Monday, February 28, 2011

7/7 RIPPLE EFFECT:London bombing and bomb hoaxes...

Telegraph under pressure: Telegraph urged to end ‘witch hunt’ for source of Cable comments leak to Robert Peston

Equitorial Guinea ruler's son 'ordered superyacht'

US cables reveal about France and the Ben Ali regime

SWEDEN: The Sex war,01.shtml

Havana / Cuba cables released

U.S. shields foreign mercenaries in Libya to protect Bush officials


Colombia: Us choppers/ money laundering





Viewing cable 10NAIROBI181, Chinese Engagement in Kenya


US hatred for ASSANGE would like to see him executed...

OBAMA: Open letter in defence of Wikileaks

Assange / Raymond A. David...US desires them both..

Saudi Royal family WIKILEAKS next target..

7/7 London bombings Forensic analysis

About the Dossier's Author, David Minahan

David writes:
"I was by occupation a claims investigator for an insurance company and later a leading firm of solicitors so I have some experience of "forensic" matters. I was also some years ago the National President of a major Trade Union (MSF now merged with the AEEU to form Amicus).
I am convinced that there has been a massive cover up and campaign of disinformation about this matter."

Gaddafi planned convenient

Middle East updates...

7/7 London bombers on a train that was cancelled that day !!!!!!!

7/7 London bombings..Question to Peter Power...'you were running an exercise simulating three bombs going off, in the very same tube stations that they went off '. he claims this was a 'spooky' coincidence....

Sunday, February 27, 2011

7/7 RIPPLE EFFECT: Who was behind London bombings ?

Assange: The Hornets Nest

Anna Ardin snapping pics of Julian Assange sleeping naked in her bed. And more.

Buy It

Try It

LONDON (Rixstep) — WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange spoke out for the first time about the events surrounding his visit to Stockholm in August, this to the Sunday Times.

The details he's finally disclosed cast even more suspicions on Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén.

Naked Pics & Tug o' War

'We went to bed and things went on from there', said Assange of his first night with the militant feminist Ardin.

'The day after this incident, she invited friends around to her flat for a dinner in honour of me', Assange continued. 'Does that sound like someone who was upset by what had happened?'

'And at the dinner were a couple who had offered to have me as their guest. Instead, she insisted I remain with her. I stayed the rest of the week.'

Anna Ardin evidently gloated over her catch - she got up in the middle of the night and took a photograph of Julian Assange sleeping naked in her bed - this after the supposed incident that caused her to call out the National Guard.

Assange too believes the case started as a matter of revenge, particularly from Anna '7 Steps of Revenge' Ardin. Since then it's not likely the pervasive TLAs have not got involved.

'Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism', muses Assange - and pretty much sums up the state of affairs in the formerly admired nordic country.

'I fell into a hornets nest of revolutionary feminism.'

Assange has been raped twice....

How to Rape Julian Assange Twice

A tale of two stories.

Buy It

Try It

Julian Assange has been raped twice. The first act of abuse lasted essentially 23 hours 52 minutes; the second act is ongoing. There's really no connection between these stories. And then again there is. Sort of.

Julian Assange stepped down onto the steps of the High Court in London today in triumph. He was free under certain conditions. He said shortly afterward after leaving a pub on his way out of the city that he wasn't fearful of a possible extradition to Sweden but was seriously concerned by an extradition to the US.

Story One

Story One begins in the early days of August 2010 when a 'legal expert' writes for the Swedish Sydsvenska dagbladet to point out that WikiLeaks doesn't enjoy full source protection under the law because WikiLeaks doesn't have an ansvarig utvigare. And to have an ansvarig utvigare one must have an utgivningsbevis and to get an utgivningsbevis one must be at least a resident of Sweden if not a citizen and one must truly be the individual responsible for publication.

The WikiLeaks submission system is fairly secure as is and no whistleblower has got into trouble save through blurting confidential information to others. The matter was therefore essentially one of perception only. But perception is everything. So Julian Assange set course for Sweden where he planned on doing any number of things.
  • Seek residence
  • Apply for an utgivningsbevis based on this residence permit
  • Do a deal with Sweden's Pirate Party so the latter could help host WikiLeaks
A very strange individual affiliated with a very strange fringe group with formal leanings towards Sweden's traditionally most important political party somehow got in touch with Julian and asked if he'd like to give a talk when in town. Julian readily agreed.

