Wikileaks founder Assange denied residency in Sweden

Wikileaks founder Assange denied residency in Sweden

www.bbc.co.uk

The founder of the Wikileaks website, Julian Assange, has been denied residency in Sweden, the country's migration board officials say.

They declined to give the reason, saying it was confidential.

Mr Assange, an Australian national, had hoped to create a base for Wikileaks in the Nordic country due to its laws protecting whistle-blowers.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Apparently didn't meet requirements.

Take your pick, the rape accusations or simply his involvement with Wikileaks.

Or - less conspiratorially - is it simply the fact that as a non-degree holder or skilled tradesman, he was deemed not eligible for residency.

Where to now? Hardly going to be welcomed with open arms most places.

Might want to get himself set up somewhere without an extradition treaty with the States (or Sweden for that matter).

www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Already posted...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Already posted...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

My bad, although I had searched 'Assange Sweden' and 'Assange Denied' and not found anything...

ATS Search is a joke. Always has been. Don't beat yourself up too much.

Kind of surprised North Korea or Iran has not offered him a place.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Kind of surprised North Korea or Iran has not offered him a place.

I’m not going to assume the reasons for why you say this so I’m simply going to ask if you could, please, elaborate on your statement.

I am honestly interested in your reasoning for making this statement. Thank you.

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Kind of surprised North Korea or Iran has not offered him a place.

I’m not going to assume the reasons for why you say this so I’m simply going to ask if you could, please, elaborate on your statement.

I am honestly interested in your reasoning for making this statement. Thank you.

Assange makes an argument about why he releases the info he does, more or less to keep the Government in check and / or to embarrass the U.S. Government for actions it takes (Depending on which news sources you read). He has been trying, so far unsuccessfully, to obtain citizenship in a country (He is Australian) other than his own or to find a country to will label him as a credentialed journalist, protecting him from potential backlash for releasing this information.

N. Korea and Iran both (more Iran) have expressed similar points of view towards the United States, its actions, and what is kept from the Public. I would think one of those countries who share similar views with assange would extend a courtesy to a person that is essentially arguing the same thing they are arguing.

In addition a comment was made about going to a country that does not have extradition treaties with the US. Iran and N. Korea would fall into this category, along with a few others, but imo those other countries don't have the political will to refuse a US request to turn him over for an aid package, etc.

The comment is not meant to be sinister in this regards. The information he is releasing is classified, the manner he received the information is illegal and his possession and distribution violates US law. In addition the info leaked will undoubtedly also contain information that could pose problems for our Allies as well. Some Western countries might allow him to stay, but ultimately with the agreements in place, would be compelled to extradite.

In order to continue publishing the information, he is going to need to find a country that is sympathetic to his actions, that has the political will to tell the US no, and who will not extradite him to the US if charges are filed. You will also need to find a country that cooperates with INTERPOL on a case by case basis, and again we come back to Iran and N. Korea.

Aside from Iran and North Korea, can you think of any other countries that would allow him to stay, that would credential him as a journalist and would refuse US political pressure to turn him over to US authorities?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Assange makes an argument about why he releases the info he does, more or less to keep the Government in check and / or to embarrass the U.S. Government for actions it takes (Depending on which news sources you read).

Assange makes an argument based on the documents that have been leaked to Wikileaks. And if the US government is embarrassed they can only blame themselves, as the documents simply reveal actions and policies the government has tried to keep hidden from the public. Or are you saying Wikileaks has made up things about the US government which are not supported by the documents that have been published?

N. Korea and Iran both (more Iran) have expressed similar points of view towards the United States, its actions, and what is kept from the Public. I would think one of those countries who share similar views with assange would extend a courtesy to a person that is essentially arguing the same thing they are arguing.

Your perspective only makes sense to someone who has a limited understanding of Wikileaks’ purpose, their published leaks and who has a black and white view of the world, that can’t get past beyond a blind patriotism feeling when their country is criticized regardless of the merit of the criticism.

Wikileaks doesn’t focus on the United States or only publishes documents implicating the US government. Wikileaks has published documents related to private companies, even the UN and many different countries including — can you guess? — Iran.

In fact, if you read the 32 page US intelligence investigation into Wikileaks, you would find out that

Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org Web site to prevent citizens or adversaries from accessing sensitive information, embarrassing information, or alleged propaganda.

