives are at stake.
Assange is an abusive publicity whore who considers himself the law and who is going to be living in a basement for the foreseeable future. If so many Aussies are really ready to vote for him it says much about how low you guys are willing to stoop.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Re:I like it! by jkflying · 2012-12-14 19:04 · Score: 1

No no, that's Al Gore.

--
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Re:I like it! by jkflying · 2012-12-14 19:19 · Score: 1

Since you can't figure it out for yourself, let me spell it out for you.
The data Wikileaks has published has made us blatantly aware that governments don't bother to inform their citizens about the plethora of illegal and morally reprehensible activities they partake in on a regular basis. Thus, we cannot make an argument that he is safe based on the information that we have been given. If there was a secret plan to assassinate Assange, do you think the US government would let you know? If the US government had set up a secret deal with the Swedes to deport Assange the moment he steps foot on their soil, do you really think you would be privy to that information?
In contrast, Assange has set himself up to be a recipient of any information that people feel unhappy about keeping secret. If there were plans, and anybody felt like talking about it, if anyone knew about it, chances are he would too. Can you blame him for breaking the law and not pitching after his parole if he knows he is the target of an inter-governmental plot to have him "bradleymanninged"?

--
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Re:I like it! by phayes · 2012-12-14 23:07 · Score: 1

Ah, condescension... Here's some for you then: Because you're clearly to stupid to have profited from your time in school to have actually learned any history, here's some info you were too dense to pick up: Scandals come to every government because deeds they attempt to bury will come to the public"s attention. There is no need for an messianic, abusive, oath-breaking coward to be in the process. He was in the right place at the right time to have a major role in setting up wikileaks but without him something similar would have existed anyway as he was far, far from the only one creating it.
Your insistence that ALL MUST BOW DOWN BEFORE THE ALMIGHTY ASSANGE shows only that you drank the kool-aid & mistakenly identify assange as the only person capable of performing that function in society. No & Hell no. Having discredited himself completely he needs to step aside & let others manage wikileaks as his discredit has already damaged wikileaks immensely & is consuming the credibility wikileaks has left.
What Wikileaks needs is someone who responsibly manages it & is not afraid to take on the authorities. A Ralph Nader type. Not the Charles Manson clone assange has become.
As for BM, when entering the army he voluntarily vowed to follow orders thereby relinquishing many rights. BM's own actions exposed him to Military justice & placed him where he is. Assange, to my knowledge never vowed to defend the US Constitution & faithfully follow the orders of those appointed above him, etc, so pretending that he faces the same penalties as BM is another delusional fantasy of assange that you took down hook line & sinker.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Re:I like it! by jkflying · 2012-12-15 03:24 · Score: 1

Hmm. So you don't disagree with the fact that the US government is likely instituting a secret campaign against Assange. Your lack of counterargument among the rest of what you said leads me to conclude that you concede this point.
Based on which facts do you make the statement that Assange has discredited himself? Are you referring to the charges which had been dropped but were then reopened against him 3 days after he released the diplomatic cables, during the same week that Mastercard and Visa suddenly decided they didn't like Wikileaks as well? I thought you already conceded that these were likely manufactured by the US government by not counterarguing the main point I was making.
Interesting to hear you compare him to Charles Manson. As far as I can tell he hasn't murdered any women or set up any cults to murder women either. Perhaps you need to examine your feelings and check whether you are biased, because you clearly have strong feeling on this point if you are making such obviously skewed comparisons without batting an eyelid. A Ralph Nader? So, you'd like Assange to say a lot of good stuff and not actually get anything fixed in the ever so slightly dystopian world we live?
Your argument that scandals would come out without an Assange (or at least Wikileaks) is clearly false, as the scandals which were caused by the release of the diplomatic cables and helicopter footage prove. Somebody who isn't afraid to spit in the face of authority is required for a job like this, and such people make enemies who will do their best to discredit them.
You are putting words in my mouth, claiming I am saying that "ALL MUST BOW DOWN BEFORE THE ALMIGHTY ASSANGE". I am saying nothing of the sort. I just think that we shouldn't judge somebody's strength of character on whether they jumped a bail when they were about to be extradited to another country on what may be trumped up charges, particularly if that person has a lot of very angry enemies in high places.
BM knew what he was getting into, but that still doesn't justify the treatment he has been given. Even as a member of the military he is allowed the right to a speedy trial and humane living conditions. And thinking that the same couldn't happen to Assange suggests you have never heard of a certain prison facility located in Guantanamo Bay.

--
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Re:I like it! by phayes · 2012-12-15 06:17 · Score: 1