The next step was to find a place for Julian to talk. This didn't take long at all - the 'LO Borgen' located at Norra bantorget in central Stockholm just off Vasagatan.

The venue was small so tickets were made available with priority for members of the press.

Julian also arranged to stay in the flat of the girl organising the talk. She herself would be away the week before the gig, visiting family on the island of Gotland, accessible by ferry from the mainland.

The girl in question is Anna Ardin. Anna Ardin has a notoriety that precedes her even before the events that were about to unfold. Anna returned to Stockholm on the ominous Friday 13 August, the eve of the gig she'd arranged. She and Julian talked for a while, then went out for a late bite, then according to her had sex when they returned to her flat.

Anna and Julian went to the gig the following day at Norra bantorget. Another girl of note was present in the audience, a girl with no press credentials who somehow still managed to get inside the tight venue. This girl is Sofia Wilén. Sofia is a photographer, not a journalist. She lent peripheral computer equipment to people in Julian's entourage before the event and then sat front row right and photographed Julian incessantly throughout his talk. She pushed her way into his inner circle after the talk, identified herself as the one who'd helped with the equipment, then got herself invited to lunch at a nearby restaurant.

And so forth.

Shakespeare said hell hath no fury like a woman scorned but Shakespeare never considered what would happen if two women went berserk at the same time against the same victim. For by Tuesday of the following week the two girls Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilén were already plotting how to 'get back' at Julian Assange. At least one of them was not only head over heels in love with Julian and his image but was boasting about town about her conquest. Now they both knew they'd both slept with him and decided together to enact the now notorious '7 step plan for revenge' which the one of them felt rather strongly about.

The plan was simply to go to a police station together and ask questions about STDs about the same man. They wouldn't actually ask to file charges of sexual molestation or rape - they'd let the police do that. Bringing false accusations of a serious crime is in itself a serious crime, something they both wanted to avoid being implicated in.

They also decided that once they'd set everything in motion, they'd contact the evening sleaze tabloid Expressen and give them the story. That would really fix Julian Assange - for not only entertaining the attentions of them both at the same time but also making the one of them - the militant feminist who'd boasted about town about landing the Big WikiLeaks Fish - look an utter pathetic fool.

The girls went to the Klara police station in Stockholm, so named because it's in the inner Klara district of the capital city and probably so chosen because of its proximity to the train station Wilén would arrive at from her home town.

They entered the police station in the middle of the afternoon 20 August 2010. Their objective: to hurt Julian Assange. They spoke with policeman Mats Gehlin.

Policeman Mats Gehlin rang up the prosecutor on duty Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand right before 17:00. He told her he had a rape case or two on his counter and told her who it was about. Gehlin still hadn't conducted any formal interrogations with the girls; he just called ahead to Kjellstrand to tell her the exciting news.

Kjellstrand lit on all cylinders. She issued an arrest in absentia warrant for Julian Assange at 17:00 and she sent Gehlin's finest out to the Stureplan entertainment district in Stockholm to find Assange and drag him back in custody.

The actual interrogation with the first of the two girls would still not begin for a few more minutes. The interrogation took one hour nineteen minutes. By 18:40 the both girls were essentially through with the first part of their plan of revenge - all that remained was to contact Expressen so Julian Assange's good name could be smeared around the world.

People from Expressen who at the time were out in the countryside for the prime minister's annual crayfish party got the alert from head office on their cellphones at 19:52. They then began piecing together an article.

Critical to publishing such an article was getting corroboration from someone in the prosecutor's office. The Expressen reporters received a phone call from a girl claiming she was one of two girls who'd just seen to it Julian Assange would be charged with rape. But that wasn't enough.

Getting this corroboration from the prosecutor's office should have been impossible and the reporters at Expressen could have been expected to not act on the tip. But things in Sweden aren't always so 'legal' and so the one of the reporters reckoned it was worth a shot to ring up and see what came of it.

Imagine their mirth when they were given the information they wanted with no resistance whatsoever. Note that divulging such information is a crime in Sweden and prosecutors and their staff can be held accountable and sent to prison for violations - staff such as Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand and her glib press spokesman Karin Rosander. Now Expressen had all the information they needed and could publish whenever they wanted.

Expressen finally published at 05:00 on Saturday morning 14 August 2010. They backdated the article to the night before but it wasn't online then. Several people had for other reasons been watching the Expressen website and saw nothing at all - not until 05:00 AM when at least three staff got into Twitter accounts and hammered away at the website for the next ten hours, trying to get the other media in Sweden and the world around to pick up on the story and to scoop it. It took a long time before anyone followed suit.

