WikiLeaks Founder Assange to Run for Australian Senate

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   

WikiLeaks Founder Assange to Run for Australian Senate


www.nytimes.com

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, formally inaugurated a new political party bearing the name of his antisecrecy organization on Thursday and declared his own unorthodox candidacy for a seat in the Australian Senate in national elections to be held later this year...

...“My plans are to essentially parachute in a crack troop of investigative journalists into the Senate and to do what we have done with WikiLeaks, in holding banks and government and intelligence agencies to account,”
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Well that should be interesting! Would he get some kind of immunity if elected? Therefore being able to leave the Ecuadorian embassy?

The article has this to say on this:


Under Australian law, Mr. Assange would have to take his seat within one year of being elected, although the Senate could technically grant him an extension if he is unable to physically take his seat. The British government has stated its intention to arrest him if he leaves the Ecuadorean Embassy in London, which presents an unusual set of logistical obstacles should he win the election.

“There is, of course, some possibility that the Australian Senate would permit remote involvement. It’s never been done before, but it is theoretically possible,” Mr. Assange said. “But in any event we have candidates available to hold the seat until such time as I am available to take it.”



Plus the Snowden/NSA/Hastings(?) story. Order extra amounts of pop corn to see this unfold! I like the picture of parachuting some investigative journalist in - that should be done in many other countries too...


www.nytimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 25-7-2013 by MindBodySpiritComplex because: (no reason given)
edit on 25-7-2013 by MindBodySpiritComplex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
An honest politician? I'll believe it when it happens



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Something on this has been bothering me from the start with Assange and Snowden...and this question is the best opportunity to ask about it, since it presents the most obvious moment to do something.

Okay.. We know England/America REALLY want Assange. Public Enemy Number 1 may be understating things in some circles. Fine Fine...they'll wait until the end of time or the Ecuadorian Embassy crumbles from time itself, probably. Same with Snowden in Russia...they REALLY want him enough to all but kidnap foreign heads of state that just MIGHT have the guy on their plane.

So...Here's the big boggle to those who know international law much better than I do. Why can't Snowden OR Assange be moved under full Military escort with diplomatic cover and protections of whatever nation has initiated the escort? Assange would be tricky..since I'd presume there would be very basic authorization issues of an armed force coming out the door of the Embassy in London..

Still... Russia or England..whichever. Why can't this be done? Doesn't that really bring it down to only TWO very cold choices for the U.S.? Either let the move happen ..or outright and openly commit an act of war upon a nation we have absolutely no hostilities with in ANY other form?? Would they? COULD they actually do that?

This seems the safe avenue...if any nation-state's military were willing to donate a cargo plane or private jet for the trip w/ the escort required to give a credible statement of intent for deterrence of stupid actions?



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Zcustosmorum
 


Yeah, power corrupts... But whatever you think personally of Assange, if he is successfull that will make for some very interesting reporting for a while...



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


This has been on my mind too. So the less crazy version goes like this: Russia will not want to be manouvered into a position where they would either have to start WWIII or loose face (Syria anyone?). Say a russian military transport with Snowden on board has an unfortunate accident... Beyond that there is all the usual "they are all in on it" NWO scenarios of course. Inbetween you have the Russia and the U.S. of A. have so much # on each other dance scenario - take your pick, I guess. Me, I don't exclude anything, doesn't mean I give it a high probability though...
edit on 25-7-2013 by MindBodySpiritComplex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by MindBodySpiritComplex
 


Thanks for this one.
And I do hope Assange gets elected.

S&F



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 12:16 AM
link   
As an Australian I would definitely vote for Assange. Our political representatives are so clearly incapable imbeciles that voting between a Rudd party or an Abbot party is essentially a joke regardless who you choose.
Why not give Assange a chance to shake things up a bit?
He couldn't do much worse than any of the other jokers who call themselves politicians.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Something on this has been bothering me from the start with Assange and Snowden...and this question is the best opportunity to ask about it, since it presents the most obvious moment to do something.

Okay.. We know England/America REALLY want Assange. Public Enemy Number 1 may be understating things in some circles. Fine Fine...they'll wait until the end of time or the Ecuadorian Embassy crumbles from time itself, probably. Same with Snowden in Russia...they REALLY want him enough to all but kidnap foreign heads of state that just MIGHT have the guy on their plane.

So...Here's the big boggle to those who know international law much better than I do. Why can't Snowden OR Assange be moved under full Military escort with diplomatic cover and protections of whatever nation has initiated the escort? Assange would be tricky..since I'd presume there would be very basic authorization issues of an armed force coming out the door of the Embassy in London..

