×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Assange Denied Swedish Residence On Confidential Reasons

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the bet-he'd-get-in-if-he-leaked-the-finns'-secrets dept.

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 Assange has been recently under investigation for sexual molestation charges, which were withdrawn and then re-instated.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

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

260 comments

Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (1, Flamebait)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939552)

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.

There was a time when wikileaks would just dump any and all information onto the site and let us review it all. Lately it's all about the US government, and the wars. It's not the kind of information that most of us find interesting, and while they did a good job with many stories early on back before Julian Assange let it swell his head, now hes become public and he's pulled a Suge Knight, ruining what he created and destroying all the hard work and effort by becoming a celebrity.

You can either be powerful, or a celebrity, but it's not wise to try and be both. Julian Assange should have let someone else be the spokesperson. It should have been designed so that there was not one point of failure. Because Julian Assange is THAT GUY, the agencies will all target him and that will be the end of Wikileaks. Game over for wikileaks, it was a naive idea that could never have worked in practice and was doomed to be exploited by governments.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (3, Funny)

Kvasio (127200) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939666)

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

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (3, Insightful)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940130)

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.

A lesson in assymetric warfare (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33939690)

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.

Re:A lesson in assymetric warfare (2, Funny)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939910)

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

You should always use code names like "CmdrTaco" and "CowboyNeal".

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33939700)

If Wikileaks people are smart, Assange is exactly the scapegoat public figure your describe. It would be a failure if Slashdot knew...

Lets drop the speculation and baseless slander.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (5, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939784)

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.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (2, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940092)

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? (1)

pyrrho (167252) | more than 3 years ago | (#33941090)

it's not practical to expect change and give into that kind of thing. He's already done more than the world's press has managed with decades to work at it.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940112)

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.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940176)

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:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33939856)

Control of his own servers?

You clearly don't know how wikileaks works, yet you were modded up ... So glad to see correct information is getting to the front of the pack here on /.!

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940094)

Slashdot becomes more and more like a bad sci-fi film daily... short on scientific and technological facts but heavy on sensationalist spin.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (2, Funny)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939916)

I do have mod points, but I honestly don't know how to mod a post that parallels Wikileaks with Death Row Records.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939924)

"he's pulled a Suge Knight"

Wouldn't that require him to literally murder somebody? Suge was never anonymous or unknown, he was "behind the scenes" only in the sense that he wasn't on stage... you never see Don King in a boxing match, either.

Anyway, I suspect that, had Julian Assange chosen to remain anonymous, he would have either been dead or "outed" months ago. The "decline" of WikiLeaks may be related, but only insofar as both are a result of it becoming well-known and popular in recent months.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (1)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940118)

"he's pulled a Suge Knight"

Wouldn't that require him to literally murder somebody? Suge was never anonymous or unknown, he was "behind the scenes" only in the sense that he wasn't on stage... you never see Don King in a boxing match, either.

Anyway, I suspect that, had Julian Assange chosen to remain anonymous, he would have either been dead or "outed" months ago. The "decline" of WikiLeaks may be related, but only insofar as both are a result of it becoming well-known and popular in recent months.

Suge Knight never directly murdered anybody. Also Assange if they wanted him dead, would be dead. He went public because he wanted to go public, he may have been outed sure, but that doesn't excuse all the interviews.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940036)

Julian Assange is an enemy of the USA. I hope there is a Hellfire missile with his name on it.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (4, Funny)

shitzu (931108) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940054)

in no time these confidential reasons will be published on wikileaks

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (4, Interesting)

julioody (867484) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940084)

... 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.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33941288)

Just in case you have a typically closed mind I'll show you where the door is.

Why are you shocked?

Let's look at a hypothesis.

Would it shock you if, hypothetically, most "apathetic" people think you are not only wrong but evil? That you destroy your own for shallow brownie points with your a flawed hyper-idealistic yet oh so hypocrite outlook where one play-pretends to be some kind of hero defending evil from the consequences of being evil?

Maybe that's what "apathetic" people think, ever considered that? Maybe there is no "silent majority" of sheeple but instead people actively but silently and indirectly fighting you because they see you as no less a terrorist than the terrorists you defend and support in all sorts of ways?

If you haven't ever thought about that well then I guess you might well be shocked.

People care, but that does not automatically mean that they care for your views. Confronting your views is also caring, ignoring your views can also easily be caring.

Re:Is Julian Assange blacklisted? (4, Insightful)

grcumb (781340) | more than 3 years ago | (#33941110)

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.

