How Sweden Collaborated With CIA on Renditions and Framing of Assange

[Magda Hassan]

How Sweden Collaborated With CIA on Renditions and Framing of Assange

By Featured AuthorNEWS JUNKIE POST
Dec 19, 2012 at 5:54 pm




By Rafik Saley, Okoth Osewe, and John Goss
By his own admission, Sweden's Ambassador to Australia Mr. Sven-Olof Petersson had advance knowledge of the CIA rendition flight that took place on December 18, 2001 from Stockholm to Egypt. This flight ended in Egyptian nationals Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery being illegally rendered and tortured. Mr. Petersson's admission comes from a statement to the Swedish Parliament's Constitutional Committee, confirming that he attended a briefing on December 17, 2001 at which the rendition process was finalized. Moreover, the Constitutional Committee's report shows that he knew about the renditions at the end of November and probably even in mid-November. In fact, it was he who kept Minister of Foreign Affairs Anna Lindh updated on the progress of deportation arrangements with the CIA in November 2001.[i] Petersson was then Sweden's Director General for Political Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.[ii]

Illegal and unconstitutional decisions of this sort, made behind closed doors, show contempt for the Swedish legal system, which has been further denigrated by attempts to get Wikileaks founder Julian Assange flown to Sweden on flimsy allegations of a sexual nature, from where, concerned parties believe the CIA would pick him up and put him on trial in the United States. Ironically, it was through Wikileaks that the world learned about the diplomatic tiff between the US and Sweden that brought an end to Swedish rendition in 2006.[iii]

As the Director General for Political Affairs, Mr. Petersson was in regular contact with the US Embassy in Stockholm and was aware of the US request that two Egyptian nationals be illegally rendered.[iv] The rendition went ahead without protest or representation on behalf of the victims, and no one in the Swedish government has been made accountable for this flagrant breach of the law. An admission of Sweden's culpability can be found in the SEK 3 million (about $458,000) compensation paid to each of the two men after their eventual release.[v] This "hush money" appears to have paid for the non-disclosure of the identities of the Swedish representatives who sought assurances from Cairo prior to the men's rendition.[vi]

Not only Petersson, but also Minister of Justice Thomas Bodström and then Foreign Minister Anna Lindh knew about the renditions.[vii] Thomas Bodström spent a year in the US between 2010 2011, purportedly for rehabilitation in connection with alcohol and substance abuse, while he was a partner in the legal firm Borgström & Bodström. It would be lax not to point out to readers that Claes Borgström is the lawyer who was called upon to prosecute Julian Assange over allegations that had previously been dismissed. Further, Borgström is known to be friendly with Irmeli Krans, the police interrogator who took SW's original statement against Assange. Irmeli Krans, in turn, is friendly with the other complainant, AA, who, it is said, illegally sat in on Irmeli Krans' interview of SW.[viii]

The rendered Egyptians, both of whom were asylum seekers, were returned to Egypt despite Sweden's Aliens Act (1989) that forbids repatriation to a country where nationals are likely to be tortured. It was well known even then that Egypt uses torture against political prisoners.[ix] The torture of both men on the flight to Egypt, included them being hooded, handcuffed and strapped down. The brutality of the torture in Egypt was captured in a comment by Mr. Agiza who noted that the interrogators routinely beat him, strapped him to a wet mattress and subjected him to electric shock through electrodes attached to his ear lobes, nipples, and genitals.[x]

Mr. Petersson´s statements to the Australian media on the impartiality of the Swedish legal system ring hollow when judged against his prior personal involvement in renditions. Even more disturbing is the fact that they have been echoed by Australian Foreign minister Bob Carr. The adoption of the statements shows a lack of judgment on Carr's part and brings the Australian government's foreign policy under scrutiny. Carr has urged Assange to travel to Sweden and claimed that it was unlikely that he would be extradited.[xi] Recent statements by EU Home Affairs Minister Cecilia Malmström, urging Mr. Assange to "just go to Sweden" have the same hollow ring.[xii] Malmström has worked closely with US interests in Sweden and elsewhere in adopting harsh measures to stifle free speech in Europe. She purports to know nothing about the Assange case. On the other hand, her partiality and close affinity to the United States are demonstrated by her recent joint briefing with US attorney general Eric Holder.[xiii] She has also co-authored an article with him.[xiv]
The question on every reasonable person's lips is: why can't the Swedish government "just give Mr. Assange the diplomatic guarantees that he has asked for?" In light of Sweden´s complicity in illegal rendition right up to 2006, a diplomatic guarantee to Assange that he won't be extradited to the US is of integral importance. After all, the Swedish government has the final say in the matter and, if its past history in illegal renditions is anything to go by, Assange's fears about extradition or rendition to the United States are justifiable.

The Swedish Ambassador accuses Sydney Morning Herald columnist Elizabeth Farrelly of having no knowledge of Sweden.[xv] It is imperative that the columnist learns about Sweden and its foreign policy of the past 20 years, so she might pass on the sinister dealings to her readership. Until recent years, Sweden had a peace policy of which to be proud. For 150 years, the country abstained from war and, in 1966, to celebrate this highly-enviable record, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) was established. After Sweden started cooperating with NATO, the situation began to change.[xvi] Not long afterwards, the Swedish military became involved in world conflicts, and more recently it has looked poised for greater involvement.[xvii] This is not the old Sweden but a new country that demonstrates an unparalleled hypocrisy in its international relations. This trend continues in the refusal by authorities to grant Assange the reasonable assurances that he seeks.

Prominent international supporters of Mr. Assange, like Baltasar Garzon, John Pilger, Michael Moore, and Jemima Khan are ridiculed in Sweden today. In addition to the recent changes in foreign and domestic policy, the third largest political party in the country, called Sweden Democrats (SD), has made massive gains during the last elections, despite openly calling for the repatriation of immigrants from Sweden. The SD party enjoyed a 10% parliamentary share of the vote, which translated into 20 Parliamentary seats. The Swedish government seems to be following the direction of the SD party, especially in its foreign policy positions, which are increasingly pro-American and anti-democratic.
Because of Sweden's pro-American stance on key political issues, a legal system has developed with multiple loopholes that could easily be exploited to Assange's disadvantage. This legal framework is constitutionally racist against foreigners, especially when they contest ethnic Swedish nationals of the cherished blond-haired, blue-eyed Nordic model. Most worrying of all, Sweden's history of hypocrisy, lopsidedness and double-speak in dealings with the international community highlights the risk that Julian Assange would be in physical danger if extradited to Sweden from the UK. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable for him to seek unequivocal diplomatic assurances that he would not be extradited to the US if he agrees to go to Sweden for questioning.