Yeah as one of assange's last true believers you would be the kind of braindead idiot to suppose that because someone hasn't refuted every last smidgeon of a bullshit argument that he agrees on that part.
I didn't address the so called plot against assange because A) It's bullshit and B) The Lord Assange Hath Given Thee The Holy Word That That Evul Lurks In The Heart Of The USG & so you're beyond reason.
The short version is that assange discredited himself by:
Claiming that the reason he MUST not return to Sweden for questioning is because The Evul USA could then spirit him out of the country (against swedish law & besides it'd be easier to do it from the UK given the treaties & bases)
Agreeing to abide by the laws of the UK to avoid spending his time awaiting judgement in the pokey then renegging when all did not go as he ordained.
Claiming that Assange, THE ANOINTED ONE is above all mortal laws as only HE knows the TRUTH & is the ONLY one who can works against Evul (pretty much words to that effect as in his mind ONLY HE can do the work of labeling what is & what isn't Evul).
Posturing for the media which has abandoned him that we would run for the aussi senate as if that would get him out of the predicaments he has placed himself by his own acts.
The best thing for assange to do is to recognize that he is not above the law & go to sweden to answer their questions. I won't hold my breath, he's had many chances to do so but thinks that it's below him.
WRT Manson. Manson was not condemned as a murderer but for influencing others into murdering for him. Give assange time, unless treated, messianic complexes tend to get worse & he clearly has the same kind of followers ready to do his bidding. Given your absence of critical thought, if assange told you to go out & do something you'd do it unthinkingly, right squeaky?
The words I put in your mouth are only the facsimiles of the tripe I've read coming out of it. Grow a brain or get used to being mocked as the unthinking brainwashed fool you're behaving as.
Gee, How EVER did the world function before the birth of The Assange?!?! There couldn't possibly have been any scandals as THE ASSANGE was not there to reveal them...
Are you so uncultivated that you do not know who Ralph Nader is & how his attacks on the establishment since the mid 60s were possible & respected because he has been ethically irreproachable? Would assange have to rape your mother in front of you for you to understand that no man should be above the law & why ethics matter?
Bringing up Guantanamo reminds me that you never replied when I commented that you see Obama as the same as Bush43. In your fantasy land how exactly could the president elected in large part claiming that he would close Guantanamo _Justify_ sending assange there? By throwing magic pixie dust at congress where the R's & D's would otherwise crucify him for being a hypocrite?
BM clearly thought that aiding and abetting the enemy in wartime would get him a teddy bear & milk & cookies for tea. Armed forces are well known for giving violent people a chance learn discipline & redirect that violence in a direction beneficial to society. Those who cannot reform themselves get sent to Leavenworth in the US & that is where BM voluntarily committed himself through his actions.
I await your reply with buttered popcorn...

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Re:I like it! by jkflying · 2012-12-15 07:17 · Score: 1

You're the one who thinks he's so awesome and keeps calling him things like "the anointed one" so I guess I'll just leave you with your opinion. Have a fun time finding more people to hate for no apparent reason! xx

--
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
Re:I like it! by phayes · 2012-12-15 11:14 · Score: 1

Awww... widdle assange slaveboy not like mockery of his hero?
I've been calling assange a delusional detriment to society in general & Wikipedia in particulier you brainwashed twit. Apparently mockery was the key to getting you to push him off the pedestal or at least abandon his defense.
Assange's abuse of women & his flight from all responsibility are the reason I have no respect for the man but I reserve my hate for people like Slobodan, Mao, Iosef & Adolf, mass murders all adept adept at enrolling the likes of you...

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Best of luck by Rik+Sweeney · 2012-12-12 22:40 · Score: 4, Informative

The minute he steps out of the Ecuadorian embassy, he'll be arrested and bundled onto the next plane to Sweden.

--
Summation 2

Re:Best of luck by acidfast7 · 2012-12-12 22:50 · Score: 1

We'll see. He's surprised us so far. All he needs to do is to continue to cater to anyone that wants to thumb their nose at Europe/US and he'll be fine.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Re:Best of luck by BlueStrat · 2012-12-12 23:05 · Score: 1, Interesting

The minute he steps out of the Ecuadorian embassy, he'll be arrested and bundled onto the next plane to Sweden.
Where he'll stay just long enough for Swedish authorities to cover their collective asses before he's turned over to the US for lyn^W^W^W*W*Wtrial.
I'm amazed that the Australian government is apparently fine with being made the US' bitch, by virtue of the US treating an Australian citizen this way. Same for the Australian people. I mean, I wouldn't expect Australians to start burning down the US Embassy or anything, but I would certainly expect protests. Maybe they simply haven't made the foreign news services?
Fun historical factoid: Did you know that at one time the US government actually bothered to at least pretend to uphold and be bound by the Rule of Law?
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:Best of luck by Joce640k · 2012-12-12 23:18 · Score: 1

Sweden first. They have to pretend to follow procedure.

--
No sig today...
Re:Best of luck by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2012-12-12 23:34 · Score: 1

Yes I'm sure these worthy people he's talking about haven't spoken to those who posted his bail!

--
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Re:Best of luck by jcr · 2012-12-12 23:42 · Score: 1

Probably not, if he wins.
If he becomes an elected official, the Australian government will be under a great deal of pressure to issue him an official passport and place him under diplomatic immunity. Then it becomes a question of whether the UK government is willing to severely damage its relationship with a commonwealth country for the sake of doing the CIA a favor.
-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Re:Best of luck by gnasher719 · 2012-12-12 23:43 · Score: 1

Where he'll stay just long enough for Swedish authorities to cover their collective asses before he's turned over to the US for lyn^W^W^W*W*Wtrial.
I don't know Swedish law. German law is quite clear: If you are extradited from country X to Germany, (1) you can only be taken to court for whatever claims were made against you in the extradition request, and (2) you have the right to be returned to country X. So if this was between the UK and Germany and not UK and Sweden, he could be extradited to Germany, maybe put to jail for some time, and then he would have the absolute right to be returned to the UK when he leaves jail.
Re:Best of luck by bug1 · 2012-12-12 23:44 · Score: 2

Australia has always had trouble standing up for itself, it used to hide behind Britain, now it hides behind US.
Yes there have been protests, but both major political parties are very similar on "national security", and neither have shown him any respect, despite significant popular support amongst voters.
There used to be a minor center party (Australian Democrats) with a slogan "Keep the bastards honest" which did pretty good for a while, but lost the ground in the center to the major parties. If wikileaks can revive that niche they could win votes from the major parties rather than taking votes from the Greens.
Some big politcal names will write him off straight away, but they embarrassingly just dont understand what hes about, or the demographic that supports him.
He is a chance for a big protest vote, his undoing may be the need to compromise to get things done in politics.
Re:Best of luck by Lisias · 2012-12-13 00:24 · Score: 1

The minute he steps out of the Ecuadorian embassy, he'll be arrested and bundled onto the next plane to Sweden.
Not if he manages to be elected as a senator.
Smart move. The Australian government will be *forced* to defend him. You just can't afford to have your senators arrested around the world.

