New poll says Assange could win Australian Senate seat Julian Assange's bid for a seat in Australia's Senate may not be just a stunt, with a new poll revealing 26 per cent of Australians consider themselves “likely” to vote for the Leaker-In-Chief. Assange has repeatedly announced his candidacy for a seat in the Senate, the upper chamber of Australia's national Parliament which …
If he had the backing of the Australian government, he would be in Australia or an Australian embassy. He is at a Ecuadorian embassy. He can't even leave there as as soon as he does, he will be arrested. So he is stuck there until no one wants him; which at this point in time, doesn't look to be in the near future.
Oh, Ecuador receives over $20 million in aid a year. Sure their GDP is $66 billion, but $20 million is a good chunk of change. Would they actually harbor him in their country? Money talks and bullshit walks.
This post has been deleted by its author
"He sought rights of asylum which was granted by Ecuador." He sought asylum, bleating on about "freedom of the press", from a wannabe despot notorious for his suppression of the free press. A$$nut's reason for asking for asylum was to avoid due process, having spent even longer bleating about how he only wanted to see "justice done". If you can't see the hypocrisy of the "man" then you are merely deserving of the same laughable contempt.
I don't follow Australian politics very closely but if he did win a seat keeping up with him would definitely be part of my daily news searches. The possibilities for entertainment would be endless & every government needs at least one lunatic to make the rest of the crazies look sane.
Also, can someone wanted for international crimes be elected to a national position in Australia? It just seems like it would be embarrassing for the whole country.
"Sure, after all he's not been convicted for anything."
That is not in the strictest sense true, although I do understand the sentiment behind your remarks.
Julian Assange is indeed a convict; he was in the 1990s Assange convicted (by a judge in his home country) on about 17 counts for breaking and entering a variety of government computers at home and abroad, including a Pentagon Air Force computer and, most comically, the police computers in Australia used by the police team... ...at that very point investigating him.
He was given the most risible of 'sentences' - effectively let off - and told that another conviction would almost certainly involve gaol time. Hence, I assume, his hands off policy and use of third parties in the process of building his 'library' of information. However, this is the very area on which the US authorities are focusing their investigations; how involved was Assange in the collection of classified information belonging to the US state? Unless and until they can demonstrate a strong case it would seem that the US is unwilling to be involved with the Assange case. They seem to have a strong desire to bide their time, until they are able to convincingly and overwhelmingly deal with the man. Given the current climate of 'hacking' by other nation states and loose cannons, it is unsurprising that the US government wants to deal with such people.
US government caution this time around is no mystery; Colin Powell's presentation at the UN, in building the case for military intervention, was at best egregious and weak. That they refused to enter the chamber until UN authorities covered over Picasso's painting 'Guernica' worried me and, after Fallujah and the use of white phosophorous, this is most unsurprising.
As to Manning himself - given a feeble warchest by Assange, and effectively left to rot - he is a soldier, he signed a declaration of fealty and recognising that releasing state secrets will result in prosecution; Manning took advantage of poor security - the fools whose workstations he raped actually wrote their passwords on post it notes and stuck them to their monitors, leaving these even when unattended - and dumped everything that he could into the waiting arms of St Jules, or so it would seem.
The tin foil brigade have gone to great lengths to demonstrate US involvement in Assange's life, but it seems hardly necessary as the shrapnel has fallen out from a variety of compartments. To them, this link: http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
"Also, can someone wanted for international crimes be elected to a national position in Australia? It just seems like it would be embarrassing for the whole country."
How would that be different to Howard, Blair and Bush? Or Obama and his drones and extra-judicial (it means outside the law or illegal) killings?
I'm Australian, I'll be voting for them rather than the current cynical bunch of twats representing vested interests.
The only way to make it in politics is to be a thieving, lying, adulterous bastard. The best Assange could manage is 'sex with consent, where the women complained afterwards on encouragement from the FBI*'. It just doesn't cut it.
(*) Might not be officially documented, but we all know what really happened.
yes he maybe a bit of an arse, but anyone who can't see that good ol'USA is after him is a little naive . . . IMHO democracy needs a few thorns in its side like him :) <anyone heard of Private Eye?>
and in a short, recent period of time when the DoHS has been shown to be the pathetic paper tiger it is, well some daylight shone can't hurt can it?
