Wikileaks founder Assange loses appeal against extradition to Sweden

[GentlemanJim]

This is really worth a read when trying to understand the lack of reciprocity in UK-US extraditions.

http://www.statewatc.../jul/25ukus.htm

Everything is well researched and referenced at the bottom of the article. It list facts and points of law.

A couple of little gems.

The UK-US Treaty has three main effects:

- (1) it removes the requirement on the US to provide prima facie evidence when requesting the extradition of people from the UK but maintains the requirement on the UK to satisfy the "probable cause" requirement in the US when seeking the extradition of US nationals;

- (2) it removes or restricts key protections currently open to suspects and defendants;

- (3) it implements the EU-US Treaty on extradition, signed in Washington on 25 June 2003, but far exceeds the provisions in this agreement.

An analysis of the new UK-US Treaty - which will replace the 1972 UK-US Treaty - follows below, together with a number of relevant cases and issues that raise serious concern about the new agreement (and those between the EU and US).

Ben Hayes of Statewatch comments:

"Under the new treaty, the allegations of the US government will be enough to secure the extradition of people from the UK. However, if the UK wants to extradite someone from the US, evidence to the standard of a "reasonable" demonstration of guilt will still be required.

No other EU countries would accept this US demand, either politically or constitutionally. Yet the UK government not only acquiesced, but did so taking advantage of arcane legislative powers to see the treaty signed and implemented without any parliamentary debate or scrutiny.

The following statement is of interest. Basically all the US have to do is ask for you and you are buggered. However if the UK wants anyone it must jump through a set of hoops that the US no longer needs to jump through. I leave you to read the article/report, it is essential if you have an interest in the murky business of extradition.

In effect, the evidence requirement on the US has been dropped altogether while the UK must still provide evidence to the standard of a 'reasonable' demonstration of guilt. As Justice note in a recent briefing on the treaty [5], the reasoning behind this lack of reciprocity is:

"that the United States has a constitutional protection which prevents it from extraditing a US citizen purely on the say-so of a foreign government. As the UK does not have such a constitutional protection, the UK is at liberty to forego this important safeguard in the interests of speeding up extraditions to the US"

Edited March 1, 2012 by GentlemanJim

[Credo]

Well why on Earth would Britain agree to a treaty that is seemingly so unfair?

Perhaps Mr. Assange is better off in Sweden.

[koheesti]

The following statement is of interest. Basically all the US have to do is ask for you and you are buggered. However if the UK wants anyone it must jump through a set of hoops that the US no longer needs to jump through. I leave you to read the article/report, it is essential if you have an interest in the murky business of extradition.

In effect, the evidence requirement on the US has been dropped altogether while the UK must still provide evidence to the standard of a 'reasonable' demonstration of guilt. As Justice note in a recent briefing on the treaty [5], the reasoning behind this lack of reciprocity is:

"that the United States has a constitutional protection which prevents it from extraditing a US citizen purely on the say-so of a foreign government. As the UK does not have such a constitutional protection, the UK is at liberty to forego this important safeguard in the interests of speeding up extraditions to the US"

So basically it is illegal in the US for the US gov't to hand over its citizens without proof but in the UK the UK gov't has no such restrictions? The Founding Fathers were thinking ahead. I guess having to deal with ol' King George gave them that foresight.

[GentlemanJim]

The following statement is of interest. Basically all the US have to do is ask for you and you are buggered. However if the UK wants anyone it must jump through a set of hoops that the US no longer needs to jump through. I leave you to read the article/report, it is essential if you have an interest in the murky business of extradition.

In effect, the evidence requirement on the US has been dropped altogether while the UK must still provide evidence to the standard of a 'reasonable' demonstration of guilt. As Justice note in a recent briefing on the treaty [5], the reasoning behind this lack of reciprocity is:

"that the United States has a constitutional protection which prevents it from extraditing a US citizen purely on the say-so of a foreign government. As the UK does not have such a constitutional protection, the UK is at liberty to forego this important safeguard in the interests of speeding up extraditions to the US"

So basically it is illegal in the US for the US gov't to hand over its citizens without proof but in the UK the UK gov't has no such restrictions? The Founding Fathers were thinking ahead. I guess having to deal with ol' King George gave them that foresight.