--
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
Re:Best of luck by Joce640k · 2012-12-13 00:27 · Score: 1

If he becomes an elected official, the Australian government will be under a great deal of pressure to issue him an official passport and place him under diplomatic immunity.
It doesn't work that way. Diplomatic immunity is granted on entry to a country, not afterwards.

--
No sig today...
Re:Best of luck by BlueStrat · 2012-12-13 00:40 · Score: 1

I'm amazed that the Australian government is apparently fine with being made the US' bitch, by virtue of the US treating an Australian citizen this way. Same for the Australian people. I mean, I wouldn't expect Australians to start burning down the US Embassy or anything, but I would certainly expect protests. Maybe they simply haven't made the foreign news services?

Amusing little America bashing theory you've got there. Only one tiny little problem with it. The U.S. isn't involved with Mr. Assange's current difficulties except in his mind, your mind, and the minds of countless other conspiritards.
Fun factoid: You're a dumbass.
*American government* bashing. Different from the American people.
Get it right.
"Dumbass."
The "U.S. isn't involved with Mr. Assange's current difficulties" just like the US wasn't involved with the Contras in S. America and wasn't involved with that failed revolution in Cuba in the early '60s, and didn't have the CIA trying to discredit and/or assassinate Castro.
The US wants desperately to make examples of both Assange AND Manning. They seek to intimidate both any future leakers and those who would DARE publish what is leaked. I'd bet gold bars to bitcoins that the US is dragging it's feet in trying Manning until they can get Assange, so they can either make them co-defendants and/or use any statements or testimony from one against the other.
The US is no longer a capitalism-based representative republic. It has become a Fascio-Capitalist regime which is transforming the US into a totally corrupt "State-run Capitalism" type system. Laws are there to constrain people, not government, under such systems.
Strat

--
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
Re:Best of luck by phayes · 2012-12-13 00:56 · Score: 1

Only in the minds of the self deluded like Assange. Diplomatic immunity cannot be granted retroactively.

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Re:Best of luck by Nostromo21 · 2012-12-13 00:59 · Score: 1

Not if he gets elected - diplomatic immunity :)
Re:Best of luck by siddesu · 2012-12-13 01:02 · Score: 1

He's not being elected to serve as a diplomat. Just being a member of the Australian parliament doesn't give him immunity, it is a bit more involved than that. For diplomatic immunity, he'll have to be accepted by the UK as an Australian diplomat there, and for that to happen, he'll have to be appointed as such by Australia first. Something's telling me neither of these is happening even if he wins a seat.
Re:Best of luck by petes_PoV · 2012-12-13 01:07 · Score: 1

All he needs to do is to continue to cater to anyone that wants to thumb their nose at Europe/US and he'll be fine.

Hardly "fine". He's voluntarily locked himself into a small building with no possibility of travelling elsewhere. Apart from the occasional announcement like this one, and internet access he may as well be in jail. At least then (provided he's not rendered to the USA) he'll know when he's free to get out.

--
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Re:Best of luck by Xest · 2012-12-13 01:17 · Score: 1

It's not quite as straightforward as that though. If Australia declares him a diplomat then Sweden's option if they refuse to recognise immunity is to declare him persona non grata and allow him to be recalled to Australia.
So whilst they can't retroactively apply it in the UK, they can go through formal process in Sweden instead, so that when the UK ships him to Sweden, Sweden's choice is either to accept diplomatic immunity for him as a valid diplomat, or choose not to recognise it and hence declare him persona non grata and send him home.
This is really the key here, it effectively means that the UK could potentially arrest and punish him, but he's broken no law in the UK, however if they ship him somewhere else where he has broken law then the standard diplomatic process will come in to play.
This doesn't mean of course that the plan is foolproof, Sweden might simply choose to defy diplomatic convention and arrest him regardless without either accepting immunity or declaring him persona non grata, but this will have to be carefully calculated by the Swedish government, because for example if a plane carrying a Swedish MP or similar has to land in an emergency in say, Iran, then Sweden is no longer positioned to stop the Iranians entering the plane and dragging that MP off for arbitrary arrest and interrogation.
This might not sound like a big deal because Sweden has few enemies that would see reason to do this, but consider then that on defying this convention the Swedish have to go through the exact same process if they were to deport him to the US and then it's upto America to go through the same thing. Would Hilary Clinton really feel safe next time she visits or goes near North Korea given that she would then have absolutely no diplomatic protection on her side for example?
The problem is it's such a complicated issue and with so little precedent that speculation is largely meaningless, but the actions of nations in such a matter could have far reaching consequences for diplomats the world over. As such I suspect both Sweden and the US would be forced to take a step back and ask "Is this man really worth pulling the rug out from under all diplomatic precedent and protections over?"
So this move certainly doesn't guarantee Assange's safety, but it certainly provides him with an extra layer of pretty formidable protection if he were to gain a senate seat.
There's even a question of whether under such circumstances, the UK would want to risk Sweden playing that game with precedent for diplomatic relations given that one of the things that allows the UK to punch above it's weight on the international stage is it's extremely strong dependence on diplomatic missions across the globe. As such the UK might even decide to honour immunity regardless of the situation simply to avoid the issue altogether.
Re:Best of luck by NoMaster · 2012-12-13 10:34 · Score: 1

Or it might be because Australians in general consider Julian Assange to be the Steve Irwin of computer hackers (i.e. a wanker).
That was certainly the opinion of him back in the day, despite what the telemovie said.

