|
On August 19 2012 06:30 M0nk3y wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2010 19:50 Banksy wrote:
Assange has been hiding out at an undisclosed location in Britain since WikiLeaks began publishing hundreds of U.S. diplomatic cables online last month.
Wasn't an undisclosed location. He was hiding out in the Ecuador Embassy. He was trying to get diplomatic immunity in Ecuador which they granted him. Embassy are considered land belonging to that particular country so while inside was not able to be arrested. As soon as he left the embassy however to make his way out the country to go to Ecuador he was on British soil and was arrested.
The post you quoted was from 2010. Assange went to the embassy in June of this year, and hasn't left it (that is, he hasn't been arrested).
|
On August 19 2012 06:37 Groog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 05:58 one-one-one wrote:Scheme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#2010Read yourself, most things happened way before October 2010. In particular, Brian Manning had already been arrested when he came to Sweden and Julian Assange and his connection to Manning was well known by the US. sunprince: What allies? I didn't know that Sweden had any ... Are you kidding? No allies? Firstly, Sweden is in the EU. Secondly, even if we're not in NATO we are closely tied to a majority of the nations in NATO, making us more or less allied with every nation within NATO. And you do know that we have soldiers in Afghanistan... right?
Sadly, for you, "close ties" is not the same thing as allies. You are wrong.
The Afghanistan mission is UN sanctioned. It doesn't make us allied with anyone.
Swedish troops participated in the UN led operation during the gulf war 1991.
I think that even some of our forces were under US command....
edit:
and all you are still not addressing the 2 main questions I asked before.
all this question dodging is why I am so skeptical about this case.
|
On August 19 2012 06:51 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 06:37 Groog wrote:On August 19 2012 05:58 one-one-one wrote:Scheme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#2010Read yourself, most things happened way before October 2010. In particular, Brian Manning had already been arrested when he came to Sweden and Julian Assange and his connection to Manning was well known by the US. sunprince: What allies? I didn't know that Sweden had any ... Are you kidding? No allies? Firstly, Sweden is in the EU. Secondly, even if we're not in NATO we are closely tied to a majority of the nations in NATO, making us more or less allied with every nation within NATO. And you do know that we have soldiers in Afghanistan... right? Sadly, for you, "close ties" is not the same thing as allies. You are wrong. The Afghanistan mission is UN sanctioned. It doesn't make us allied with anyone. Swedish troops participated in the UN led operation during the gulf war 1991. I think that even some of our forces were under US command.... edit: and all you are still not addressing the 2 main questions I asked before. all this question dodging is why I am so skeptical about this case.
Being allies isn't like "sign on the dotted line to become allies, you may now kiss the bride," it's like when you go to lunch a few times with the same person and then you notice "I guess we're friends now." Of course Sweden and other countries are friendly, that's how states survive in the modern world.
Your question is why he was so eager to nest in Sweden earlier as opposed to now claiming to be afraid of extradition, right?
On August 19 2012 05:46 one-one-one wrote:If I remember correctly, Wikileaks was already as big a deal as it ever could be when he came here. After all, Julian Assange even had groupies that would sleep with him 
No kidding, how do you think this all got started?
|
On August 19 2012 06:51 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 06:37 Groog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 05:58 one-one-one wrote:Scheme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#2010Read yourself, most things happened way before October 2010. In particular, Brian Manning had already been arrested when he came to Sweden and Julian Assange and his connection to Manning was well known by the US. sunprince: What allies? I didn't know that Sweden had any ... Are you kidding? No allies? Firstly, Sweden is in the EU. Secondly, even if we're not in NATO we are closely tied to a majority of the nations in NATO, making us more or less allied with every nation within NATO. And you do know that we have soldiers in Afghanistan... right? Sadly, for you, "close ties" is not the same thing as allies. You are wrong. The Afghanistan mission is UN sanctioned. It doesn't make us allied with anyone. Swedish troops participated in the UN led operation during the gulf war 1991. I think that even some of our forces were under US command.... edit: and all you are still not addressing the 2 main questions I asked before. all this question dodging is why I am so skeptical about this case.