I think you need to read the full report!

[chuckd]

What's the big hoop-la with an alleged sealed indictment?

Wikileaks sent me fake e-mails after they got my e-mail address so what's to stop them from putting fake e-mails in the Stratfor steal claiming the sealed indictment is fact.

If you people can now trust Wikileaks then you are not nearly as smart as I assumed.

They have an agenda and the rumor of a secret sealed indictment of Assange would be right up their alley to promote freedom for their house arrested leader.

I'll believe it when it is officially unsealed and will welcome it with open arms.

[chuckd]

This is really worth a read when trying to understand the lack of reciprocity in UK-US extraditions.

http://www.statewatc.../jul/25ukus.htm

Everything is well researched and referenced at the bottom of the article. It list facts and points of law.

A couple of little gems.

The UK-US Treaty has three main effects:

- (1) it removes the requirement on the US to provide prima facie evidence when requesting the extradition of people from the UK but maintains the requirement on the UK to satisfy the "probable cause" requirement in the US when seeking the extradition of US nationals;

- (2) it removes or restricts key protections currently open to suspects and defendants;

- (3) it implements the EU-US Treaty on extradition, signed in Washington on 25 June 2003, but far exceeds the provisions in this agreement.

An analysis of the new UK-US Treaty - which will replace the 1972 UK-US Treaty - follows below, together with a number of relevant cases and issues that raise serious concern about the new agreement (and those between the EU and US).

Ben Hayes of Statewatch comments:

"Under the new treaty, the allegations of the US government will be enough to secure the extradition of people from the UK. However, if the UK wants to extradite someone from the US, evidence to the standard of a "reasonable" demonstration of guilt will still be required.

No other EU countries would accept this US demand, either politically or constitutionally. Yet the UK government not only acquiesced, but did so taking advantage of arcane legislative powers to see the treaty signed and implemented without any parliamentary debate or scrutiny.

The following statement is of interest. Basically all the US have to do is ask for you and you are buggered. However if the UK wants anyone it must jump through a set of hoops that the US no longer needs to jump through. I leave you to read the article/report, it is essential if you have an interest in the murky business of extradition.

In effect, the evidence requirement on the US has been dropped altogether while the UK must still provide evidence to the standard of a 'reasonable' demonstration of guilt. As Justice note in a recent briefing on the treaty [5], the reasoning behind this lack of reciprocity is:

"that the United States has a constitutional protection which prevents it from extraditing a US citizen purely on the say-so of a foreign government. As the UK does not have such a constitutional protection, the UK is at liberty to forego this important safeguard in the interests of speeding up extraditions to the US"

What does the extradition treaty between the US and the UK have to do with Assange?

Did I miss the headline where his extradition had been requested by the US?

[GentlemanJim]

This is really worth a read when trying to understand the lack of reciprocity in UK-US extraditions.

http://www.statewatc.../jul/25ukus.htm

Everything is well researched and referenced at the bottom of the article. It list facts and points of law.

A couple of little gems.

The UK-US Treaty has three main effects:

- (1) it removes the requirement on the US to provide prima facie evidence when requesting the extradition of people from the UK but maintains the requirement on the UK to satisfy the "probable cause" requirement in the US when seeking the extradition of US nationals;

- (2) it removes or restricts key protections currently open to suspects and defendants;

- (3) it implements the EU-US Treaty on extradition, signed in Washington on 25 June 2003, but far exceeds the provisions in this agreement.

An analysis of the new UK-US Treaty - which will replace the 1972 UK-US Treaty - follows below, together with a number of relevant cases and issues that raise serious concern about the new agreement (and those between the EU and US).

Ben Hayes of Statewatch comments:

"Under the new treaty, the allegations of the US government will be enough to secure the extradition of people from the UK. However, if the UK wants to extradite someone from the US, evidence to the standard of a "reasonable" demonstration of guilt will still be required.