--
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?

Julian Assange runs for... by filmorris · 2012-12-12 22:43 · Score: 3, Funny

's/Office/His Ass/'

--
"Hello, IT... Have you tried turning it off and on again? Yeah... No problem."

From outside Australia...? by richardcavell · 2012-12-12 22:46 · Score: 1

How does a man meaningfully participate in the Australian Senate when he is permanently outside of the country? Richard

Re:From outside Australia...? by MichaelSmith · 2012-12-12 22:52 · Score: 2

Makes me wonder if being a federal senator gives him some status which enables him to avoid arrest in the UK.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:From outside Australia...? by MichaelSmith · 2012-12-12 22:59 · Score: 1

Our senators do actually do stuff but I wonder if he can join if he doesn't turn up for the first day.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:From outside Australia...? by locofungus · 2012-12-12 23:23 · Score: 2

I believe that the answer to this is no. Ditto,a country cannot make him a diplomat and get him diplomatic immunity from the UK authorities while he remains in the UK.
In the UK (I think in general) diplomatic status is recognised _before_ the person enters the country and, if the UK does recognise that status before entry, the only sanction the UK has is to tell (force) the person to leave the country again.
But should the person try and sneak into the country they would not have any diplomatic status and would be open to the full sanctions allowed under UK law.
Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Re:From outside Australia...? by ChunderDownunder · 2012-12-12 23:52 · Score: 2

I wouldn't dismiss this outright. Constitutionally, this would need to be tested in court.
See, Australia is a Commonwealth Realm, with the Queen as head of state. A senator of the Australian parliament is therefore an elected representative of the Queen and thus may, theoretically have the same rights and privileges as a British member of parliament. Something that might never codified in the transition from colony of the British Empire to independent country. Assange in this stunt would thus be hoping to be released on a technicality.
I'm not saying this is a valid defense but lefty human rights/constitutional lawyers in both countries might be keen to explore such an option of behalf of Mr Assange to extend his stay in little Ecuador indefinitely while the matter were resolved.
Re:From outside Australia...? by MachineShedFred · 2012-12-13 00:27 · Score: 1

I believe the way it works, is that someone is credentialed to be a diplomat by a government, and then those credentials are accepted, signed, and affixed with an official seal by the leader of a foreign government to which they are to have diplomatic relations.
Very unlikely that the Queen's government will accept any paperwork for Mr. Assange at this point.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Re:From outside Australia...? by locofungus · 2012-12-13 01:14 · Score: 1

There's parliamentary privilege that he would, presumably, acquire, but I don't believe there are any special privileges for MPs that would make any difference in this case.
Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
Re:From outside Australia...? by robmv · 2012-12-13 01:19 · Score: 1

Pigs (in Animal Farm sense) have exceptions specially made for them. In Venezuela, we have governor elections this Sunday, some candidates from the government (Chavismo) are not from the state they are candidates, they don't live there, but the elections ruling body moved them and their families out of time (electoral roll was closed) because it is controlled by the same party
Re:From outside Australia...? by Kagato · 2012-12-13 03:12 · Score: 1

He's not in the country technically. It's really a question of how it would all work out given he'd be representing a Commonwealth Realm. I'm sure there are some lawyers that would love to argue this, just as much as the crown wishes he'd gone to Germany instead of the UK.
Re:From outside Australia...? by mjwx · 2012-12-13 13:10 · Score: 1

How does a man meaningfully participate in the Australian Senate

I would have just stopped there.

--
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.

He plans to campaign and work from London? by Kergan · 2012-12-12 22:49 · Score: 1

Color me puzzled...

How does he intend to campaign from the Ecuadorian embassy in London?

And more to the point, isn't he persona non grata in his own country? As in, subject to being expelled to the US should he go there?

Re:He plans to campaign and work from London? by Bob+Gelumph · 2012-12-12 23:22 · Score: 1

He can run as long as he hasn't been convicted and gone to jail. If he runs and wins and is unable to take his seat, he can nominate a replacement, though possibly just from his party.

--
I'm gonna need a spec.
Re:He plans to campaign and work from London? by Xest · 2012-12-13 01:25 · Score: 1

If that were true then Australia would be in breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12.2 which states:
"Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."
Any nation officially declaring one of their own citizens persona non grata would be in deep shit over this. Note however that this is not the same as extraditing someone though, they could certainly extradite him to the US if they have an extradition treaty that allows it and if all pre-requisites - for example, any requirement for what he's accused of to be a crime in Australia had been fulfilled.
Apologies if you were using persona non grata in a casual sense, rather than in it's official diplomatic meaning in which case the blurb above about the UDHR is irrelevant.
Re:He plans to campaign and work from London? by Kergan · 2012-12-13 06:18 · Score: 1

I was meaning it in a casual sense, yeah. As in, he's welcome to return, get arrested on the spot and board the next plane to the US.
Thanks for the more precise legal meaning and perspective, though. +1 interesting. :-)

WTF? by pbjones · 2012-12-12 22:51 · Score: 2

How does he get to his seat in the Australian Senate? It's a joke, a publicity stunt.