Despite the pressures from the United States and other pro-western governments, the Republic of Ecuador has granted political asylum to Mr. Assange. On the other hand, the United Kingdom has hindered the free movement of Mr. Assange even though the same government blocked the extradition to Spain of the late Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet. Mr. Pinochet was wanted for the murder of 94 Spanish citizens and many other charges of torture and rape against his own people. Although Julian Assange is an Australian citizen, the Australian government has refused to protect him and has instead accommodated Swedish Ambassador Sven-Olof Petersson, who supports rendition and torture. This is unacceptable in a free, democratic and transparent society.
Editor's Notes: Rafik Saley is general secretary of the African Committee for Development in Stockholm, Sweden; Okoth Osewe writes for Kenya Stockholm Blog; John Goss is a writer and researcher, United Kingdom.
References
[i] http://data.riksdagen.se/dokument/GT01KU2
[ii] http://www.swedenabroad.com/en-GB/Embass...mbassador/
[iii] http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7497...h-military
[iv] http://data.riksdagen.se/dokument/GT01KU2
[v] http://www.civilrightsdefenders.org/news...frislappt/
[vi] http://www.redress.org/CAT_2005_AgizavSweden.pdf (Paragraph 4.12)
[vii] http://data.riksdagen.se/dokument/GT01KU2
[viii] http://www.swedenversusassange.com/Police-Bias.html
[ix] http://www.redress.org/CAT_2005_AgizavSweden.pdf (Paragraph 3.3)
[x] http://www.expose-the-war-profiteers.org...080630.pdf P3
[xi] http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-...24pq7.html
[xii] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...76295.html
[xiii] http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/photo/pho...itelang=en
[xiv] http://www.todayszaman.com/news-299892-t...lder*.html
[xv] http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/ambassador...2ae99.html
[xvi] http://books.sipri.org/files/misc/SIPRI01NSD.pdf
[xvii] http://rt.com/news/sweden-nato-military-protest/
Editor's Note: Photographs four and eight by Wikileaks Mobile Information Collection Unit.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2012/12/19/how...f-assange/

[Magda Hassan]

Analysis: Snowden document reveals Swedish prosecution of Assange was requested by the U.S.

artedenoli / October 7, 2014

It emerges now clearer that the "Assange prosecution-case" might have simply been a request from the US government. The Intercept exposures help to explain partly the incongruousness of the case itself; the absurdities and extemporaneousness of the accusations and the disproportional legal procedures such as the European Arrest Warrant issued by a Swedish prosecutor against Julian Assange. On the other hand it explains why the Swedish prosecutor cannot afford to finish the interrogation, as the public would realize that there has never been a legal base for re-initiating such prosecution.It would be fair to conclude that the above constitutes a genuine reason (behind the excuse-finding series produced) for the "juridical" protracting of the case.

By Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli

Image above: Julian Assange interviewed by CNN declared, according the Spanish edition of CNN, that the investigation against him because of filtrating information regarded as classified by the US government continues, and under a prosecutor of the District of Virginia. See details further below.

Contents:

Introduction 1. The Intercept exposures and Swedish collaboration with the US 2. The revealing silence on The Intercept revelations from the part of the Swedish authorities and media 3. The extent of a geopolitical servitude. 4. Conclusion.

Introduction

Those following the Swedish case VS. Assange in the international forum would have to admit that, after nearly four years, the debate is still futilely devoted to "the legal aspects" of the case. The discussion has been made up from the beginning around "technical" arguments, and where court verdicts or utterances of legal folks have been paramount attraction. As an illustration, the Swedish online forum Flashback, mainly dealing around such legal aspects, has produced up to now nearly sixty thousand comments (N= 59 257) that have been viewed nearly six million times (N= 5 723 806). And from the part of the Swedish press, the only opinion articles accepted for publication on WikiLeaks or its founder Julian Assange are those bound to contribute to the "legal discussion", hence, towards the ever blowing smoke-curtain encouraged to hide the real case. My position is instead: there is not such a "legal case"; it has never been. Plainly: there is not legal ground for a prosecution of Assange in Sweden on the base of the alleged behaviours. Arguments from the part of the Swedish prosecutors in the form of vague insinuations of "undisclosed" reasons for pursuing the issue of an interrogation with Assange (at the same time that they neglect carrying out such interrogation in London) emerges after four years as a pure and simple bluff. And this bluff shall be certainly exposed if an interrogation ever is to be performed. Ergo, the case is postponed indefinitely. Which in turn is the reason explaining why the prosecutor has first neglected such interrogation while Assange was still in Sweden, and the afterwards deferring of the interrogation by the prosecutor while Assange has remained in London. Instead, towards a breaking of the stalemate in the Case Assange (March 2014), it would be highly convenient *to shift the main attention from the legal technicalities* to the political contexts of the case. After all, such "the legal technicalities*" actually refer to a non-existing "legal case". For in the main, the Swedish case VS. Assange is political, and instead it has meant all the way, from its origins, to disrupt the publishing endeavour of the anti-secret organization WikiLeaks. It emerges now clearer that the "Assange prosecution-case" might have simply been a request from the US government (See below on The Intercept exposures). This helps to explain partly the incongruousness of the case itself; the absurdities and extemporaneousness of the accusations, the flaw "police interrogations", the disproportional measures adopted by the prosecutor which "re-opened" the case on a request by a known politician, [1] etc. On the other hand it explains the "impossible situation" of the Swedish prosecution authority. The Swedish prosecutor cannot afford to finish the interrogation, now under the world scrutiny, because the bluff would be exposed, as the public would realize that there has never been a legal base for re-initiating such prosecution. The same case, with the same background of no-evidence, was indeed dismissed by Chief-Prosecutor Eva Finné in 2010. And after four years there is nothing new in the "evidence" front. It would be fair to conclude that the above constitutes the genuine reason (behind the excuse-finding series produced) for the "juridical" protracting of the case. Principally, the above political request also provides a rationale for the bogus European Arresting Warrant issued nominally by Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny and publicly defended by Prosecutor-General Anders Perklev; as it is explained elsewhere, [2] the real target of that EAW was not the detention of Assange, but the creation of an extradition process leading to the subsequent stalemate of the case and the immobilization of the WikiLeaks founder.

1. The Intercept exposures and the Swedish collaboration with the US Department of Justice

Documents exposed by Glenn Greenwald and Ryan Gallagher (The Intercept, 18 February 2014) [3] on US efforts to get Assange prosecuted by allies elsewhere, confirm to a great extent main theses that I have put forward on the Assange case since December 2010 and onwards. Although the Greenwald & Gallagher revelations in those regards are not new (for the same information has been released on at lest two occasions in 2010, see below), this new actualization has deserved widespread attention. Partly, for the information it was ascribed to Edward Snowden documents, and partly because it comes almost simultaneously with the publication by Alexa O'Brien (17 February 2014) of a tdocumentation she obtained, pointing to the US preparations for indicting Assange and WikiLeaks.[4] Summarizing the exposed issue with Kevin Gosztolas headline in The Dissident; [5]

"Manhunting Timeline' Further Suggests US Pressured Countriesto Prosecute WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief".