No other EU countries would accept this US demand, either politically or constitutionally. Yet the UK government not only acquiesced, but did so taking advantage of arcane legislative powers to see the treaty signed and implemented without any parliamentary debate or scrutiny.

The following statement is of interest. Basically all the US have to do is ask for you and you are buggered. However if the UK wants anyone it must jump through a set of hoops that the US no longer needs to jump through. I leave you to read the article/report, it is essential if you have an interest in the murky business of extradition.

In effect, the evidence requirement on the US has been dropped altogether while the UK must still provide evidence to the standard of a 'reasonable' demonstration of guilt. As Justice note in a recent briefing on the treaty [5], the reasoning behind this lack of reciprocity is:

"that the United States has a constitutional protection which prevents it from extraditing a US citizen purely on the say-so of a foreign government. As the UK does not have such a constitutional protection, the UK is at liberty to forego this important safeguard in the interests of speeding up extraditions to the US"

What does the extradition treaty between the US and the UK have to do with Assange?

Did I miss the headline where his extradition had been requested by the US?

If you feel you have no need to read it, then you are neither obliged to do so, nor are you obliged to comment.

[chuckd]

What does the extradition treaty between the US and the UK have to do with Assange?

Did I miss the headline where his extradition had been requested by the US?

If you feel you have no need to read it, then you are neither obliged to do so, nor are you obliged to comment.

You tell others to read the post through to completion and then tell me not to read it.

I read it in its entirety and found it to be a "hate USA" blog site, particularly when they reached the final 10 areas of concern in dealing with the US.

1. The US regularly breaches international law

2. The US is legally and politically unaccountable

3. US contempt for the International Criminal Court

4. Guantanamo Bay, military tribunals and breach of the Geneva Conventions

5. US lack of evidence: Lofti Raissi

6. US non-disclosure of evidence: the Kashamu case

7. US breaches of speciality in extradition cases

8. Breaches of by the US of mutual legal assistance rules

9. Mistaken identity

10. Beyond the pale? Abduction

I imagine Ann Coulter wouldn't like the site much either.

[Scott]

Any further reference to a particular country, as well as links, had better be about Assange.

[Wallaby]

There is a recent update on this case from our Sydney Morning Herald.

I note a couple of things in the article....

Mr Rudd said ''no formal advice'' had been received from US authorities but acknowledged the existence of a ''temporary surrender'' mechanism that could allow Mr Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the US.

and

Mr Farnham also referred to a conversation with a close family friend who he said knew one of the Swedish women who had made allegations of sexual assault against Mr Assange, and added: ''There is absolutely nothing behind it other than prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/revealed-us-plans-to-charge-assange-20120228-1u14o.html#ixzz1oP4sJvM3

[chuckd]

There is a recent update on this case from our Sydney Morning Herald.

I note a couple of things in the article....

Mr Rudd said ''no formal advice'' had been received from US authorities but acknowledged the existence of a ''temporary surrender'' mechanism that could allow Mr Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the US.

and

Mr Farnham also referred to a conversation with a close family friend who he said knew one of the Swedish women who had made allegations of sexual assault against Mr Assange, and added: ''There is absolutely nothing behind it other than prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1oP4sJvM3

Wallaby:

Are you down to "clutching at straws"?

[koheesti]

There is a recent update on this case from our Sydney Morning Herald.

I note a couple of things in the article....

Mr Rudd said ''no formal advice'' had been received from US authorities but acknowledged the existence of a ''temporary surrender'' mechanism that could allow Mr Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the US.

and

Mr Farnham also referred to a conversation with a close family friend who he said knew one of the Swedish women who had made allegations of sexual assault against Mr Assange, and added: ''There is absolutely nothing behind it other than prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1oP4sJvM3

Wallaby:

Are you down to "clutching at straws"?

Sounds like a case of he said-he said-she said. I'll have to ask around my Swedish friends. I wouldn't be surprised if one of them had a friend who has a friend who knows one the women in question. Maybe they can shed light on the real truth!