--
There was an unknown error in the submission.

Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-12 23:48 · Score: 1

Diplomatic immunity. One does not just arrest a Senator of another country.
Re:WTF? by WGFCrafty · 2012-12-13 00:18 · Score: 1

Diplomatic immunity is granted by a country to diplomats THEY AGREE to have in their country. It's not some magic power all foreign state employees get.
Re:WTF? by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-12-13 01:24 · Score: 1

How does he get to his seat in the Australian Senate?
The mechanics of getting him out of there aren't too bad. I can think of at least four plans that would at least get him to international waters, and people who do this kind of thing professionally can think of better plans than mine.
The real issue is whether Ecuador wants to deal with the fallout from having helped him do that. They may prefer to take a wait-and-see approach. Lieberman is leaving in a few days, Manning's trial is going to be over by March. They might feel that this will simply be dropped if they wait it out.
In the meantime, Assange is doing some long-term-isolation experiments for NASA ... so far it's just a lung infection. If he has to seek hospital care at any point, they're going to have to decide to either cut him loose or get him out.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:WTF? by Maximum+Prophet · 2012-12-13 02:11 · Score: 1

Diplomatic immunity is granted by a country to diplomats THEY AGREE to have in their country. It's not some magic power all foreign state employees get.
Maybe. It'd be an interesting test case.

I imagine a diplomat from country A, that was in country B, and got chucked into country C, would still have his immunity and would be shipped back to country A, along with many strongly worded letters. As long as country A, B, and C were "friendly", he wouldn't be arrested.

Once arrested, I don't think there's a case of retroactive DI, but Julian hasn't been arrested. If Australian grants Assange DI, and Ecuador agrees, then he *is* a diplomat. If Ecuador then kicks him out of their "country", then I don't think England could arrest him without causing friction from Australia. Of course, the Aussies might publically complain, and send their own strongly worded letter to Britain, and that would be that.

Actually, I could see all this happening, in the unlikely event Asange does get elected. After he's disappeared to Sweden, Australia and Britain just say, "Our bad, won't happen again", and the whole thing will blow over.

--
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)

Diplomatic passport? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-12 22:55 · Score: 1

Will he be issued a diplomatic passport if he does become a senator?
If so, he might be able to use the diplomatic immunity ticket to step out?

Re:Diplomatic passport? by gnasher719 · 2012-12-12 23:47 · Score: 1

Will he be issued a diplomatic passport if he does become a senator?
I don't think foreign politicians, included elected politicians, have any special legal state anywhere outside their own country. It's diplomates, embassy employees etc.
Re:Diplomatic passport? by Shimbo · 2012-12-12 23:58 · Score: 1

I don't think foreign politicians, included elected politicians, have any special legal state anywhere outside their own country. It's diplomates, embassy employees etc.
You can be granted a diplomatic passport, and it's a matter of custom and keeping good relations not to mess with visiting VIPs. It doesn't confer diplomatic immunity, as Senator Pinochet discovered.

Re:WAC by MichaelSmith · 2012-12-12 23:00 · Score: 1

Thats what she said right before she called the cops.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au

no chance by magic+maverick+ · 2012-12-12 23:03 · Score: 1

He has very little chance of actually being elected. In both those two states it is routine for up to a hundred people to stand, and so people just tend to vote "above the line" (select a party, and then the party allocates preferences as published prior to the election). None of the major parties are going to give high preferences to this new party, and of the minors, only the Greens have any real clout. Depending on politics, the Greens might preference the Labor Party ahead of the Wikileaks party, which'll mean Wikileaks Party gets fuck all.

Individually, he may get more than 4% of the vote and thus get his $1000 back, but I think that's pretty doubtful.

Even the Sex Party did poorly last time around, and they actually had a wider appeal base (you know, everyone who doesn't like conservatism when it comes to sex).

Conclusion: This is a stunt, but hopefully it will make people think about freedom a bit more.

--
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!

Re:no chance by bentwonk2 · 2012-12-12 23:34 · Score: 1

Yahoo7 which traditionally has a conservative leaning editorial policy and readership ran a poll today "Support a WikiLeaks party?", surprisingly 54% (3447) have said yes. I think his appeal is broader that you might think, not because people support Assange, but because they HATE the other two choices.
Re:no chance by wadeal · 2012-12-12 23:59 · Score: 1

Or maybe that 54% is to do with the fact the poll was on the internet?
Re:no chance by bug1 · 2012-12-12 23:59 · Score: 1

"None of the major parties are going to give high preferences to this new party"
Do you remember the ALP (center left) preferencing Family First, a right wing christian fundamentalist party before the greens. Parties do really weird things with preferences.
Its very naive to think you can predict who will win the last senate seat, DLP won a senate seat with a 1.9% primary vote.
Re:no chance by ChunderDownunder · 2012-12-13 00:05 · Score: 1

Au contraire - he has quite a reasonable chance of getting elected to the Victorian senate.
2004 Stephen Fielding (Family First) 1.9%
2010 John Madigan (DLP) 2.33%
Never underestimate the preference deals of minor parties to stifle Labor and the Greens.
Re:no chance by bentwonk2 · 2012-12-13 00:19 · Score: 1

given the historically low approval ratings of the two major Australian political leaders, and the disappearance of the greens, depending on who his running mates are he could get some traction in these disenchanted times.
Re:no chance by LateLurker · 2012-12-13 00:21 · Score: 1

Great Post Sir, I tipped you 1 cent.