SO guys, a short infomercial: hassling tourists does NOT keep your country safe! get it?
no?
thought not . . . . <sigh>
'At the right moment, an accomplice can distract the guards by driving up in a flatbed truck bearing a cat playing a piano.'
Oh for that to happen, not just because the sight of the Home Secretary explaining that to the Commons would never get old, but for the gloriously po-faced Crimewatch reconstruction that would follow.
A$$nut is inelligible as he hasn't been resident in Australia for the required period. This has been chewed over so many times already, why are El Reg wasting bandwidth on it unless it's forum bait?
Here's the likely outcomes:
1. A$$nut is announced as a candidate, is promptly rejected due to non-residency, Aussie Dickileaks, Anonyputzers and the dribbling Faithful sulk and refuse to vote, and the status quo is unchanged.
2. A$$nut selects one of his dribbling Faithful as a puppet, they get enough votes to get in, but then A$$nut finds working the strings all the way from the Ecuadorean Embassy in London too much hard work and goes to force himself on the Embassy's cleaner instead. Dribbler wastes his term doing nothing more than making pointless whines and is easily outmanouvered by the experienced parties, and the status quo is unchanged.
3. The voters actually think before voting, A$$nut's protest party get near zero votes and lose their deposit, and the status quo is unchanged.
Enjoy!
Would he get automatic diplomatic immunity?
He could just stroll out of the Ecuadorean Embassy and give two fingers to the USA and it's spineless lapdog UK government.
Popcorn!
Edit: Give them the bird instead, they weren't around in Agincourt times to understand two fingers
@Matt Bryant "Would he get automatic diplomatic immunity?...." No, he wouldn't."
That's a sentiment?
sen·ti·ment (s n t -m nt). n. 1. A thought, view, or attitude, especially one based mainly on emotion instead of reason:
For once, since I've had the pleasure of reading you, you state an actual fact and then you call it a sentiment. You really are delightful.
"....you state an actual fact and then you call it a sentiment." The sentiment (as in "ROFLMAO@A$$nut") was expressed in the smiley icon, due to the glee at knowing A$$nut cannot claim diplomatic immunity even in the unlikely event of Australia changing their election laws. That and the upset it must cause his dribbling Faithful.
:D <=in case you missed it again
I agree with you that it is very unlikely that Assange will ever get to claim diplomatic immunity. But if Assange wins the right to stand for the Senate seat, and -- OMG -- if he wins the election while besieged in Knightsbridge, will you be able to handle the never-ending tsunami of print, tv and net news stories about this vile sexfiend? And what of the legions of banner men that soon will flock to his camp?
You could be a mess, Matt.
I can let you have a couple of month's worth of Valium, as I am currently swimming in them. :o)
".....will you be able to handle the never-ending tsunami of print, tv and net news stories about this vile sexfiend? And what of the legions of banner men that soon will flock to his camp?....." Yeah, because every time Saint Jules comes out on the balcony to make one of his barmy statements, how many Faithful actually turn out to witness his preaching? Each time it is less and less. Last summer, even during the good weather, it was roughly a dozen hard-core sheeple. The guy has no real "following" and this would not change even if he was elected PM of Oz (which, BTW, he is also inelligible to stand for). Even if he did manage to find a role that granted him diplomatic immunity it is not back-dated, so he would still be arrested the minute he stepped out of the Ecuadorean Embassy.
"....I can let you have a couple of month's worth of Valium....." No, I would have to suggest you shouldn't be sharing your meds as you obviously need as much of a dose as you can get! In the meantime, I'm quite happy laughing at A$$nut, and even happier laughing at you and his other sheeple.
6/19/2012 Julian Assange jumps bail and seeks asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
8/18/2012 The New York Times reports: "At the embassy, television cameras stand arrayed behind crowd-control fencing, with satellite trucks alongside. Protesters from the Assange camp occupy the doorsteps of some of the most expensive homes in the upscale Knightsbridge district, smoking cigarettes and discussing the finer points of diplomatic law."
1/03/2013 Perthnow.com.au reports "During Mr Assange's recent "Christmas message" steel barriers were used to hold back a crowd of hundreds who came to hear the 41-year-old speak"
That was a couple of months ago. Then London's 100 year winter took its toll.
Wrong again. Actually, you're getting to be wrong quite often. Have you changed your diet? Or stopped jogging? Well, so much for your unworthy exaggerations.