[Wallaby]

There is a recent update on this case from our Sydney Morning Herald.

I note a couple of things in the article....

Mr Rudd said ''no formal advice'' had been received from US authorities but acknowledged the existence of a ''temporary surrender'' mechanism that could allow Mr Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the US.

and

Mr Farnham also referred to a conversation with a close family friend who he said knew one of the Swedish women who had made allegations of sexual assault against Mr Assange, and added: ''There is absolutely nothing behind it other than prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1oP4sJvM3

Wallaby:

Are you down to "clutching at straws"?

Just posting the latest of what has occured. These quotes aren't just from a normal Jo Bloggs on the street. There is also a lot of pressure on our govt at the moment to make public what it knew or knows of any indictment.

I'm the first to admit I don't know much about the US judicial system so may I ask what is the necessity for issuing an indictment in secret? I just don't know if other 'first world' countries do this. I would have thought just a standard international arrest warrant would suffice.

Unless they want it secret hoping he goes to the US then they can ambush him.

Either way, just posting what has happened lately, consider it in any way you wish or just disregard it.

[chuckd]

There is a recent update on this case from our Sydney Morning Herald.

I note a couple of things in the article....

Mr Rudd said ''no formal advice'' had been received from US authorities but acknowledged the existence of a ''temporary surrender'' mechanism that could allow Mr Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the US.

and

Mr Farnham also referred to a conversation with a close family friend who he said knew one of the Swedish women who had made allegations of sexual assault against Mr Assange, and added: ''There is absolutely nothing behind it other than prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1oP4sJvM3

Wallaby:

Are you down to "clutching at straws"?

Just posting the latest of what has occured. These quotes aren't just from a normal Jo Bloggs on the street. There is also a lot of pressure on our govt at the moment to make public what it knew or knows of any indictment.

I'm the first to admit I don't know much about the US judicial system so may I ask what is the necessity for issuing an indictment in secret? I just don't know if other 'first world' countries do this. I would have thought just a standard international arrest warrant would suffice.

Unless they want it secret hoping he goes to the US then they can ambush him.

Either way, just posting what has happened lately, consider it in any way you wish or just disregard it.

Many Federal Grand Juries issue sealed indictments, so that is nothing unusual. Generally it is done to protect sources and to keep the indictment public from possible suspects. Suspects have been known to flee to foreign lands if they fear an indictment.

Some might even hide in Iceland.

Keep smiling Wallaby. All in good fun.

[Wallaby]

There is a recent update on this case from our Sydney Morning Herald.

I note a couple of things in the article....

Mr Rudd said ''no formal advice'' had been received from US authorities but acknowledged the existence of a ''temporary surrender'' mechanism that could allow Mr Assange to be extradited from Sweden to the US.

and

Mr Farnham also referred to a conversation with a close family friend who he said knew one of the Swedish women who had made allegations of sexual assault against Mr Assange, and added: ''There is absolutely nothing behind it other than prosecutors that are looking to make a name for themselves.''

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1oP4sJvM3

Wallaby:

Are you down to "clutching at straws"?

Just posting the latest of what has occured. These quotes aren't just from a normal Jo Bloggs on the street. There is also a lot of pressure on our govt at the moment to make public what it knew or knows of any indictment.

I'm the first to admit I don't know much about the US judicial system so may I ask what is the necessity for issuing an indictment in secret? I just don't know if other 'first world' countries do this. I would have thought just a standard international arrest warrant would suffice.

Unless they want it secret hoping he goes to the US then they can ambush him.

Either way, just posting what has happened lately, consider it in any way you wish or just disregard it.

Many Federal Grand Juries issue sealed indictments, so that is nothing unusual. Generally it is done to protect sources and to keep the indictment public from possible suspects. Suspects have been known to flee to foreign lands if they fear an indictment.

Some might even hide in Iceland.

Keep smiling Wallaby. All in good fun.

No problem chuck, always smiling, unless I have a 4 footer for $20 with only $10 in my pocket.