--
To do something well is so worthwhile that to die trying to do it better cannot be foolhardy.
Re:no chance by MachineShedFred · 2012-12-13 00:33 · Score: 1

Yeah, I'm sure that a web poll has the same statistical integrity as an actual polling company like Gallup. I'm sure everyone only voted once, and that it was a poll with a sampling that is indicative of the current electorate.

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.

No hoper by benjfowler · 2012-12-12 23:08 · Score: 1

So when Assange bombs out, and loses his deposit, whose money will he waste this time?

Note to clueless rich libertarians backing this douchebag: madness is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.

Future News Headline? by patella.whack · 2012-12-12 23:09 · Score: 1

Assange goes down under again!

Re:Arresting a politician? by Joce640k · 2012-12-12 23:15 · Score: 4, Informative

PS don't you have to be charged before you can be arrested?

Um, no. Almost any country in the world can hold you for a certain time without charges (eg. 24 hours).

--
No sig today...

Re:Arresting a politician? by Kergan · 2012-12-12 23:29 · Score: 1

PS don't you have to be charged before you can be arrested?

Paying the requested charge is actually a good way to not be arrested in many countries.

Re:Arresting a politician? by abigsmurf · 2012-12-12 23:55 · Score: 1

Assange cannot be granted diplomatic immunity whilst bunkering down in an embassy. It wouldn't be recognised under international or British law (which was tightened up after a Libyan diplomat shot a British police woman from their embassy).

Diplomatic immunity is not a get out of jail free card.

Re:Arresting a politician? by FatLittleMonkey · 2012-12-12 23:56 · Score: 1

don't you have to be charged before you can be arrested?

Contempt of court? Failure to appear?

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

Has anyone warned the interns? by Chrisq · 2012-12-13 00:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

He could be Australia's answer to Bill Clinton

Re:Has anyone warned the interns? by dkleinsc · 2012-12-13 02:17 · Score: 1

Come on, he couldn't possibly compare with Silvio Berlusconi in that department.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

Re:Arresting a politician? by FriendlyLurker · 2012-12-13 00:21 · Score: 2

24 hours!!?? Are you kidding. Lets start at 6 years, at least the ones we know about, and go from there... rule of law, indeed.

Re:Arresting a politician? by Cigarra · 2012-12-13 00:23 · Score: 1

... Almost any country in the world can hold you for a certain time without charges (eg. 24 hours).

Or, in the case of USA, for 3 years.

--
I don't have a sig.

He's not been charged. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 00:24 · Score: 1

This is why this claim of "We can't charge him unless he's on Swedish soil" is made up. They don't make a claim against him, only "wanted for questioning". That means that there is no claim against him in Sweden (or UK). That means that there is no reason to refuse the USA's demand for his head, even if they have to accept the rest of his body with it.

à la guerre comme à la guerre by Maimun · 2012-12-13 00:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Some reality check first. It is completely unthinkable to have a major country that has no state secrets and whose information is completely free and open for anyone interested. By "major country" I mean one that has geopolitical standing and ambitions. A country that is completely open, information-wise, if such exists, is an irrelevant entity -- a satellite in the orbit of one of the major players.

Sorry if you don't like the reality. Reality has the interesting property to exist regardless of whether we like it, or even whether we believe in it. The reality is that the political world is not, and cannot be, a single entity ruled by mutual trust and eternal love. The political world is divided into hostile blocks. Even if our block falls down (due to, among other reasons, too much assangeness), the blocks will not disappear, they will reshape. China has enough vitality as far as I can tell. Surely the chikoms would not mind all US secrets being published openly. Surely they can fill in the geopolitical void left by the US (hypothetically speaking).

Of course, there is a flip side to that. The government secret agencies tend to do nasty things behind the veil of secrecy and in that sense it is a good thing to have civil control over them. However, that does not alter one bit the fact that it is impossible to be a successful geopolitical player that reveals **all** her secrets.

J. Assange took an active part in a war. He may not realise that but he did. Now he whines that the party he damaged is trying to destroy him :) Welcome to the real world, idiot! Every major player will do the same. Try hurting Russia or China or Turkey or Israel and see what happens. The sissies from the Western shelter have become accustomed to the idea you can hurt the state with impunity. Well, that's only possible in a small part of the world. Only inside the shelter that protects from the brutal reality. And is possible only to a certain degree. If too much assangeness happens, either the state will find means of protecting itself from the cancer, or will be overrun by a hostile party that allows no assangeness :)

Re:à la guerre comme à la guerre by drinkypoo · 2012-12-13 00:55 · Score: 1

If too much assangeness happens, either the state will find means of protecting itself from the cancer, or will be overrun by a hostile party that allows no assangeness :)
We are in a time of transition. For the first time, technology has made governments and corporations and news media not irrelevant, but inferior to their lack. We can do better without them because for the first time we have the ability to share information as well as they do — indeed, better. The only "benefit" of centralized news media over every human effectively being an investigative reporter is that it is more vulnerable to government influence. This is part of the same battle as that over the actions of Assange and Wikileaks. The world functions better without secrets. Wikileaks marks the end of secrecy, and the corrupt bastards at the top of the pyramid must react with their full force because, as you say, their institutions cannot survive it.
However, the end of secrecy is on the horizon no matter what happens to Assange, which is why this is all a big jackoff waste of time and money serving only as a distraction from our endless wars, which is the real purpose of most media frenzy. Destroy him and you create a martyr. Fail to destroy him and all that happens is that the secrets are exposed a little faster.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:à la guerre comme à la guerre by AmiMoJo · 2012-12-14 05:42 · Score: 1

The parties he damaged are guilty of war crimes and violating human rights. The only option for anyone with evidence of such crimes is to say quiet and become complicit or to leak and face the consequences if caught.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC

Re:Nope, you've already been arrested. by FatLittleMonkey · 2012-12-13 01:05 · Score: 1

A UK court ruled that Assange was to be extradited. Presumably that order required him to surrender himself at some point. He failed to obey the court order, putting him in contempt of court. There may also be a "failure to appear" depending on the wording of the order. There's certainly enough for him to be arrested. At the very least he's likely in breach of his bail conditions.