Oddly enough, it looks like exactly what the US government is trying to do. I can only feel disgust when my country’s standards of conduct and policies mimic those of countries like China or North Korea.

Anyway, it’s obviously an absurd idea that countries like North Korea or Iran, with a terrible track record of human rights violations, internet censorship and freedom of speech restraints, would welcome Assange or Wikileaks. This idea can only make sense to someone who is unable to acknowledge some legitimate criticism, make the distinction and that lumps everyone who criticizes the US together — “North Korea and Iran have criticized us, so has Wikileaks, so they are really the same thing.”

The information he is releasing is classified, the manner he received the information is illegal and his possession and distribution violates US law.

I addressed this accusation before, but you didn’t notice it or ignored it. Let me ask you again, directly and explicitly, what laws has Assange or Wikileaks violated?

This whole thing with everyone seeming to turn their back on Assange reminds me of the conspiracy to keep Barry Bonds out of baseball. (Which supposedly stopped after it was found out but I believe kept going on anyway.)

My opinion is that all these companies and people turning on him are because of fear of and pressure from the USA higher ups. Like the Mob scaring people into compliance.

Double post

Originally posted by aptness
Assange makes an argument based on the documents that have been leaked to Wikileaks. And if the US government is embarrassed they can only blame themselves, as the documents simply reveal actions and policies the government has tried to keep hidden from the public. Or are you saying Wikileaks has made up things about the US government which are not supported by the documents that have been published?

Well lets clear a few things up. It doesn't matter if the US. Government would be embarrassed by the release of documents, since its against the law to classify a document for the sole purpose the release would be an embarrassment

The argument he makes is irrelevant under US Law. It would be like saying because John Doe robbed a bank, and gave me 500,000 dollars, I am not guilty of any crime. In actuality you are, as is Mr. Assange. The policies and actions taken by the US delve into the area of Operational Security for our forces, tactics, names of people we deal with etc. The claimed cause by Mr. Assange, to release information to stop wars, in this case has done nothing but kill more innocent people.

Documents are classified for a reason. If you feel it should not be, then go through the channel and fill out a FOIA request and obtain the information legally.

Originally posted by aptness
Wikileaks doesn’t focus on the United States or only publishes documents implicating the US government. Wikileaks has published documents related to private companies, even the UN and many different countries including — can you guess? — Iran.

When totalitarian regimes don't want anything to do with wikileaks, one would think this would be a red flag.

Originally posted by aptness
In fact, if you read the 32 page US intelligence investigation into Wikileaks, you would find out that

Several foreign countries including China, Israel, North Korea, Russia, Vietnam, and Zimbabwe have denounced or blocked access to the Wikileaks.org Web site to prevent citizens or adversaries from accessing sensitive information, embarrassing information, or alleged propaganda.

What do you think would happen if one of the countries you just listed found out one of its citizens leaked classified military information, then that person gave it to someone else?

Originally posted by aptness
Oddly enough, it looks like exactly what the US government is trying to do. I can only feel disgust when my country’s standards of conduct and policies mimic those of countries like China or North Korea.

Yet you are ok for others, Mr. Assange, to lower his standards and policies to mimic countries like China, and North Korea. Just because someone doesn't agree with a Law, doesn't mean the person is not breaking the Law.

Originally posted by aptness
Anyway, it’s obviously an absurd idea that countries like North Korea or Iran, with a terrible track record of human rights violations, internet censorship and freedom of speech restraints, would welcome Assange or Wikileaks. This idea can only make sense to someone who is unable to acknowledge some legitimate criticism, make the distinction and that lumps everyone who criticizes the US together — “North Korea and Iran have criticized us, so has Wikileaks, so they are really the same thing.”

I have no issues with other countries when they criticize the United States. People should not have issues when countries other than the United States are criticized. The last part of this statement, Im going to assume, is directed at someone else, because I never said that, nor implied it, and I don't think you would be putting words in my mouth or attributing a false statement as mine.

Free Speech Issue - Again, how would you respond if someone stole all of your personal information and posted it on the internet?

