Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Julian Assange - Movement At The Station Pt 3  
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4027 posts, RR: 4
Posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2230 times:

The latest thing of interest to pop up in this saga is a very lengthy, but very revealing article by Jemima Khan (one of those who put up bail money for Assange) about the entire situation:

Quote:

It may well be that the serious allegations of sexual assault and rape are not substantiated in court, but I have come to the conclusion that these are all matters for Swedish due process and that Assange is undermining both himself and his own transparency agenda – as well as doing the US department of justice a favour – by making his refusal to answer questions in Sweden into a human rights issue.

There have been three rounds in the UK courts and the UK courts have upheld the European Arrest Warrant in his name three times. The women in question have human rights, too, and need resolution. Assange’s noble cause and his wish to avoid a US court does not trump their right to be heard in a Swedish court.

I don’t regret putting up bail money for Assange but I did it so that he would be released while awaiting trial, not so that he could avoid answering to the allegations.
http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/02/...ulian-assange-alienated-his-allies

Well worth an interesting read, she makes a lot of good points.

47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2230 times:

Also, very interesting article on the legal myths about the Assange extradition.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/da...al-myths-about-assange-extradition


User currently onlineFlyDeltaJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1895 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2221 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I think he should turn himself in, being that he is wanted for espionage in the US which is a death penalty crime under federal law, he would likely not be extradited to the US. Im sure his legal team knows this. Then in his defense, laws can be bent when needed especially when it comes to "national security" matters.


The only valid opinions are those based in facts
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7714 posts, RR: 21
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2194 times:

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 2):
I think he should turn himself in

He absolutely should. His actions simply reek of guilt.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2139 times:

(For more information on the legal aspects, see my comments in the earlier thread.)

@ FlyDeltaJets
" I think he should turn himself in, being that he is wanted for espionage in the US which is a death penalty crime under federal law"

Has an arrest warrant been issued? To date the US has not confirmed that it is seeking to extradite Assange, merely claimed that investigations are continuing. As Assange is an Australian citizen, the opinion of the Australian Government was sought and the Government wrote that it would not oppose any extradition request. The Australian Government has repeatedly stated that there has been no request made. Part of the problem in lodging a request is knowing under which legislation to frame it.

There would be little point in making an application with zero chance of success because the basis for the charge is a crime for which the death sentence is possible. Nor could the US Government simply promise that despite being charged he would not receive such a sentence: that would be overstepping the boundary between the executive and the judiciary. The best that the Government could do is say it would not demand the death penalty. But for a request to have a greater chance of success it would have to be based on charges that do not include the possibility of a death sentence being imposed.

But as you say, laws can be bent - or ignored altogether. Renditions, kill lists, etc. It is amazing how many EU countries have assisted in acts that are unlawful. In Sweden's case they did assist in the kidnapping of "suspects", shipped them out to Egypt where they were tortured, only to be later released. Following legal challenges, Sweden was later forced to pay compensation and grant citizenship to those "suspects."

@ moo
"very interesting article on the legal myths"

The New Statesman article is incorrect on the question of extradition from Sweden. Contrary to the claim it makes, the final decision would rest with the Government, not the courts. This is because an extradition request is a request from Government to another, not from one court to another, so it is the responsibility of the Minister to either grant or deny the request based on applicable law. The courts can decide whether there is any legal impediment to extradition and whether the Government "may" do so. The relevant legislation does not use the word "shall". There is a legal gulf between "may" and "shall", meaning that if the responsible Minister decides against extradition it would be within his/her powers to do so. All the Court can do is issue an order disallowing an extradition if the court rules that such extradition would be unlawful.

But all of this is speculative because a) Assange is still in the UK and b) no request has been made.


@ RussianJet
"His actions simply reek of guilt."

You would think that he would wish to avail himself of the opportunity to challenge the claims and clear his name if he is innocent. Yet the longer this goes on the more people will conclude that he has something to hide and that talk of possible extradition is simply a smoke screen.



changed 'the at' to 'that"

[Edited 2013-02-06 18:50:41]

User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3112 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2135 times:

Quoting FlyDeltaJets (Reply 2):
Then in his defense, laws can be bent when needed especially when it comes to "national security" matters.