Thank you for being solicitous about my mental health but like most people with felix nervosa, you ought to have a care for your own weird symptoms of laughing at things called Assnuts and sheeple. Better check yourself in for observation.
".....Perthnow.com.au reports....." And did Perthnow.com.au or any of the Faithful websites actually print pics to verify the claim for "crowd of hundreds"? The pic much used on Faithful websites is actually from almost two years ago when A$$nut addressed the Occupy London twits. I'm sure the "mix up" over the pic was just an unfortunate mistake and not an attempt by the Faithful to misleed, oh no..... The Times did have pics but they were definately not of "hundreds", and they showed barriers were to seperate the side of the street where the few Faithful were trying to pretend they were the "99%" whilst the actual hundreds were simply passers by, tourists and shoppers, none of whom stayed to hear Saint Jules, Patron Saint of Fools, make the usual a$$ of himself. Worse for the rabid Faithful, they were so short of numbers they had to go and rope in support from the local Student Union bars just to get into double figures! At least this time they didn't sing "Oh come let us adore him" like they did in December - the song says it all, just a sad sycophant and a load of completely clueless followers he uses as dupes.
Ah, ickle Local Dupe is shrieking again. OK, let's look at the facts and see what Local Dupe wants to dispute.
Firstly, A$$nut is a convicted criminal. He has convictions in Australia for e-crimes, and was so stupid he even asked the local coppers investigating him if they would just forget about it! You can find the facts regarding A$$nuts prior conviction all over the Web, or summarised here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange#.22Mendax.22_and_the_Nortel_case).
Secondly, what A$$nut is accused of in the EAW would be considered rape under English Law (http://jackofkent.com/2012/06/assange-would-the-rape-allegation-also-be-rape-under-english-law/).
Thirdly, A$$nut is now a criminal under English Law for contempt of court (from jumping bail). If he has removed his leg tag he is also liable for further criminal charges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court#England).
I really suggest you and the rest of the dribbling sheeple go read this (http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2012/09/legal-mythology-extradition-julian-assange) before you try telling the rest of the World how sweet and innocent A$$nut is.
First, You are correct about Assange's youthful indiscretion. It was no more serious than Prince Harry waving the Royal Willy on the front page of every tabloid, But Assange was convicted of hacking and paid the price. While Prince Harry was sent to Afghanistan to kill a Taliban fighter which redeemed himself in the eyes of the public..
Second, "what A$$nut is accused of in the EAW would be considered rape under English Law,"
Yes indeed, if those accusations are true and not suborned perjury. I didn't know that English Law was the gold standard of justice. If your country's laws are the same as English Law, then they're awesome too.
"In the case of Ardin it is clear that she has thrown a party in Assange’s honour at her flat after the “crime” and tweeted to her followers that she is with the “the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing!”. Go on the internet and see for yourself. That Ardin has sought unsuccessfully to delete these exculpatory tweets from the public record should be a matter of grave concern. That she has published on the internet a guide on how to get revenge on cheating boyfriends ever graver. The exact content of Wilén’s mobile phone texts is not yet known but their bragging and exculpatory character has been confirmed by Swedish prosecutors. Neither Wilén’s nor Ardin’s texts complain of rape.
Small world, isn’t it? Julian Assange is the human face of Wikileaks – the organization that’s enabled whistle-blowers to reveal hideous war crimes and expose much of America’s foreign policy to the world.
He just happens to meet a Swedish woman who just happens to have been publishing her work in a well-funded anti-Castro group that just happens to have links with a group led by a man at least one journalist describes as an agent of the CIA: the violent secret arm of America’s foreign policy.
And she just happens to have been expelled from Cuba, which just happens to be the global symbol of successful defiance of American foreign policy.
And – despite her work in Sweden upholding the human right of gender equity – in Cuba she just happens to end up associating with a group openly supported by an admitted CIA agent who himself committed mass murder when he actively participated in the terrorist bombing of a jetliner carrying a Cuban sports team…an act that was of a piece with America’s secret foreign policy of violent attacks against Cuban state interests.
And now she just happens – after admittedly consensual sex – to have gone to Swedish authorities to report the sex ended without a condom…which just happens to be the pretext for Interpol to issue a “Red Notice” informing the world’s police forces of charges against Julian Assange.
Who just happens to be the man America’s political class – the people who run America’s foreign policy – have been trying to silence. And who happens to be the man some of them have been calling to have murdered.