Originally posted by aptness
I addressed this accusation before, but you didn’t notice it or ignored it. Let me ask you again, directly and explicitly, what laws has Assange or Wikileaks violated?

and I have answered this, but I'll repost it:


The Justice Department weighs a criminal case against WikiLeaks
TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
18 USC 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
18 USC 794 - Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government
18 USC 798 - Disclosure of classified information

18 USC 1961-68 - Racketeer Influenced and corrupt organizations
18 USC 1073 - Flight to avoid prosecution or giving testi­mony

18 USC 2384 - Seditious conspiracy
18 USC 2387 - Activities affecting armed forces generally
18 USC 2388 - Activities affecting armed forces during war

Title 50 - CHAPTER 15—NATIONAL SECURITY
15 USC 435-38 - Access to Classified Information
15 USC 421-26 - Protection of Certain National Security Information
15 USC 432-32 - Protection of Operational Files

Here are just a few Federal Laws he has broke. Keep in mind that in addition to Mr. Assange, PFC. Bradley Manning is involved as well. Since there are 2 people, it meets criteria for Conspiracy / Racketeering.

The list above is not exhaustive, and other Federal Laws have been violated that are not listed. Information does not have to be delivered directly to a foreign government, simply making it available for access will meet criteria.

Trying to prevent war, death etc is a noble cause. However, when its done in certain ways, it can cause more harm that people didn't bother to take into account.

Taliban Seeks Vengeance in Wake of WikiLeaks

Taliban Murders Afghan Elder, Thanks Wikileaks for Revealing "Spies"

reply to post by Xcathdra

Thanks for the response, I had forgotten about this.

A private citizen has never been convicted of publishing classified information in the United States. The media receives and publishes classified information frequently. Are you going to argue these people should be arrested?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
When totalitarian regimes don't want anything to do with wikileaks, one would think this would be a red flag.

I’m having trouble following this warped logic of yours. In my world, and in my experience, when totalitarian regimes are opposed to something or someone is, usually, because that someone is doing something right.

You’re of course free to argue that North Korea and Iran not wanting to be involved with Wikileaks somehow means that Wikileaks is bad — which obviously doesn’t make sense to me — but it’s clear by now that there is no point in debating this, so let’s not.

and I have answered this, but I'll repost it:
The Justice Department weighs a criminal case against WikiLeaks

I have searched and didn’t find your answer anywhere. You link a Washington Post editorial talking about the DOJ considering charges against Assange — not the same as effectively charging — but did you read it in toto?

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. last year wisely dropped such a case against two lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He should not now make the mistake of trying to hammer Mr. Assange with the same flawed tool. (...)

But the government has no business going after third parties that obtain secret information without committing theft. Media outlets do not have a legal duty to abide by the government's secrecy demands; in the past, publication of classified documents has yielded important disclosures in the public interest that caused no harm to national security. The apparent irresponsibility of Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks should not be used to launch a prosecution that could chill legitimate news-gathering efforts.

The Washington Post editorial couldn’t make more clear their opposition to an eventual government attempt to try to prosecute Wikileaks.

Here are just a few Federal Laws he has broke.

You list these statutes but never even attempted to explain why you think they apply. In my analysis, and in all honesty, I concede that 18 USC 798 might apply, but as I’ve mentioned before, the statute limits its scope to liability to narrow categories that I’ve mentioned — cryptographic secrets, signals intelligence, identities of covert operatives and nuclear secrets.

But I reckon there is no point in us debating this, you have your mind made up and we have never agreed on anything before, I just didn’t want to leave you without a response.

Keep in mind that in addition to Mr. Assange, PFC. Bradley Manning is involved as well. Since there are 2 people, it meets criteria for Conspiracy / Racketeering.

You making it seem that it’s a black and white question, when in fact, the law is more nuanced than this absolute claim that “because there are 2 people, it meets the criteria for conspiracy” claim.

PFC Manning has been detained and is going to be charged according to the law, because he — unlike Assange — was a government employee and probably signed non-disclosure agreements. Because he was the one who passed the information to Wikileaks doesn’t mean, automatically, it qualifies as conspiracy.

So far, considering the published information concerning the Manning affair, there is no indication that Wikileaks, or Assange, did anything other than passively receive the information. I obviously reserve my right to be convinced otherwise if details come to light that prove that was indeed the case, but until then this is nothing more than wishful thinking on part of those who dislike Julian Assange or the work Wikileaks does.

Originally posted by aptness
Thanks for the response, I had forgotten about this.

your welcome.