Obama has got Drone's when dealing with security matters, laws can be bent or simply ignored, Assange may be safer in the US.

Okie


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2123 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 4):
Yet the longer this goes on the more people will conclude that he has something to hide and that talk of possible extradition is simply a smoke screen.



I for one concluded that from the very first, Quokkas. I'm sure that, from the very first, Assange and the Ecuadorian President visualised a quick ride to Heathrow in a diplomatic car, after which he would have been able to go on running Wikileaks from Ecuador, with Ecuador refusing extradition to Sweden. But neither of them checked whether the London embassy had a basement car park.

I'm equally sure that Assange has no plans at all for the future. He'll go on sitting in the Embassy like the proverbial 'rabbit in the headlights,' for the foreseeable future.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2087 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 6):
I'm sure that, from the very first, Assange and the Ecuadorian President visualised a quick ride to Heathrow in a diplomatic car, after which he would have been able to go on running Wikileaks from Ecuador, with Ecuador refusing extradition to Sweden. But neither of them checked whether the London embassy had a basement car park.

Not sure on that front, because Assange would have had to leave the car at some point to board the aircraft, and then he's fair game - he couldn't take the Channel Tunnel either, as the arrest warrant is an European one, so where could he go to escape it? He would have to remain in the car until he exited the EAW area, but then what if France refused him entry and sent him back?

I think Ecuador envisioned the British Government allowing him passage, which was a far fetched belief in the first place - but the more likely reality is Ecaudor doesn't give a toss about Assange, and was just looking for some good international stage time with the press. They didn't have an end game to this mess in mind, and thought that either Assange would cave quickly or the British Government would cave quickly.


User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2064 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 4):
Contrary to the claim it makes, the final decision would rest with the Government, not the courts.

Not, however, when an extradition carries a posibility of the death penalty being used. Then it will be blocked by the EU courts.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2062 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 8):
Not, however, when an extradition carries a posibility of the death penalty being used. Then it will be blocked by the EU courts.

All that needs to happen then is a guarantee from the prosecutors that they won't seek the death penalty. Been done before.


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2059 times:

@ bueb0g
"Not, however, when an extradition carries a possibility of the death penalty being used."

If that were the case (i.e. the request was made on charges which carried the death penalty) Swedish Courts would probably rule an extradition unlawful, so it would unlikely reach the ECHR. My point was that even if the Swedish Courts ruled that there was no legal impediment, the Government could still deny the request. In that sense the decision is in fact with the Government and not the court. Swedish legislation makes it clear that the court can rule on whether the Government "may" but not rule that it "shall". Whether the Government would wish to deny a request is another question.

The distinction between the powers of the courts and the powers of Minister was brought into sharp focus not too long ago in the UK. Recall the instance of some chap (McKinnon) wanted in the US, appeals and further appeals with all the various courts in the UK right through to the ECHR ruling that their was no reason to block the request on points of law. Still, the Minister refused the request. I don't wish to debate the rights or wrongs of that case, but it does highlight that requests are made Government to Government and it is in the power of a Government to refuse, but may only grant a request if it is in accordance with laws and treaties.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2034 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 9):
All that needs to happen then is a guarantee from the prosecutors that they won't seek the death penalty. Been done before.

Moo - with respect, you're falling into the 'trap' set by Assange and his mates. The only extradition request 'in view' is the Swedish one - which is about rape, which doesn't 'attract' the death penalty in Sweden (or in any other places I'm aware of)?

The United States has made no efforts to extradite Assange, and it appears unlikely that they will start now. Assange may have managed to fool his supporters into believing that, if he goes to Sweden, the USA will immediately seek his extradition from there; but a moment's thought reveals that notion to be 'wrong-headed.' The United States has much more of a 'special relationship' with the UK than it has with Sweden; if they really wanted to extradite Assange, they'd have a much better chance of extraditing him from the UK than they would have from Sweden.

IMO, The whole thing is a 'smokescreen' - Assange didn't fancy facing rape charges in Sweden (or anywhere else) so he dreamt up this 'US capital punishment' rubbish. More fool him - ironically, he's just about sentenced himself to 'life imprisonment' - in a smaller cell than he'd probably have to put up with in a Swedish prison, and with much less opportunity for any sort of exercise in the open air. And with no chance of 'parole for good conduct,' either.......  