[chooka]

Assange planning run for Senate seat

March 17, 2012 - 5:13PM

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange plans to run for a seat in the Australian Senate, despite being under house arrest in the United Kingdom, the whistleblower group has tweeted.

Wikileaks announced its intentions on Saturday, saying the organisation also planned to field a candidate to run against Prime Minister Julia Gillard in her seat of Lalor at the next election.

"We have discovered that it is possible for Julian Assange to run for the Australian Senate while detained. Julian has decided to run," the Wikileaks website tweeted.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/assange-planning-run-for-senate-seat-20120317-1vc0k.html#ixzz1pM13wnle

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1pM07sbee

Has a fair amount of support in Australia and this may just upset the Americans just a little if he becomes a senator. Who knows Minister for foreign Affairs and the U.S will have to kiss is rear end.

Edited March 17, 2012 by chooka

[chuckd]

Assange planning run for Senate seat

March 17, 2012 - 5:13PM

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange plans to run for a seat in the Australian Senate, despite being under house arrest in the United Kingdom, the whistleblower group has tweeted.

Wikileaks announced its intentions on Saturday, saying the organisation also planned to field a candidate to run against Prime Minister Julia Gillard in her seat of Lalor at the next election.

"We have discovered that it is possible for Julian Assange to run for the Australian Senate while detained. Julian has decided to run," the Wikileaks website tweeted.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1pM13wnle

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1pM07sbee

Has a fair amount of support in Australia and this may just upset the Americans just a little if he becomes a senator. Who knows Minister for foreign Affairs and the U.S will have to kiss is rear end.

[softgeorge]

Assange planning run for Senate seat

March 17, 2012 - 5:13PM

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange plans to run for a seat in the Australian Senate, despite being under house arrest in the United Kingdom, the whistleblower group has tweeted.

Wikileaks announced its intentions on Saturday, saying the organisation also planned to field a candidate to run against Prime Minister Julia Gillard in her seat of Lalor at the next election.

"We have discovered that it is possible for Julian Assange to run for the Australian Senate while detained. Julian has decided to run," the Wikileaks website tweeted.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1pM13wnle

Read more: http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz1pM07sbee

Has a fair amount of support in Australia and this may just upset the Americans just a little if he becomes a senator. Who knows Minister for foreign Affairs and the U.S will have to kiss is rear end.

He has my vote.

This story just broke in Australia and should be be added to world news as a separate story.

Edited March 17, 2012 by softgeorge

[softgeorge]

WikiLeaks' Assange to run for Australian Senate

Agence France-PresseMarch 17, 2012 2:01 AM

[chuckd]

This article out today, with pertinent parts of it quoted...

So could this be simply another fund raising publicity stunt costing the Australian taxpayers?

_________________________________________________________

WikiLeaks' Assange plans bid for Australian Senate

By ROD McGUIRK | Associated Press – 14 hrs ago

"Every Australian election attracts candidates who have little hope of winning and use their campaigns to seek publicity for various political or commercial causes.

Wanna said the odds are against Assange winning a seat, but that he could receive more than 4 percent of the votes in his nominated state because of his high profile. At that threshold, candidates can claim more than $2 per vote from the government to offset their campaign expenses. Assange's bill to the taxpayer could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars."

http://news.yahoo.co...-080938549.html

[chooka]

He couldn't possibly do any worse than the current crop of politicians both ruling party and opposition. He also has a lot of sympathy in Australia with what is going on and there is also a lot of anti american thoughts in Aust in regards to his case. (sorry if this appears American bashing but it is not intended)

[OzMick]

This article out today, with pertinent parts of it quoted...

So could this be simply another fund raising publicity stunt costing the Australian taxpayers?

_________________________________________________________

WikiLeaks' Assange plans bid for Australian Senate

By ROD McGUIRK | Associated Press – 14 hrs ago

"Every Australian election attracts candidates who have little hope of winning and use their campaigns to seek publicity for various political or commercial causes.