This is in my opinion the answer to your two questions :
- At that time, in 2010, the video of the airstrike in Baghdad was just released (April) so they (US intelligence) didn't knew enough about the organization and inner workings of Wikileaks (which isn't Assange alone).
It probably took some time to know the whereabouts of Assange like his nationality, his past, ...etc.
Plus in 2010, since he wasn't actively researched or persecuted, he was traveling a lot in Europe (specifically to London) and North America especially for shows and conferences.
That makes it a lot more difficult and tedious to be sure that it is necessary to "catch someone".
- For the second question, I simply think that the reason that he changed his mind is that he didn't know Sweden.
He went to Sweden. Sweden was ok with that and let it pass.
At first it seemed to be the perfect place.
After a while, when the Swedish authorities found out what the plans of Assange were (implanting Wikileaks in Sweden) and that the US were starting to put pressure on Sweden, they changed their mind about all this and thus helped the US.
For the record, I'm not sure he wanted to bring Wikileaks to Sweden. He definitely wanted to go to Island for Wikileaks but Sweden I don't know.
But I'm not sure so don't quote me on that.
|
On August 19 2012 06:51 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 06:37 Groog wrote:On August 19 2012 05:58 one-one-one wrote:Scheme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#2010Read yourself, most things happened way before October 2010. In particular, Brian Manning had already been arrested when he came to Sweden and Julian Assange and his connection to Manning was well known by the US. sunprince: What allies? I didn't know that Sweden had any ... Are you kidding? No allies? Firstly, Sweden is in the EU. Secondly, even if we're not in NATO we are closely tied to a majority of the nations in NATO, making us more or less allied with every nation within NATO. And you do know that we have soldiers in Afghanistan... right? Sadly, for you, "close ties" is not the same thing as allies. You are wrong. The Afghanistan mission is UN sanctioned. It doesn't make us allied with anyone. Swedish troops participated in the UN led operation during the gulf war 1991. I think that even some of our forces were under US command.... edit: and all you are still not addressing the 2 main questions I asked before. all this question dodging is why I am so skeptical about this case.
We(at least me and someone else) didn't dodge the questions at all....selective memory? 
|
On August 19 2012 06:41 oBlade wrote:
The post you quoted was from 2010. Assange went to the embassy in June of this year, and hasn't left it (that is, he hasn't been arrested).
Yeh I forgot to take note of the date when I was quoting  ......yeh i realised that now I had spotted a news report earlier that said he was arrested earlier this afternoon. Was quite clearly false
|
On August 19 2012 06:51 one-one-one wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 06:37 Groog wrote:On August 19 2012 05:58 one-one-one wrote:Scheme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#2010Read yourself, most things happened way before October 2010. In particular, Brian Manning had already been arrested when he came to Sweden and Julian Assange and his connection to Manning was well known by the US. sunprince: What allies? I didn't know that Sweden had any ... Are you kidding? No allies? Firstly, Sweden is in the EU. Secondly, even if we're not in NATO we are closely tied to a majority of the nations in NATO, making us more or less allied with every nation within NATO. And you do know that we have soldiers in Afghanistan... right? Sadly, for you, "close ties" is not the same thing as allies. You are wrong. The Afghanistan mission is UN sanctioned. It doesn't make us allied with anyone. Swedish troops participated in the UN led operation during the gulf war 1991. I think that even some of our forces were under US command.... edit: and all you are still not addressing the 2 main questions I asked before. all this question dodging is why I am so skeptical about this case.
Sadly for you, close ties is exactly the same thing as being allies. (The analogy used above was pretty much perfect)
Also,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies
A formal military alliance is not required for being perceived as an ally—co-belligerence, fighting alongside someone, is enough
Who are we fighting alongside with in Afghanistan?