IMO he's just a 'mug' - didn't think things through, and is now facing the consequences. He's just about made himself the complete 'non-person' in legal terms........



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2025 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 11):
Moo - with respect, you're falling into the 'trap' set by Assange and his mates.

With all due respect, no I'm not - its entirely possible to discuss the minutiae of a topic without agreeing with the validity of that topic.

Thus, its possible to discuss possible routes for a Sweden to US extradition, including why various arguments for and against such an extradition being possible and how certain road blocks aren't actually road blocks, without ever agreeing that Sweden has any current intention to extradite to the US, nor that the US has any intention of requesting an extradition.

The Swedish and European courts would block any extradition to the US for any charges which carry the death penalty as a possibility, but its entirely possible for the prosecutors to agree to the Swedish or European court that they would not seek the death penalty and that would remove that road block. If the prosecutors lied or changed their minds then they would be sought for contempt of court and could not visit the EU ever again.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1907 times:

Interesting new 'angle' - if only from my own personal situation:-

"WIKILEAKS founder Julian Assange is a step closer to contesting a Senate seat in the federal election, with an application made to put him on the electoral roll in Victoria.

"WikiLeaks Australian Citizens Alliance (WACA) spokeswoman Sam Castro said Assange's application for electoral enrolment was made to the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in Melbourne today.

"It was lodged on Julian's behalf with his signature," Ms Castro told AAP.

"Ms Castro also confirmed the address nominated in Assange's application was his mother's house in Mentone, in the federal electorate of Isaacs."


http://www.news.com.au/national/wiki...e-run/story-fncynjr2-1226577310265

Thing is, I live in Mentone; which is on the Bayside, about 15 miles south of the Melbourne city centre. I'll look forward to Assange's supporters turning up on my doorstep to canvass me......  



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 1899 times:

What does he think thats going to achieve, realistically? PR? More attention?

Wheres the money coming from to finance his campaign? Shouldn't he be paying back the people he ripped off when he jumped bail?


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1868 times:

If Assange is not at present on the Electoral Roll I assume he is using the condition "you departed Australia within the last three years and intend to return within six years of your date of departure from Australia." I wonder how his intention squares with his current self-immolation in the Ecuadorian Embassy?

Further, are there any residency requirements in Victoria for election as a Senator? Is long-term absence from Australia disregarded if a citizen wishes to enroll from overseas? Is the Ecuadorian Embassy regarded as part of Victoria? Can a person simply list there mother's address if they haven't actually been there in several years?

It will be interesting to see whether a) the Electoral Commission Accepts the enrollment, and b) whether the nomination for election as a Senator is considered valid. Either way, unless Assange can physically return to Australia he will be determined to be "absent without leave" and his seat declared vacant. If he thinks this manoeuvre will result in any kind of immunity from prosecution for crimes alleged against him, he is sadly deluding himself and his supporters. Neither candidates nor elected politicians enjoy immunity under Australian law for any offences committed either in Australia or overseas. Don't believe me? Ask Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper.


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1864 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 15):
Neither candidates nor elected politicians enjoy immunity under Australian law for any offences committed either in Australia or overseas

Wouldn't matter if they did anyway - the Ecuadorian Embassy is not in Australia, neither is the UK, or Sweden  

Immunity local to a jurisdiction never, ever trumps laws local to a different jurisdiction - even if Australia offered him every immunity under the sun, theres still a valid EAW for him, still a valid extradition order and still a valid UK policeman waiting to arrest him.


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 1861 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 16):
Wouldn't matter if they did anyway - the Ecuadorian Embassy is not in Australia, neither is the UK, or Sweden

Absolutely and I am in full agreement. This is why I am puzzled by his application. Surely he, and his advisers (lawyers?) would be aware of these elementary points. But I suppose it does keep the media spotlight on him for a while and perhaps that is all that matters. Perhaps in his mind, given a past history of Governments ignoring the law and facilitating abductions, renditions and torture, he believes the media remaining interested is his best chance of survival. Whether he is justified in believing that is another question and hinges on the question of whether the US actually want to "get even."