Accurately, the Snowden document referred by Kevin Gosztolas stated the following (the full document has not been available, to the best of my knowledge; the excerpt is contained in the above referred article by Greenwald & Gallagher): "The United States on 10 August urged other nations with forces in Afghanistan, including Australia, United Kingdom and Germany, to consider filing criminal charges against Julian Assange, founder of the rogue WikiLeaks Internet website and responsible for the unauthorized publication of over 70,000 classified documents covering the war in Afghanistan. The documents may have been provided to WikiLeaks by Army Private First Class Bradley Manning. The appeal exemplifies the start of an international effort to focus the legal element of national power upon non-state actor Assange and the human network that supports WikiLeaks." It should be clarified, as also is stated in The Intercept article, that findings refers to an early publication, or "scoop", done by Philip Shenon, former NYT investigative reporter. He published his report on US urging allies hounding Julian Assange and WikiLeaks already on the 10 of June 2010, in the Dailybeast.[6] Here below my comments on the Shenon & Intercept revelations. A) The first thing striking me was that the communication in which the US government urged certain countries to initiate a prosecuting against Assange was directed to "other nations (than the us) with forces in Afghanistan". Ergo, this includes Sweden, unmistakably. This is an item not been highlighted by the above-cited articles of Greenwald & Gallagher, or Gosztolas, or by the article reproducing the interviews of Michael Ratner, President Emeritus of the Centre for Constitutional Rights on the recent exposures based on the Edward Snowden documents.[7] In fact, the press secretary of the Swedish Foreign Office, Anders Jörle, was asked by that time (8 September 2010) whether they have been contacted by the US on the stance Sweden should be held about WikiLeaks. Most interesting I that the answer provided by the Foreign Office representative did NOT deny a contact from the US government's on any such request to Sweden. He only said that no contact has been carried out on the issue between USA and officials the Swedish Foreign ministry "through the official channels". The said interview was conducted by Expressen's journalist Oscar Joulander and published on September 8[SUP]th[/SUP], 2010. I quote from the Expressen's report: "They have not been in contact with us through the official channels in Stockholm or at the embassy in Washington", says the Foreign Office spokesman Anders Jörle".[8] But this is exactly what WikiLeaks denounced in the Diplomatic Cables on Sweden: that the contacts on matters of Intelligence operations between the US Government and the officials at both the Swedish ministries of Justice and of Foreign Affairs were conducted "in secret", and even hidden from the Parliament. In the context, we shall consider that Sweden represent for the US government the staunchest ally in Europe (together with he UK) in that kind of operations. Regarding which countries are "closest allies" in Intelligence operations is not any longer a guessing. They were exposed initially as the "Five eyes" countries. However, some moths ago it emerged that Sweden has been in fact the secretly closest collaborationist European country of the Bush and Obama government. Sweden has during last times repeatedly been referred in the international media as to "the Sixth Eye" of the SIGINT alliance under US command.[9] B) The second aspect being that this request to these countries (including Sweden) was put forward on the 10 of august 2010. It would be enough for the reader to check the document "affidavit of Julian Paul Assange" to realize the timing of the request from the US to Sweden and the timeline of its implementation. It is well known that on the 20 of August, only ten days after the above-referred date, Expressen published the "scoop" that Assange has been "arrested for rape". Expressen interviewed Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand, the Swedish prosecutor that had issued the arresting order, and quotes:

"It is rape, confirms Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand" [10]

But what is less known, in fact, to the best of my knowledge never been mentioned before in the debate, is what journalist Emanuel Karlsten "anticipated" in his article in the same issue of Expressen on that 20 of August: "Internet is boiling with rumours that the US government is exercising pressure on its allies to arrest Assange. Departing from that, and from this notification (the Swedish prosecutor arrest order) I assume that it will be extensively conspired about that CIA finally has managed to infiltrate even the Swedish authorities." [11] Well, who was really conspiring on the 10 of August 2010? C) The third relevant aspect being that charges were asked to be filed against "the founder of WikiLeaks Julian Assange". That was the case all along, that the Swedish prosecution (the "accusations") was initiated under request because Assange was the founder of WikiLeaks, and for the "damage" WikiLeaks had infringed to NATO interest and in particular in exposing the secret agreements between the US government and "neutral" Sweden. In fact, these were the first words I published on the case Assange back in in 2010: [12] "As the detention of Julian Assange is now implemented on behalf of Sweden, it would be necessary to clarify some issues for non-Swedish speaking audiences. Possible equivocal terms based on direct translations of Swedish dispatches may refer not only to the Swedish case against Assange, but also on the responsibility of Swedish authorities in the production of the aggravating secret agreements with American Intelligence services and that were exposed in the diplomatic documents leaked by Assange's organization." The media strategists of the requested operation skilfully mastered the item. They managed to revert its presentation by appealing to a false notion of "all equal under the law". Meaning, "just because he is a celebrity he will not be excused". Another trick engulfed by the Swedish public, which did not realize that it was exactly the opposite. It was because Assange is the WikiLeaks forerunner and indicated as main responsible of the exposures. Further, no one has cared to statistically examining the prevalence of such "legal measures" from the part of the Swedish authorities among a cohort of average Swedes accused of similar behaviours, cases with about the same degree of "evidence" or personal-affective motivation behind, as it is purported being the case "of the two women" accusations against Assange. But it is also an item I have been insisting in clarifying all along. That we should not let pass uncontested that the case against Assange is presented at the media divorcing "the person Assange" from the fact he is the founder and forerunner figure of WikiLeaks. This is a mistake also contained in several interventions from the part of WikiLeaks supporters, who unfortunately did not realise it was part of the smear-accusation strategy. That has been the strategy assayed by Swedish journalists and in general among the Anglo-Saxon media, separate "Assange" from "Wikileaks", a mantra still going strong in the social media particularly Twitter. All this, but principally the above-mentioned revelations done by Alexa O'Brien, would bring support to the hypothesis defended in these columns (the "stalling hypothesis") about the protracting of the case from the part of Sweden in order to allow the completion of the indictment in preparation in the US against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. In other words, the findings by O'Brien also indicate the real nature of the Swedish case VS. Assange, as she clearly demonstrates that US investigation of WikiLeaks is now entering its 5th year. Among the findings of O'Brien: "Other recently released emails reveal that the three and a half year old Department of Justice grand jury probe was already empaneled on September 23, 2010, two months before the Attorney General publicly acknowledged an ongoing U.S. criminal investigation of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange." [13] Why selecting Sweden for the Assange op? One answer could be found in the content of the first reports from Fox TV, the Daily Telegraph, etc., back in 2010-2011. Those reports nearly highlighted that Sweden is "neutral", and expressly anticipate the argument around these terms, "it is inconceivable that a neutral country like Sweden, and which remained neutral during the Second World War, would be doing this on orders of another country." In other terms, the image Sweden as a neutral country would show the "objectivity" of the accusations and the subsequent State-sponsored arresting warrants and extradition requests. But the image of a "neutral Sweden" was deceitful, as demonstrated by the facts exposed in the 2011 article "Sweden, NATO and Assange", [14] answering to Clarie Harvey's piece in Daily Telegraph. [15]

2. The revealing silence on The Intercept revelations from the part of the Swedish authorities and media.

After about a week of the Intercept scoop, particularly when the item concerning WikiLeaks and Assange has been referred in principal international media outlets, not a single word had been uttered by the Swedish press or broadcasting services, public or private. This, considering that according to Google, the item referred by the scoop of Greenwald & Gallagher to Assange and Wikileaks in conjunction to "prosecution", has been referred 402 000 times on the Web so far in the referred time-lapse. [16] The scandalous touch is given by SvD. The paper is running today (23 of February) an extensive article in the Culture section precisely on the theme of Edward Snowden's exposures and in the main context of The Guardian journalist Luke Harding's book "The Snowden files". The title is even headed "A matchless reportage on Snowden and the scoop of all times".[17] The article even reports expressly the launching of The Intercept, "completely aimed at exposures based on the Snowden documents". But WikiLeaks is only mentioned in the article as an organization once despised by Snowden; and Greenwald is only portrayed as a bitter journalist "irritated that Harding has stolen his scoop". And about the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as a target for international prosecution as described in that launching of The Intercept? Not a word. It is not believable that the Swedish media would not consider relevant to Sweden, if not highly relevant, the revelations done by Glenn Greenwald and Ryan Gallagher in The Intercept. I will first explain this relevancy for the Swedish scenario. Then I will enumerate some central myths cultivated by the Swedish authorities, the Swedish legal system and their servant media about Assange and the "legal case". For in these behaviors is to found the real reasons why the media is absolutely mute about the last Snowden revelations. For it exposes the bluff.