Also also
I wonder what the average age of the Swedish people vehemently defending our state is, because their (including yours) naivité is astounding.
|
On August 19 2012 07:22 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 06:51 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 06:37 Groog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 05:58 one-one-one wrote:Scheme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#2010Read yourself, most things happened way before October 2010. In particular, Brian Manning had already been arrested when he came to Sweden and Julian Assange and his connection to Manning was well known by the US. sunprince: What allies? I didn't know that Sweden had any ... Are you kidding? No allies? Firstly, Sweden is in the EU. Secondly, even if we're not in NATO we are closely tied to a majority of the nations in NATO, making us more or less allied with every nation within NATO. And you do know that we have soldiers in Afghanistan... right? Sadly, for you, "close ties" is not the same thing as allies. You are wrong. The Afghanistan mission is UN sanctioned. It doesn't make us allied with anyone. Swedish troops participated in the UN led operation during the gulf war 1991. I think that even some of our forces were under US command.... edit: and all you are still not addressing the 2 main questions I asked before. all this question dodging is why I am so skeptical about this case. This is in my opinion the answer to your two questions : - At that time, in 2010, the video of the airstrike in Baghdad was just released (April) so they (US intelligence) didn't knew enough about the organization and inner workings of Wikileaks (which isn't Assange alone). It probably took some time to know the whereabouts of Assange like his nationality, his past, ...etc. Plus in 2010, since he wasn't actively researched or persecuted, he was traveling a lot in Europe (specifically to London) and North America especially for shows and conferences. That makes it a lot more difficult and tedious to be sure that it is necessary to "catch someone". - For the second question, I simply think that the reason that he changed his mind is that he didn't know Sweden. He went to Sweden. Sweden was ok with that and let it pass. At first it seemed to be the perfect place. After a while, when the Swedish authorities found out what the plans of Assange were (implanting Wikileaks in Sweden) and that the US were starting to put pressure on Sweden, they changed their mind about all this and thus helped the US. For the record, I'm not sure he wanted to bring Wikileaks to Sweden. He definitely wanted to go to Island for Wikileaks but Sweden I don't know. But I'm not sure so don't quote me on that.
Wikileaks was founded way back. Before they released all that stuff it was already known by US intelligence what kind of material they were sitting on. I find it hard to believe that Assange was still "under the radar" at the time.
In your second answer you touch an interesting subject though - why wasn't Julian Assange granted a residence permit here. The only thing I have managed to find was some official saying that he didn't fulfill all the requirements.
Rather cryptic I have to say. If anything, the ruling politicians would have approved him staying here I think.
It would simply be good PR. In fact, it would be very remarkable if some politician interfered in the case after US pressure. as we have very clear laws against that. It would be a scandal of proportions.
Mr Assange doesn't really seem to be in touch with the real world regarding his understanding about Swedish bureaucratic processes, perhaps he just filled in the forms in a non-satisfactory or incomplete way.
Those things can be quite technical and maybe he should have spent some of that money on a lawyer helping him out?
|
On August 19 2012 07:37 Groog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 06:51 one-one-one wrote:On August 19 2012 06:37 Groog wrote:On August 19 2012 05:58 one-one-one wrote:Scheme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#2010Read yourself, most things happened way before October 2010. In particular, Brian Manning had already been arrested when he came to Sweden and Julian Assange and his connection to Manning was well known by the US. sunprince: What allies? I didn't know that Sweden had any ... Are you kidding? No allies? Firstly, Sweden is in the EU. Secondly, even if we're not in NATO we are closely tied to a majority of the nations in NATO, making us more or less allied with every nation within NATO. And you do know that we have soldiers in Afghanistan... right? Sadly, for you, "close ties" is not the same thing as allies. You are wrong. The Afghanistan mission is UN sanctioned. It doesn't make us allied with anyone. Swedish troops participated in the UN led operation during the gulf war 1991. I think that even some of our forces were under US command.... edit: and all you are still not addressing the 2 main questions I asked before. all this question dodging is why I am so skeptical about this case. Sadly for you, close ties is exactly the same thing as being allies. (The analogy used above was pretty much perfect) Also, Show nested quote +http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies
A formal military alliance is not required for being perceived as an ally—co-belligerence, fighting alongside someone, is enough
Who are we fighting alongside with in Afghanistan? Also also I wonder what the average age of the Swedish people vehemently defending our state is, because their (including yours) naivité is astounding.
