51–60 of 119 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine it's probably a bit tricky to extradite a sitting member of the federal Parliament...
Extradite, waterboard, soletary confinement, sleep deprivation... The only positive thing is it would set a nice precedent for corrupt Parliament members.
Maybe he should join forces with the Australian Pirate Party ( http://pirateparty.org.au/ ) - they have some similar views.
It's two things. One is to actually try and do some good via a spot in the Senate. Cynicism might tell you that's not right/too simple. Ignore that feeling. Some people do actually have ideals.
Secondly, it's a bit of good old shit-stirring. Certainly something we need in Australian politics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine it's probably a bit tricky to extradite a sitting member of the federal Parliament...
A suspected criminal is a suspected criminal; I don't know what the tradition is in Oz, but wouldn't they vote (present a majority) to nullify any diplomatic immunity? I know about cases in parliamentary democracies where someone's immunity has been nullified - assuming they have it in Australia - but only in domestic disputes, not international.
Immunity is mostly a feature of countries with fully separated powers.
In fused Parliamentary systems it makes less sense to worry about the infringements of the Executive upon the Legislative, because the Executive is subsidiary to the Legislative.
Is he still in the Ecuadorian embassy? I've not really heard what hes doing or where he is recently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The charges were already dropped, then the prosecutor mysteriously replaced and the case reopened. The whole thing is a farce so there's no reason to bother with any trial.
Nothing mysterious going on here. It's not uncommon for another prosecutor to reopen a case if there are reasonable grounds for it. You can't seriously argue that someone who is accused of rape should just be set free like that. Guilty or not he should stand trial.
If there weren't a lot of major governments that really really want to get him, so that he could be guaranteed a fair trial, then of course he should stand trial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Check out the Sex Party. Despite the stupid name, they're actually a civil liberties party - equality for all, privacy, net neutrality, that sort of thing. At least at the last federal election they were.
They're a gimmick party and we all know it. Numerous parties have stood under those policies without resorting to cheap marketing tactics.
Pretty much any party that hasn't had a serious go in power is a gimmick party, simply due to lack of experience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Antony Green wrote a posting on this issue (and Assange's general chances of being elected) here: http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2012/12/what-chance-of-j... The short of it is that being qualified to become such an elector is a broader category than actually being on the electoral roll - you don't need to be on the roll to run for the Senate, just meet the basic requirements in S93.
I still think a court would be asked to rule on the question of "intention to reside", which is what the whole thing revolves on. Assange can wish to reside in Australia inside the 6 year deadline. But that's not the same as being realistically able to. In that case, he may be unable to form a legally meaningful intent. Or the Act might be read in the sense that intent is intent, regardless of whether such an intent…
Don't Australia have extradition treaty agreements with the U.S.?
And yes, we have extradition treaties with the US - a few years ago, we dutifully handed over a hacker who had never set foot in US soil, because his activities were harming US profits somewhere.
EDIT: It reminds me of a Mad Magazine gag: One of the good things about being a senator is that you get to use the title The Honourable right up until they throw you in jail for all the things you did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The charges were already dropped, then the prosecutor mysteriously replaced and the case reopened. The whole thing is a farce so there's no reason to bother with any trial.
Nothing mysterious going on here. It's not uncommon for another prosecutor to reopen a case if there are reasonable grounds for it. You can't seriously argue that someone who is accused of rape should just be set free like that. Guilty or not he should stand trial.
If there's no substance to the allegations, yes, the person accused should absolutely just be set free like that. This is obvious.