3. Conclusion.

The US government approached Sweden's authorities on the situation around Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks exposures of 2010, in August that year. The Swedish press reported on the meetings in Stockholm. Secondly, as reported in both the Phillip Shenon and NSA documents (the report by Greenwald & Gallagher in Intercept), the US contacted all countries with forces in Afghanistan with the request to initiate prosecution against the WikiLeaks founder. As being Sweden a principal country participating with military troops in Afghanistan, it is beyond discussion as to whether Sweden was also among the nations contacted by the US for that purpose. My conclusion being that it is highly likely that the reopening of the "case Assange" by Swedish authorities on the 20 of August 2010 was part of the US request of the 10 of August to prosecute Julian Assange by any means. The US government approached Sweden's authorities on the situation around Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks exposures of 2010, in August that year. The Swedish press reported on the meetings in Stockholm. Secondly, as reported in both the Phillip Shenon and NSA documents (the report by Greenwald & Gallagher in Intercept), the US contacted all countries with forces in Afghanistan with the request to initiate prosecution against the WikiLeaks founder. As being Sweden a principal country participating with military troops in Afghanistan, it is beyond discussion as to whether Sweden was also among the nations contacted by the US for that purpose. My conclusion being that it is highly likely that the reopening of the "case Assange" by Swedish authorities on the 20 of August 2010 was part of the US request of the 10 of August to prosecute Julian Assange by any means. But it is not only a design to simply "prosecute Assange". The meaning of the strategic design in the context of the referred US request was not Assange as person, but the concept was (is) to immobilize WikiLeaks. For this a long protracted process had to be brought in place. Follows a sequence around the European Arrest Warrant issues by the Swedish prosecutor against Julian Assange,[21] and where the conclusion emerging is that the real target of the EAW was not the detention of Assange, but the creation of an extradition process:

• Assange arrived to the airport around noon, and even chosen to change to a later SAS flight of his preferences. He finally left Arlanda Airport for Berlin Tegel at 17.15. Latest around 16.55 he would have gone through airport security where, with the usual heavy police presence, staff at the gate leading to the departure hall checked his passport (if not already checked at the desk), boarding card, etc. Besides, the police have all the passengers' lists in advance.
  
• According to the prosecutor office in Gothenburg, Assange was "detained in absentia" already at 14.15 on 27 September 2010. [24] Normally, such order goes to all police units in the country. Why wasn't he detained at the airport? It could not be that they missed his identity. Quite the opposite: because they knew his identity at the airport desk or at the control gate, the police (or government officials, or whoever agency was operating) managed to take the laptops from Assange's checked-in suitcase. [22] Besides, he stayed around five hours at the airport's premises. They just couldn't have missed him.
  
• Assange was never informed about the "detention in absentia". Further, Assange's laywer Björn Hurtig had obtained an agreement from the prosecutor Marianne Ny that Julian Assange "was free to leave Sweden". [23]
  
• In fact, Assange's lawyer received the communication on the "detention warrant" issued my Marianne Ny (the warrant that Elisabeth Massi Fritz is writing about in connection to Assange's departure for Berlin on the 27 of September), as late as the 30 September 2010. This means three days after that it was issued by the same Marianne Ny.
  
• In support of this claim I refer here to the Supreme Court document "Agreed Statement of Facts And Issues. Between: Julian Paul Assange (Applicant) V. Swedish Prosecution Authority (Respondent)", hearings 1-2 Feb 2012,. In Item 17, page 5, it reads: "On 30th September 2010, the Appellant's counsel [Björn Hurtig] was advised of the existence of the arrest warrant."
  

The EAW immobilized Assange and, to a greater extent, WikiLeaks' activities. In previous analyses, I have demonstrated that it is beyond doubt that this case is political motivated. There isn't a genuine legal case behind the charade of the Swedish Prosecutor Authority and the plaintiff's prejudiced lawyers. This is not the first time that this sort of behaviour has been seen in Sweden. What would have happened if Assange had been detained at the airport? The prosecutor would have had to interrogate Assange within a few hours. Assange would have requested the presence of a lawyer or that the interview was videotaped. Afterwards he would have been released, because in terms of the evidence available to the prosecutor, there would have been nothing new that had not already come up in the preliminary investigation, conducted by prosecutor Finne (who had previously dismissed the case on this evidence). He would have never been held incommunicado, as he will certainly be if he comes to Sweden under the extradition terms that resulted from the EAW. Only the EAW could have produced the political benefits created by this scenario, which enables a prolongation of Assange's prisoner status. My "stalling-the-process hypothesis" [24] was correct from the start. In view of the above, I found strange that in the last reports on the Edward Snowden documents in reference to Assange and WikiLeaks, Sweden is omitted when referring possible countries that would have received the reported request from the US government to pursue a prosecution against Julian Assange in August 2010. I have not found the Swedish-connection in any of the different interviews or articles dealing with the report by Greenwald and Gallagher in The Intercept. Neither these authors make any allusion to the actual prosecution efforts initiated by Sweden precisely around the given date of 10 of August 2010, as given in The Intercept cited documents. In an interview given by Michael Ratner, Assange's lawyer in the US, concretely he declared in commenting the findings by Greenwald and Gallagher in The Intercept: "And what the substance of it is it says that we have to make an effort to get Julian Assange prosecuted everywhere in the world. And at that point they pointed to four, maybe five countriesthe United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, the U.S., Iceland. Those are the countries that are going to go after him in. And, obviously, there are other countries added as they go along." [25] [28] In fact, among all the countries assisting NATO with forces in Afghanistan, it was only Sweden that initiated a prosecution against Julian Assange. This, implemented in a case reopened just days after the US request to allies in Afghanistan, as mentioned in The Intercept report of 17 February 2014, based on the Edward Snowden documents. References and Notes
[1] Politician Claes Borgström shared the same radical ideological agenda on gender-related legislation than the prosecutor that re-opened the case on his request. See details in chapter "Duckpond In Swedish Legal System", Part V in this book. [2] M Ferrada de Noli. "In Search Of A Solution. Refuting Elisabeth Massi Fritz SvD statements on Assange case". Professors blog, 7 Feb 2014. [3] Glenn Greenwald & Ryan Gallagher. "Snowden Documents Reveal Covert Surveillance and Pressure Tactics Aimed at WikiLeaks and Its Supporters". The Intercept, 18 Feb 2014. [4] Alexa O'Brien. "Newly published secret grand jury orders & other docs shed light on US investigation of WikiLeaks now entering 5th yr". Professors Blogg, 25 Feb 2014. [5] Kevin Gosztola. "Manhunting Timeline' Further Suggests US Pressured Countries to Prosecute WikiLeaks Editor-in-Chief ". The Dissenter, 18 Feb 2014. [6]Philip Shenon. "Pentagon Manhunt." The Dailybeast, 10 June 2010. [7] "Documents Reveal NSA and GCHQ Efforts to Destroy Assange and Track Wikileaks Supporters" Interview transcript by Anton Woronczuk. Truthout, 21 Feb 2011. Michael Ratner (President Emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) in New York and Chair of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights in Berlin) says: "And what the substance of it is is it says that we have to make an effort to get Julian Assange prosecuted everywhere in the world. And at that point they pointed to four, maybe five countriesthe United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, the U.S., Iceland. Those are the countries that are going to go after him in. And, obviously, there are other countries added as they go along." [8]Oscar Joulander. "Assange: I am the only victim". Expressen, 8 Sept 2010. Excerpt: "På det svenska Utrikesdepartementet förnekar man att man kontaktats av USA. De har inte varit i kontakt med oss den officiella vägen. Varken i Stockholm eller på ambassaden i Washington, säger UD presschef Anders Jörle." [9]"Sweden's Intelligence Agency has Access to NSA's XKeyscore system". Info Security Magazine, 12 December 2013: "Sweden has sometimes been called the Sixth Eye' referring to the English-speaking Five Eyes SIGINT alliance suggesting a close working relationship between Sweden's FRA and the NSA and GCHQ. New documents suggest that it has access to the XKeyscore tool, and has helped in the Quantum hacking program." [10]" Det är våldtäkt, bekräftar Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand". In Diamant Salihu & Niklas Svensson: "Wikileaks grundare anhållen för våldtäkt". Expressen, 20 Sept 2010. [11]"…internet kokar av rykten om att USA utövar påtryckningar mot sina allierade för att gripa Assange. Jag utgår från att det i och med anmälan kommer att konspireras flitigt om att CIA till sist lyckats infiltrera även svenska myndigheter. In: "Emanuel Karlsten: Konspirationsteorierna kommer att flöda". Expressen, 20 Sept 2010. [12] Glenn Greenwald & Ryan Gallagher. Op. Cit. [13] Alexa O'Brien. "Newly published secret grand jury orders & other docs shed light on US investigation of WikiLeaks now entering 5th yr". Professors Blogg, 25 Feb 2014. [14]Sweden, NATO and Assange". Professors blog, 3 Nov 2011. [15] In an article on the case Assange in The Daily Telegraph, Clarie Harvey referred to Sweden in these terms,: a "proudly independent nation that remained neutral even during World War II". [16]Search in Google.com retrieved (See searching terms) 23 Feb 2014, 6:27 PM. [17] Sam Sundberg. "Omistligt reportage om Snowden och tidernas scoop". SvD, 23 Feb 2014. [21] M Ferrada de Noli, "In Search Of A Solution. Rebutting Lawyer Elizabeth Massi Fritz statements in Svd on the Assange case". Professors blogg, 7 Feb 2014. [22]See Affidavit of Julian Paul Assange, 1. Summary of Claims, Item 4. [23]UK Supreme Court document "Agreed Statement of Facts And Issues. Between: Julian Paul Assange (Applicant) V. Swedish Prosecution Authority (Respondent)", hearings 1-2 Feb 2012, Item 13, page 4.: "On 14th September 2010, the Appellant's counsel enquired in writing as to whether the Appellant was permitted to leave Sweden. On 15th September 2010, the prosecutor informed the Appellant's counsel that he was free to leave Sweden." The "Julian Paul Affidavit" refers also in No 4, "Extended stay in Sweden", Item 113, "My lawyer in Sweden Bjorn Hurtig obtained an agreement from the prosecutor Marianne Ny that I was free to leave Sweden. I left Sweden on 27 September 2010." [24]See Chapter "Timing The Processes.Explaining Sweden's Reluctance To Conduct Assange's Interrogation In London". In Part I in this book. [25]The Real News Network | Video Interview. Friday, 21 February 2014 11:24 By Anton Woronczuk.

