Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

theage.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#111

Post by droithomme »

rmc wrote: post #27
adaml_623 wrote: post #14

Nice idea. Become a Senator and try for diplomatic immunity. Walk out of the Ecuadorian Embassy and wave goodbye to the police who have been waiting for him for the last umpteen months. The legal wrangling could become quite complicated if he succeeded. If the voters in Oz realise how annoyed the UK government would be if he did this then that would help his odds even more. For US residents I'll point out that Senate…

Why do you think the UK wouldn't be able to arrest him if he was an Australian senator? Some IRA terrorists were elected to the UK parliament while in prison. They still had to stay in prison. (the UK changed their laws to prevent anyone running for election if they are currently in prison)

> IRA terrorists

You seem confused to refer to freedom fighters defending their nation against the tyranny of the british imperialists in such a manner.

End the illegal English occupation of Ireland.

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#112

Post by tobylane »

droithomme wrote: post #111
rmc wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think the UK wouldn't be able to arrest him if he was an Australian senator? Some IRA terrorists were elected to the UK parliament while in prison. They still had to stay in prison. (the UK changed their laws to prevent anyone running for election if they are currently in prison)

> IRA terrorists You seem confused to refer to freedom fighters defending their nation against the tyranny of the british imperialists in such a manner. End the illegal English occupation of Ireland.

I've never heard it called illegal before, can you expand on that,

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#113

Post by chris_wot »

venus wrote: post #98
chris_wot wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worst of both worlds. To my mind, it seems to me that they have rudderless leadership, and lazy journalism. I severely doubt they know anything about the South West of Sydney, for instance. That would require leaving the North Shore occasionally :-)

I resent the suggestion that North Shore residents aren't aware of Sydney's South. I go to the airport all the time, and that's as south as it gets. As for the West I'll have you know I have been through Strathfield several times, and I once even flew over Parramatta. Hope I've busted a few stereotypes here tonight!

Are you a journalist? If so, apologies. Otherwise, no stereotype busted.

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#114

Post by chris_wot »

coopdog wrote: post #110
chris_wot wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've not bothered reading the SMH (and by extension, The Age) online for a long time. The online version is weak, lazy journalism, incredibly (to my mind) even worse than The Daily Telegraph . Check out www.smh.com.au now... More than a third of the articles are about celebrities, or are vapid commentary on meaningless issues. There's a bit of content, but nothing really groundbreaking. And today is a day when there…

If you knew just how understaffed they were compared to even just a few years ago. The money left print media with the classifieds and they can't afford to pay for journalism (which was always a cost center) any more, everyone is doing about 8 jobs and just printing press releases. Combine that with inefficient layers of management fat from the good times and employees who haven't upskilled in decades (again, a produ…

If they can't afford to pay for journalism, then not sure the point of running a newspaper.

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#115

Post by jacques_chester »

vidarh wrote: post #102
jacques_chester wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Such as their dogged insistence they couldn't possibly question him in London, despite the fact they have questioned other suspects abroad, and recently, in far more serious crimes (suspected murderers, for example) prior to extradition. Assange is not wanted for questioning. He is under warrant of arrest. These are not the same thing. At all. He hasn't been charged because he cannot in Swedish law be charged witho…

I find it quite telling that you choose to belabour this point rather than address the other issues. He is under warrant of arrest, yes. And in Scandinavia this is used to bring someone in for questioning . This is what the prosecutor has repeatedly claimed is the purpose of the arrest warrant. It is normal for such arrest warrants to be dropped with no subsequent charges. It also happens that they result in formal c…

> I find it quite telling that you choose to belabour this point rather than address the other issues.

It's because that's the point you keep raising all over the place.

Assange does not get to dictate the process that applies. Swedish law requires an "interrogation" before charges are laid and arrest is the next step.

> You repeatedly appear to try to make it sound as if the existence of an arrest warrant from Swedish authorities means far more than it does.

You repeatedly read motives into what I am saying.

Due process is the same for everyone. Assange is not an exception.