With a lust for vengeance like that, one could be forgiven for concluding they’ve just happened to have taken a page from Anna’s revenge manual."
http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/
Third,"A$$nut is now a criminal under English Law for contempt of court (from jumping bail)." If Raoul Wallenberg had been arrested by the Hungarian fascists to be extradited to Berlin and jumped bail, you would have been jumping from table to table at Starbucks (the 1944 version)
"....Assange's youthful indiscretion...." A$$nut was a young man and his criminal career extended over several years. It was no "indiscretion", he knew what he was doing was illegal and he encouraged others to join him in breaking the law. Your stupid apologist response then goes off on the Anna Ardin attack frenzy I mentioned earlier in some automatic re-bleating of the same crud the rest of the Faithful have been bleating since A$$nut got questioned by the Swedes. How predictable! How sadly childish.
And she's a BIG LIAR. And you cant' get her back into the box where you keep all the government liars whose words you take as the indisputable truth. Pity you are now stuck with her inconsistencies and falsehoods.
"Your stupid apologist response then goes off on the Anna Ardin attack frenzy I mentioned earlier in some automatic re-bleating of the same crud the rest of the Faithful have been bleating since A$$nut got questioned by the Swedes."
What blather is this? The Swedish rape charges are as much about Anna Ardin as they are about Assange' denials.
Please tell us again why she is an unimpeachable complainant and not why Assange is a rapist.
"The rape, the extradition, the trial, the bail jump, the asylum, are nothing if Anna Ardin is a liar....." Well, the rape allegation requires A$$nut to return to Sweden for charging and trial, which he has obviously no intention of doing, so he will ALWAYS be a rapist in the minds of the public. The trial likewise. The bail jumping means he is in contempt of court here in the UK even if the Swedes do the very unlikely and drop their case, so therefore he is still a criminal and fugitive from justice here in the UK and will remain so until he surrenders himself to the UK police. The asylum was his own hypocritical doing in an attempt to avoid the justice he sang long and loud about wanting so badly. And for Anna to be judged a liar also requires A$$nut to surrender himself for charging and trial in Sweden, so she cannot be proven a liar whilst he doesn't! So, A$$nut is a hypocrit, criminal, fugitive from justice and rapist, and Anna Ardin is not a liar. See how easy that was to debunk your silliness?
"....Pity you are now stuck with her inconsistencies and falsehoods....." <Yawn> I pity your family for being stuck with you. I pity you for being stuck with you! You are so blinkered it is tragicly funny.
Excluding Anna Ardin's inconsistencies, there is a 50% chance Assange is being truthful. And if you include them, Assange's story is 99.9% accurate.
ANNA ARDIN IS NOT A LIAR JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SHE ISN'T.
Assange is not the first innocent man to flee corrupt charges. And if he fled corrupt charges in Sweden, why would he let an English court send him back there?
WAKE UP.
"" an attempt to avoid the justice he sang long and loud about wanting so badly.""
When was that? The last act of 'Fidelio'?
Once your heroines told their perjured tales, everything Assange in your litany was a consequence of the previous event. So there were only two events, Matt, the lies of Anna and Sofia and the flight of Assange. Anna Ardin's lies put Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
"" so she cannot be proven a liar whilst he doesn't! ""
Nor can she be PROVEN a truth teller. It's a draw, Dude, with no penalty shoot out.
"" so he will ALWAYS be a rapist in the minds of the public.""
And Matt Bryant will always be biased in the minds of the readers here. Desperately "holding an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.' (occasionally exhibiting flashes of humanity, but for very long.)
".....And if you include them, Assange's story is 99.9% accurate....." OK, just for the humour value, let's see what warped "logic" leads you to that conclusion? I have to point out A$$nut obviously doesn't calculate it that way seeing as how he's hiding in the Ecuadorean Embassy rather than proclaiming his innocence in court in Sweden.
".....ANNA ARDIN IS NOT A LIAR JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY SHE ISN'T......" No need to shriek. The fact is until it goes to court you cannot prove her a liar, and seeing as A$$nut obviously thinks the court will not think her a liar (why else would he be hiding?), it looks like everyone will just assume A$$nut's own actions make him a rapist and her not a liar. Enjoy!
"......Assange is not the first innocent man to flee corrupt charges......" You claim they are corrupt charges yet they were brought by the Swedish police on the account given to them by the two women. Please show how the female policewoman who took their statements was a CIA spy (or what ever loonie conspiracy you want to claim today). You fail again!