By the middle of the morning Saturday 21 August 2010 the Internet was chaotic with the story. People felt hit by 'shock and horror'. This continued for several more hours until at 16:52 that same day the Swedish authorities suddenly announced that the case against Julian Assange had essentially been dropped.

Julian Assange had an arrest warrant over his head for 23 hours 52 minutes.

Story Two

Story Two begins on or around 1 September 2010 after all allegations against Julian Assange are dropped. This is done at the instigation of Social Democrat politician Claes Borgström. The agenda of Claes Borgström is a curious one. He's acquainted with Anna Ardin and has made a career out of espousing the most outrageous and attention-getting ideas in an already outrageous ultrafeminist environment. He's currently being held out to dry (pun may be intended) for his behaviour in one of the few legal cases he's been noted for - in legal circles his name has become synonymous with dirt.

Claes Borgström contacts old crony Marianne Ny who got her job from Borgström's buddy and business partner Thomas Bodström who in turn has an extraordinarily cozy relationship with Washington DC and who lives there permanently today. Bodström's hire Marianne Ny works on the opposite coast on developing broader definitions of crimes so more people can be put in prison and who is known in legal Sweden for having some very outrageous ideas of her own. Claes Borgström gets Marianne Ny to pull rank on the prosecutor who closed the case against Julian Assange and reopen it.

Story Two is where we are today. The tales of the two girls are still at the centre of this sordid affair but Story Two is essentially a new case being run on its own merits and in its own way and according to a completely different agenda. The first case was judicial; this second case is purely political.

What politics are behind Story Two? Several angles. Obviously.

Story One lasted not fully one day; Story Two is nearly four months old and still ongoing. All that's been written since 1 September - and it's considerable - is about Story Two. The case against Assange in Story One - the legal case - has long since been dismissed.

Julian Assange has three weeks five days of peace on earth at an estate in East Anglia. He has to be tagged, he has to report into a police station every day, and he has to physically be on the premises of this estate for eight hours each day. It could be worse - it could be as bad as Oscar Wilde had it, something Marianne Ny and the blue-eyed Swedes seemed viciously intent on.

Then on 11 January there will be a preliminary extradition hearing. The case isn't expected to come into full swing into some time in February. And the entire process could take up to one year. And WikiLeaks and their Cablegate releases continue to roll on.

Julian Assange's attorneys have to prove to the court that the request for Julian Assange's extradition is not legally motivated but politically motivated. Considering the dramatis personae in this second case Story Two, how they're into politics up to their eyeballs, considering who else such as their good friends at Strandvägen 101 are today obviously involved, this shouldn't be at all difficult.

See Also
WikiLeaks: Support WikiLeaks
Rixstep: Assange/WikiLeaks RSS Feed
Radsoft: Assange/WikiLeaks RSS Feed

Sofia Wilén the unfinished police statement

Assange in Sweden: Sofia

The unfinished police statement of Sofia Wilén.

Buy It

Try It

STOCKHOLM/LONDON (Rixstep) — Sofia Wilén and Anna Ardin arrived at the Klara police station in downtown Stockholm on Friday afternoon 20 August 2010. The interrogation of Sofia was conducted by criminal inspector Irmeli Krans that same day.

Sofia and Irmeli were informed during the interrogation that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia and the police were hunting for him in the Stureplan nightclub area.

Irmeli notes that Sofia seemed to go to pieces on hearing the news and that she therefore decided to abort the interrogation without the protocol being read back to Sofia or approved by her.

Irmeli, an acquaintance of Anna Ardin, was to return to work on Monday and copyedit the interrogation and 'sign' it but discovered at that time that she'd been locked out of the system.

Correspondence between Irmeli and her superior Mats Gehlin is included at the end of this article.

Irmeli seems to have been against classifying the allegation as 'rape' and protested she was given no opportunity to discuss the matter with prosecutor on duty Maria Häljebo Kjellstrand.

Yet before Irmeli concluded her interrogation - and she was the only one who knew any details of the case - Julian Assange was arrested in absentia and hunted through the streets of the Swedish capital.

Irmeli Krans was thereafter taken off the case.

The interrogation is in the loosest possible form, a so-called 'conceptual interrogation' ('konceptförhör'). The interrogation therefore takes the form of a narrative.