Still... Russia or England..whichever. Why can't this be done? Doesn't that really bring it down to only TWO very cold choices for the U.S.? Either let the move happen ..or outright and openly commit an act of war upon a nation we have absolutely no hostilities with in ANY other form?? Would they? COULD they actually do that?

This seems the safe avenue...if any nation-state's military were willing to donate a cargo plane or private jet for the trip w/ the escort required to give a credible statement of intent for deterrence of stupid actions?


The UK don't 'want' Assange, they do want to comply with international law which will see him stand trial in another country for alleged sex offences - something that so many people seem to willfully ignore around here. A lot of people might 'think' that is a false flag, but that doesn't make it one by default.

The moment Assange steps out of the embassy he is on British ground. If an attempt is made to arrest him and forces from another country tries to stop them, it's a diplomatic issue at best, leading to potentially an act of war at worst.

Anyhow, Assange is nothing more than a media whore IMO, you really think wikileaks actually changed anything? Show me the government that fell as a direct result. Snowden? He's exposed what I think almost anyone would already have assumed, and even then, nothing illegal. Give them both a tv show, ATS would give them a guaranteed audience.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Lets say he gets in there ................... is he aware of the fact that Australia , being owned by A-lizard-birth the second , would hand him over to the authorities in a heartbeat ?

Why is it that everything this man does goes t*ts up ?

EDIT : and as stated above , as soon as he sets foot out of that embassy he is on British soil and will be detained immediately.
edit on 26-7-2013 by AthiestJesus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MindBodySpiritComplex
 


So leaking information that does not belong to him is not enough...

I see he is wanting to place himself into a position where he can actually get that treason charge from the Australian judicial system when he leaks classified info as a Senator.

If he gets elected I dont want to hear complaining from people who thought he was a hero only to find out Assange has sold them out.



posted on Jul, 26 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
They should send a team in to every country. Lets see who the people vote for.

I wonder if this whole thing with assange being accused happened because TPTB could see this coming!!
Think about it, we have nations all over the world who are really pee'd of with their leaders, would they vote for Julian? I bet they would!



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by MindBodySpiritComplex
 


Hell I might actually go out and vote for Julian instead of the "Sex Party" like I've done for every election (in vein) since I turned 18! I mean, if I can't have the National Sex Party in power then I might as well settle for an accused-rapist dissident rebel fugitive for a leader instead. That actually has a nice ring to it somehow...

God Bless Australia lol. The ancient land of weird happenings...

In all seriousness though, there's probably more chance of the Sex Party getting elected. But what's the difference anyway? Seems we're all getting f#cked by the government one way or another


Good luck Julian. You're gonna need it brother. You have my vote, for what it's worth.

edit on 27/7/2013 by TheAnarchist because: ~



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk
They should send a team in to every country. Lets see who the people vote for.

I wonder if this whole thing with assange being accused happened because TPTB could see this coming!!
Think about it, we have nations all over the world who are really pee'd of with their leaders, would they vote for Julian? I bet they would!


Don't you think it would be totally and completely stupid to vote for someone when you have no idea what their policies are, apart from presumably allowing people to get away with not standing to trial for alleged sexual offences?



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by uncommitted
Don't you think it would be totally and completely stupid to vote for someone when you have no idea what their policies are, apart from presumably allowing people to get away with not standing to trial for alleged sexual offences?
What if this ALLEGED sexual offence charge had not happened. By that I mean suppose Julian and his team were free to go where they please. If that were the case we might know what their policies are!

As for

allowing people to get away with not standing to trial for alleged sexual offences
.
If its not true then he's gotten away with nothing!! To be honest I think it's those two ladies and those involved with them that should be investigated FIRST! They took Julian to dinner the day after the ALLEGED offence, that in my book speaks volumes.



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
If he was to be elected, I wonder how many closed-door, 'special', 'Public not allowed' meetings he will be allowed to be involved in....



posted on Jul, 27 2013 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by VoidHawk

Originally posted by uncommitted
Don't you think it would be totally and completely stupid to vote for someone when you have no idea what their policies are, apart from presumably allowing people to get away with not standing to trial for alleged sexual offences?
What if this ALLEGED sexual offence charge had not happened. By that I mean suppose Julian and his team were free to go where they please. If that were the case we might know what their policies are!

As for

allowing people to get away with not standing to trial for alleged sexual offences
.
If its not true then he's gotten away with nothing!! To be honest I think it's those two ladies and those involved with them that should be investigated FIRST! They took Julian to dinner the day after the ALLEGED offence, that in my book speaks volumes.