[Disclaimer: I consider several recent UK extradition rulings to be quite bizarre. Assange's being one of them.]

--
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.

Ulterior motive perhaps? by erp_consultant · 2012-12-13 01:19 · Score: 2

Now I'm not an attorney but wouldn't getting elected to the Australian parliament make him immune from extradition to the US? It would probably provide him with diplomatic immunity as well, allowing him save passage into Australia. Clearly Assange's worry is the US government, not the Swedish government.

Re:Arresting a politician? by lipanitech · 2012-12-13 01:37 · Score: 1

Alex Jones talks about this all the time. Conspiracy!

--
http://thetechnologygeek.org/

Security council by Dan+East · 2012-12-13 01:39 · Score: 1

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. If he gets elected make sure he ends up on the security council and plenty of committees that have top secret clearance. That way he can be hung as a traitor when he reveals all the state secrets to the detriment of the country he is supposed to be protecting.

--
Better known as 318230.

Re:Security council by unix_core · 2012-12-13 02:14 · Score: 1

I can't wait to see what things we are about to find out about Ecuador after he's out of there!

Re:Nope, you've already been arrested. by jkflying · 2012-12-13 01:41 · Score: 1

[Disclaimer: I consider several recent UK extradition rulings to be quite bizarre. Assange's being one of them.]

Pinochet being another.

--
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!

Gillard already disowned him by Hyperhaplo · 2012-12-13 01:42 · Score: 1

It really doesn't help your case when the leader of your own country has named your actions as criminal before your day in court. However, if that does happen you can always sue for defamation.

Assange's best bet right now is for Gillard to be dumped by the ALP or voted out in 2013.

--
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.

Re:Gillard already disowned him by siddesu · 2012-12-13 01:50 · Score: 1

I don't know a lot about Australian politics, so I can't tell if that will make a lot of difference. Why would Gillard's opponents be better disposed towards Assange?
Re:Gillard already disowned him by Hyperhaplo · 2012-12-13 02:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

The short version then.
Australian politics is currently divided between ALP (Labour party) and The Coalition (Liberals, Democrats) with a third party, the Greens, in the middle. Scatter in some independents and other minor parties.
The next election is going to be a decision between ALP / Gillard, who is seen by many to be a back stabbing liar (google it if you are interested - especially on the Carbon Tax and deposing of Kevin Rudd) and Liberals (coalition) / Tony Abbot who tends to rub people the wrong way. The Greens put their foot in it when they refused to take action on the boat people problem and are now in bad odour.
So, yes, there is opportunity here. Gillard has publicly embarrassed herself in regards to Wikileaks and Assange and Abbot or the Greens could well score some political points out of this.
While it is true that "Enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, no more, no less" Gillards opponents could well use the situation with Assange to make yet another dent in Gillard's credibility - something she is running out of.
Unless something changes, the Libs, and perhaps the greens, are going to tear Gillard to ribbons for all of the things done and not done in the last term, starting with te backstab of Rudd. Every stone in the arsenal helps.

--
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
Re:Gillard already disowned him by siddesu · 2012-12-13 10:08 · Score: 1

Very interesting, thanks. I still don't see how the opposition would choose to pick Assange as a battle symbol, especially if the US presses them in private, but I see why the attitude could soften if there is a government change as you describe it.
Re:Gillard already disowned him by dyfortune · 2012-12-13 13:04 · Score: 1

Ummm..... The Coalition is the Liberals and the Nationals.
Re:Gillard already disowned him by blackpig · 2012-12-13 14:36 · Score: 1

Australian politics is currently divided between ALP (Labour party) and The Coalition (Liberals, Democrats)
You mean Liberals, National Party. The Democrats have never been part of the Coalition.
Re:Gillard already disowned him by siddesu · 2012-12-13 19:53 · Score: 1

Hehe, now I have my reading for the half of the Saturday morning set.
Re:Gillard already disowned him by Hyperhaplo · 2012-12-14 02:20 · Score: 1

Thank you, no I'd completely forgotten about Turnbull. Like the idea of the bargaining chip. As it is Gillard appears to be losing ground - http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/gillard-may-be-forced-to-pull-the-teaparty-tony-lever/
I'd say that at some point the Greens will be forced to make a decision - for him or against him. Now that the Slipper case is settled and he isn't getting his job back you'd think things were brightening up for the ALP.
I'll wait and see if the Libs or Greens throw the 'Assange' stone at Labour. Meanwhile, will be very amusing and interesting if 1) his party gets the 500 members required and 2) he gets in
Grab some popcorn, sit back and watch the fireworks. 2013 politics may very well be more interesting than the sport.