If they do, it is quite clear that the Australian Government would not care one way or the other, as is evidenced by the lack of concern when another Australian citizen simply disappeared and, more damningly, the written confirmation that the Government would not oppose any request. (I posted the relevant document in the previous thread.) The first response in the disappearance case was the usual denial of any knowledge. That has since proven to be a lie. So paranoia or not, guilt or innocence, from Assange's standpoint I can see his desire to avoid anything and everything. But the latest ploy seems as poorly thought out as the last.

[Edited 2013-02-14 07:08:55]

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1827 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 15):
It will be interesting to see whether a) the Electoral Commission Accepts the enrollment, and b) whether the nomination for election as a Senator is considered valid.

Looks from this as if he can't stand unless he returns to Australia and gets his name on the electoral roll. And that, in any case, even if he wins a seat in terms of votes, any such election would be 'null and void' unless he can physically attend the Senate to be sworn in:-

http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/news...es-ahead-for-assange-political-bid



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1785 times:

The Assange sentry detail cost has hit £3million.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21480648

Money well spent, for once  


User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1712 times:

And Assanges motives for standing for election in Australia suddenly become clear - he thinks that the diplomatic issues surrounding extraditing a standing politician would force both Britain and the US to drop their legal proceedings due to the "embarrassment" and "political costs".

IMHO hes starting to sound desperate...

His comments:

Quote:

If he wins a Senate seat at elections on Sept. 24, Mr Assange told the website that the US Department of Justice would drop its espionage investigation rather than risk a diplomatic row.

The British government would follow suit, otherwise "the political costs of the current standoff will be higher still," he said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...l-protect-me-from-prosecution.html

Yeah, I don't think so. Politicians are still accountable to laws in other countries.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1706 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 20):
Yeah, I don't think so. Politicians are still accountable to laws in other countries.

Agree entirely, moo. Sooner or later Assange has to catch up with the concept of the 'separation of powers.'

Over the centuries, most civilised countries (for very good reasons) have 'separated out' politics, government, and the law. The process is usually referred to as 'the separation of powers.'

The extradition request came from the Swedish courts, and was agreed to by the British courts (after they had given Assange every opportunity to 'make his case'). That decision cannot be 'over-ridden' by 'politicians doing deals'; not even British ones, leave alone American ones (who naturally have no interest in, or jurisdiction over, alleged rapes committed by Australians in Sweden).  

I think that Assange will sooner or later have to realise that, unless he faces up to the Swedish thing, he has effectively sentenced himself to 'life imprisonment' in that embassy...........



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

I think hes expecting Australia to kick up a stink about a newly elected politician being extradited between two foreign governments under warrants that predated his election, despite his stated intention for standing for election explicitly being to avoid that extradition.

I don't think hes going to get very far with that train of thought...


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1599 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 22):
I think hes expecting Australia to kick up a stink about a newly elected politician being extradited between two foreign governments under warrants that predated his election, despite his stated intention for standing for election explicitly being to avoid that extradition.

Assange has had 'a win' and 'a loss' in the last few days.

The win was that he has managed to get himself on to the electoral roll, which will allow him to stand for the Senate.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...oser-to-senate-20130225-2f1dw.html

The loss is that the Australian government has 'cut him loose' and will not be supporting him in forthcoming talks with the Swedish government - or, presumably, in talks with any other government:-

"WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will not be on the agenda when Foreign Minister Bob Carr holds talks with his Swedish counterpart next week.

"Senator Carr will meet with Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt in Canberra next Wednesday.

A spokesman for Senator Carr says the pair will discuss the United Nations Security Council, approaches to the Middle East and Asia Pacific and regional security.

"There are no plans to discuss Mr Assange," the spokesman told AAP on Thursday."


http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-...-not-on-agenda-for-carr-and-bildt/



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1579 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 23):
Assange has had 'a win' and 'a loss' in the last few days.

Thats a very very small win, and a huge loss.

His getting onto the electoral roll doesn't mean anything concrete in the long term - there are no guarantees that the Senate will accept a proxy for him, and they may indeed declare his seat vacant when he doesn't turn up to be sworn in.