Irmeli Krans writes on 1 September as follows.
Friday 20 August 2010 I conducted an interrogation with Sofia Wilén in the case 0201-K246314-10 at the Klara police station. The interrogation began at 16:21 and was concluded before being completed or reviewed or approved at 18:40. It was logged into the word processing application DurTvå. The interrogation was to be copyedited the next work day, Monday 23 August 2010. This was not possible because I was denied access to the interrogation I'd conducted. After a few message exchanges I was given the directive by officer Mats Gehlin to instead create and sign a new interrogation in DurTvå which was carried out 26 August with the necessary modifications. Unfortunately that document was dated and time stamped with the date and time of the correction automatically by the DurTvå system.

The Interrogation

Following is the interrogation of Sofia Wilén conducted by Irmeli Krans on 20 August 2010.

Sofia says she saw an interview a few weeks ago on TV with Julian Assange who is known to be behind the WikiLeaks publication of US military documents from Afghanistan. Sofia thought he was interesting, courageous, and admirable. For the next two weeks she watched the news carefully, she read a lot of articles, and saw interviews. One evening when she sat at home and Googled the name Julian Assange she discovered he was invited to Sweden to hold a lecture arranged by the social democrat brotherhood movement. She posted a message to the brotherhood press secretary Anna Ardin whose contact details she found on their website and asked if he would be coming to Sweden and if she in such case could attend his lecture. She offered to help out with practical details in return. Anna Ardin replied that she'd forward her message to those in charge.

But Sofia got no further reply and suddenly one day she saw an ad with the time and place for the lecture. The lecture was to be held in 'LO-borgen' at Norra Bantorget Saturday 14 August. She rang those in charge on Friday and asked if it was OK to attend. She was told she was one of the first to apply and it'd be OK. She took the day off from work and went to LO-borgen on Saturday. She saw a woman who she presumed was Anna Ardin standing outside LO-borgen and went up to her and introduced herself. Anna told Sofia that she was on the list so she was welcome to attend. At the same time the lecturer himself, Julian Assange, approached with a man in his 30s. She got the impression the man was Julian's press secretary or something similar. Julian looked at Sofia as if he was amused. She got the feeling he thought she didn't belong there in her shocking pink cashmere jumper amongst all the other gray journalists.

The Lecture

She sat at the far right front when she entered the venue, the lecturer would stand all the way to the left. The room seemed full of journalists. A half hour before the lecture was to begin, Anna approached Sofia and asked if she could help buy a cable for Julian's computer. They needed a cable and Sofia had offered to help out. Sofia went up to Julian to ask what type of cable he needed. He explained what he needed and then wrote it down on a small piece of paper. She took the paper and placed it immediately in her pocket. Julian looked contemptibly at her and said 'you didn't even look at the note'. She told him she didn't need to as he'd already explained what type of cable he needed.

She took a cab to the 'Webhallen' boutique on Sveavägen but they were closed. The time was 10:30 and the store would open first at 11:00. But that's also when the lecture was scheduled to begin, so Sofia started feeling stressed. The cabbie drove her instead to the Haymarket where she purchaed two types of cable for safety's sake. She got back in time, she had the right type of cable, but she wasn't thanked for her help by Julian. The lecture went well.

The Lunch

There were many journalists who wanted to interview Julian after the lecture. Sofia stayed around because she too wanted to speak with him. She asked Anna if this was possible and Anna said Julian would stand outside the entrance to LO-borgen to be accessible to the public in case anyone wanted to ask him questions. Sofia went out and sat in the shade and waited for the interviews to be over. There were more interviews outside. Sofia approached LO-borgen again and overheard that the brotherhood people were going to treat Julian to lunch. Sofia asked if she could come along too, after all she'd helped them with the cable. She was invited and went together with Anna, Julian and his entourage, and two members of the brotherhood to a restaurant on Drottninggatan across from the Central Bathhouse. She ended up next to Julian and started talking with him. He looked at her now and again during the lunch. On one occasion when he put cheese on his knäckebröd she asked him if it tasted good and then he reached over with his sandwich and fed her with it. Later during lunch he said he needed a charger for his laptop. She said she could get one for him, after all she'd got the cable for him earlier. He put his arm around her and said 'yes you gave me the cable'. Sofia thought this was flattering for it was obvious he was now flirting with her.

