Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Australia Government The Media The Military United States News Politics

Assange Denied Swedish Residence On Confidential Reasons 260

Posted by Soulskill
from the bet-he'd-get-in-if-he-leaked-the-finns'-secrets dept.
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 Assange has been recently under investigation for sexual molestation charges, which were withdrawn and then re-instated.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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Assange Denied Swedish Residence On Confidential Reasons

Comments Filter:
  • by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Monday October 18, 2010 @06:13PM (#33939580)

    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.

    If only there was a website where we could learn about such things.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by cosm (1072588)

      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.

      If only there was a website where we could learn about such things.

      And if it only wasn't down for maintenance...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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: (Score:2, Informative)

      by aliquis (678370)

      Anyway:
      http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utgivningsbevis [wikipedia.org]
      It's my impression _he_ don't need to be Swedish, as long as the organization is Swedish or something such. But their lawyers and he himself probably knows more about that than I do from reading Wikipedia and/or whatever I may have read before. Kinda weird how you need to register to enjoy the freedom and aren't anonymous and free of any responsibility (I can see why people think that's not acceptable, but do we really need all the exceptions of rights whic

  • by TheOtherChimeraTwin (697085) on Monday October 18, 2010 @06:15PM (#33939596)

    secrecy prevails in reference to the grounds for such a decision

    If only there were some site that could be used to leak that kind of information.

  • by cobrausn (1915176) on Monday October 18, 2010 @06:20PM (#33939660)
    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.
    • by PRMan (959735) on Monday October 18, 2010 @06:27PM (#33939752)

      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.

      • >>>anytime you challenge the current power brokers, expect to be fried.

        I guess we need to kill them first then. - or - dissolve the US (or EU) government as a "bad idea", thereby making the powerbrokers powerless.
        Personally I'd like to see a return to the Article of Confederation, with just a few modifications.

        • by bug1 (96678)

          "I guess we need to kill them first then."

          Or just expose them to the public (via some anonymous website maybe) and let mob rule decide their fate.

    • by slick7 (1703596) on Monday October 18, 2010 @09:21PM (#33941468)

      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.

  • Whaaahhh!!!!!!! (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by onyxruby (118189)
    And if this happens to leak, than he of all persons has no basis to complain...
  • by Scrameustache (459504) on Monday October 18, 2010 @06:25PM (#33939714) Homepage Journal

    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]

  • by Nidi62 (1525137)
    Just curious, but what is the Swedish government's normal position on revealing the reasons for accepting/denying residency? Do they normally refuse comment on topics such as this, or is the response to Assange's case different? The article doesn't say, and so this could easily be simply an attempt to make mountains out of anthills.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jugalator (259273)

      It's not different, so that part is actually a non-story.

      These decisions are always secret here, no matter how benign, but if Assange want to speak up, it's up to him.

      I think it's just there to protect his privacy. Like if he had been subject to a medical operation or something.

  • by Toy G (533867) <`toyg' `at' `libero.it'> on Monday October 18, 2010 @06:34PM (#33939836) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • by hedwards (940851)
      Unfortunately there are a few nations out there that are powerful enough economically that it's hard to ignore them completely. The US being one and China being another.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Parent is totally clueless:

      - Sweden was "neutral" during WWII, meaning it was effectively on the Nazi side.
      - Sweden was "neutral" during the Cold War but effectively on the NATO side through military cooperation and secret joint defense plans with Norway (a NATO founding member).
      - Sweden's politicians are almost exactly the same as they have been for the last decades.
      - Sweden's "political paradise" is, if reading "paradise" as something akin to socialism, a myth created by clueless socialists outside of Swe

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Sweden was "neutral" during WWII, meaning it was effectively on the Nazi side.

        No, actually it means that they were neutral. Imagine that.

    • 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.

      That's because they don't have Soviet shadows to be afraid of anymore. Cold warriors had guts? These were the same people who were fond of the slogan, "Better dead than Red," which is to say, they'd rather have ended the human race forever in a blaze of nuclear fire than fight a long guerrilla struggle against Soviet domination in the astronomically unlikely event of Soviet world conquest.

      You can always spot the chickenshits by looking for the people who talk loud and thump their chests a lot.

      • Um ... you don't actually know what the Swedish role during the Cold War was, do you? Hint: they were anything but the chest-thumping jingoists you're talking about.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jugalator (259273)

      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...

  • Wikileaks 2.0 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joeszilagyi (635484) on Monday October 18, 2010 @06:59PM (#33940140)

    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.

    • I'm undecided about that. When it comes to this kind of information, at this time, public is probably safer than would-be anonymous.

      If anything happens to Assange, the entire world knows where to look. Even the Mossad can't make public figures disappear without leaving a trail. Whereas a would-be anonymous leaking organization can be easily disappeared or infiltrated.

      The problem with being anonymous is that you never actually are.

      • I'm undecided about that. When it comes to this kind of information, at this time, public is probably safer than would-be anonymous.

        If anything happens to Assange, the entire world knows where to look. Even the Mossad can't make public figures disappear without leaving a trail. Whereas a would-be anonymous leaking organization can be easily disappeared or infiltrated.

        The problem with being anonymous is that you never actually are.

        Mossad suck, they can't even steal passports and get away with it [guardian.co.uk] :)

  • For an interesting account - find a copy of The Big Breach online. Secrecy et. al.

  • by AHuxley (892839) on Monday October 18, 2010 @07:39PM (#33940602) Homepage Journal
    and have have much pull in Sweden. In the 1960's Swedish crypto machines where been exported to the world.
    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]
  • Perhaps WikiLeaks will now leak the reason for his denial. Would be poetic.

"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even one which cannot be justified on any other grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC.

Working...