While the Australian Foreign Minister specifically declining to discuss him at what is possibly the best opportunity to discuss him, well, thats just a huge "screw you" 


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1583 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 24):
Thats a very very small win, and a huge loss.

Have to agree, moo. He appears to have been officially elevated to 'persona non grata' status. Or, as the sentiment tends more often to be expressed here, 'bloody nuisance' status...... 



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 5 days ago) and read 1563 times:

Quoting moo (Reply 24):
and they may indeed declare his seat vacant when he doesn't turn up to be sworn in.

Does he even command a lot of support at the polls? I doubt many Australians are gonna vote for a seat they know is gonna be empty for at least for a while, and I think the support for Assange has diminished greatly. To me (and probably most people) his debacle has nothing to do with Wikileaks and everything to do with ego



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29805 posts, RR: 58
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 1561 times:

And that is assuming that he even gets himself elected.....

Fact is that if I was his opponent I would challenge his lack of physical presence, and refuse to participate. a tele-conferences debate



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1517 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 26):
Does he even command a lot of support at the polls?

Almost impossible to tell at this stage, DeltaMD90 - thanks to Australia's 'party-friendly' voting system. When voting for the Senate, you have two choices - either you mark a single box, to give your support to your preferred political party (vote 'above the line'), or you have to number the boxes of all the individual candidates in descending order:-

http://www.aec.gov.au/voting/How_to_vote/Voting_Senate.htm

I expect that a majority of people 'vote above the line' - that is select a single party, so that their vote gets allocated to other parties in the order of preference set down by the party you voted for.

One can pretty well assume that each of the three main parties (Labour, Liberal, National - the last two usually campaigning as a coalition), after putting themselves at the top of their preference list and their main opponents at the bottom, will then place other candidates with a view to keeping the stronger independent candidates as 'low down' as possible.

As far as I can judge, from available evidence so far (mostly press articles), Assange (soon to be the 'Wikileaks Party' or whatever) already looks likely to enjoy a 'measure' of popularity - not a commanding one, something around 30-40%. So the major parties can be expected to see him as a threat, and put him at or near the bottom of their respective preference lists.

My present expectation is that a majority of voters won't go to the trouble of numbering all the candidates in order, and will just number their preferred main party as '1'. If I'm right about Assange being viewed as a threat, and therefore finding himself at or near the bottom of the main parties' preference lists, he has little or no chance of getting in.

But one never knows......

[Edited 2013-02-27 18:39:39]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1505 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 28):
something around 30-40%.

Wow really? I guess it's hard to see the thoughts of others when you don't live there, but I thought most people were getting sick of him. Wikileaks aside, I didn't know that many people supported what (IMO) is running from the Swedish justice system



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

Some figures here, from some time ago, DeltaMD90. Looks is if, thanks to our convoluted voting system, he could well edge out the Greens:-

"UMR found 43 per cent had a positive opinion of him, with only 27 per cent feeling negative towards him. Green voters were most likely to be positive about him (66 per cent of them had a positive opinion compared with 45 per cent of Labor supporters and 40 per cent of Coalition voters). The poll of 1000 was taken in late April.

"Asked about Mr Assange's Senate bid, men were more likely than women to suggest they would vote for him and people under 30. He received more potential support for the Senate from Greens than from Labor or Coalition voters. His support was relatively evenly spread across the country.

"UMR managing director John Utting said that on the numbers, Mr Assange - whose support crossed party lines but was more concentrated among Green voters - would stand a real chance of being elected, prevailing over the Greens for a spot in a half Senate election."


http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/pol...ges-senate-bid-20120518-1yw85.html

Michelle Grattan is a much-respected political commentator.

I think I mentioned earlier that Assange is planning to stand right here in my own constituency? You can rest assured that he won't get my vote, anyway.  



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1495 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 30):

I am sorry, but I am not too well versed in your voting system, or of parliamentary systems in general, but is he running for a party or what? Do the Greens have him listed high up in their party's voting? How does a vote for a Green translate into a vote for him?

Call our system flawed (I agree) but at least it's more or less straight forward lol



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2894 posts, RR: 8
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1488 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 31):
or of parliamentary systems in general,

Its complicated, even for the average Australian to understand, and I cant say I really do, but the article below should make it clearer for you (and me) to understand  

His bid for a senate seat is highly unlikely to be successful.

