

Assange 'to run for Australian senate'  - sathishmanohar
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/03/201231783350968878.html

======
orbitingpluto
I think the point is that the auspices of diplomatic immunity will force even
the USA to handle him with kid gloves.

It's kind of hard to charge someone with espionage when they are running
another country. Unless the USA is also planning on snapping up Mikhail
Gorbachev for espionage the next time he's in town, I think it's a brilliant
play.

~~~
rprasad
Diplomatic community does not extend to foreign legislators. It covers only
those who are official diplomats of a foreign country (or those accorded
derivative rights, such as immediate family of diplomats). Note that the right
applies to the foreign country, not the individuals representing it, so the
foreign country may choose (or not) to exercise the immunity.

While many countries (especially Middle-eastern countries) abuse diplomatic
immunity with regards to smaller crimes (and especially parking tickets), most
countries choose not to exercise the immunity in the case of felonies (except
where the death penalty is on the table). Alternatively, the country will
exercise the immunity but will then honor an extradition request.

IOW, unless Assange gets himself appointed as a _diplomat_ of Australia, he's
done nothing to improve his situation in the US.

~~~
ma2rten
From the wikileak article linked below:

"Having Julian Assange elected to the Senate would give him some advantages,
at the very least the embarrassment of the Australian government having to
communicate to whatever authority in Sweden - or the USA as the case may be -
about 'Senator Assange' or, if ensconced in Parliament, the embarrassment for
Attorney General Nicola Roxon if ASIO was found to have tapped Julian
Assange's parliamentary phone and internet connection."

Then it goes on about starting a wikileaks party and actually archiving some
political change.

~~~
rprasad
Which does nothing to improve his situation in the U.S. The U.S. already does
not have the jurisdiction to wiretap overseas; it must have local agencies do
so (and many of them agree to do so, pursuant to INTERPOL agreements).

The wlcentral article is clearly written by someone who does not understand
Parliamentary government (probably a fellow American). Members of parliament
are selected by the parties (rather than being elected directly), but the
parties must meet a minimum vote threshold to receive any seats.

~~~
nopassrecover
The cabinet (i.e. ministers) are appointed by the party with the most seats,
but members of parliament themselves are most certainly elected directly by
the local area which they represent.

The senate is a bit different, where you have the option to select either the
specific senators you want, or to delegate your votes to a party to allocate.

------
shirro
One of the advantages of being a member of parliament or a senator is that you
have Parliamentary Privilege for anything you say in the house or senate.
Perhaps if Assange got in he could leak stuff in the senate without having to
pretend to be a journalist. Quite a big advantage if you live in a country
with only an implied constitutional freedom of speech limited to political
matters vs punishing defamation laws.

If he were to enter politics it might be as effective a way to neuter him as a
show trial or assassination. Peter Lalor was one of the rebels at Australia's
only real civil insurrection/revolution, the Eureka Stockade, but when he got
into parliament he became an anti-democratic protector of wealth and
privilege. Then you have Peter Garrett of Midnight Oil "US forces give the
nod, its a setback for your country" fame who is a Labor minister and not at
all outspoken these days.

------
einhverfr
I wonder what the US will spend to defeat him.....

I bet the CIA is working out funding ideas right now.....

This being said, I wish him the best of luck. It's quite possible such efforts
might backfire if folks trace the money back far enough.

~~~
mindslight
Funding 'ideas' ? Take $Xmm out of pre-mixed drug-running slush fund, donate
to incumbent through multiple nyms, move on to six remaining tasks to do
before lunch.