Confidential (5, Funny)

amicusNYCL (1538833) | more than 3 years ago | (#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:Confidential (2, Informative)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939814)

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:Confidential (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33939940)

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:Confidential (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940196)

And if only there were people in the Swedish police willing to risk a career and leak them ...

A cool website or no, you still need people who are willing to put their lives on the line for leaks to happen.

Re:Confidential (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940248)

Trust Us [cnn.com]. We know what's best for you.

It is a shame (3, Funny)

TheOtherChimeraTwin (697085) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

I feel for ya... (5, Funny)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939794)

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

Re:I feel for ya... (-1, Redundant)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939958)

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

I've seen posts modded "redundant" even though they were the first posted. /. really needs to hire better mods.

Re:I feel for ya... (4, Funny)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940246)

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

Motives (0, Troll)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939612)

I suspect it may have something to do with the United States.

Re:Motives (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939684)

I can imagine that the last thing Swedish government wants is for their citizens to know that it's because of pressure from the US. I'm surprised they didn't invent some other reason as a cover for that, maybe they couldn't make one that was less suspicious.

Re:Motives (3, Interesting)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939704)

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.

Re:Motives (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939818)

Because the US particularly cares whether Assange lives in Sweden?

Countries tend to care when others give asylum to their enemies. That's not quite the case here, but it's close.

Re:Motives (4, Interesting)

Oriumpor (446718) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940380)

Let me just use some flashy marketting material:
Land, Air, Sea, Space and Cyber. [afei.org]
From the USAA posture statement 2009: [army.mil]

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.

Re:Motives (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939820)

Because the US particularly cares whether Assange lives in Sweden?

Yes, if it gives him legal freedom of speech protection that he doesn't have at the moment.

Re:Motives (1)

Pstrobus (149491) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940468)

On Slashdot, Freedom of Speech is "good" when it protects us, it is "bad" when it protects the people with whom we disagree. Look at all the STFU @$$hole! comments.

Maybe the Swedes just decided "We don't want an attention whore who will fsck up the neighborhood and we don't want to discuss it with all the whiney jerks who think this whore is $Deity."

Hollywood is not exactly a Shining Beacon of Greatness in the World, perhaps Sweden didn't want to follow in H-wood's footsteps.

Re:Motives (0, Troll)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939990)

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.
I'm surprised the EU has not spoken-up, to tell the US to stop interfering with its domestic policies.
Also surprised the US hasn't tried to assassinate Assange yet.

Re:Motives (3, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940342)

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.

Re:Motives (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940460)

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:Motives (1)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939744)

To be fair, the US isn't the only country or organization that has secrets. Wikileaks is unpopular with a lot of people. Heck, if they were revealing your private information you'd be pissed at them too.

Re:Motives (2, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940026)

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:Motives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940640)

If you think any senator, congressman or the president believes for a moment the people are his/her boss, you're a deluded idealist who deserves all of his tax burden.

/ I know what you mean

Re:Motives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940944)

This comment is pretty unintentionally funny.

Re:Motives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940074)

To be fair, the US isn't the only country or organization that has secrets. Wikileaks is unpopular with a lot of people. Heck, if they were revealing your private information you'd be pissed at them too.

Except it's not private information. You can hardly call the mischief and outright illegal and immoral actions of governments private. Not to mention that governments aren't people that can have private information in the first place.

Re:Motives (3, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940340)

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.

Re:Motives (4, Informative)

DeadPixels (1391907) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940696)

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.

Re:Motives (4, Insightful)

grcumb (781340) | more than 3 years ago | (#33941186)

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.

Translation (0)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939626)

The Swedish Government will not grant Assange a resident permit because they are concerned about reprisal from the United States. It is sad that they have to outright deny for reasons of secrecy. It is even more unfortunate that the DoD is so screwed up that it levels an accusing finger at Assange and it turns out that no one was hurt as a result of Wikileaks. Apparently, governments hate it when the people discover the mischief they are up to.

Re:Translation (4, Interesting)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940244)

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 [migrationsverket.se] 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 [migrationsverket.se] 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.

Re:Translation (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940588)

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.

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.

Molestation charges? (4, Insightful)

cobrausn (1915176) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:Molestation charges? (5, Insightful)

PRMan (959735) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:Molestation charges? (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940060)

>>>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.

Re:Molestation charges? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940142)

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.

