Assange Denied Swedish Residence On Confidential Reasons 260
MotorMachineMercenar writes "The Local reports that Julian Assange has been denied a residence permit in Sweden. The WikiLeaks spokesman and Australian citizen applied for residency in August, apparently to gain the freedom of speech protection offered by Swedish laws. When asked about the reasons for the denial, a Swedish official responsible replied, '...secrecy prevails in reference to the grounds for such a decision,' essentially meaning the reasons are confidential. Assange has been recently under investigation for sexual molestation charges, which were withdrawn and then re-instated. WikiLeaks is expected to release up to 400,000 confidential US military documents in the near future, which would be the largest such leak in US history."
Molestation charges? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wikileaks NOT planning to release those docs today (Score:4, Insightful)
WikiLeaks does not speak about upcoming releases dates, indeed, with very rare exceptions we do not communicate any specific information about upcoming releases
Julian Assange
Editor-in-chief
http://rixstep.com/1/1/20101018,00.shtml [rixstep.com]
Re:Molestation charges? (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus was a saint. Look at what happened to him. Heck, look at the saints...
The reality is, anytime you challenge the current power brokers, expect to be fried.
Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lately it's all about the US government, and the wars. It's not the kind of information that most of us find interesting
You are speaking for yourself on that one.
There was a time when wikileaks would just dump any and all information onto the site and let us review it all.
That hasn't changed.
Julian Assange should have let someone else be the spokesperson.
Who and why?
It should have been designed so that there was not one point of failure.
You have fallen into the propaganda. One man doesn't a leaking organization make. Sure, in the eyes of people who buy into the character assassination, yes he may lost credibility, but honestly those folks don't matter in my opinion.
Game over for wikileaks, it was a naive idea that could never have worked in practice
It did work in practice. You say 'could have never' like the didn't successfully leak thousands of documents already.
What did he actually do wrong? Are you suggesting there would have been a better person to put their face on the leaks? He is the fucking messenger. The fucking messenger. Going celebrity was his exit plan. Your pessimism makes you THAT GUY.
Sweden is not a paradise anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
Between this, the Piratebay farce and the victories for far-right parties, it's now clear that Sweden is not the "neutral" political paradise it once was.
It's a shame that the current crop of politicians haven't got the guts to stand up the bullies of the world; their predecessors worked hard and bravely during the Cold War, risking total annihilation, and I'm sure they'd be ashamed to know that their spineless children are frightened by their own shadows.
Re:Confidential (Score:2, Insightful)
They are very secrative about this.. but when a person gets ACCUSED of rape - they release it all over the world in a matter of minutes about who and what...
Re:Motives (Score:3, Insightful)
Not if I was a Senator, Congressman, President, or other member of the government. It would be my job to keep my employer (the People) informed, not to hide things my boss would disapprove of.
Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not practical because everybody knows the government was going to target everyone running the wikileaks server all the way up the chain to Assange. They will treat Wikileaks like a terrorist or mafia type organization.
Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (Score:4, Insightful)
He's the face of an open challenge to the rulers of the land. They won't take kindly to that in Russia. Also, they won't beat around the bush and do character assassination. They'll just assassinate.
Wikileaks 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Fork now, go 100% anonymous, and every time you dump the data, immediately tip off at the same time the various news media contacts you have internationally, providing each with a redundant encrypted access avenue that is detached from the main 'body' of Wikileaks 2.0. No one person should ever be known by name. Cultural war is war, after all. Act like it.
Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (Score:1, Insightful)
I think the biggest problem with Wikileaks was not the idea itself (a site dedicated to government transparancy), but that Assange instead chose to use the information as a weapon to advance his personal views about the wars. In so doing, the wikileaks concept has lost much of its credibility with a large part of the public, and that is the problem. I think a better platform would strictly be about being a repository for the data it finds rather than an interpreter for what it means. Leave that to the journalists.
Re:I feel for ya... (Score:2, Insightful)
You get what you pay for.
Re:Motives (Score:3, Insightful)
The US doesn't particularly care about Assange living -- they've made it clear already.
It is sad that so many Americans are buying the official red herring and hate him. You should be questioning the US Army commanders -- it was they who let incriminating things happen under their watch; it is them who are so inept at managing information systems that one single disgruntled peon was able amass data about years of operations.
Not to mention US politicians from the last 50 years, who are as responsible for the rise of militant Islam (and especially terrorism) as the mullahs and the mujahedins - the US gave the crazy a powerful motive, some serious training and money and, finally, legitimacy by even declaring them worthy of a "war".
Is that an accident? Emmanuel Goldstein doesn't think so. I think his tinfoil is a bit too thick, but his argument isn't totally worthless.
Also, believe it or not, but the US satrap who bosses the embassy in any small European country, has enough clout to at least get on the phone with the head of state, deliver his request and have the head moving -- on the hour.
