Slashdot Mirror


Assange Denied Swedish Residence On Confidential Reasons

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 Assange has been recently under investigation for sexual molestation charges, which were withdrawn and then re-instated.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."

33 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. Confidential by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  2. It is a shame by TheOtherChimeraTwin · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  3. Molestation charges? by cobrausn · · 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.

    --
    How does it feel to be a liar with pants constantly on fire?
    1. Re:Molestation charges? by PRMan · · 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.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Molestation charges? by slick7 · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  4. Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? by Kvasio · · Score: 3, Funny

    judging by how well spam moguls and botnet kings are doing, he would be better of in Russia.

  5. A lesson in assymetric warfare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If you create a subversive organization it has to be led by someone no one knows except organization cell leaders.

    If you are the "leader" of said organization and it's known externally, you are no longer the leader.

    Otherwise, you are no longer able to do battle assymetrically, they know who you are and you know who they are.

    And yes, the DoD has declared "Cyber" as a theater, meaning information is a weapon, so yes Assange is in every way a public "leader" of a subversive organization to those wikileaks wages war upon.

    Sorry Julian, it's time to find a new job.

    1. Re:A lesson in assymetric warfare by stephanruby · · Score: 3, 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.

  6. Re:Motives by the+linux+geek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because the US particularly cares whether Assange lives in Sweden? If the Swedish government is in the US's pocket like plenty of people seem to believe, you'd think that they would strongly favor Assange living there (all the better to trump up fake rape charges, of course.) Alternatively, you could go with the more mundane but rational-seeming explanation, which is that Sweden doesn't want Assange because he draws a lot of attention to himself and gets complaints from the local women.

  7. Wikileaks NOT planning to release those docs today by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, 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

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  8. Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? by cosm · · 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.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
  9. I feel for ya... by halivar · · Score: 5, Funny

    The only difference between +5 Interesting and -1 Redundant is 2 minutes.

    1. Re:I feel for ya... by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Funny

      And the difference between +5 interesting and -1 redundant is 6 virtual points you can spend towards an imaginary pony named Mr. Bubblecatcher.

    2. Re:I feel for ya... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Bah! I don't care for your silly rew- he catches bubbles, you say?? Tell me more.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
  10. Sweden is not a paradise anymore by Toy+G · · 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.

    --
    -- Let's go Viridian.
  11. Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? by shitzu · · Score: 4, Funny

    in no time these confidential reasons will be published on wikileaks

  12. Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? by julioody · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... Lately it's all about the US government, and the wars. It's not the kind of information that most of us find interesting

    What shocks me to no end is that you're right. I suppose people don't care if it ain't happening on their own backyard. But the apathy of the populace with regards to a war waged for reasons that have so many holes that, to be honest, I think at this point the powers that be don't care if they get busted or not, it just never ceases to amaze me.

  13. Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What did he actually do wrong?

    His planning and execution around pissing the largest organization on the planet off?

    Going celebrity was his exit plan

    Apparently he did not plan that one out very well or he would have applied for Swedish residence before he did got into this mess.

  14. Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 3, 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.

  15. Wikileaks 2.0 by joeszilagyi · · 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.

    --
    Dude, where's my packet?
  16. Re:Translation by cappp · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Not necessarily. If Assanage wanted to release the exact details of his rejection he's more than free too - but, like with pretty much every government out there, it is against the law for official bodies to discuss the private details of individuals' interactions with the state. This is especially true when considering things like passports, residence, and visas.

    Anyway it need not be quite as cloak and dagger as suggested - the Swedish work permit requires employers to certify that they

    * have advertised the post in Sweden and the EU for at least ten days. (For new recruitment.)
    * offer terms of employment that are equal to those of a Swedish collective agreement or what is customary within the profession or sector
    * give the relevant union organisations the opportunity to express an opinion on the terms of employment in the job offer.

    As far I remember the newspaper that offered him employment didn't advertise the post to anyone else. A purely bureaucratic explanation.

    That’s not to say that Sweden isn’t worried about international repercussions but there are other explanations available. Swedish citizenship includes an assessment of good conduct which I would assume applies in the initial residence application as well.

    The Migration Board requests information regarding this from other authorities: The Enforcement Service (if you have debts)
    The Swedish National Police Board (if you committed a crime or are suspected of doing so) and
    The Security Service (security checks).

    They could also be holding out until all the charges against him have been clarified.

  17. Re:Motives by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think it is the Boogieman.. Oh wait same thing. It could also be that he really did sexually molest someone in sweden and they just don't want him there.
    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.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  18. Re:Motives by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

    If Assange can't live in Sweden, it forces him to flee to some other location within the US' grasp... perhaps even the US itself.

    That would be the worst place for him to go. So far he has been safe in Australia where he has the advantage of citizenship. I suspect he has too many ex girlfriends there to make it a happy place though.

  19. Re:Motives by Oriumpor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let me just use some flashy marketting material:
    Land, Air, Sea, Space and Cyber.
    From the USAA posture statement 2009:

    Why is this important to the Army?
    Cyber intrusions and attacks are a real and emerging threat to national security. The Nation faces a dangerous combination of known and unknown vulnerabilities, capable adversaries, and limited situational awareness. It is critical for the Army to grow its cyberspace operations to counter adversary targeting of both our information and our information infrastructure. To maintain our dominance in cyberspace the Army will continue to grow our abilities to better defend our own networks and have capabilities in place to conduct network warfare against adversary networks.

    Guess what with just that basic research I can tell you: according to that philosophy Wikileaks is an adversary, and Jullian Assange likely qualifies as an enemy of the state.

  20. Re:Motives by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  21. NSA/GCHQ connections by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  22. Re:Motives by DeadPixels · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    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'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.

  23. Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? by grcumb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's only a matter of time before the high and mighty types put him on the blacklist.

    I even heard that he lost control of his own server wikileaks.org, and that the technical difficulties are a result of an act of sabotage. I said it before and I'll say it again, it might be best for the future of wikileaks of Julian Assange steps down, he allowed himself to go public and accept all that media attention, he's the one who killed wikileaks.

    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.

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  24. Re:Motives by grcumb · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
  25. Democracy and Responsibility by Chicken_Kickers · · 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.

    1. Re:Democracy and Responsibility by Heretic2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wow. Around half of the comments in this thread are for "lynching" Assange and Wikileaks.

      More like half the comments in this thread were posted by employees/contractors of the NSA/DHS/CIA/DIA/whatever. US tax dollars hard at work. I'm just SOOOOOO glad we're operating with a major deficit so we can hire guys to troll up message boards with the skill of a 13 year-old. *face palm* Might as well just outsource that shit to India and save a buck, it couldn't be any more obvious than what they do now.

  26. Annnnd? by Uberbah · · Score: 5, 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.

    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.

  27. Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? by guyminuslife · · 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

    --
    I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.