Wanna said the odds are against Assange winning a seat, but that he could receive more than 4 percent of the votes in his nominated state because of his high profile. At that threshold, candidates can claim more than $2 per vote from the government to offset their campaign expenses. Assange's bill to the taxpayer could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars."

http://news.yahoo.co...-080938549.html

A fixed number of senators are elected for each state, so that the number of votes required to become a senator for the smaller states is actually quite small, yet they can wield immense influence in tight parliaments.

I'll take Assange's ideas any time over tree-hugging Greens and anti-contraceptive religious idiots.

[chuckd]

This article out today, with pertinent parts of it quoted...

So could this be simply another fund raising publicity stunt costing the Australian taxpayers?

_________________________________________________________

WikiLeaks' Assange plans bid for Australian Senate

By ROD McGUIRK | Associated Press – 14 hrs ago

"Every Australian election attracts candidates who have little hope of winning and use their campaigns to seek publicity for various political or commercial causes.

Wanna said the odds are against Assange winning a seat, but that he could receive more than 4 percent of the votes in his nominated state because of his high profile. At that threshold, candidates can claim more than $2 per vote from the government to offset their campaign expenses. Assange's bill to the taxpayer could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars."

http://news.yahoo.co...-080938549.html

A fixed number of senators are elected for each state, so that the number of votes required to become a senator for the smaller states is actually quite small, yet they can wield immense influence in tight parliaments.

I'll take Assange's ideas any time over tree-hugging Greens and anti-contraceptive religious idiots.

...and what are his political ideas?

[koheesti]

This article out today, with pertinent parts of it quoted...

So could this be simply another fund raising publicity stunt costing the Australian taxpayers?

_________________________________________________________

WikiLeaks' Assange plans bid for Australian Senate

By ROD McGUIRK | Associated Press – 14 hrs ago

"Every Australian election attracts candidates who have little hope of winning and use their campaigns to seek publicity for various political or commercial causes.

Wanna said the odds are against Assange winning a seat, but that he could receive more than 4 percent of the votes in his nominated state because of his high profile. At that threshold, candidates can claim more than $2 per vote from the government to offset their campaign expenses. Assange's bill to the taxpayer could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars."

http://news.yahoo.co...-080938549.html

A fixed number of senators are elected for each state, so that the number of votes required to become a senator for the smaller states is actually quite small, yet they can wield immense influence in tight parliaments.

I'll take Assange's ideas any time over tree-hugging Greens and anti-contraceptive religious idiots.

...and what are his political ideas?

I would say that around 95% of his supporters don't know, don't care, and would vote for him anyway.

[OzMick]

This article out today, with pertinent parts of it quoted...

So could this be simply another fund raising publicity stunt costing the Australian taxpayers?

_________________________________________________________

WikiLeaks' Assange plans bid for Australian Senate

By ROD McGUIRK | Associated Press – 14 hrs ago

"Every Australian election attracts candidates who have little hope of winning and use their campaigns to seek publicity for various political or commercial causes.

Wanna said the odds are against Assange winning a seat, but that he could receive more than 4 percent of the votes in his nominated state because of his high profile. At that threshold, candidates can claim more than $2 per vote from the government to offset their campaign expenses. Assange's bill to the taxpayer could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars."

http://news.yahoo.co...-080938549.html

A fixed number of senators are elected for each state, so that the number of votes required to become a senator for the smaller states is actually quite small, yet they can wield immense influence in tight parliaments.

I'll take Assange's ideas any time over tree-hugging Greens and anti-contraceptive religious idiots.

...and what are his political ideas?

I would say that around 95% of his supporters don't know, don't care, and would vote for him anyway.

While he hasn't yet put forward a platform, one could guess he would be pro open government and anti court persecution.

IMHO more vote-worthy than Family First, Save Our Children, I Want A Gun, Save the Disabled Black Lesbian Whales, and Praise the Lord and Pass the Money Parties.

[midas]

This article out today, with pertinent parts of it quoted...

So could this be simply another fund raising publicity stunt costing the Australian taxpayers?