I'm old enough, you don't need to worry about that.
Being perceived as an ally is not the same thing as being an actual ally though.
Surely fighting alongside with other nations creates strong bonds, but our mission in Afghanistan contains very little fighting at all. I have serious objections about the mission as we don't really do much over there.
The Swedish troops are based in the calm parts of Afghanistan with very little insurgence. The mission is to protect a certain (small) region. Our contribution is very small and it is more of a moral support I think.
My opinion is that we should give that moral support in some other way, but that is off-topic.
It is very different from say Denmark's mission where they actively hunt down talibans alongside US forces.
Denmark is a NATO member. There we can talk about an alliance and what implications it has.
|
On August 19 2012 07:43 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 07:22 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 06:51 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 06:37 Groog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 05:58 one-one-one wrote:Scheme: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks#2010Read yourself, most things happened way before October 2010. In particular, Brian Manning had already been arrested when he came to Sweden and Julian Assange and his connection to Manning was well known by the US. sunprince: What allies? I didn't know that Sweden had any ... Are you kidding? No allies? Firstly, Sweden is in the EU. Secondly, even if we're not in NATO we are closely tied to a majority of the nations in NATO, making us more or less allied with every nation within NATO. And you do know that we have soldiers in Afghanistan... right? Sadly, for you, "close ties" is not the same thing as allies. You are wrong. The Afghanistan mission is UN sanctioned. It doesn't make us allied with anyone. Swedish troops participated in the UN led operation during the gulf war 1991. I think that even some of our forces were under US command.... edit: and all you are still not addressing the 2 main questions I asked before. all this question dodging is why I am so skeptical about this case. This is in my opinion the answer to your two questions : - At that time, in 2010, the video of the airstrike in Baghdad was just released (April) so they (US intelligence) didn't knew enough about the organization and inner workings of Wikileaks (which isn't Assange alone). It probably took some time to know the whereabouts of Assange like his nationality, his past, ...etc. Plus in 2010, since he wasn't actively researched or persecuted, he was traveling a lot in Europe (specifically to London) and North America especially for shows and conferences. That makes it a lot more difficult and tedious to be sure that it is necessary to "catch someone". - For the second question, I simply think that the reason that he changed his mind is that he didn't know Sweden. He went to Sweden. Sweden was ok with that and let it pass. At first it seemed to be the perfect place. After a while, when the Swedish authorities found out what the plans of Assange were (implanting Wikileaks in Sweden) and that the US were starting to put pressure on Sweden, they changed their mind about all this and thus helped the US. For the record, I'm not sure he wanted to bring Wikileaks to Sweden. He definitely wanted to go to Island for Wikileaks but Sweden I don't know. But I'm not sure so don't quote me on that. Wikileaks was founded way back. Before they released all that stuff it was already known by US intelligence what kind of material they were sitting on. I find it hard to believe that Assange was still "under the radar" at the time. In your second answer you touch an interesting subject though - why wasn't Julian Assange granted a residence permit here. The only thing I have managed to find was some official saying that he didn't fulfill all the requirements. Rather cryptic I have to say. If anything, the ruling politicians would have approved him staying here I think. It would simply be good PR. In fact, it would be very remarkable if some politician interfered in the case after US pressure. as we have very clear laws against that. It would be a scandal of proportions. Mr Assange doesn't really seem to be in touch with the real world regarding his understanding about Swedish bureaucratic processes, perhaps he just filled in the forms in a non-satisfactory or incomplete way. Those things can be quite technical and maybe he should have spent some of that money on a lawyer helping him out?