Its a storm in a tea cup, and one only to draw attention to his troubles with many jurisdictions and a very troubled mind.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nati...-good/story-fn59niix-1226580105001



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1468 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 31):
I am sorry, but I am not too well versed in your voting system, or of parliamentary systems in general, but is he running for a party or what?

Signs are that he will set up a 'Wikileaks party,' DeltaMD90. The Senate normally has six seats available in each state each 'half-senate election.' The important principles are that the vote is state-wide; and that 'surplus' votes cast (i.e. more than are required to win a seat) are 'distributed downwards' on the principle of the 'single transferable vote.'

Basically the highest-scoring candidates are credited only with enough votes to win a seat (basically one-sixth of the number of votes cast) and the remaining votes they secured are passed on to the next highest candidate on the list. That is how the Australian Greens, who usually get only about 10 per cent of the statewide votes between them all even after the 'transfers,' currently hold over ten per cent of the senate seats. And many of them, on the first count, did not win anything like ten per cent of the statewide votes.

I don't fully understand the system myself - it's just as well that someone invented the computer.   But it does appear to mean that Assange, after all the counts and recounts are completed, might well 'knock out' a lower-ranking Green candidate in this state (Victoria).

Best explanation I can find here:-

http://www.aph.gov.au/Help/FAQs/Senate_FAQs

[Edited 2013-02-27 22:40:48]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 1438 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 26):
Does he even command a lot of support at the polls?
Quoting L-188 (Reply 27):
And that is assuming that he even gets himself elected.....

My comments are based on the "unlikely" happening  

I doubt that in any actual election he would command more than 1% of the votes cast.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1415 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 33):

Makes a bit more sense, kinda like it though it is complicating. That being said, it wouldn't be a huge stretch to see him get elected but I still don't think it'll happen...

Quoting moo (Reply 34):
I doubt that in any actual election he would command more than 1% of the votes cast.

Sounds more like what I woulda guessed



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1382 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 35):
Makes a bit more sense, kinda like it though it is complicating.

Guess that I 'kinda like it,' too. Given that the voting is state-wide, if you stuck to 'first past the post,' with no onward 'transfers,' you'd just end up with six people from the three main parties - maybe just people from the top two. The Senate is intended to be 'a house of review,' and it's therefore no bad thing to give minority opinion a chance to get represented.

Just so long as that doesn't turn out to include Assange - who is a 'minority of one' in my view; utterly self-centred.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 2894 posts, RR: 8
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1383 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 36):
The Senate is intended to be 'a house of review,' and it's therefore no bad thing to give minority opinion a chance to get represented.

Now Now NAV20. Plenty of people said that about Pauline Hanson and others. As we all understand, no system is perfect, but we have what we have, and there are many countries around the world that are envious of this system.... However it works ???

Just so long as that doesn't turn out to include Assange - who is a 'minority of one' in my view; utterly self-centred.

From what Ive read, there will be no way in heavens earth, that he will be able to attend, even if by some miracle he is elected. He's even acknowledged that the Senate could vote to evict him from his Senate seat should he be unable to be there in person. And that very much look the case.

This is all to garner some bizarre PR for a very sick puppy.



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1337 times:

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 37):
He's even acknowledged that the Senate could vote to evict him from his Senate seat should he be unable to be there in person. And that very much look the case.

I believe that's one of the reasons why he's forming a party, TheCommodore - apparently there is a provision that if an elected senator can't take up the seat, the party concerned can appoint a proxy. Don't know whether that applies to a case where the elected member cannot attend because he's choosing not to face a rape charge, though.  
Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 37):
This is all to garner some bizarre PR for a very sick puppy.

Agree entirely - except that it also makes for an interesting subject for discussion.......

Incidentally, Bradley Manning's pre-trial hearing is in progress - he recently read out a 35-page statement pleading guilty to about half the charges - but the court looks like pressing all 22 of them:-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...adley-manning-trial-plea-statement



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1307 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 38):
the party concerned can appoint a proxy.