The others left after lunch, leaving only Sofia, Julian, and Julian's companion. They went off together to buy an electric cable for Julian's computer. 'Kjell & Co' didn't have the product, so they went on to Webhallen but it was closed again. They walked back on Sveavägen towards the Haymarket and talked about what they'd do next. Julian's companion asked him if he wanted to come along and help move furniture for his parents and Sofia offered Julian a visit at the natural history museum where she worked. It was decided Julian would accompany Sofia to the museum and his companion left them. Julian and Sofia went into the Haymarket subway station where she purchased a blue access card good for the day as he didn't have the monthly commuter card and no money either as he said. They took the train towards Mörby Centrum and stepped off at the university stop. A man in the subway recognised Julian and told him how much he admired him.

The Natural History Museum

On the way from the university subway station Julian stopped to pet a few dogs, which Sofia thought was charming. In the museum they went to the staff room where Julian sat down and starting surfing the net, he was looking for tweets about himself. They sat there waiting for a film that was to be shown at Cosmonova at 18:00.

They were let into the cinema by Sofia's colleague and Julian held Sofia's hand. In the darkness of the cinema he started kissing her. A few latecomers arrived and sat behind them and so they moved to a row at the back. Julian continued kissing her, touched her breasts under her jumper, undid her bra, unbuttoned her pants, caressed her buttocks, and sucked her nipples. He muttered about the armrest being in the way. She was sitting in his lap when the lights went on and he tried to put her bra back on. She thought it embarrassing to sit there in view of her colleagues who she knew could have seen it all.

They went out through the inner courtyard and she went to the toilet. When she came out, he was lying on his back on a picnic table resting, he said he was very tired. He was supposed to be at a crayfish party at 20:00 and wanted to sleep 20 minutes before leaving. They lay down together in the grass next to each other and he had his arm around her. He fell asleep and she woke him twenty minutes later. Then they promenaded over lawns, passed cows and Canadian geese, he held her hand, it was wonderful in all possible ways and he told her 'you're very attractive to me'. He'd also told her in the cinema she had pretty breasts. She asked him if they'd meet again. He said of course they would, they'd meet after the crayfish party.

She accompanied him to the Zinkendamm subway station where he caught a cab back to Anna Ardin's where the party was to take place. He gave her a hug and said he didn't want to part from her and encouraged her to charge her cellphone. She went home to Enköping, arriving at home at 23:00. She had a voice message waiting from Julian from 22:55 when she'd recharged her phone, telling her to ring him when her phone was working again. She rang back at 23:15, realising he was still at the party. She'd developed a stomach cramp from a sandwich she'd eaten on the way home and told him she wanted to go to bed. He insinuated it wasn't about stomach cramps as much as a feeling of guilt.

On Monday

She rang Julian twice on Sunday but his phone was turned off. She told her colleagues at work on Monday what had happened at the weekend. They told her Julian felt dumped and therefore hadn't rung back so that the ball was in her court. She rang him and he answered. She asked if they should do something together. He said he'd be at a meeting which could take a long time up until 20:30 but he could ring her back later. He also asked about her stomach cramps. He insinuated she'd lied about her cramps and he used the third person to tell her. She promised to wait for him so after she finished work at 19:00 she went to Kungshallarna and had sushi. Afterwards she strolled about town and ended up in the old town where she rang him back at 21:00 when he still hadn't got back to her, asking what was going on. He said he was in a meeting in Hornsgatan and he wanted her to come there. She got the address and went there. She couldn't find the address when she arrived, rang Julian, and spoke with a man who spoke Swedish who explained she was to get in through a side entrance. She stood there and waited for him when he came out together with a another man, they said goodbye to one another and looked very happy.

Julian and Sofia walked up Hornsgatan towards Slussen and from there to the old town. They sat by the water at Munkbroleden and he commented on girls who sat there as 'lonely and abandoned' and who 'probably need saving'. They lay down and starting making out, heavily. Amongst other things he put his hands under her jumper and when they left the area she noticed people were looking at them. They decided to go home to her place. They went into the subway where his card was now invalid and she got him through by swiping her own card twice. They took the train to Enköping from the central station, she paid for the tickets, SEK 107 (~$10) each. He claimed he didn't want to use his credit card, he didn't want to be traced. They sat in the direction the train would move all the way back in the car. Julian connected his computer and started reading about himself on Twitter on the computer and on the phone. He devoted more attention to the computer than he did to her. She'd suggested they take in at a hotel but he said he wanted to see 'girls in their natural habitat'.