Obviously I don't know Sweden as well as you but since he has one of the best lawyers available in England (Mark Stephens I think) I doubt that the issues with his residence permit were simply administrative. Money isn't a problem.
As for Wikileaks being founded way back, it is true but the video of the airstrike in 2010 was from very far the document that shocked the World most.
|
On August 19 2012 05:46 Scheme wrote:Show nested quote +
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts. 1 more time: He has NOT been charged with anything yet get you facts right. Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange
"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body."
|
Yeah, that video was nasty.
The reason why I am interested about his denied residence permit is that I think that it should be quite easy for a guy like him to get one by saying that he plans to run an organization from here. He has to prove certain stuff in that case - stuff like him being competent to run it and that he is guaranteed a certain income. Technical reasons.
Maybe it only applies to running a business, I don't know. In that case it is conceivable that his request was denied because wikileaks didn't count as a business.
I think he could have appealed it though in order to make a better case or try something else. If he really wanted to stay here for a while he could sign up as a student at some university (for free). That would grant him a temporary residence permit as long as he is studying. He could sign up for a BS in computer science and just take the exams without even having to attend any lectures. As a former hacker it should be easy for him.
If he just hangs out for long enough in Sweden he will be granted a residence permit of the sole reason that he has already stayed a long time in the country. Silly rule, right?
My take is that it was denied because of something of the lines that i described above and that he then was to proud to do it the ugly way
|
On August 19 2012 08:01 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 05:46 Scheme wrote:
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts. 1 more time: He has NOT been charged with anything yet get you facts right. Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body."
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has assange been charged
OR
Search for "charged" in any of these websites.
http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/2012/08/17/assange-has-still-not-been-charged-with-a-crime.html
or
http://news.yahoo.com/uk-threat-ecuador-experts-see-mistake-174628250.html
or
http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html
|
On August 19 2012 08:06 one-one-one wrote:Yeah, that video was nasty. The reason why I am interested about his denied residence permit is that I think that it should be quite easy for a guy like him to get one by saying that he plans to run an organization from here. He has to prove certain stuff in that case - stuff like him being competent to run it and that he is guaranteed a certain income. Technical reasons. Maybe it only applies to running a business, I don't know. In that case it is conceivable that his request was denied because wikileaks didn't count as a business. I think he could have appealed it though in order to make a better case or try something else. If he really wanted to stay here for a while he could sign up as a student at some university (for free). That would grant him a temporary residence permit as long as he is studying. He could sign up for a BS in computer science and just take the exams without even having to attend any lectures. As a former hacker it should be easy for him. If he just hangs out for long enough in Sweden he will be granted a residence permit of the sole reason that he has already stayed a long time in the country. Silly rule, right? My take is that it was denied because of something of the lines that i described above and that he then was to proud to do it the ugly way
All the reasons you're citing are valid and possible.
And the ease of all the possibilities your are proposing just increases the feeling I have that simple bureaucracy / administration isn't the real reason behind the denial of that residence permit.
As for the "status" of the Wikileaks organization, I guess that it is the same as Pirate Bay that you already cited before.
|
Saying your own opinion is not fact or any evidence, like making up retarded conspiracy theories. There is no evidence showing that they will send him to the US, while there is plenty of laws that would stop it, also you make it sound like Sweden sends people all the time to the US but you keep linking the same case.
They want to question him in Sweden because you ask the questions and then keep him for a set amount of time and ask them again to make sure he isn't making things up. That would be impossible to do in a embassy.
Btw, your so called hero wants to go to ecuador, one of the most corrupt countries in the world where the president put journalists in prisons or execute them for talking bad about the president. You think he is safe there?, they would most likley turn on him right away for a good offer. Great hero, you must be so proud of following/defending him.
|
On August 19 2012 08:19 Klowney wrote:
Saying your own opinion is not fact or any evidence, like making up retarded conspiracy theories. There is no evidence showing that they will send him to the US, while there is plenty of laws that would stop it, also you make it sound like Sweden sends people all the time to the US but you keep linking the same case.