Sorry to break it to you, but the government already lost power to banks and corporations. Which part of the U.S. does Sweden fear? Its military power, or its economic power? Remember the infamous illegal raid on the Pirate Bay? Remember who said wikileaks was an example for why should the ACTA be accepted globally?

Re:Molestation charges? (1)

bug1 (96678) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940270)

"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.

Re:Molestation charges? (-1, Flamebait)

AuMatar (183847) | more than 3 years ago | (#33941076)

Yes, because those articles worked so well the first time we had to throw them out after less than a decade. Besides which, without them it'd be up to the states. Why the fuck do you think the state government with that type of power is better than the federal government? The federal government is at least big enough to have multiple viewpoints in Congress so minorities are heard and has restrictions. Many state governments wouldn't even give freedom of speech from their base constitutions. Not to mention the greatly increased cost of doing everything the feds do now 50x over at the state level. That is quite possibly the stupidest political idea I've heard in the past 20 years, other than Libertarianism or Sarah Palin as VP.

Re:Molestation charges? (0, Flamebait)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940472)

What do we know about the historical Jesus? Most likely a homosexual rabbi [spiritrestoration.org] who associated with prostitutes and who went against the power structures of his time - various religious sects [bible-history.com] and the state. I wouldn't call a outspoken heathen who attacks people in temples in fits of rage a saint. The religious whitewashing of his life, is of course saintly, but that's a teleological argument: Jesus was saintly because he was Jesus. The historical Jesus was quite the attention seeking rabble-rouser. He's more Louis Farrakan than Mother Theresa.

Re:Molestation charges? (2, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940818)

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.

Well said... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940486)

"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. - by PRMan (959735) on Monday October 18, @06:27PM (#33939752)

See my subject-line 1st, but realize 1 thing also: Sometimes, if you plan things well & things go your way, You CAN "take the 'power brokers' right down" w/ you...

(Yes, it IS doable, & I am sure we've all been there & done that to SOME extent, when/if it was necessary (especially to prove a point or to recoup losses incurred in conflicts of ANY kind)).

APK

P.S.=> Because as "Downtown Nino Brown" put it in the film "New Jack City"? " If I'm going down, I'm taking a lot of people with me..." apk

Re:Molestation charges? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940222)

Cause it's ok to illegally classify information to cover up illegal acts (involving killing people mind you) Assange was accused of having 2 female partners who thought they were exclusive but weren't. One could qualify as an act of treason, the other American television popularizes on a dozen shows every day between the hours of Working->Not Working. Maury Povich even has a regular segment where he does paternity tests with awesome popcorn munching results.

Wikileaks NOT planning to release those docs today (3, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939714)

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]

Media a bunch of liars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940022)

If we trusted the media as much as they trust each other, we'd think we're living in a George Romero movie I mean there's been over a hundred Zombie's announced by the media:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_premature_obituaries

They can't get the status of someone's pulse correct 1/3rd of the time with someone like Bob hope (who was announced dead 2x before actually kicking the bucket.) How the hell could they get: a date, a quantity, and a source correct? I mean I'd expect 1. So if we take that to heart, the statement:

"Wikileaks will release 400,000 documents Today"

Turns into:

"Wikileaks."

Not all that surprising is it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33939756)

I can't say I'm surprised. I'm sure just about any country assessing his application for citizenship is going to be thinking a lot of things, namely: Is Assange an international incident waiting to happen?

SOP? (1)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939786)

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:SOP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33939838)

They are not allowed to reveal it.

this is not as strange as it may sound. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33939796)

"...Asked if she could comment on the grounds for refusal, Wikström replied, "No, secrecy prevails in reference to the grounds for such a decision."

The person writing this is likely misinformed.

In Sweden all gouvernment documents are public, except some related to individual persons, such as this. It's confidential to protect people's pricacy, but you can always request all documents about yourself. So, Assange will have access to the full file.

Sweden is not a paradise anymore (5, Insightful)

Toy G (533867) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939836)

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:Sweden is not a paradise anymore (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940066)

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:Sweden is not a paradise anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940804)

That does not mean that you have to break out the Vaseline can, like our current prime minister has a habit of doing.

The first trial of the Pirate Bay went so smoothly, it just had to have been petroleum based.

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940448)

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.

So it is no longer possible to found a pan-European party called 'Al Queda' in Sweden? Too bad, as if these games continue I might have voted for them just to protest. I'd like to see the faces of some US senators as they digest the news of the founding of this new peaceful, pan-nationalistic party who suggest people defending themselves under attack.