To Enköping

It was dark when they got off the train and they passed old industry buildings where he went off to pee. She also took a pee. When they arrived at her flat she went in before him into the bedroom to clean up a bit before he saw it. They took off their shoes and the relationship between them didn't feel warm anymore. The passion and excitement had disappeared. They made out in the bedroom but she wanted to brush her teeth. It was midnight, pitch black outside, and they brushed their teeth together - it felt banal and boring.

When they want back in the bedroom Julian stood in front of Sofia and grabbed her hips and pushed her demonstratively down on the bed, as if he was a real man. He took off his clothes and they had foreplay on the bed. They were naked and he rubbed his penis against her nether regions without penetrating her but he got closer and closer to her slit. She squeezed her legs together because she didn't want sex with him without protection. They carried on for hours and Julian couldn't get a full erection. Julian had no interest in using a condom.

Suddenly Julian said he was going to go to sleep. She felt rejected and shocked. It came so suddenly, they'd had a really long foreplay and then nothing. She asked what was wrong, she didn't understand. He pulled the blanket over himself, turned away from her, and fell asleep. She went out and got her fleece blanket because she was cold. She lay awake a long time wondering what had happened and exchanged SMS messages with her friends. He lay beside her snoring. She must have fallen asleep for later she woke up and they had sex. She'd earlier got the condoms and put them on the floor by the bed. He reluctantly agreed to use a condom even if he muttered something about preferring her to latex. He no longer had an erection problem. At one point when he mounted her from behind, she turned to look at him and smiled and he asked her why she was smiling, what she had to smile about. She didn't like the tone in his voice.

They fell asleep and when they woke up they could have had sex again, she's not really sure. He ordered her to get water and orange juice. She didn't like being ordered in her own home but thought 'whatever' and got the water and juice anyway. He wanted her to go out and buy more breakfast. She didn't want to leave him alone in the flat, she didn't know him well enough, but she did it anyway. When she left the flat he lay naked in her bed and was working with his phones. Before she left she said 'be good'. He replied 'don't worry, I'm always bad'. When she returned she served him oatmeal, milk, and juice. She'd already eaten before he woke up and spoken with a friend on the phone.

The Assault

They sat on the bed and talked and he took off her clothes again. They had sex again and she discovered he'd put the condom only over the head of his penis but she let it be. They fell asleep and she woke by feeling him penetrate her. She immediately asked 'are you wearing anything' and he answered 'you'. She told him 'you better not have HIV' and he replied 'of course not'. She felt it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She couldn't be bothered telling him again. She'd been nagging about condoms all night long. She's never had unprotected sex. He said he wanted to come inside her, he didn't say when he'd done it but he did it. There was a lot running out of her afterwards.

She told him what happens if she gets pregnant. He replied that Sweden was a good country for raising children. She told him jokingly that if she got pregnant then he'd have to pay her student loans. On the train to Enköping he'd told her he'd slept in Anna Ardin's bed after the crayfish party. She asked if he'd had sex with Anna but he said Anna liked girls, she was lesbian. But now she knows he did the same thing with Anna. She asked him how many times he'd had sex but he said he hadn't counted. He also said he'd had a HIV test three months earlier and he'd had sex with a girl afterwards and that girl had also taken a HIV test and wasn't infected. She said sarcastic things to him in a joking tone. She thinks she got the idea of taking the drama out of what had happened, he in turn didn't seem to care. When he found out how big her student loan was he said if he paid her so much money she'd have to give birth to the baby. They joked that they'd name the baby Afghanistan. He also said that he should always carry abortion pills that actually were sugar pills.

His phone rang and he had a meeting with Aftonbladet on Tuesday at noon. She explained to him that he'd not make the meeting on time and he pushed his entire schedule forward an hour. Then they rode her bicycle to the train station. She paid his ticket to Stockholm. Before they parted he told her to keep her phone on. She asked if he'd ring her and he said he would.

She rode her bicycle home, showered, and washed her bed sheets. Because she hadn't made it to work she called in sick and stayed home the whole day. She wanted to clean up and wash everything. There was semen on the bed sheets, she thought it was disgusting. She went to the chemist's and bought a 'morning after' pill.