http://professorsblogg.com/2014/10/07/sn...y-the-u-s/

[Magda Hassan]

Who are behind the "Swedish prosecution" of Assange, and Why?

artedenoli / 1 week ago

Part I * below refers to the "Whys" of Sweden's official retaliation against WikiLeaks. Part II * mentions Swedish military officials (Mikael Winnerstig, then Deputy Head of the Swedish Defence Research Agency, FOI) in the middle of a smearing campaign against WikiLeaks, where the anti-secret organization is falsely accused of targeting "only" NATO but spearing Russia, and where the WikiLeaks founder is acussed of "blackmailing Sweden". Part III * comments the same political and military officials mentioned in Part II, namely the above-mentioned Deputy Head of the Swedish Defence Research Agency, and the former Defence Minister Sten Tolgfors, that together have recently published an appeal on behalf of NATO in the main Swedish paper DN. In their debate-article, Winnerstig and Tolgfors pledge Carl Bildt's doctrine for a "even closer collaboration of Sweden with NATO".

These texts are self-revealing against the backdrop of a previous published analysis in the Professors' Blog ["Snowden document reveals Swedish prosecution of Assange was requested by the U.S."], indicating NATO had requested Sweden (and to other countries participating under U.S. command in the military occupation of Afghanistan) the prosecution of Julian Assange. Consequently, in the following post I will be pointing the plausible reasons of the refusal from the part of the Swedish authorities of conducting the interrogation of Assange in London.Above: translated clip from Expressen 6 of December 2010, at the times the Swedish authorities were requesting Interpol to hunt-down Julian Assange.

.
Introduction:
The open pro-NATO involvement of the same Swedish officials that have instigated a xenophobic hate against Mr. Julian Assange, gives a clear indication that for NATO and its proxies and allies in Sweden (Carl Bildt, etc), Assange's organization WikiLeaks is to be equated as "military enemy" in the context of their confrontation with archenemy Russia. In fact, Mikael Winnerstig, in his role of Deputy Head of the Swedish Defence Research Agency FOI, had previously accused WikiLeaks in the Sate-owned TV's main news program of favoring Russia and "only targeting NATO" in their whistleblowing endeavours. Similar especulations were raised when WikiLeaks masterminded the successful rescue of Edward Snowden in Hongkong, whose exile cruising ended in Russia.
In fact, Professors' Blog was first in elaborating the thesis on that the Assange accusations leading to the house arrest and prolongation of the asylum at the Ecuador Embassy in London (and later the corresponding refusal from the part of Swedish authorities of performing an interrogation of Julian Assange in London), were primarily devised to inhibit the publishing activity of WikiLeaks. Thinking on NATO's as well absurd as Dr Strangelove-wise appraisal on Assange "serving the interests of archenemy Russia", the current increase in their confrontation with Russia around the "Ukraine crisis" gives further concerns to all of us in the Human Rights front regarding the fate of the WikiLeaks founder.

I

In "Who is behind the "people's Intelligence apparatus"? On the Swedish collaboration with US/NATO spying" [i] I mentioned that WikiLeaks has represented a veritable threat to those abusing power; and thus, from that perspective, the best way of keeping that threat as far away as possible, is to secure the arrest or seclusion, as long as possible, of its forerunner Mr. Julian Assange.

The U.S. government is not the only one that has disliked Julian Assange's public revelations. Swedish rulers have reasons of their own to be irritated, uncomfortable or even "threatened". For there were various sensitive issues regarding abuses of power in Sweden that were disclosed by the Diplomatic Cables released by WikiLeaks. These are items related to both NATO- collaborationist governments of Reinfeldt / Bildt and Persson / Bödström (which have little or nothing to do the honourable political tradition of Olof Palme and much of the social democratic party-roots of Sweden). These WikiLeaks exposures on the Swedish rulers are in my opinion the real reasons for the bogus case "Sweden vs. Assange". Why is Sweden so vengeful towards Assange? The vendetta by Swedish officials is simply illustrated by this headline in the Daily Telegraph, [55] which has had global reach via the Internet:
In fact, the Diplomatic Cable referred to by the Daily Telegraph revealed the following:

1. a) The phony Swedish neutrality in the issues of foreign policy and military alliances; Sweden was in fact acting under NATO.
   
2. b) Some government officials acted in deals compromising the nation's political independence (according to Swedish law only the Parliament ergo not single government functionaries are empowered to make such agreements). Sweden was, in fact, receiving "instructions" from a foreign power in both intelligence-gathering issues [For sources, see Note 1] as well as in legislative initiatives.
   
3. c) This servile attitude of some government officials compromised the integrity of their own countrymen. All this was done in secrecy and deliberately and illegally hidden from Parliament, [56] [Ref.2].
   