--
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
Re:Gillard already disowned him by Hyperhaplo · 2012-12-14 02:25 · Score: 1

Ack. My bad, thanks for pointing it out.
Actually, I just lump them all together into the Liberals and everyone else 'not Labour, not greens, not independent' :P
So, yes, not a slip a mind but more of care factor of zero :-)

--
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
Re:Gillard already disowned him by Hyperhaplo · 2012-12-14 02:34 · Score: 1

If you know nothing of Gillard and what she has done there is some hilarious reading in store. Backstabbing, scandals, lies, There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.
Do check out her 'misogynist' speech. I've never seen a politician go so low.. just when you thought that Pauline Hanson had set the bar low she manages to dig a little deeper. Which is such a pity as Gillard had the perfect opportunity to demonstrate that a female can lead this country just as well as any man but has ended up only in proving that anyone can get to the top of the public service using the same method upon which the rest of the public service is infamous for.
Here's a recent one: http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/gillard-may-be-forced-to-pull-the-teaparty-tony-lever/
There are comments around slashdot that Assange won't really have much effect on Gillard. It's that 'much' which is the kicker. Have fun reading. Be thankful you're not in the middle of it :P

--
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
Re:Gillard already disowned him by siddesu · 2012-12-15 00:00 · Score: 1

Great stuff. LMAO, so to speak.

And everyone here is stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-13 03:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

The sheer fact that you're even DEBATING whether political systems are corrupt is both sad and pathetic.

Of COURSE Sweden's system is corrupt as hell. The US has been pulling strings HARD there since the very beginning. I'm not even going to fucking BOTHER googling things for you /.ers, since all of the extraordinarily shady background behind this whole Assange thing has been posted on Slashdot probably a dozen times or more by now. Do you HONESTLY think that the USA has absolutely no pull whatsoever in Sweden in this battle? Really? Is that something you believe... that Sweden is absolutely separate and doing all of this absolutely independant from the USA? Come on, how fucking naive are you?!?

Good god people, look at yourselves. Do you REALLY think that ALL of the commotion, extradition, asylum, CIA, etc, etc is ALL because of the highly questionable (and in one case completely withdrawn) rape allegation?

This has been gone over dozens of times on Slashdot! Why is there even still argument about it?!? No country on EARTH would put this much manpower, effort, mudslinging, defamation, and political force into one single person's NOT EVEN ARREST WARRENT, JUST REQUEST TO COME IN FOR QUESTIONING!

Holy christ Slashdot commenters... what the fuck happened to you. This place is getting as bad as reading a fucking message board for Nascar fans or American Idol or some typical shit that placates the mass public.

Re:And everyone here is stupid by http · 2012-12-13 04:51 · Score: 1

It's called setting your threshold higher than 1 and relying on the moderation system. I prefer 3, people with time to burn like 2, someone who doesn't care for linearity might set it as high as 5.
Slashdot hasn't changed in this regard for over a decade. Moderate if you're given the points and metamoderate daily.

--
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
Re:And everyone here is stupid by Darinbob · 2012-12-13 08:20 · Score: 1

Can't you understand that the US doesn't give a shit about Assange? He's done already, he's lost his power, people recognize him for the ego bag that he is. Biggest coup for the US would be for him to go to Sweden, get questioned, get deported to Australia, lose his election, then be forgotten. Biggest loss for the US would be for him to disappear mysteriously.
Re:And everyone here is stupid by jkauzlar · 2012-12-13 10:28 · Score: 2

Can't you understand that the US doesn't give a shit about Assange?

This is wrong. One of the U.S's goals in the Bradley Manning trial is to show that Assange encouraged Manning to provide the leaks, which would make Assange a collaborator and not just a journalist. For whatever reason, even though wikileaks is nearly dead, they still want Assange locked up.
Re:And everyone here is stupid by jandersen · 2012-12-13 18:43 · Score: 1

Of COURSE Sweden's system is corrupt as hell.
You seem a bit agitated; that alone detracts from your credibility.
Lets start with what Wikipedia has to say:

Government corruption occurs when an elected representative makes decisions that are influenced by vested interest rather than their own personal or party ideological beliefs.
Loosely speaking, a politician is said to be corrupt if they sell their political power for money. They may well be *morally* corrupt, which is a different thing, and much more subjective, but I don't think you have any evidence to support that the Swedish goverment is corrupt in the common sense.
That they are influenced by the US government is not corruption, despicable though it seems. Governments cooperate in many ways - NATO etc etc. Sweden no doubt tries to influence American decisions as well some times too, even if one can suspect that America has more weight behind their arguments.

Full Openness? by CMYKjunkie · 2012-12-13 04:11 · Score: 1

So, say he would win and be a senator. Would he operate entirely open, as his principles of no government secrets? Post all of his government e-mails and transcripts of phone conversations? Have not one professional "secret" or private thought/exchange? I think it would be an interesting experiment for him -- to try and operate within his role as a senator while trying to maintain full disclosure. I bet he would very quickly want professional privacy in order to carry out his duties (assuming he has any intention of becoming a senator for serious purposes).

Re:He's only trying to get governmental immunity by BitZtream · 2012-12-13 05:48 · Score: 1

He's not in Australia.

If he was an American, he still wouldn't have any immunity in another country. The only thing that would keep the president from going to jail for committing a crime in England is that he commands a bigger stick. Legally, if he fucks up outside our country, he's on his own.

Diplomats request immunity on entry. They sometimes get denied. They get granted based on history, his history would most certainly get him denied in every country on the planet.

--
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager

External election by Cinnaman · 2012-12-13 11:41 · Score: 1

It spins me out that he can do this while not in the country in person. But hope he will get elected so there's one less waste of space from the establishment parties (Labour/Liberal) in Parliament.

Slashdot Mirror

Julian Assange Runs For Office In Australia

116 of 192 comments (clear)