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#116

Post by jacques_chester »

vidarh wrote: post #100
jacques_chester wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that the allegations have been found to have substance. Enough to support arrest and in due course for charges to be laid in either Sweden or England. The English courts have twice ruled that were the complaints brought in England by English citizens, Assange would be liable to arrest and charges being laid. That is the basis of extradition to face trial. Most countries have a multi-stage system of decidi…

> Enough to support arrest and in due course for charges to be laid in either Sweden or England. This is only half true. The allegations have been found to constitute a crime if they are true. Therefore they are sufficient to justify an arrest warrant in Sweden, and I have described why that means nothing. You can swear at a police officer in Scandinavia, and if you're lucky you'll find yourself arrested (and release…

> You can swear at a police officer in Scandinavia, and if you're lucky you'll find yourself arrested (and released before they'd need to formally charge you with anything).

We have that in English-speaking countries too. It's called "Disturbing the Peace", or sometimes "Disorderly Conduct".

And it is not as serious as rape.

> A new prosecutor, a friend of the lawyer who represents the alleged victims, reopened the case. This in itself is at least highly unusual.

Then Assange should challenge that in the Swedish courts when he gets there.

> The prosecutor has violated procedure by interviewing witnesses over the phone, possibly invalidating their statements.

Then Assange should challenge that in the Swedish courts when he gets there.

> The prosecutor refuses to interview him abroad, alleging it can't be done, despite the fact that Swedish police did this with murder suspects after the extradition request against Assange was issued, and before the decision was handed down. Somehow different rules apply to Assange than people wanted for murder.

Assange is kinda obviously a flight risk.

> You can claim "everybody gets the same process" all you want, but it is provably false.

You are confusing the process, which is identical for everyone, with the idea that it is being executed by some omnibenevolent hypercomputer.

There are fuckups in every prosecution ever. The role of the courts, and then the appeal courts, and then ultimate courts, is to sort out which fuckups fatally break a case.

Assange has totally exhausted his legal opportunities in England; if he wants to receive further legal recourse then he will have to play it the Swedish way.

And if you think the Swedes would be stupid enough to hand such a high profile person over to the CIA, then I suspect you have embraced the exciting life of a conspiratard and we have nothing more to discuss.

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#117

Post by jacques_chester »

hexagonc wrote: post #105
jacques_chester wrote: post #16

So far as I can make out ... he can't stand. Australian Constitution, s16: "The qualification of a senator shall be the same as those of a member of the House of Representatives." s34(i): "... must be an elector entitled to vote at the election of members of the House of Representatives, or a person qualified to become such an elector ..." Australians are allowed to be overseas electors only if they intend to return…

If questions of residence are in consideration, you would think things would be complicated by his request for asylum from Ecuador. That certainly doesn't suggest he intends to return to Australia in 6 years.

Excellent point.

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#118

Post by tedunangst »

vidarh wrote: post #101
jacques_chester wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two constables standing out front of the embassy is hardly "massive resources". They know where Assange is. They know that the UK is obliged to arrest him. And they know that he has snubbed the English justice system which I imagine they feel a bit dark about. Basically the amount of conspiracy theorising around the Assange case is getting flatly silly. It's the HN/Reddit equivalent of truthers and birthers. An embar…

> Two constables standing out front of the embassy is hardly "massive resources". It is far more than they spend on a lot of people that are wanted. 24/7 means shifts, which means we're talking about 10+ people full time to have 2 people stationed there at any time. I can think of any number of places where investing 10+ officers full time would do far more positive for society - including preventing serious crimes.…

I imagine he gets a bit more attention than usual because he's considered a flight risk. Also, unlike (I presume) other wanted individuals, they do know exactly where he is; they just can't get to him.

Re: Julian Assange to run for Australian Senate

#119

Post by uvdiv »

rmc wrote: post #103
uvdiv wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's UK law applied to UK lawmakers; there's nothing diplomatic about that.

Sure, but it shows the UK government has no problem jailing UK parliamentarians . What makes you think they'd act differently for Australian parliamentarians?

Sure, but it shows the UK government has no problem jailing UK parliamentarians.

The British government would hardly protest British laws being applied to British citizens!

(Maybe you're thinking about some sort of separation of powers? Google suggests this isn't the case: British MPs can can be arrested, tried, and sentenced to prison, all while still in office. Apparently if the conviction is longer than 12 months, they are automatically (?) expelled from parliament.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8355298/Nick-Clegg-voters-sh...

Post reply on HN