Further, The fact is that after Wikileaks made the whole affair public, there was practically no reaction from politicians, journalists, or the general public about the exposures. There was nothing that resulted in real questioning of the authorities involved. The same phenomenon was evident regarding the public disclosure of the Swedish official collaboration in the secret CIA renditions- flight operations in Sweden [see interview below]. This was a shame in itself. Under "normal" standards in all nations, revelations of secret intelligence- collaboration deals with a foreign power behind the back of the constitutional authorities should be at least have occasioned a government scandal.
This incident was was the start of international criticism towards Sweden. The international opinion was astonished. The Washington Post noted, quoting a Parliament investigation, that no Swedish officials have been charged or disciplined although "being remarkably submissive to the American officials".[Ref. 3]
The Swedish reaction
Swedish officials either failed to understand such criticism, or could not accept it. They instead blamed Assange himself, as "the enemy" of Sweden. He was duly, portrayed as such in a documentary series by Swedish National Television and in the press more generally.
The Swedish National Television started the series by producing in April 2011 a documentary 57 in its main channel (SvT-1) [Ref. 4], which used the following text-presentation, also repeated in the programs announcements and trailer:
"How could the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange get the world into questioning Sweden's credibility"? [58]
The mainstream media (MSM) followed, and journalists openly associated with the plaintiffs in the case Assange started the ad-hominem anti Assange Twitter-campaign "Talk about it" [#Prataomdet]. The campaign was widely publicized, even internationally, firstly by the Guardian. The campaign was also publicly promoted by the plaintiffs' lawyer Claes Borgström, at a public event organized by the radical-feminist movement [Ref. 5]. For them, the "Assange Affair" had publicly been declared a "symbol" [Ref. 6] in the political agenda towards a further radicalization of the rape-legislation. The organizers of the #Prataomdet defamation-campaign were rewarded afterwards by both the government and the Swedish cultural establishment. As the vengeful anti-Assange campaign progressed in the Swedish media (some of these actions from the part of the media analysed in Swedish psychological warfare against Wikileaks and Assange) [59], [Ref. 7] all political parties included the Pirate Party [Ref. 8] joined the populist occasion. Prime Minister Reinfeldt made himself a public intervention about the "legal process" on behalf of the plaintiffs. [Ref. 9] This considering that Julian Assange has not been in trial, not yet been charged, nor his version heard in Sweden. Summary of known disclosures published by WikiLeaks on Sweden Main exposures contained in the Diplomatic Cables , relate to: 1) An intelligence-gathering operation with regard to personal data of the Swedish people as requested by USA. Such collaboration program would require by law the approval of the Parliament. Remarkably, the Swedish officials themselves (not the USA officials, who instead wished a formal, legal agreement) proposed a formula for such collaboration devised to avoid the scrutiny of the Parliament and the public. 2) Initiatives given to the Minister of Justice in order to introduce a series of legislation aimed to protect U.S. commercial or corporate interests. 3) Initiatives or concrete pressures upon the Minister of Justice for the introduction in Sweden of legislation aimed the surveillance 60 of the Internet traffic of the Swedish citizenry. This legislation, known as the Surveillance Law (FRA-lagen) was eventually approved by the Parliament at the "government's" initiative and after an intense debate. [Ref. 10] * This text is an excerpt from chapter "This is Why", in my book "Sweden VS. Assange Human Right Issues", Libertarian Books, Sweden, 2014. Pages 42-55.

II

FOI, the Swedish Defence Research Agency subordinated to the Ministry of Defence of "Neutral" Sweden, is now reported of helping in complete secrecy totally behind the Swedish public and Parliament (according to declarations of Vänster Partys chairman Jonas Sjöstedt) the building of a missile factory on behalf of the notorious dictatorship in Saudi Arabia. The breaking news emerges just few days after FOA ungrounded accused WikiLeaks founder and editor Julian Assange of illegal actions against Sweden. Professors blogg asks, FOA, Who is in fact violating the Swedish laws?

Defence Minister Sten Tolgfors (above), politician of the Moderate Party (right-wing conservative), most known for his vehement advocacy for a further military collaboration with the U.S., said now (18.00) in SvT: "I cannot totally confirm the picture as given by the media today". Tolgfors has the supreme institutional command over FOI (the Swedish Defence Research Agency) agency which as known in the latest news established a fake company in order to implement the secret agreements with Saudi Arabia; The name of the company is Swedish Security Technology and Innovation, SSTI. In this way FOI thought the operation it could not be traced by the Swedish Parliament. Namely, "none of the committees of the Swedish Parliament was never informed och such operation", said the Vänster Party's chairman Jonas Sjöstedt in the SvT evening-news 6 March (see also statement of the Vänster Party). On the other hand, as Dagens Nyheter informs 7 March, the said fake company "Swedish Defence Research Agency" given the same address and telephone number as the Swedish Defence Research Agency". It is highest unlikely that the Intelligence services at disposal of Defence would not have alerted Tolgfors of the upcoming disclosure. In this scenario, it is likely that Tolgfors' subordinate, FOI's Vice Research Director Mike Winnerstig (below) had the assignment of sending a chauvinistic smoke courting to the public, by preposterous accusing Assange and WikiLeaks of non-existent criminal behaviours, such as blackmailing the Nation of Sweden. This measure was one among the variety of articles and aired programs aiming to discredit WikiLeaks and presenting Sweden under an attack from "Sweden's Number One Enemy" Julian Assange, as he has previously been named in Sweden's mainstream media both by the pro-government press and the "opposition" press. During a recent radio debate in which Professors blogg was invited to meet Expressens editor-in-chief's opinions (Radio1, aired 3 March 2012) on WikiLeaks, Mr Thomas Mattsson dismissed any explanation pointing to a coordinated media campaign as nonsense. During the acid polemic which have ensued between WikiLeals and Expressen, the tabloid has been signalled as a megaphone of the Moderate Party or going "hand-in-hand" as Julian Assange recently indicated. The Swedish military collaboration with the Saudi Arabia dictatorship commenced under the previous social democratic government of the pro-Bush PM Göran Persson and his Justice Minister Thomas Bodström the main partner in the firm Bordström & Borgström which instigated the reopening of a process against the WikiLeaks founder. *Excerpts from "Sweden's FOI publicly slandering Assange & WikiLeaks while in secret help building missile factory for Saudi Arabia dictatorship".

III

Editor's Note: Political behaviours of former Swedish Defence Minister Sten Tolgfors and Dr. Mike Winnerstig, from the Swedish Armed Forces Research Institute, have been previously commented in The Professors' Blog. The last, in reference to the smearing of WikiLeaks and particularly of its founder Julian Assange. In recent days, both political figures public associated with the Swedish military / weapon industry complex have authored a debate article in the main Swedish paper DN, consisting in a pledge for "Sweden's even closer collaboration with NATO". The Professors' Blogg publishes here an interesting rebuttal VS. such stances by Tolgfors/Winnerstig, authored by our guest-columnist Dr. Leif Elinder. The article we translated here was originally published by DN.se (in Swedish) on the 21 October 2014, and headed, "Vad hade USA gjort om grannar gått i pakt med Ryssland?".

.

What the US had done if Sweden's neighbours would have signed a pact with Russia?