And I'm sure there are still some people that thought Jimmy Saville was a very nice man. You don't know if the incident happened or not, but Assange seems determined not to be brought before a court about it.



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by uncommitted
 


Here is a new article by a feminist who's also a WikiLeaks party candidate

Why I'm running for Senate with WikiLeaks alongside Julian Assange


the accusation is that by running with Assange I am attempting to whitewash allegations he sexually assaulted two Swedish women.



I don’t know what happened, and neither does anyone else. Because none of us knows what happened, no one has grounds to judge him or the two women as either guilty or innocent. Such judgments are for the courts.



Assange has not been charged with sexual assault or any other crime. Rather, Swedish authorities want him for questioning.



So what’s holding things up? The answer is the unyielding attitude of the Swedes. They won’t question Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy nor talk to him by video-link, nor make use of the routine legal solutions like those provided by the mutual legal assistance treaty to resolve the impasse.



What does Assange fear from Sweden? The same thing he fears from Britain – that the moment he sets foot outside the Ecuadorian embassy, he’ll be extradited to the US. There, he is likely to face charges under the espionage act for publishing sensitive information – including the collateral murder video - that whistleblower Bradley Manning says he leaked to WikiLeaks.org.



And now for something completely different:

WikiLeaks has been in contact with both NSA-leaker Edward Snowden and investigative Journalist Michael Hastings who disappeared last month in a fiery car crash. Anybody interested in WikiLeaks/Assange probably also should give a very close look to the possibility that Hastings may have been assassinated because of knowledge relating to Snowden's leaked NSA files. My theory is that Hastings already had some (yet unpublished) information that together with some of Snowdens infos would have added up to something much more threatening for the three letter agencies and/or the administration.


But first let's take a quick look at the history between Assange/WikiLeaks and Hastings:

Hastings interviewed WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (published January 18, 2012 in Rolling Stone)

Some tweets:



link


Michael Hastings ‏@mmhastings
thought experiment: if assange had exposed thousands of secret docs from china,russia, iran, nk,etc,would we consider him a hero or villain?
1:19 PM - 28 Nov 10




link


Michael Hastings ‏@mmhastings
@jackshafer on assange: "if you want to dismiss him...because he's a seething jerk, there are about 2,000 journalists I'd like you to meet"
5:23 PM - 30 Nov 10




link


Michael Hastings ‏@mmhastings
For supporters of @RonPaul --Julian Assange gives a shout out to Dr. Paul in the new RS interview, via @Buzzfeed www.buzzfeed.com...
11:57 AM - 18 Jan 12




link



link


Michael Hastings ‏@mmhastings
If you haven't read it yet: @MMFlint and @TheOliverStone on Assange, Wikileaks and why Ecuador is doing the right thing www.nytimes.com...
The New York Times
WikiLeaks and the Global Future of Free Speech
If Julian Assange is extradited to the United States, it would have consequences around the world.
12:20 PM - 21 Aug 12




link


Michael Hastings ‏@mmhastings
Assange in the pages of the NYT book review: www.nytimes.com...
The New York Times
The Banality of ‘Don’t Be Evil’ by Julian Assange
Two Google leaders have written a manifesto for technocratic imperialism.
4:44 PM - 1 Jun 13




link


WikiLeaks ‏@wikileaks
Michael Hastings contacted WikiLeaks lawyer Jennifer Robinson just a few hours before he died, saying that the FBI was investigating him.
3:07 PM - 19 Jun 13


For more on this please check the link currently in my signature!
edit on 29-7-2013 by MindBodySpiritComplex because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Anyone gullible enough to believe this BS against Assange, I surely hope doesn't have the ability to vote.
You only need an IQ of 8 to see that the women's stories are false and that Sweden only wants to question him so the US Can have him.

However, even if Assange did win, the powers that be in the US would put pressure on the AUS officials to deny him that victory.

It will be as simple as:

''legislation passed today unfortunately voids Mr Assanges senate seat due to ongoing investigations in Sweden on sexual assault charges''



posted on Jul, 29 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Anyone gullible enough to believe this BS against Assange, I surely hope doesn't have the ability to vote.
You only need an IQ of 8 to see that the women's stories are false and that Sweden only wants to question him so the US Can have him.

However, even if Assange did win, the powers that be in the US would put pressure on the AUS officials to deny him that victory.

It will be as simple as:

''legislation passed today unfortunately voids Mr Assanges senate seat due to ongoing investigations in Sweden on sexual assault charges''



Anyone gullible enough to believe someone is innocent just because they say they are but does their best to avoid scrutiny is one of lifes more innocent creatures who believes only what they want to believe.





top topics
 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join