New poll says Assange could win Australian Senate seat Julian Assange's bid for a seat in Australia's Senate may not be just a stunt, with a new poll revealing 26 per cent of Australians consider themselves “likely” to vote for the Leaker-In-Chief. Assange has repeatedly announced his candidacy for a seat in the Senate, the upper chamber of Australia's national Parliament which …
If he had the backing of the Australian government, he would be in Australia or an Australian embassy. He is at a Ecuadorian embassy. He can't even leave there as as soon as he does, he will be arrested. So he is stuck there until no one wants him; which at this point in time, doesn't look to be in the near future.
Oh, Ecuador receives over $20 million in aid a year. Sure their GDP is $66 billion, but $20 million is a good chunk of change. Would they actually harbor him in their country? Money talks and bullshit walks.
This post has been deleted by its author
"He sought rights of asylum which was granted by Ecuador." He sought asylum, bleating on about "freedom of the press", from a wannabe despot notorious for his suppression of the free press. A$$nut's reason for asking for asylum was to avoid due process, having spent even longer bleating about how he only wanted to see "justice done". If you can't see the hypocrisy of the "man" then you are merely deserving of the same laughable contempt.
I don't follow Australian politics very closely but if he did win a seat keeping up with him would definitely be part of my daily news searches. The possibilities for entertainment would be endless & every government needs at least one lunatic to make the rest of the crazies look sane.
Also, can someone wanted for international crimes be elected to a national position in Australia? It just seems like it would be embarrassing for the whole country.
"Sure, after all he's not been convicted for anything."
That is not in the strictest sense true, although I do understand the sentiment behind your remarks.
Julian Assange is indeed a convict; he was in the 1990s Assange convicted (by a judge in his home country) on about 17 counts for breaking and entering a variety of government computers at home and abroad, including a Pentagon Air Force computer and, most comically, the police computers in Australia used by the police team... ...at that very point investigating him.
He was given the most risible of 'sentences' - effectively let off - and told that another conviction would almost certainly involve gaol time. Hence, I assume, his hands off policy and use of third parties in the process of building his 'library' of information. However, this is the very area on which the US authorities are focusing their investigations; how involved was Assange in the collection of classified information belonging to the US state? Unless and until they can demonstrate a strong case it would seem that the US is unwilling to be involved with the Assange case. They seem to have a strong desire to bide their time, until they are able to convincingly and overwhelmingly deal with the man. Given the current climate of 'hacking' by other nation states and loose cannons, it is unsurprising that the US government wants to deal with such people.
US government caution this time around is no mystery; Colin Powell's presentation at the UN, in building the case for military intervention, was at best egregious and weak. That they refused to enter the chamber until UN authorities covered over Picasso's painting 'Guernica' worried me and, after Fallujah and the use of white phosophorous, this is most unsurprising.
As to Manning himself - given a feeble warchest by Assange, and effectively left to rot - he is a soldier, he signed a declaration of fealty and recognising that releasing state secrets will result in prosecution; Manning took advantage of poor security - the fools whose workstations he raped actually wrote their passwords on post it notes and stuck them to their monitors, leaving these even when unattended - and dumped everything that he could into the waiting arms of St Jules, or so it would seem.
The tin foil brigade have gone to great lengths to demonstrate US involvement in Assange's life, but it seems hardly necessary as the shrapnel has fallen out from a variety of compartments. To them, this link: http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
"Also, can someone wanted for international crimes be elected to a national position in Australia? It just seems like it would be embarrassing for the whole country."
How would that be different to Howard, Blair and Bush? Or Obama and his drones and extra-judicial (it means outside the law or illegal) killings?
I'm Australian, I'll be voting for them rather than the current cynical bunch of twats representing vested interests.
The only way to make it in politics is to be a thieving, lying, adulterous bastard. The best Assange could manage is 'sex with consent, where the women complained afterwards on encouragement from the FBI*'. It just doesn't cut it.
(*) Might not be officially documented, but we all know what really happened.
yes he maybe a bit of an arse, but anyone who can't see that good ol'USA is after him is a little naive . . . IMHO democracy needs a few thorns in its side like him :) <anyone heard of Private Eye?>
and in a short, recent period of time when the DoHS has been shown to be the pathetic paper tiger it is, well some daylight shone can't hurt can it?
SO guys, a short infomercial: hassling tourists does NOT keep your country safe! get it?
no?
thought not . . . . <sigh>
'At the right moment, an accomplice can distract the guards by driving up in a flatbed truck bearing a cat playing a piano.'
Oh for that to happen, not just because the sight of the Home Secretary explaining that to the Commons would never get old, but for the gloriously po-faced Crimewatch reconstruction that would follow.
A$$nut is inelligible as he hasn't been resident in Australia for the required period. This has been chewed over so many times already, why are El Reg wasting bandwidth on it unless it's forum bait?
Here's the likely outcomes:
1. A$$nut is announced as a candidate, is promptly rejected due to non-residency, Aussie Dickileaks, Anonyputzers and the dribbling Faithful sulk and refuse to vote, and the status quo is unchanged.
2. A$$nut selects one of his dribbling Faithful as a puppet, they get enough votes to get in, but then A$$nut finds working the strings all the way from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London too much hard work and goes to force himself on the Embassy's cleaner instead. Dribbler wastes his term doing nothing more than making pointless whines and is easily outmanouvered by the experienced parties, and the status quo is unchanged.