[Text below by Dr. Leif Elinder]

[Former Swedish defence minister] Tolgfors and Mike Winnerstig [from Swedish Armed Forces Research Institute] writes that Russia behaves aggressively, and that it is of central importance that Sweden cooperates closely with NATO, closer than ever before. But in the opinion of several experts, it is rather the US and its allies who are primarily responsible for the recent crisis. Russia perceives NATO expansion as a real threat, writes Leif Elinder. What would the US have done if Mexico, Cuba, Honduras and Canada decided to conclude a defence pact with Russia? What would the US have done about Russia if compared to the US it expended ten times more on military equipment, and established anti-missile units along the US border? Would Tolgfors at that stage have defended the "neighbours' right to choose their own political future security"? (See DN-Debate article 19/10 2014 by Tolgfors and Mike Winnerstig). NATO allocates ten times more than Russia on military spending, and the US has around 700 military bases deployed in other countries. In the book "Superpower Illusions" Matlock writes that NATO expansion is determined more by domestic political considerations in the United States, than based on military strategic reflections. But Russia perceives NATO expansion as a real threat. Tolgfors writes that the United States has treated Russia well, that Russia behaves aggressively, and that it is "central to Sweden … that" with broad parliamentary support collaborate more closely with NATO than ever". "Of particular importance for Sweden is to maintain the good transatlantic cooperation with the United States" (meaning NATO). "Without that link Europe lacks tools for managing the threats that Europe now faces." In an interview on 10/10, says Hans Blix, former Foreign Minister (Liberal Party Folkpartiet), that Russia perceives the West as provocatively and that it "is dangerous when there are nuclear-weapons states on both sides. That was learned during the Cuban Missile Crisis. " Against this background, Tolgfors' analysis of the crisis in Ukraine reminds on the main character in Stanley Kubrick's film "Dr. Strangelove," a preposterous general trying to revitalize the old Cold War of the 1960s. Footnotes of text in Part I
55. Andrew Hough, WikiLeaks: Swedish government hid' anti-terror operation with America from Parliament. The Daily Telegraph, 15 December 2010 56. Örjan Magnusson. "Sverige lämnar information till USA utan att riksdagen får veta". SvT Nyheter, 5 December 2010. 57. http://professorsblogg.com/2011/04/15/ri...e-swedish- national-television-part-1-the-political-agenda/ 58. "Julian Assange världens kärleksaffär", Swedish National Television, SvT-1. 7 Apr 2011 59 http://Ferrada-noli.blogspot.com/2011/10...ainst.html 60 http://Ferrada-noli.blogspot.com/2008_09...chive.html References used in Part I

[i] "Who is behind the people's Intelligence apparatus? On the Swedish collaboration with US spying". See Part VII in this book. http://professorsblogg.com/2013/12/12/peoples-intel-apparatus/
%5B1%5D In fact, those "informal" agreements have placed the Swedish security and military intelligence so heavily under the control and command of the Americans, that, as reported by the newspaper Expressen 7/12 2010 referring to the years ensuing 2003, Sweden Intelligence officers got the impression that they were working under direct orders of the CIA ( "Under de kommande åren förändrades svensk underrättelse-och säkerhetstjänst på ett sådant sätt att enskilda tjänstemän uppfattade det som att de arbetade på direkt beställning av CIA") Source: Mike Ölander. "CIA krävde att Sverige skulle utöka samarbetet" Expressen 6/12 2010 http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/1.224235...ge-skulle- utoka-samarbetet
[2] "Sverige lämnar information till USA utan att riksdagen får veta". Article in Rapport, National Swedish Televison, SVT, 5 December 2010 http://svt.se/2.22620/1.2257883/sverige_...a_utan_att _riksdagen_far_veta?lid=puff_2258465&lpos=extra_0
[3] The full quote from the Washington Post reads: "Although the parliamentary investigator concluded that the Swedish security police deserved extremely grave criticism' for losing control of the operation and for being
90 The present version of "This Is Why" was published in Professors Blogg, December 2013, with the title "What Is Behind The Bogus Case of Sweden vs. Mr. Assange"
remarkably submissive to the American officials,' no Swedish officials have been charged or disciplined.". In Craig Whitlock's article "New Swedish Documents Illuminate CIA Action", The Washington Post, 21 May 2005 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2005/05/20/AR2005052001605.html
[4] M Ferrada de Noli, "Rigged documentary on Julian Assange in the Swedish National Television. PART 1: The Political Agenda". The Professors blogg, 15 April 2011 http://Ferrada-noli.blogspotcom/2011/04/...on-julian- assange-in.html
[5] M Ferrada de Noli, Julian Assange declared "symbolic issue" by Swedish radical-feminists. The Professors blogg, 30 Septembre 2011 http://Ferrada-noli.blogspotcom/2011/09/...lic-issue- for.html
[6]Id.
[7] M Ferrada de Noli, Swedsih psychological warfare against Wikileaks and Assange. The Professors blogg, 25 October 2011 http://Ferrada-noli.blogspotcom/2011/10/...l-warfare- against.html
[8] M Ferrada de Noli, "Have Swedish Pirates Betrayed Assange?". The Professors blogg, 6 March 2011 http://Ferrada-noli.blogspotcom/2011/03/...sange.html
[9] M Ferrada de Noli, "Matching critic on Reinfeldt's involvement in the Assange case", The Professors blogg, 11 February 2011 http://Ferrada-noli.blogspotcom/2011/02/...felts.html
[10] M Ferrada de Noli, "Sweden. The Surveillance Law (FRA) debate. The Professors blogg, 22 September 2008 http://Ferrada-noli.blogspotcom/2008_09_22_archive.html



http://professorsblogg.com/2014/11/05/wh...n-and-why/

[Magda Hassan]

For more on the Swedish-Saudi mega deals see Anonymous Operation Want and the following link:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...ht=assange
http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/nasdaq/2011/34-63786.pdf
http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/sccp/2011/34-63830.pdf
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Operation_Want

[Magda Hassan]

Paid agent of Swedish security services implicated in second disinformation campaign against Assange

by The Indicter | posted in: Extra analisys | 0

By Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli.

In the first part of this series [1] The Indicter exposed that a former paid agent of Sweden's Security Police had intervened with Amnesty Sweden (the Swedish section of Amnesty International), directly dictating its negative stance towards Julian Assange. In this article we analyse whether Swedish government security agents, or former agents', have been further involved in a disinformation campaign against the founder of WikiLeaks and its whistleblower publishing. An important source here is the activity of Researchgruppen, the journalist-collective organization led by Martin Fredriksson, a former paid agent of the Swedish Security Police or, as it's better known by its Swedish acronym, SÄPO. [2] Researchgruppen's anti-Assange broadcasting

Picture above: Researchgruppen receiving the award "Guldspade" for "Sweden's best investigative journalism". Martin Fredriksson at centre in the picture. Researchgruppen was also nominated for "Stora Journalist Priset" in 2014. Researchgruppen collaborates with Expressen, Swedish Radio, Uppdrag Granskning (at the State TV), TV4, and others'. Source: SvT.