~~~
joering2
not that I wish to anyone, but seriously a sole fact that Asange is still
alive proves to me a huge shift that happened at some point through US
government agencies like CIA with the way they deal with outsiders like
himself. Back in ole' days this guy would be quickly found hanging on the rope
with hands taped behind, and officials classifying it as a "suicide". Who
knows, perhaps he is just too darn popular right now for CIA to send someone
to shut him down permanently. I recall the politicians bashing him that he
endanger many US troops and US officials around the world with his
publications, but yet 3 years later you can't hear about a single instant that
someone got hurt due to Assange publications. I think down the line this guy
made more good than bad; next time US will plot another inappropriate scheme
between countries etc, they will think twice that sooner or later secrets can
leak. On the other hand, guys like Bradley are heroes to me, especially now
when he's going through hell served by US government. Respect!

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Manning>

~~~
mindslight
Things have shifted because they've had to. The CIA is in the business of
_clandestine_ operations, strongly preferring to support an existing entity
and failing that, small operations with extreme amounts of plausible
deniability. For one, JA is just the messenger (as you point out, BM is the
one who leaked the cables, and that damage has already been done), and JA
is/was not even all of WL (although don't tell that to JA..). but really,
since he's made it into the public spotlight, direct action is out of the
question and JA can only be taken down through an illusion of law and process.

------
sathishmanohar
I'd personally like to see, how a hacker runs a government.

~~~
zethraeus
I'm unsure as to why you were downvoted for this comment. I think it would be
terribly interesting to see the extent to which a hacker mentality was visible
and/or effective.

------
tnuc
First he would need to live in Australia. He doesn't seem able to do that.

~~~
dhbanes
This is not true:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_44_of_the_Constitution_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_44_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia)

~~~
tnuc
Looks like he is stuck in the UK under his bail conditions. So he is unable.

------
Maci
Further background information:

2012-01-02 A 'Wikileaks' party and #JA4Senate in the Australian polity: Can
Parliament be 'occupied'?

<http://wlcentral.org/node/2401>

------
nerdrider
A criminal record is mandatory...

~~~
dhughes
> Being convicted of a crime punishable under Australian law to 12 months or
> more in prison can disqualify a person from sitting in the Australian
> parliament for the duration of the sentence, even if that sentence is
> suspended.

That seems a bit odd considering Australia's history doesn't it?

~~~
shirro
Only if you are totally ignorant of history. My Australian state wasn't
settled by convicts just as the whole of the US wasn't settled by one ship
full of Puritans. My state had a planned colonisation by free settlers
attracted to civil and religious freedom and the promise of owning their own
land which probably had more in common with somewhere like New Zealand than
the penal colonies to the east.

~~~
vacri
It's just Americans thinking they're being funny about Australia, which is
ironic given their modern-day extremely high levels of incarceration. Even the
'penal colonies' weren't just penal colonies - there were a hell of a lot of
free settlers as well. Then the gold rushes hit and that's when things really
took off.

Besides, in the same period we were a 'penal colony', the Americans were
'slavers' - so much for not casting the first stone...

~~~
dhughes
You're assuming I'm in the USA.

I didn't write, imply or say at all that every person from day one until now
was a prisoner obviously not but I figured the subject would be viewed
differently in Australia.

~~~
vacri
I am assuming that you're from the USA, since most comments like that come
from Americans, and it's supported by the point you highlighted that comment
but didn't deny it.

Besides, I didn't say that all americans were slavers. That's not the point
I'm making. Your 'considering Australia's history' comment isn't "viewed
differently in Australia", it's just flat-out wrong. It's servicing a bigoted
stereotype ("people from X are Y, dontcha know") rather than reflecting
history.

In any case, Australia was federated on Jan 1 1901 - that's when the
constitution describing this came into play - a full half-century after the
end of the penal colony years, in itself a period of immense immigration.
Considering this history, why is it odd that people convicted of a lengthy
sentence be barred from holding high office?

~~~
dhughes
I'm Canadian.

I guess we're both guilty of being ignorant of distant lands.

~~~
vacri
Meh, justify it that way if you need to - I was making an assumption based on
observed behaviour, you were working from an inaccurate sterotype from 200
years ago.

~~~
dhughes
You were too.