It's not so much a proxy but a requirement that any vacancy that arises must be filled by a member of the same party as the member who is unable to attend, be it by reason of death, illness or whatever. This has been the case since 1977 when the Constitution was amended to prevent the recurrence of the evnts that led up to the dismissal of Gough Whitlam.

Prior to the amendment:
1) the legislature of the relevant state was not required to have regard to the political allegiances of the replacement senator, and
2) the new senator's term continued only until the next general election for either the House of Representatives or the Senate, or the end of the original senator's term, whichever happened earlier.

The amendment changed this procedure by providing that:
1) a state legislature replace a senator with a member of the same political party, and
2) the new senator's term continue until the end of the original senator's term.

So, if in the unlikely event that Assange is elected but unable to attend, his seat would be declared vacant and if it is filled it must be filled by another member of the Wikileaks Party.


User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1284 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 39):
it must be filled by another member of the Wikileaks Party.

Further to my post above, this would explain why Assange decided to run as a member of a Wikileaks Party and not simply as an independent. As a member of a party, substitution of another member of the same party allows not only Assange to remain in the public eye, but the whole question of openness and accountability of governments (but not of Assange, presumably.) Had Assange not been a member of a registered party, then in the event of his being elected but unable to fill his seat, the House(s) of Parliament of the State in which he was elected as a Senator could have selected a person to fill the vacancy without regard to any political affiliation. Given the narrow divide between the major parties at present that could have the potential for some interesting results

Interestingly enough, the referendum that resulted in the amendment being adopted was passed not only by a majority of the voters but also by a majority in every State and not simply a majority in a majority of States as required. The largest majorities were in New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria, with 81.62%, 76.59% and 76.13% respectively. But even in Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania there were majorities, though nowhere near as large, with votes in favour being 58.86%, 57.11% and 53.78% respectively.


Corrected spelling

[Edited 2013-03-02 07:00:20]

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 41, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1218 times:

I looked up the last half-senate election, in 2010.

Scroll down a bit on this site and you'll that the Democratic Labor Party won a senate seat with only 134,907 votes - out of a total of close to 13M.! The Family First Party got more votes, but 'lost out on preferences.' Scroll down a bit for details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_federal_election,_2010

Preferences are a complication all on their own - but, basically, each party lists its opponents in a preferred order; so any votes 'above the line' - that is, made by people just ticking a single party box - are allocated in the order of preference set down by all the participating parties. So presumably the other parties ranked the DLP a good deal higher than Family First.

I checked a bit more, and discovered that a VERY high proportion of voters (97%) voted 'above the line' in 2010; that is, cast a single vote for a given party, accepting the chosen party's order of preference, rather than numbering all the candidate boxes in their personal preference order.

So it is very possible to win a senate seat with a relatively tiny number of actual votes. But Assange's chances will very much depend on where the various other parties rank him in their respective orders of preference.



"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 42, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1214 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 41):
with only 134,907 votes - out of a total of close to 13M.!

I can't think of a single State that actually has 13 million registered voters. Senators are elected on a State-wide basis and not an Australia-wide basis, so the figure of 134,907 needs to be compared against the number of votes in the relevant State. It still may be low but not quite as low as a comparison with 13 million would suggest.

But the point about how preferences are distributed is valid. Given that both the Liberals and the ALP equally dislike what Assange did with Wikileaks, and the Government's written confirmation that they would not oppose extradition if requested by the US, I suspect that neither will be placing Assange as their second preference. It could be a hard choice for both majors whether to place him one higher or lower than their main opponent.  


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25455 posts, RR: 86
Reply 43, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 1209 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 40):
As a member of a party, substitution of another member of the same party allows not only Assange to remain in the public eye, but the whole question of openness and accountability of governments (but not of Assange, presumably.) Had Assange not been a member of a registered party, then in the event of his being elected but unable to fill his seat, the House(s) of Parliament of the State in which he was elected as a Senator could have selected a person to fill the vacancy without regard to any political affiliation.

Gaming the system, again.

But he's still an attention whore:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/wi...s-assange-says-20130305-2fihd.html

"WikiLeaks has more US secrets, Assange says

Julian Assange has confirmed that WikiLeaks still holds classified United States government documents that it is yet to publish.