They want to question him in Sweden because you ask the questions and then keep him for a set amount of time and ask them again to make sure he isn't making things up. That would be impossible to do in a embassy.
Btw, your so called hero wants to go to ecuador, one of the most corrupt countries in the world where the president put journalists in prisons or execute them for talking bad about him. You think he is safe there?, they would most likley turn on him right away for the right offer. Great hero, you must be so proud of following/defending him.
LOL You do realized you just cited reasons why Ecuador is bad not Assange. Your statement
Great hero, you must be so proud of following/defending him
makes no sense following what you wrote previously.
|
On August 19 2012 08:18 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 08:06 one-one-one wrote:Yeah, that video was nasty. The reason why I am interested about his denied residence permit is that I think that it should be quite easy for a guy like him to get one by saying that he plans to run an organization from here. He has to prove certain stuff in that case - stuff like him being competent to run it and that he is guaranteed a certain income. Technical reasons. Maybe it only applies to running a business, I don't know. In that case it is conceivable that his request was denied because wikileaks didn't count as a business. I think he could have appealed it though in order to make a better case or try something else. If he really wanted to stay here for a while he could sign up as a student at some university (for free). That would grant him a temporary residence permit as long as he is studying. He could sign up for a BS in computer science and just take the exams without even having to attend any lectures. As a former hacker it should be easy for him. If he just hangs out for long enough in Sweden he will be granted a residence permit of the sole reason that he has already stayed a long time in the country. Silly rule, right? My take is that it was denied because of something of the lines that i described above and that he then was to proud to do it the ugly way All the reasons you're citing are valid and possible. And the ease of all the possibilities your are proposing just increases the feeling I have that simple bureaucracy / administration isn't the real reason behind the denial of that residence permit. As for the "status" of the Wikileaks organization, I guess that it is the same as Pirate Bay that you already cited before.
Of course you can think that but it is mere speculation. If it was true it would be a great scoop though and I am sure that
journalists has been all over the case. I am not sure, but I think it is possible to get hold of a copy of the actual decision.
Keep in mind that the true reason might be something trivial and boring like him leaving the country invalidated his arguments in the application. He was obviously displeased with the Swedish system and could even have told the authorities that he wasn't intending to stay here anymore.
Regarding the use of the word "status" I meant it in the sense of being either a "business" , "foundation" or some other kind of organization. Maybe they thought that Wikileaks was a terror organization , lol .
|
On August 19 2012 08:34 one-one-one wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 19 2012 08:18 LunaSea wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 08:06 one-one-one wrote:Yeah, that video was nasty. The reason why I am interested about his denied residence permit is that I think that it should be quite easy for a guy like him to get one by saying that he plans to run an organization from here. He has to prove certain stuff in that case - stuff like him being competent to run it and that he is guaranteed a certain income. Technical reasons. Maybe it only applies to running a business, I don't know. In that case it is conceivable that his request was denied because wikileaks didn't count as a business. I think he could have appealed it though in order to make a better case or try something else. If he really wanted to stay here for a while he could sign up as a student at some university (for free). That would grant him a temporary residence permit as long as he is studying. He could sign up for a BS in computer science and just take the exams without even having to attend any lectures. As a former hacker it should be easy for him. If he just hangs out for long enough in Sweden he will be granted a residence permit of the sole reason that he has already stayed a long time in the country. Silly rule, right? My take is that it was denied because of something of the lines that i described above and that he then was to proud to do it the ugly way All the reasons you're citing are valid and possible. And the ease of all the possibilities your are proposing just increases the feeling I have that simple bureaucracy / administration isn't the real reason behind the denial of that residence permit. As for the "status" of the Wikileaks organization, I guess that it is the same as Pirate Bay that you already cited before. Of course you can think that but it is mere speculation. If it was true it would be a great scoop though and I am sure that journalists has been all over the case. I am not sure, but I think it is possible to get hold of a copy of the actual decision. Keep in mind that the true reason might be something trivial and boring like him leaving the country invalidated his arguments in the application. He was obviously displeased with the Swedish system and could even have told the authorities that he wasn't intending to stay here anymore. Regarding the use of the word "status" I meant it in the sense of being either a "business" , "foundation" or some other kind of organization. Maybe they thought that Wikileaks was a terror organization , lol .