Originally posted by aptness
A private citizen has never been convicted of publishing classified information in the United States. The media receives and publishes classified information frequently. Are you going to argue these people should be arrested?

I'm not really sure what you are talking about here. There have been a lot of civilians who have been arrested for releasing / selling classified information (non military personnel)

Aldrich Ames
Klaus Fuchs
Theodore Hall
David Greenglass
Robert Hanssen
Richard Miller
Earl Pitts

David H. Barnett - passed on identities of thirty CIA agents. Sold information to the KGB for $92,000. Caught 1980, eighteen year sentence.

Dongfan Chung, former Boeing engineer, stole trade secrets relating to space shuttle and rocket booster technology for the People's Republic of China. Convicted, 16 year sentence.

Ludwig Forbrich, attempted to pass information to the East Germans in 1984. Caught by FBI undercover operation. Fifteen year sentence.

Samuel L. Morrison, sent some classified images to Janes Defense Weekly. Two year prison term.

Sharon M. Scranage, support assistant for the CIA. Along with her boyfriend, turned over agent and informant identities to the Ghanaian intelligence. Two year prison sentence.

As far as News Media goes, there have been journalists who have been arrested and charged. The media can report the info, but the 1st amendment does not protect them when they leak classified information. Federal law allows for the protection of state secrets, and the US Supreme Court has upheld it. If a reporter does publish it, the government takes action, wanting to know who the source is. Media generally do not disclose the source, so the media ends up going to jail for contempt.

Originally posted by aptness
I’m having trouble following this warped logic of yours. In my world, and in my experience, when totalitarian regimes are opposed to something or someone is, usually, because that someone is doing something right.

You’re of course free to argue that North Korea and Iran not wanting to be involved with Wikileaks somehow means that Wikileaks is bad — which obviously doesn’t make sense to me — but it’s clear by now that there is no point in debating this, so let’s not.

I think you might be reading too much into my statement. The enemy of my enemy is my friend comes to mind. Iran and North Korea both are at odds with the US and our policies. They have spy's operating here, and we have spy's operating there. The documents wikileaks has are classified, and as such valuable to foreign nations l,looking for an inside edge when dealing with us.

Wiki is having an issues, namely assange and where he can live and continue to do his thing without fear of being arrested. There are a limited number of countries that do not have extradition treaties, and have case by case cooperation with Interpol.

My suggestion is nothing more than a possible solution assange could use. It has nothing to do with my view on those countries, so please stop making me out to be all sinister and what not.

Originally posted by aptness
I have searched and didn’t find your answer anywhere. You link a Washington Post editorial talking about the DOJ considering charges against Assange — not the same as effectively charging — but did you read it in toto?

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. last year wisely dropped such a case against two lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He should not now make the mistake of trying to hammer Mr. Assange with the same flawed tool.

These different issues at hand with this. The AG determines if he is going to file charges or not. I never said they were, but did point out below what Federal Statutes could apply to M. Assange.

Originally posted by aptness
But the government has no business going after third parties that obtain secret information without committing theft. Media outlets do not have a legal duty to abide by the government's secrecy demands; in the past, publication of classified documents has yielded important disclosures in the public interest that caused no harm to national security. The apparent irresponsibility of Mr. Assange and WikiLeaks should not be used to launch a prosecution that could chill legitimate news-gathering efforts.

The Government does have business going after news media for the release of classified documents. The espionage act was upheld by the Supreme Court. The basis for these answers deal with the Pentagon Papers back in the 70's. The government sued the Times to prevent them from printing excerpts of the papers. The case went to the Supreme Court, where they said the Government did not meet the burden of prior restraint regarding that matter. It did not disqualify the espionage act in the ruling and it did not give the media unlimited freedom in publishing classified documents. The media, invoking prior restraint, can be held accountable and charged for publishing classified material.

Originally posted by aptness
The Washington Post editorial couldn’t make more clear their opposition to an eventual government attempt to try to prosecute Wikileaks.

That would be because they are a media outlet, and any argument they make against Mr. Assange, will contradict the view they want.

Originally posted by aptness
You list these statutes but never even attempted to explain why you think they apply. In my analysis, and in all honesty, I concede that 18 USC 798 might apply, but as I’ve mentioned before, the statute limits its scope to liability to narrow categories that I’ve mentioned — cryptographic secrets, signals intelligence, identities of covert operatives and nuclear secrets.