_________________________________________________________

WikiLeaks' Assange plans bid for Australian Senate

By ROD McGUIRK | Associated Press – 14 hrs ago

"Every Australian election attracts candidates who have little hope of winning and use their campaigns to seek publicity for various political or commercial causes.

Wanna said the odds are against Assange winning a seat, but that he could receive more than 4 percent of the votes in his nominated state because of his high profile. At that threshold, candidates can claim more than $2 per vote from the government to offset their campaign expenses. Assange's bill to the taxpayer could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars."

http://news.yahoo.co...-080938549.html

A fixed number of senators are elected for each state, so that the number of votes required to become a senator for the smaller states is actually quite small, yet they can wield immense influence in tight parliaments.

I'll take Assange's ideas any time over tree-hugging Greens and anti-contraceptive religious idiots.

...and what are his political ideas?

I would say that around 95% of his supporters don't know, don't care, and would vote for him anyway.

That sounds like Barack Obama!

[softgeorge]

This article out today, with pertinent parts of it quoted...

So could this be simply another fund raising publicity stunt costing the Australian taxpayers?

_________________________________________________________

WikiLeaks' Assange plans bid for Australian Senate

By ROD McGUIRK | Associated Press – 14 hrs ago

"Every Australian election attracts candidates who have little hope of winning and use their campaigns to seek publicity for various political or commercial causes.

Wanna said the odds are against Assange winning a seat, but that he could receive more than 4 percent of the votes in his nominated state because of his high profile. At that threshold, candidates can claim more than $2 per vote from the government to offset their campaign expenses. Assange's bill to the taxpayer could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars."

http://news.yahoo.co...-080938549.html

A fixed number of senators are elected for each state, so that the number of votes required to become a senator for the smaller states is actually quite small, yet they can wield immense influence in tight parliaments.

I'll take Assange's ideas any time over tree-hugging Greens and anti-contraceptive religious idiots.

...and what are his political ideas?

I would say that around 95% of his supporters don't know, don't care, and would vote for him anyway.

He is from Nth Queensland (Townsville) a real blue blood ocker area where the Aussie spirit is alive and well. Senator ASSANGE yes it is a real possibilty

[chuckd]

A fixed number of senators are elected for each state, so that the number of votes required to become a senator for the smaller states is actually quite small, yet they can wield immense influence in tight parliaments.

I'll take Assange's ideas any time over tree-hugging Greens and anti-contraceptive religious idiots.

...and what are his political ideas?

I would say that around 95% of his supporters don't know, don't care, and would vote for him anyway.

He is from Nth Queensland (Townsville) a real blue blood ocker area where the Aussie spirit is alive and well. Senator ASSANGE yes it is a real possibilty

If he gets elected, would Australia have to request his extradition for him to serve in your Senate?

[koheesti]

If he gets elected, would he get diplomatic immunity? I know in Russia MPs had immunity, not sure if that is still the case. Back around 1995-96 there was a pyramid scheme crook named Sergei Mavrodi. The scheme fell apart, many people lost everything and he ran for parliament on the platform of "I can't give you your money back if I'm in jail". He won, got his immunity and never gave any money back. Maybe Assange is counting on something similar? Sweden won't be able to do anything and the CIA will leave him alone. Hmmm, maybe the first one at least.

[chuckd]

If he gets elected, would he get diplomatic immunity? I know in Russia MPs had immunity, not sure if that is still the case. Back around 1995-96 there was a pyramid scheme crook named Sergei Mavrodi. The scheme fell apart, many people lost everything and he ran for parliament on the platform of "I can't give you your money back if I'm in jail". He won, got his immunity and never gave any money back. Maybe Assange is counting on something similar? Sweden won't be able to do anything and the CIA will leave him alone. Hmmm, maybe the first one at least.

In the US, as a Senator he would only get immunity if he was performing his official duties when he might have broken the law.

So, if having unprotected sex with a passing acquaintance in Sweden is an official duty of an Australian Senator, then he would have diplomatic immunity.

Maybe the Aussies could provide an answer to the official duty part.