However the transparency website will not release this material during the court martial of its source, US Army private Bradley Manning.


I wonder how he expects the US to react?

mariner

[Edited 2013-03-04 21:47:21]


aeternum nauta
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4027 posts, RR: 4
Reply 44, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1185 times:

I wonder if the Ecuadorians are getting sick of him yet - he's violated their terms of sanctuary several times, and yet they haven't done anything about it  

User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 45, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1183 times:

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 42):
Senators are elected on a State-wide basis and not an Australia-wide basis, so the figure of 134,907 needs to be compared against the number of votes in the relevant State.

I thought so too until I read that story, Quokkas - but if you look down that article (about one mousewheel turn  ) to the Section headed "Senate (STV GV) — Turnout 93.82% (CV) — Informal 3.75%" you'll find that all 12.72M. votes cast are included in the tabulation. So I agree that the voting is 'statewide' - but I suspect that the allocation and 'transfer of votes' is actually nation-wide. In the case of 'Democratic Labour' winning over 'Family First,' I think it's likely that the Labor Party 'proper' put the DLP high in its own preferences, their main opponents (the Lib-Nats and the Greens) right at the bottom, and 'Family First' down low too - thus pretty well guaranteeing the DLP a win.

As for Assange, it occurs to me that there is an obvious ploy available to him - actually to tell his supporters to 'vote below the line' - numbering all the boxes in order, putting the 'Wikileaks Party' first and all the major parties right at the bottom. He's not without support, especially among younger people - that ploy could easily garner him an awful lot of primary votes to get him off to a pretty good start?

[Edited 2013-03-05 04:27:44]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineQuokkas From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 46, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 1166 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 45):
but I suspect that the allocation and 'transfer of votes' is actually nation-wide.

No, that can not happen because the States each elect an equal number of Senators with separate provision for the Territories. The "surplus" votes in Tasmania can not be distributed in New South Wales, just as those from Victoria can't be used to boost the numbers of a candidate in Queensland. Preferences can and are only distributed within the State where the votes are cast. This is consistent with both the Constitutional status of Senators as representing State interests as opposed to those of a single constituency (as in the House of Representatives) and the requirements of the Commonwealth and State Electoral legislation.

Because I am enrolled in Western Australia, Assange's name won't even appear on the ballot paper that I will be receive when I turn up at the polling station, although the Wikileaks Party might if it is able to garner enough people register a Party and to nominate candidates in this State. Even if they do, they would not be able to transfer their preferences to Assange so that he can be elected in Victoria. They could only transfer preferences to another candidate standing in Western Australia. This is probably a good thing. Just imagine the noise that would result if Victorians thought Western Australians were deciding who Victoria's Senators should be.



Amendments:
after "Commonwealth" insert "and State"; and
delete "Act" and insert "legislation".


[Edited 2013-03-05 05:06:19]

User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7931 posts, RR: 52
Reply 47, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1134 times:

Quoting mariner (Reply 43):
"WikiLeaks has more US secrets, Assange says

Anyone else think this is a little shady? IDK why he wouldn't just release it, Manning is going to be making big rocks into little rocks forever...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Julian Assange - 'Movement At The Station'? posted Fri Sep 28 2012 07:20:00 by NAV20
Down At The Station Early In The Morning posted Tue Apr 10 2007 04:45:23 by AsstChiefMark
RIP Sir Patrick Moore At The Age Of 89 posted Sun Dec 9 2012 05:14:37 by OA260
General McChystal's New Job At The Airline. posted Thu Nov 11 2010 07:05:57 by fxramper
At The Movies: Great Newspaper Capers posted Sun Oct 10 2010 13:27:46 by Airstud
What Are You Reading At The Moment? posted Fri Sep 24 2010 23:10:33 by cpd
Bomb Scare At The Eiffel Tower posted Tue Sep 14 2010 14:00:29 by MadameConcorde
Am Radio At The Poles posted Mon Aug 30 2010 08:57:29 by seb146
Blair At The Chilcot Enquiry posted Fri Jan 29 2010 09:32:30 by 777236ER
What Is At The Heart Of The EU Economic Rift? posted Mon Jan 18 2010 13:02:31 by Derico