3. The voters actually think before voting, A$$nut's protest party get near zero votes and lose their deposit, and the status quo is unchanged.
Enjoy!
Would he get automatic diplomatic immunity?
He could just stroll out of the Ecuadorean Embassy and give two fingers to the USA and it's spineless lapdog UK government.
Popcorn!
Edit: Give them the bird instead, they weren't around in Agincourt times to understand two fingers
@Matt Bryant "Would he get automatic diplomatic immunity?...." No, he wouldn't."
That's a sentiment?
sen·ti·ment (s n t -m nt). n. 1. A thought, view, or attitude, especially one based mainly on emotion instead of reason:
For once, since I've had the pleasure of reading you, you state an actual fact and then you call it a sentiment. You really are delightful.
"....you state an actual fact and then you call it a sentiment." The sentiment (as in "ROFLMAO@A$$nut") was expressed in the smiley icon, due to the glee at knowing A$$nut cannot claim diplomatic immunity even in the unlikely event of Australia changing their election laws. That and the upset it must cause his dribbling Faithful.
:D <=in case you missed it again
I agree with you that it is very unlikely that Assange will ever get to claim diplomatic immunity. But if Assange wins the right to stand for the Senate seat, and -- OMG -- if he wins the election while besieged in Knightsbridge, will you be able to handle the never-ending tsunami of print, tv and net news stories about this vile sexfiend? And what of the legions of banner men that soon will flock to his camp?
You could be a mess, Matt.
I can let you have a couple of month's worth of Valium, as I am currently swimming in them. :o)
".....will you be able to handle the never-ending tsunami of print, tv and net news stories about this vile sexfiend? And what of the legions of banner men that soon will flock to his camp?....." Yeah, because every time Saint Jules comes out on the balcony to make one of his barmy statements, how many Faithful actually turn out to witness his preaching? Each time it is less and less. Last summer, even during the good weather, it was roughly a dozen hard-core sheeple. The guy has no real "following" and this would not change even if he was elected PM of Oz (which, BTW, he is also inelligible to stand for). Even if he did manage to find a role that granted him diplomatic immunity it is not back-dated, so he would still be arrested the minute he stepped out of the Ecuadorean Embassy.
"....I can let you have a couple of month's worth of Valium....." No, I would have to suggest you shouldn't be sharing your meds as you obviously need as much of a dose as you can get! In the meantime, I'm quite happy laughing at A$$nut, and even happier laughing at you and his other sheeple.
6/19/2012 Julian Assange jumps bail and seeks asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
8/18/2012 The New York Times reports: "At the embassy, television cameras stand arrayed behind crowd-control fencing, with satellite trucks alongside. Protesters from the Assange camp occupy the doorsteps of some of the most expensive homes in the upscale Knightsbridge district, smoking cigarettes and discussing the finer points of diplomatic law."
1/03/2013 Perthnow.com.au reports "During Mr Assange's recent "Christmas message" steel barriers were used to hold back a crowd of hundreds who came to hear the 41-year-old speak"
That was a couple of months ago. Then London's 100 year winter took its toll.
Wrong again. Actually, you're getting to be wrong quite often. Have you changed your diet? Or stopped jogging? Well, so much for your unworthy exaggerations.
Thank you for being solicitous about my mental health but like most people with felix nervosa, you ought to have a care for your own weird symptoms of laughing at things called Assnuts and sheeple. Better check yourself in for observation.
".....Perthnow.com.au reports....." And did Perthnow.com.au or any of the Faithful websites actually print pics to verify the claim for "crowd of hundreds"? The pic much used on Faithful websites is actually from almost two years ago when A$$nut addressed the Occupy London twits. I'm sure the "mix up" over the pic was just an unfortunate mistake and not an attempt by the Faithful to misleed, oh no..... The Times did have pics but they were definately not of "hundreds", and they showed barriers were to seperate the side of the street where the few Faithful were trying to pretend they were the "99%" whilst the actual hundreds were simply passers by, tourists and shoppers, none of whom stayed to hear Saint Jules, Patron Saint of Fools, make the usual a$$ of himself. Worse for the rabid Faithful, they were so short of numbers they had to go and rope in support from the local Student Union bars just to get into double figures! At least this time they didn't sing "Oh come let us adore him" like they did in December - the song says it all, just a sad sycophant and a load of completely clueless followers he uses as dupes.
Ah, ickle Local Dupe is shrieking again. OK, let's look at the facts and see what Local Dupe wants to dispute.
Firstly, A$$nut is a convicted criminal. He has convictions in Australia for e-crimes, and was so stupid he even asked the local coppers investigating him if they would just forget about it! You can find the facts regarding A$$nuts prior conviction all over the Web, or summarised here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#.22Mendax.22_and_the_Nortel_case).
Secondly, what A$$nut is accused of in the EAW would be considered rape under English Law (http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/).
Thirdly, A$$nut is now a criminal under English Law for contempt of court (from jumping bail). If he has removed his leg tag he is also liable for further criminal charges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#England).
I really suggest you and the rest of the dribbling sheeple go read this (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange) before you try telling the rest of the World how sweet and innocent A$$nut is.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