Absolutely, everything I'm saying is pure speculation but I can't really do better than that.
I understood what you meant by status, what I was trying to say is that Wikileaks probably has the same status Pirate Bay has. In my research Wikileaks has no status at all.
But then again. Does it actually need one ?
Assange can stay in Sweden because of the reasons you stated before and the servers domain name can be bought by anyone.
|
On August 19 2012 08:16 Scheme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 08:01 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 05:46 Scheme wrote:
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts. 1 more time: He has NOT been charged with anything yet get you facts right. Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body." http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has assange been chargedOR Search for " charged" in any of these websites. http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/2012/08/17/assange-has-still-not-been-charged-with-a-crime.htmlor http://news.yahoo.com/uk-threat-ecuador-experts-see-mistake-174628250.htmlor http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html
Wow thank you Captain Condescending. It would seem you're right however. He's not formally charged, but he is arrested and detained in his absence (clunky translation), and he's standing accused of rape and sexual harassment.
Wikipedia sill states that he's been charged, and he practically has.
I like how you write "justice4assange" as some kind of independent source. That's golden.
It would also seem like every single one of these news sites are completely oblivious of Swedish constitution which hinders politicians to interfere with the justice system - meaning that JA can't be promised not being deported to the US, as that would have to go through the independent justice system.
|
On August 19 2012 08:52 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2012 08:16 Scheme wrote:On August 19 2012 08:01 Euronyme wrote:On August 19 2012 05:46 Scheme wrote:
He's charged with rape. I honestly have no clue what the penalty is for that in England, but it's up to 4 years of prison in Sweden. Setting up some kind of web cam with the Swedish judges and Assange in the embassy would be a really strange way to treat a suspect, and it's not really how the judicial process work.
If I raped someone, I couldn't very well tell the police to fuck off and that I would be OK with a web cam court, otherwise I'd rather skip it.
He has NOT been charged with anything yet...I feel like I need to repeat this on this thread every 5 posts. 1 more time: He has NOT been charged with anything yet get you facts right. Also, sweden has in fact used the cam before when the "acused" was in a different country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange"According to published reports, the charges Sweden has lodged against Assange involve two different women. Their initial intention was reportedly to force Assange to take an HIV test. There are four charges: that on 14 August 2010 he committed "unlawful coercion" when he held complainant 1 down with his body weight in a sexual manner; that he "sexually molested" complainant 1 when he had condom-less sex with her after she insisted that he use one; that he had condom-less sex with complainant 2 on the morning of 17 August while she was asleep; and that he "deliberately molested" complainant 1 on 18 August 2010 by pressing his erect penis against her body." http://lmgtfy.com/?q=has assange been chargedOR Search for " charged" in any of these websites. http://www.talkradionews.com/opinion/2012/08/17/assange-has-still-not-been-charged-with-a-crime.htmlor http://news.yahoo.com/uk-threat-ecuador-experts-see-mistake-174628250.htmlor http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html Wow thank you Captain Condescending. It would seem you're right however. He's not formally charged, but he is arrested and detained in his absence (clunky translation), and he's standing accused of rape and sexual harassment. Wikipedia sill states that he's been charged, and he practically has. I like how you write "justice4assange" as some kind of independent source. That's golden. It would also seem like every single one of these news sites are completely oblivious of Swedish constitution which hinders politicians to interfere with the justice system - meaning that JA can't be promised not being deported to the US, as that would have to go through the independent justice system.
Um I'm fairly rough on Swedens system, but is it not true that the judges are picked independently and not voted on by politicians? I could be wrong, but if that's the case both are hand and hand.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