From what I've seen first hand while I was involved in politics -- the operation mode of the satrap is close to what you normally call "bullying", and he doesn't always feel the need to watch his language during those calls.
Re:Translation (Score:1, Insightful)
It's political. Take it from a Swede. This is going to sound like the classic racist "they're letting just anyone in these days!", but Sweden really does let pretty much every one in. We're talking convicted, not accused, rapists and even murderers. And once you've been given your residence permit, it takes a miracle to lose it. I've never heard of a deportation for a residence permit holder for anything less than murder 1.
NSA/GCHQ connections (Score:4, Insightful)
The NSA wanted to ensure a flaw to allow reading of messages on every new device shipped.
In 1957 a top NSA's cryptographer called William Friedman went on a tour of the UK and Sweden. Private arrangements where made for 'trap door' tech - the key floats out with the message. By the 1980's this was leaking, Congress knew and the US press talked of it in 1986. Talks where also held to ensure another huge Swedish telco did not work too hard on any new strong crypto.
More at "Rigging the Game" http://cryptome.org/jya/nsa-sun.htm [cryptome.org]
Re:Molestation charges? (Score:3, Insightful)
A lot of people seem to think that in order to be a saint, you must be "nice". You almost never see the kind of behavior (Mother Theresa, if you will) coming from the main protagonists in the Bible, not Jesus, not any of the saints, not the profits, not Moses, not David. The only one I can think of that didn't run afoul of established authority was Ruth.
To be a saint, you must stand for what is right and good and true (and you don't have to be perfect either). That usually means engaging in behavior that is not socially acceptable at some point in your life.
Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore (Score:2, Insightful)
Sweden was "neutral" during WWII, meaning it was effectively on the Nazi side.
No, actually it means that they were neutral. Imagine that.
Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore (Score:1, Insightful)
The US is an irrelevant banana republic, lame haters need to get themselves a new bogeyman
And you apparently have no idea what "banana republic" means.
Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just thought I'd paste your own words back to you, so you'd have time to spot the inherent contradiction in your argument. Wikileaks' difficulties, which you attribute to outside parties, parties who you assert have blacklisted and actively sabotaged him, are somehow Assange's fault?
So he's being punished for receiving media attention, not for the leaks? How, pray tell, do you think one could release tens of thousands of documents which are embarrassing to the military establishment of the most powerful nation on the planet and not get a lot of media attention?
Has it occurred to you that he might have seen the attention coming and realised that it was better to run cover for the dozens or hundreds of others who contribute to the project? Did you think that maybe putting a single face on the organisation was a deliberate choice by Assange, so that he could take the bullet (and I hope I don't mean that literally) for his colleagues?
Mod me flamebait if you must. I could be wrong, but with the illogic that you've presented, you can't be right.
Re:Motives (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean if the US really could control every other nation on the planet like people on slashdot think then he would have had a tragic car accident long ago.
'Accidents' like that breed martyrs and heroes. Sex scandals and related FUD breed contempt and disillusionment.
Re:It is a shame (Score:1, Insightful)
And fools seldom differ...
Re:Molestation charges? (Score:4, Insightful)
Man, I hate to say it but if you're going to release 400,000 stolen US military documents you had better be a freaking saint, or you will fry.
Saint or not, Assange is nothing more than an information broker. How does an Australian receive so much information about the inner workings of the US government without complicity within the government itself?
Excuse the pun but there is something rotten in Denmark. The US has something to hide, and they are not doing a good job of it. Secrecy is the first step in tyranny. Complacency of the people is the second. Obfuscation by the ruling elite promulgates more of the same, ad inifitum.
Someone once said you can't handle the truth, it has also been said that the truth will set you free, but first it will really piss you off.
Re:Motives (Score:3, Insightful)
Why bother with a tragic car accident when diplomatic pressure will do? There's no need to kill Assange if all you want is to better be able to prosecute him should the need arise.
Re:Motives (Score:3, Insightful)
Assange has not been declared an enemy of the state, nor is he being sought by the US government. Right now he's just an annoying gnat to those in power, but it could be worse. It's really the "could be worse" part that really concerns the US government.
Re:A lesson in assymetric warfare (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry Julian, it's time to find a new job.
That's too late for that. He's pissed off so many governments. Hiring him would just mean you'd create yourself an unnecessary list of powerful enemies. No, he's basically stuck with that kind of job for life. Except for Al Jazeera, or may be Amnesty International, I can't think of any other organization that would have the balls to take him on as an employee.
Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (Score:2, Insightful)
Assange instead chose to use the information as a weapon to advance his personal views about the wars.
War is bad. THIS SHOULDN'T BE CONTROVERSIAL, fuck.