"..... Anna Ardin's lies put Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy....." Please, that is the biggest bit of apologist nonsense ever! A$$nut put himself in the Embassy in his determination not to stand trial, simple as that. Are you going to claim Anna Ardin called Correa and asked for a favour for your Holy St Jules? Pathetic.
"......It's a draw....." Hmmmm, let's just check the scoreboard - A$$nut is currently trapped in the Ecuadorean Embassy under threat of an European-wide arrest warrant (which also stops him travelling to anywhere with an extradition treaty with any European country); he is accused of rape and has run from the chance to clear his name; he has added to his list of criminal convictions with an UK charge of contempt of court; whilst he is trying to run Dickileaks from arms length it is gradually sinking as his Faithful can't send him cash via VISA, MasterCard or PayPal; and whilst he is twiddling his thumbs in the Embassy the US authorities are readying to try Manning and cut a deal for a confession on how A$$nut and Dickileaks directed the theft of US secrets. Meanwhile, Anna Ardin has shipped herself off to learn Arabic in the West Bank, far away from the shrieking Lefties she was once enamoured with. You think that's a draw? ROFLMAO!
".....And Matt Bryant will always be biased...." Yes, I freely admit I am very biased against stupidity, self-delusion, and conmen like A$$nut that take advantage of the mentally inept such as yourself.
Hey, Matt, I just learned. that you're still living with your parents so forget about that adoption thingy.
This may be apocryphal, but the word is your dad still wears a powder blue leisure suit. Unless you're the one wearing it.
That's an interesting thought.
Even more interesting to behold.
"...... you're still living with your parents so forget about that adoption thingy......" Whilst I am paying their mortgage they are actually living in their own home. Actually, I'm currently paying three mortgages, but that's another story. Anyway, you shouldn't jest - my parents seem to have done a much better job of raising me to think independently than yours did you.
"..... I was kinda hoping you'd adopt me......" No thanks. Having suffered through my own kids going through the baby stage of dribbling, crying, and crapping their nappies, I don't think I could go through that again in your case.
".....I have quite a sum of money in the funds." Sorry, I'm not like A$$nut, I don't believe in ripping off the mentally challenged for their money.
Did you really believe me about the adoption and the money?
The same way, I suppose, that you believed that Anna Ardin heard, saw and felt a condom break during the heavy thrusting of intercourse with Julie Baby, her legs spread in a darkened room and howling like women do when they're not faking an orgasm. She probably grew a pair of tactile labia in her school days.
Why don't you bloviate on that for a while?
".....heard, saw and felt a condom break ...." Her statement said nothing of the sort, it said she became suspicious that A$$nut had removed the condom so she checked for the rim, it was only later she realised he'd deliberately torn it. And by all accounts, hers an Sofia Wilen's, there was no "heavy thrusting" or orgasm on their part. Sounds like your Holy Saint Jules is as unmanly in the sack as he is in hiding in the Ecuadorean Embassy. Once again, your apologist attempts at smearing Anna Ardin are just tragically comic. I see you have avoided answering why you think A$$nut is cowering in the Embassy if he is so confident about proving her a liar. This is my surprised face, honest.
Well, I finally understand your attraction to Anna Ardin. You're as stupid as she is.
"Anna tried several times to reach for a condom, but Assange stopped her from doing so by
holding her arms and prying open her legs while trying to penetrate her with his penis
without a condom. Anna says that eventually she was on the verge of tears because she
was held fast and could not get a condom, and felt that ‘this can end badly’."
Tears or not, she allowed him to stay another week in her flat. Completely unbelievable. She let him stay because it was a HONEY TRAP. I'm surprised she didn't accuse him of stealing her grandmother's spoons.
RECORDED INTERVIEW for the accused.
"The interviews with Julian Assange, Johannes Wahlström and Donald Boström
were audio-recorded and the protocols include every verbalization that was uttered."
INTERVIEW NOT RECORDED for the complainants
"Sofia Wilén
Date: 20 August 2010
Interviewing officer: Irmeli Krans
Type of interview: In person; not recorded."
Note on date and time of document
On Friday, 20 August 2010. I conducted an interview with complainant Sofia Wilén
in connection with case #0201-K246314-10 at Klara Police Station. The interview commenced at 4:21 p.m. and was terminated at 6:40 p.m. The interview [protocol] was
thereafter written with the word-processing program in the DurTvå computer system.