I provided links when I listed the Federal Statutes. They all deal with release, possession of classified information, etc etc. Based on the info we have, he meets the criteria for the statutes listed. Since we don't have all the facts the Government does, the list could be shorter, or longer. I didn't want to overload the post with 16 pages of federal law text. The repeating theme is the fact the documents were classified, which meets the criteria you listed above and then some.

Originally posted by aptness
But I reckon there is no point in us debating this, you have your mind made up and we have never agreed on anything before, I just didn’t want to leave you without a response.

There is always good that comes from debates. Just because we don't see eye to eye on things doesn't make either one of us evil.. diabolical maybe, but not evil. Everyone sees the picture in different ways. You can see something I missed, and vice versa. We need more debate and dialogue in these times for no other reason than what is their left to do but talk and try to understand. I don't hate you or anything and always enjoy your arguments.

Originally posted by aptness
You making it seem that it’s a black and white question, when in fact, the law is more nuanced than this absolute claim that “because there are 2 people, it meets the criteria for conspiracy” claim.

Again you are not reading the intention. I am not claiming it is a conspiracy. I was saying that some of the Federal Statutes I listed deal with Conspiracy in this area, and if there is a link between assange and the military guy those federal laws could apply. I never said it was a confirmed conspiracy.

Originally posted by aptness
PFC Manning has been detained and is going to be charged according to the law, because he — unlike Assange — was a government employee and probably signed non-disclosure agreements. Because he was the one who passed the information to Wikileaks doesn’t mean, automatically, it qualifies as conspiracy.

Being a member of the military is irrelevant in this type of case. He was actually an analyst with top secret clearance. And again I answered the conspiracy issue one post above this.

In this case though - Definition of Conspiracy

the act of conspiring.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.

3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.

4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

This is the legal definition used for establishing what a conspiracy is. Aside from the fact I never said it was confirmed, its still possible and had been talked about by the DOJ.

Originally posted by aptness
So far, considering the published information concerning the Manning affair, there is no indication that Wikileaks, or Assange, did anything other than passively receive the information. I obviously reserve my right to be convinced otherwise if details come to light that prove that was indeed the case, but until then this is nothing more than wishful thinking on part of those who dislike Julian Assange or the work Wikileaks does.

Perfectly valid stance with the wait and see. However, please check back on US Federal Law when it comes to taking part / participating in a crime. If you were to drive 3 people to a bank, they go in and rob it, and you stay in the car, they come out, get in and you drive away, you took part in that crime.

Mr. Manning had access to the files that were leaked (hes only been tagged for the first breach with the helicopter incident and the classified files for that round. He also had access to the second round of files wiki has, and I am going to say the government has a case against him for it.

It doesn't matter how you come into contact with stolen information, or even stolen goods. You will have an affirmative defense if you buy a stolen stereo and truly believed the item was not stolen. You will loose the stereo since i will be seized as evidence, and most likely loose the money you paid for it.

In this particular case, there is no doubt the files are classified. Mr. Assange actually contacted the Federal Government wanting help to release the files by trying to get assistance in redacting information. The Government refused and rightfully so.

It is not an affirmative defense to claim that because Mr. Assange received the files from someone else, he did not break any laws. That defense would not be allowed in because it is invalid argument.

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you are trying to say. With all due respect though the Law does not support it. Classified information was stolen and leaked to Mr. Assange. Mr. Assange knows full well its classified material, and released it.

There is the prima facia evidence.

Also, is Mr. Assange a journalist? No one seems to know the official answer for this.

Thanks for responding and providing your insight. Even though we don't "get along" I still enjoy the back and forth.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by aptness
A private citizen has never been convicted of publishing classified information in the United States. The media receives and publishes classified information frequently. Are you going to argue these people should be arrested?

I'm not really sure what you are talking about here. There have been a lot of civilians who have been arrested for releasing / selling classified information (non military personnel)

Aldrich Ames
Klaus Fuchs
Theodore Hall
David Greenglass
Robert Hanssen
Richard Miller
Earl Pitts

All the examples you pointed out were of people that were doing actual espionage — giving or selling classified information to foreign operatives — and none were arrested or convicted for merely publishing the information for the public to read as Wikileaks is doing.