In so doing, the wikileaks concept has lost much of its credibility with a large part of the public
Yes, the warmongers, and those receptive to the propaganda of the warmongers.
Democracy and Responsibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. Around half of the comments in this thread are for "lynching" Assange and Wikileaks. Now, I am all for secrecy where it is warranted. For example, the launch codes for nukes should be kept a secret. However, atrocities and war crimes should not. Governments may try to cover it up but exposing such atrocities is not only a right but a responsibility of a human being. If you come from a country where governments are elected, then you are responsible for what your government did, unlike people from dictatorships. By not caring or worse, supporting efforts to cover up atrocities by your military and character assassinate Assange, you too have blood on your hands. Show me and the rest of the world, that the Unites States deserves its "Leader of the Free World" moniker.
Re:Motives (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just surprised that so many people on /. seem to fall into the same trap of assuming that "The Government" can do these things while simultaneously going on about how stupid and inept various branches are.
Incompetent tyrannical governments are a lot more common than competent tyrannical ones. For every Hitler, there are a hundred Mussolinis. Which is lucky for the rest of the world, I guess, but doesn't make things any less miserable for the people who have to live under them.
Note: I am not comparing the US to either Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. Just pointing out that a belief that the government is evil, and a belief that it is stupid and inept, are not necessarily contradictory. Actually I think the US government is, like most very large organizations, home to a few very good people, a few very bad ones, and a whole bunch in the middle doing their best to get through their day.
Re:Motives (Score:3, Insightful)
I have to agree. I know a former State Department official who was relatively far up the chain and he's told me the same thing: People tend to vastly overestimate the capabilities of the US, particularly on the intelligence and global influence fronts.
I know a Secretary of State who told the UN Security Council that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
He lied.
Annnnd? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this more of the "why doesn't he present both sides" bullshit that Micheal Moore gets hit with? On one side you have the U.S. government and a media that loves to parrot it's claims, and on the other you have a few people dumping documents on a web site. Where is your Concern for a media that refuses to call torture, torture when the U.S. does it?
So your selective poutrage is duly noted.
Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering
Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore (Score:3, Insightful)
Between this, the Piratebay farce and the victories for far-right parties, it's now clear that Sweden is not the "neutral" political paradise it once was.
Wait a minute here... Sweden isn't revealing their reasons because this is Julian Assange -- Sweden aren't revealing the reasons because they never do in these cases. If Assange wants to however, it's up to him. It's to protect his privacy. On that topic, you won't hear doctors going into depth in an operation either, but feel free to ask the patient...
Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with this view is that what they're doing over there isn't making us safer, if anything it's doing the opposite. The US government seems to have this idea that the Geneva convention cannot apply to 21st century warfare, because we've got all these insurgents now. I've actually seen US government officials spouting the line that because the insurgents surround themselves with children when they know it's against the Geneva conventions to do so that it's ok for us to violate them.
When we violate our own values, the terrorists win. If you kill a terrorist with a drone and in doing so take out a dozen innocents, you turn the friends and relatives of those innocents into terrorists. You give them just cause to hate us and to want to give their lives to fight against us. When you lock people up and torture them with no just cause for suspicion and with no appeal or trial of any kind, you create terrorists. Hell the reason for all of those rules about the treatment of prisoners in the first place was to protect your own troops from that sort of treatment when they get captured.
People need to see what our governments are doing, we need to understand it and we need to stop it before it is too late. We cannot fight extremists by descending to their level. We cannot prevent the murder of innocents by murdering innocents. We cannot become that which we are fighting against or we have already lost. The US government along with the governments of many western nations have committed crimes not only against the Geneva convention, but against human decency. Their guilt carries over to those who they represent and we need to know.
Assange is an ass, and there have obviously been and will continue to be consequences from the release of these documents. You could even argue that they should have been filtered in some way, but the reality is that the military has been doing a lot of really awful things in relative secret, and considering that we're the ones who are paying and will continue to pay for their actions we ought to know what we're buying.
Re:Motives (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to have some insecurity complex about your country such that you feel the need to remain in denial about it's ability to ever do anything wrong. I didn't say our government is free of blame- of course they are, if not only for trusting US military intelligence more than they should. The fact our government screwed up royally doesn't change the fact the US fed false intelligence to us and hence doesn't change the fact a supposed ally - the US - manipulated us in a way that was a major factor in what turned out to be an illegal war.
You're more than welcome to blame our government too, I do, but the blame isn't mutually exclusive, it's not one or the other, the US is still very much to blame as well, very much in the wrong, and most certainly did influence our decision to go to war based on false evidence. It's sad that you're only capable of seeing things in such a binary manner by assuming that if someone blames the US for something then they're inherently inable to see fault in their own country, that's a rediculous viewpoint, but it's apparently one you have all the same.
Just because our government deserves some blame, doesn't mean your government deserves none.