The interview was to be copyedited on my next workday, Monday the 23rd of August
2010.
That was not possible because I was denied access to the interview I had conducted. After an exchange of e-mails, I was directed by supervisor Mats Gehlin to instead create and sign a new interview in DurTvå, which was done on 26 August
with the necessary changes. Unfortunately, the date and time of that document conforms
with the time that the changes were made, as that is done automatically by the DurTvå
system.
Type of protocol: Summary by interviewing officer; revised 26 August 2010
I refuse to believe you are a major moron. But I will if you persist
LOL, you're so funny! Oh you're serious? That's just tragic. Tell you what, if you think the evidence in the statements makes her out to be a liar, and it's so clear as to be a guaranteed get-out-of-jail card, why did A$$nut run twice, once from Sweden and then to the Ecuadorean Embassy? All that expensive legal advice he was getting, surely if it was an open-and-shut case they would have advised A$$nut to just go straight back to Sweden and clear up the case, but instead A$$nut got all flighty again. Oh, have you been trying to avoid thinking about that? LOL! Do I expect you to answer? Of course not, you and the other sheeple will stick to accusing Anna Ardin of being a CIA stooge as it's just easier for to do that than actually stop and think.
".... he could be extradited....." Put that zombie argument back in it's grave, it's been shot down so many times I'm surprised even you could be so desperate as to try wheeling it out again."
"Moreover, Justice Stefan Lindskog uttered the important statement (quoted in the beginning of this text) in answering a question during the panel, where he clearly admits that extradition to the US can be possible even outside the interpretation or use of the law. The risk for the extradition of Julian Assange to the US continues unabated."
"Finally – and to the best of my recall –Lindskog never talked about Sweden-US temporary surrender agreement, which is a risk to M. Assange that has been widely discussed in international condemnation of Sweden. Other aspects relevant to the above, and not touched upon by Justice Lindskog on the theme of political extraditions, are taken up in the referred the above referred Newsmill article “Mismanagement of the Assange case devastating to Sweden’s international reputation“.
"Minister Carl Bildt incorrectly claimed that the Sweden government couldn’t make a guarantee that Assange won't be extradited because the decision rests with the judiciary. This is now proven as flagrantly inaccurate. The final decision for approving an extradition rests with the government. The question that remains is, why the Swedish government persist in prolonging this case, whose deadlock could otherwise easily be ended"
http://ferrada-noli.blogspot.com
Have a nice day. :o)
Halloooooo, anyone there? You still have not answered why you think A$$nut keeps dodging the case, unless you want to agree that he knows he will be found guilty of rape. Your constant rebleating of the extradition angle in complete avoidance of all other subjects is hilarious! Justice Stefan Lindskog said there was, in the most extreme and extraordinary of cases, a chance the US could extradite A$$nut, which is a bit like saying there is a one-in-thirteen-MILLION chance that I could win the Lottery this weekend but I am guaranteed to become a millionaire! Fail!
Because your brain has stopped working and very soon you are going to need another source of income.
"Justice Stefan Lindskog said there was, in the most extreme and extraordinary of cases, a chance the US could extradite A$$nut..."
"On 28 November 2010, WikiLeaks began releasing some of the 251,000 American diplomatic cables in their possession, of which over 53 percent are listed as unclassified, 40 percent are "Confidential" and just over six percent are classified "Secret".
What say you, Matt Bryant? Does the US consider the release of 6% of 251,000, secret documents, to be an "extreme and extraordinary" action worthy of an equal response?
"What was more interesting though, was the response of the panelists to Justice Lindskog’s speech, which was not covered in the live stream, nor was the Q&A from the audience. And fortunately, it was recorded and there is an audio recording on the Internet of the Q&A session.
And during that session Justice Lindskog was asked whether, despite his assertion that Sweden does not extradite on political or military grounds, whether Julian Assange could be extradited from Sweden to the US. And he admitted that yes, it was quite possible.
Robles: He said that, he said it was quite possible?
Kostakidis: Yes, it was quite possible. He was reminded that Sweden has extradited people extra-judicially. Two Egyptians were sent to Egypt, handed over to the CIA and tortured in Egypt, and that states do act extra-judicially, and Sweden in particular has acted extra-judicially. And he admitted that it was possible that Assange could be handed over to the US by Sweden.
