3 ms·
From the wikileak article linked below: "Having Julian Assange elected to the Senate would give him some advantages, at the very least the embarrassment of the
by ma2rten 15y ago
From the wikileak article linked below:
"Having Julian Assange elected to the Senate would give him some advantages, at the very least the embarrassment of the Australian government having to communicate to whatever authority in Sweden - or the USA as the case may be - about 'Senator Assange' or, if ensconced in Parliament, the embarrassment for Attorney General Nicola Roxon if ASIO was found to have tapped Julian Assange's parliamentary phone and internet connection."
Then it goes on about starting a wikileaks party and actually archiving some political change.
- rprasad 15y agoWhich does nothing to improve his situation in the U.S. The U.S. already does not have the jurisdiction to wiretap overseas; it must have local agencies do so (and many of them agree to do so, pursuant to INTERPOL agreements). The wlcentral article is clearly written by someone who does not understand Parliamentary government (probably a fellow American). Members of parliament are selected by the parties (rather than being elected directly), but the parties must meet a minimum vote threshold to receive any seats.
- nopassrecover 15y agoThe cabinet (i.e. ministers) are appointed by the party with the most seats, but members of parliament themselves are most certainly elected directly by the local area which they represent. The senate is a bit different, where you have the option to select either the specific senators you want, or to delegate your votes to a party to allocate.