Researchgruppen is an organization founded by Martin Fredriksson and others in 2010 (while he was still a paid agent of SÄPO) that claims to target extreme right-wing or right-conservative parties, organizations that share a staunch opposition to the incorporation of Sweden into NATO. Researchgruppen has also received support and assignments from Expressen, [5] one of the main Swedish evening newspapers, well-known for leading an earlier campaign against WikiLeaks and Assange on behalf of the previous Foreign Minister, Carl Bildt. [6] The funding of Researchgruppen is secret as it is registered as part of Seppuku Media Ekonomisk Förening, whose nominal owner is Martin Fredriksson [7]. This company was founded in 2007 at a time when Martin Fredriksson was working as an agent for SÄPO. [4] Fredriksson's Researchgruppen, now led by Mathias Wåg, runs a broadcasting program called "My Special Interests" (Mina Specialintressen). [8] The My Special Interests programs are podcasts in which the ex-SÄPO agent and guests occasionally including other collaborators working as SÄPO agents, besides Fredriksson share opinions on topics built around the political and geopolitical stances of Researchgruppen. Many of these stances are, in fact, very similar to the views held by prominent Swedish politicians who have been exposed by WikiLeaks as having provided information to US intelligence services, such as in the case of former US Foreign Minister Carl Bildt. [9] A prominent characteristic of the podcasts is their harsh criticism of Julian Assange, combined with a fierce anti-Russian bias particularly targeting Russia's president Vladimir Putin. The podcasts so far 22 programs have been produced are each about one hour long. I have therefore randomised a sample, which gave the following findings. An influential agent' working for Russia? In the podcast N°15, Crossfit, Martin Fredriksson asks the interviewee 'Marlene' completely out of the blue while she is talking about her interest in a TV series whether she is also interested in the Assange case. Without waiting for her reply Fredriksson says, repeatedly, "Assange is a clown" and adds "Assange has worked very hard to lower his credibility, successively and systematically". The woman finally responds: "What I think of Assange is, first it was up, like the sun, and then down, flat as a pancake. He was idealised. Then came the rape charges [sic] and that he refused to come to Sweden; he fell like a…" The main guest in the podcast N° 16, titled "The spy that came from the cold", is Joakim von Braun [photo at left], another agent previously working at SÄPO according to the description in the program presentation. [10]. Other sources indicate that he also worked at The Office for Special Collection', an spy agency part of the Swedish Military Intelligence and Security Service (MUST, Militära underrättelse- och säkerhetstjänsten) and "one of the most secret parts of the Swedish Armed Forces." [11] Von Braun is a founder of the organization Sweden's Eye and Ear (Föreningen Sveriges Öga och Öra). [12] In this program Martin Fredriksson compares Julian Assange to the Swedish Nazi leader Marc Abramsson [13] and asks the podcast's guest interviewee how the appearances of Assange and Abramsson on Russian media channels fit into "Russia's media strategy". To which the SÄPO spy Von Braun replies: "They have always been clever on that, I mean, KGB has always worked with social disinformation, with influential agents." "So, what is the definition of an influential agent'?" asks ex-SÄPO agent Martin Fredriksson of ex-SÄPO agent Von Braun. The answer: "The definition of an influential agent' is a person that acts not only out of their own opinions but on behalf of, for instance, the stances of the Soviet Union or those of Russia." The dialogue above occurs against a backdrop of the most blatant propaganda I have ever heard in a Swedish broadcast transmission, perhaps only comparable with the Swedish Radio program Studio 1. [14] Fredriksson maintains, for instance, that Russia did not really help the forces combating Franco during the Spanish Civil War (meaning they provided no real help to the communists, anarchists, partisans and international brigade fighters during the conflict), but only used the War as a testing ground for its arsenal. In this program statements are made comparing Putin to Mussolini, that "Russia will soon become a absolute totalitarian' dictatorship", that "Russia just wants to recover its old Tsarist prestige", and other comments that the Swedish public is used to hearing or reading from the Swedish Armed Forces, media and politicians who lobby for Sweden's membership of NATO. "Putin controls all the media apparatus, exclusively, all the media apparatus", says one guest in the Researchgruppen podcast. Ex Military Intelligence agent Joakim Von Braun fills in: "I call him a dictator." Researchgruppen's anti-Assange campaign on Twitter While Martin Fredriksson was CEO at Researchgruppen the organization campaigned hard against the WikiLeaks founder using its Twitter account for ad hominem attacks. A list of these tweets can be seen in this link. The account @researchgruppen issued nearly 100 tweets attacking Wikileaks and Julian Assange over a two year period. Similar campaigns in the Swedish mainstream media against Julian Assange and the organization WikiLeaks are described in my book Sweden VS Assange. Human Rights Issues and Political Background" [15] Conclusion I have followed the Sweden vs Assange case since it started in 2010. The political character of the case against WikiLeaks has become increasingly clear over the years. [16] In 2011, I did research based on Swedish mainstream media references to the case and to Julian Assange in particular. The results were that, among the articles which referred to Assange's personal character or clearly implied features of his personality (forty per cent of the total articles), far more articles (72 per cent) did so by using hostile, detrimental or aggressive terms, in contrast to articles using positive terms (28 per cent). When comparing these variables, the statistical analysis showed a ratio of 0.38, pointing to a significant over-representation of negative assessments. [17] This trend has persisted up to the present day. [18] However, the attacks also came from government sources. In 2013, the international forum was shocked by Australian Senator Scott Ludlam's listing of direct interventions in the Assange case made by high Swedish government officials (including the Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt), [19] Here in Sweden, I was myself taken aback at the force of the ad hominem attacks against Assange by representatives of the Swedish Armed Forces openly supportive of NATO. [20] All these ad hominem attacks, to which can now be added those from organizations under the control of ex-agents' paid by Sweden's Security Police such as Researchgruppen in the case of Martin Fredriksson, were often made in contexts which had barely any direct relevance to the legal case. Julian Assange has now received the support of the UN Human Rights Council, and more recently, the support of 500 prominent rights organizations and world intellectuals, including 60 professors and four Nobel-prize winners. [21] Notes and References [1] "Former paid agent of Swedish Security Police dictated Amnesty Sweden's stance against Assange", The Indicter, 6 March 2016. Retrieved 12 March 2016. [2] "SÄPO" stands for Säkerhets Polisen [Sweden's Security Police]. Website. It is difficult to assess the time period during which SÄPO-paid agents have intervened in the Assange case, partly because an intelligence agency naturally refuses to give out information on its clandestine operations and agents, and partly because the information given by SÄPO ex-agents themselves does not exactly match other available sources. For example, there is a mismatch between a recent Researchgruppen statement [Reference 13 in Part 1 article here] and ex agent' Fredriksson's public declaration about the period in which he was active in SÄPO. [3] See reference 13 in above-cited article in The Indicter. [4]
[5] Researchgruppen Wikipedia [6] This campaign was exposed by The Professors' Blogg in the series "Anatomy of an untruthful scoop: Sweden's psychological warfare against WikiLeaks" (Part One) and "Plan Z: Sweden's latest chauvinist anti-WIkiLeaks campaign in the Swedish media" (Part two). [7] Seppuku Media Ekonomisk Förening, described here. And accounting whereabouts here. The Local reports that Martin Fredriksson interviewed in his role of publisher of Researchgruppen (ansvarig utgivare)* "was unable to provide any concrete figures on the costs of the operation." In: "The Swedish group that blew the lid on hateful online comments". The Local, 12 Dec 2013.
[8] Mina Specialintressen, Researchgruppen podcast. It is difficult to assess when the programs were originally broadcast because the dates for all podcasts' releases are given as 12 October 2015. [9] M Ferrda de Noli, "Carl Bildt, US secret information-officer, according to document released by WikiLeaks". The Professors' Blogg, 15 June 2014. [10] [11] Wikipedia article on Joakim von Braun [Swedish]. Retrieved 11 March 2016. Wikipedia article on The Office for Special Collection'. Retrieved 12 March 2016.
[12] Föreningen Sveriges Öga och Öra. Retrieved 12 March 2016. [13] Marc Abramsson was the leader of the National Democrats, a now-dissolved Swedish Nazi political party. [14] M Ferrada de Noli, MH 17. The facts and the libel, The Professors' Blogg, 5 August 2015. [15] M Ferrada de Noli, "Sweden vs. Assange. Human Rights Issues & Political Background", Libertarian Books, Sweden, 2014 and 2016. 342 pages, free download PDF. [16] M Ferrada de Noli, "Political facts behind the Swedish case VS. Assange". The Indicter, 15 December 2015. [17] M Ferrada de Noli, Does Sweden Inflict Trial by Media against Assange? The Professors' Blog, 20 February 2011. [18] "Importantes denuncias del Senador Ludlam sobre el caso Assange." The Professors' Blog, 20 January 2013. [19] M Ferrada de Noli, "Sweden's FOI publicly slandering Assange & WikiLeaks while in secret help building missile factory for Saudi Arabia dictatorship". The Professors' Blog, 6 March 2012. [21] See list of supporters at "Julian Assange: 600+ Rights Groups and Individuals Condemn UK and Sweden for Failing to Recognize UN Arbitrary Detention Finding". andyworthington.co.uk. Retrieved 2 March 2016.
http://theindicter.com/paid-agent-of-swe...t-assange/