The important issue that Julian Burnside raised in his response to Justice Lindskog, and Julian represents Julian Assange in Australia, was that Sweden has this temporary surrender agreement with the US, which means that if Julian were in Sweden and he would be in jail, he would be held without bail, the US could borrow him for another trial, and Sweden would hand him over. And again, when Justice Lindskog was asked about this, he refused to comment about it. So, it was very interesting that he has been very careful about this issue.
Hardly 13 million to one.
Read more: http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_04_10/Quite-possible-Julian-Assanage-would-be-extradited-from-Sweden-to-the-US-Kostakidis/
I'm not frightened by your foul replies and down votes. It gives me a fonder feeling for you as you slowly slip into dementia. :o(
<Yawn>. "....."What was more interesting though, was the response of the panelists to Justice Lindskog’s speech, which was not covered in the live stream, nor was the Q&A from the audience. And fortunately, it was recorded and there is an audio recording on the Internet of the Q&A session......" LOL! What you mean to say is there is a heavily edited version, especially for sheeple consumption, without context and without any corroboration that it it is even the words spoken by Lindskog. Fail!
"....What say you, Matt Bryant? Does the US consider the release of 6% of 251,000, secret documents, to be an "extreme and extraordinary" action worthy of an equal response?....." Instead of hyperventilating and rebleating what you have been told to think, why haven't you actually looked at the events that have actually taken place due to that leak? I'll go through them for you and I'll try and use small words so you can keep up. Actual US response - they found and arrested the source of the leak, Manning, and now have him on trial. The rest is simply hot air. You also forgot to mention (I'm being generous here as I suspect it is your sheeple reality filter stopping you admitting the fact) that it would have been easier for the US to extradite A$$nut from the UK rather than Sweden. Did the US attempt to extradite A$$nut when he was under the control of the UK courts? No, the US authorities were probably too busy getting more popcorn and enjoying watching A$$nut completely destroy his own credibility. You fail again! Yet again, again.
".....It gives me a fonder feeling for you as you slowly slip into dementia....." It would be actually reassuring to think your continual problems with reality were due to advancing dementia as it would alleviate you of any blame, but the truth is you are willingly obtuse and enjoy your self-delusion. Your problem cannot be excused by a medical condition, it is simply due to poor upbringing, a lack of education and a complete lack of real World experience. You are a shining example of how the A$$nut Faithful have so ditched any sense of reality in their devotion to a failed ideal that they have become as silly and sad as the Church of Scientology! When your ideals are not based on reality but in heartfelt desires and myths, then you are simply another religious group. And that is exactly what your arguments are, nothing but whimsy, paranoia and desperate attempts to avoid the obvious, rebleated with the zeal of a fanatic. I pity you. Well, that's when I'm not laughing at you.
"you mean to say is there is a heavily edited version, especially for sheeple consumption," Is that your prayer for this Sunday, Matt Bryant?
" would have been easier for the US to extradite A$$nut from the UK rather than Sweden. Did the US attempt to extradite A$$nut when he was under the control of the UK courts?" This is signature Matt Bryant blather. The US had not charged Assange when he was in England. They would have had to have an indictment before they could ask England to extradite him. And didn't Sweden already want him for questioning and get a EAW which put him into English custody? Wasn't Sweden first in line? Did you expect the US to butt into the queue?
You don't care about anything except getting Assange in the shower room with Bubba and proudly shout it from the roof tops. OTOH even though the US behaves exactly like Joe Stalin's Russia, they hate being seen doing so.
".... Is that your prayer for this Sunday...." You have not been paying attention, I've posted several times that I'm not religious, unlike you. Your sad faith in The Holy Saint Jules, probably only exceeded by your blind devotion to the equally disproven economic beliefs of Karl Marx, are bordering on the fanatical.
".....Assange when he was in England. They would have had to have an indictment before they could ask England to extradite him. And didn't Sweden already want him for questioning and get a EAW which put him into English custody? Wasn't Sweden first in line?...." But you Faithful claim the US has a secret indictment of A$$nut ready to go, so which is it, do they have a secret indictment or not? Surely if they did they would use it? Or is the whole "secret indictment" just more Faithful bleating? And then you forget that security treaties mean that an indictment for Espionage would trump an EAW for rape, so if there really was a secret indictment ready to go, the US could have used it and jumped right to the head of the queue. And if there was some great conspiracy, the UK courts would never have granted A$$nut bail but kept him locked up and waiting for the US extradition request. But none of that happened, because it only exists in the dribbling minds of the Faithful like you.