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940534)

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 Sweden/Nordic countries, social democracy is not socialism (although some social democrats themselves do not understand this).
- Sweden's "political paradise" is, if reading "paradise" as social democracy, not a by-product of political ideologies but instead the product of common traits in Nordic cultures over at least hundreds if not thousands of years, social democratic politicians seldom grasp this and as for socialists the very concept and existence of such positive anti-postmodern and anti-nihilist cultural traits is incomprehensible.
- Sweden's Sverigedemokraterna is not a far right party, they're a centrist party with an anti-immigration stance. I'm not Swedish but I wouldn't be surprised if they grow fast because Sweden has some catching up to do compared to Denmark and Norway, or even Germany. People are preparing to fight for their homes, their own nations, all across Europe and they're right to do so, and even the political left is starting to realize these people are right.
- Swedish citizenship is not a birthright of the entire world no matter how many non-Swedes seem to assume so, nor is Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, or Finnish citizenship. Or for that matter Russian or German or any other country.

Assange has absolutely no right to expect a Swedish citizenship.

Sweden does not owe anyone any explanation at all about his application and their decision.

The US is an irrelevant banana republic, lame haters need to get themselves a new bogeyman.

People like Assange and the parent are not generally wanted or cherished in Nordic countries because they are just the kind of stupid shortsighted and myopic troublemakers (and we have enough of those already both from within and outside) who destroy our societies.

Assange would fit right in in the US where they worship at the altar of "larger than life", he should seek political asylum there for whatever reason he think he has (Australia has all the freedoms of any other democratic country but maybe he simply pissed off too many Australians?).

Re:Sweden is not a paradise anymore (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940954)

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 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940986)

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.

I thought....... (-1, Flamebait)

brennz (715237) | more than 3 years ago | (#33939926)

he was suspected, or possibly indicted for some criminal & sexual transgression involving the female staff of Wikileaks?

I am sure the Swedes aren't keen on granting citizenship to every Tom, Dick or Harry alleged pervert.

Re:I thought....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940178)

>I am sure the Swedes aren't keen on granting citizenship to every Tom, Dick or Harry alleged pervert.

brennz (715237) is a pervert.

Now you're an alleged pervert too - hope you weren't planning taking up Swedish residence...

Re:I thought....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940194)

Specially not a pervert Dick.

Re:I thought....... (1)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940326)


For

Notable individual, possibly subject of CIA smear campaign.


Against

Notable individual, possibly subject of CIA smear campaign.

Re:I thought....... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940428)

Then why not say so? All the Swedes would have to say is they won't grant citizenship to a person being investigated for a felony offense, and that Mr. Assange could re-apply if charges are dropped, or if he is aquitted in a jury trial. There's little cause to keep the reason secret, unless the reason is unlawful, or politically embarrassing to the Swedish government. The way it is now the Swedish government just looks like another poodle for the US to order around. Way to go, Swedes.

Reasons are confidential for us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940082)

Well AFAIK the reasons are only confidental to the public, Assange himself should have been informed of the decision and the reasons behind it. So maybe he will reveal the reasons?

Wikileaks 2.0 (5, Insightful)

joeszilagyi (635484) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:Wikileaks 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940482)

But this won't raise any money to pay their bills. A spokesperson of sort makes it tangible to the unsavvy.

Re:Wikileaks 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33940642)

You are either interested in disseminating information or aggrandizing your own name. You can't do both. The fact that we know the name Julian Assange means someone wanted the latter.

Re:Wikileaks 2.0 (1)

dirkdodgers (1642627) | more than 3 years ago | (#33941128)

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.

Re:Wikileaks 2.0 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33941230)

Without a named, known entity, leaking sensitive documents would be impossible. As Robert Gates said, no intelligence assets in Afghanistan were compromised by 90,000 documents being leaked by Wikileaks. If you were a US military whistleblower sitting on that, would you just let it all out there unredacted, or would you balk at risking the lives of hundreds or thousands by leaking? Wikileaks is like giving your leak to Bob Woodward. You're advocating giving it to 4chan.

Of course, it could be S.O.P (2)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940166)

It may be that Sweden does not tell others why people have been denied residence for matters of privacy. Perhaps Assange should ask and then tell the world.

Happened again and again and again (1)

KZigurs (638781) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940528)

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

NSA/GCHQ connections (3, Insightful)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#33940602)

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]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...