".....You don't care about anything except getting Assange in the shower room with Bubba and proudly shout it from the roof tops....." Not quite. Like the US authorities, I'm happy to see conmen like A$$nut, who takes advantage of the "special" people like you, given enough rope to hang themselves. It is excellent entertainment watching A$$nut's ego and paranoia destroy all the Dickileakers' carefully laid plans. The strident and fanciful bleating of the Faithful is just added amusement value. After all, A$$nut went to Sweden with the intent of building a journalistic legal DEFENCE for Wikileaks, yet he somehow managed to turn that into making himself a wanted criminal hiding away in a tiny embassy of a Third World dictator! Seriously funny stuff! Enjoy!
"I've posted several times that I'm not religious." I know you're not religious. It's worth noting how many atheists, after getting seriously ill, hop on the bandwagon. The frailty of old age pushes people who are afraid to die into the bosom of God.
Now I've said many times I have no great love for Assange, but you keep on making snide, humorless comments about us. If you keep it up, expect some Jehovah's Witness jokes from me.
"your blind devotion to the equally disproven economic beliefs of Karl Marx" That was uncalled for. You know I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the communist party.
"Let Treasons be Trumps. And Trumps they were." Sorry, Matt, I couldn't find out anything in google about how US indictments for espionage trump an EAW for rape. You got a citation?
The irony about you and me and Assange is this: I think he is a dumbfuck for getting caught in a "honey trap" and you are so into how kosher Anna and Sofia are, we can't even agree about that. It's like an O. Henry story.
".....I think he is a dumbfuck for getting caught in a "honey trap" and you are so into how kosher Anna and Sofia are....." LOL, if you seriously think it was a honey trap then you really need to seek help! And as regards Anna Ardin, I don't think she is some saintly individual any more than I think she's a CIA spy. She seems to be a bitter feminazi type that suddenly realised the "world's smartest people" she was so enamoured with were just a cliquey bunch of morons, but that doesn't mean she can't be "raped" under Swedish law. Everything else after that has simply been the very amusing product of A$$nut's gormless ego and paranoia.
You have obviously run out of even the pretence of an argument, isn't it about time you just conceded defeat and left the conversation to those more capable? If you're getting desperate for some more (easily debunked) excuses for A$$nut to avoid going back to face trial in Sweden, don't worry, I hear he is trying to convince Correa into strongarming Ecuavisa into giving him a weekly slot, broadcast from the Embassy in London. I hear the only problem is the only Spanish A$$nut knows is "no, no voy a usar un condón, ahora permanecer inmóvil, perra!"
I seriously doubt this survey's accuracy - Would you vote for someone fleeing rape charges and skipping bail? It's fairly obvious that the only reason he's talking about standing is that he thinks there will be pressure to the UK/EU to send him back to Australia if he is elected and that somehow this will make all the charges against him go away. I'm not aware of any precedent for this happening, indeed there are precedents for it not happening in Bobby Sands.
He's not credible and clutching at straws...
This is a very strange survey. Since Assange is seeking to become a senator for Victoria, all those questioned from other states are 100% not going to vote for him, as he won't be on the ballot paper.
What does vote for him mean? Does it mean give him you first preference? Because, with our system, you can vote for him, but as your 27th preference, if you like.
Also, the Senate electoral system has two options
- vote for a ticket (e.g. Labor Party, Liberals). Preferences are assigned according to each party's decision. All major parties will have Assange very low on their preference list, so their left-over quotas will not go to him. Most voters (> 97% in Victoria) use the ticket votes, because the alternative is
- voting by filling in every box on the ballot paper in order of preference (59 boxes in Victoria as the last election). This is just way too much trouble for most.
His "election" will be challenged in the Court of Disputed Returns, and there is enough indication that his election will be deemed invalid (he has been away from Aus for too long). In that case there will be a recount as if he was not a candidate & somebody else elected instead - who mkay or may not be from his party.
Exactly. All this election joke comes down to is more of A$$nut's self-serving publicity, meant to keep him in the public eye so his dribbling sheeple will carry on donating. The whole party ends should the sheeple forget about him or see through his silliness, and then A$$nut is just another failed skiddie loser criminal.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