When she talked with her friends afterwards she understood she was the victim of a crime. She went into Danderyd hospital and went from there to the Söder hospital. There she was examined and they even took samples with a so-called 'rape kit'.

Forensic Certificate

Sofia gives her permission for obtaining a forensic certificate.

Claimant Counsel

Sofia desires a claimant counsel she will identify later.


Julian says his name is Julian Paul Assange and was born 31 December 1971.

Interrogator's Comments

Sofia and I were notified during the interrogation that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia. Sofia had difficulty concentrating after that news, whereby I made the judgement it was best to terminate the interrogation. But Sofia had time anyway to explain that Assange was angry with her. I didn't have time to get any further details about why he was angry with her or how this manifested itself. And we didn't have time to get into what else happened afterwards. The interrogation was neither read back to Sofia nor reviewed for approval by her but Sofia was told she had the opportunity to do this later.

The Original Interrogation

Interrogator Irmeli Krans had difficulty transcribing her incomplete interrogation with Sofia. She was denied access by her superior Mats Gehlin. Following is correspondence between her (IK) Gehlin (MG) and Eva Finné (EF) in that regard.
2010-08-23 08:27 IK to MG
Hi, I hope I've done it right now and the document will get to you as it should. Please send an acknowledgement. About the verbal presentation for the prosecutor, I have no further information other than what's already been done by telephone by Linda Wassgren at some time during the interrogation. I don't know what was presented as Wassgren doesn't want to communicate with me. An opportunity to classify the crime with the prosecutor was not given me but I was told it would be classified as rape according to a directive by the prosecutor. Greetings, Irmela Krans
2010-08-24 09:33 MG to IK
Do like this. Paste this into your interrogation and sign it. It'd look funny if I signed it. I'm attaching the old interrogation.
2010-08-24 13:38 IK to MG
Hi, I might be thick but I don't really understand what you mean. Anders Ringkvist is trying to help me and we've tried contacting you without being able to resolve the issue.
2010-08-24 13:44 MG to IK
Create a new interrogation. Paste in the text and address the interrogation to the case. And sign the interrogation.
2010-08-24 16:35 IK to MG
OK but then there'll be two interrogations. But there's only been one formal interrogation, by me at any rate. Where does the other interrogation disappear to? If it's to be done right then I assume I have to make modifications in the original interrogation and sign it. With the risk of appearing difficult I do not want to have an unsigned document with my name circulating in DurTvå-space. Particularly not now when the case has developed as it has.
2010-08-30 09:32 MG to EF
The case...
(Rest deleted - the subject line is 'The Case' (Ärendet). The body text was removed by the judicial authority at the behest of the chief prosecutor.)
2010-08-30 09:33 EF to MG
The complaint about molestation isn't here.
2010-08-30 09:35 MG to EF
OK I thought you wanted the case that had been dismissed. Delete what you received and you'll get a new one.
If I am able to reveal what I know, everyone will realise this is all a charade. If I could tell the British courts, I suspect it would make extradition a moot point.
 - Björn Hurtig

I can tell you that the Swedish prosecution still hasn't provided copies of those SMS texts that have been referred to. Those texts are some of the most powerful exculpatory evidence. In Australia prosecutors have a very grave duty to disclose such evidence to courts when seeking the grave exercise of a court's power against an individual. Yet in Sweden in this case, in the first hearings to obtain an arrest warrant, those texts were not submitted to the Swedish court, which is highly improper.
 - James Catlin
See Also
Assange in Sweden: His Own Words
Industry Watch: Assange & Davies Again
Red Hat Diaries: Assange in Sweden: The Catalyst

Industry Watch: Assange: The Hornets Nest
Hall of Monkeys: Three Women II: The Sex War
Sunday Times: Accuser snapped me in the nude
Red Hat Diaries: How to Rape Julian Assange Twice

WikiLeaks: Support WikiLeaks
Rixstep: Assange/WikiLeaks RSS Feed
Radsoft: Assange/WikiLeaks RSS Feed

Laws for sexual abuse in Sweden...

Anna Ardin is she a lesbian ????

Ardins steps to revenge...

Annonymous on Colbert Report...

Glenn Greenwald on Assange: Includes transcript

AMY GOODMAN: We turn now to another story. One of the top stories of the year, of course, has been WikiLeaks. Juan?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, when WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was released from a British jail this month, he downplayed the prospect of an extradition to Sweden, where he’s wanted for questioning on allegations of sex crimes. Speaking outside the courthouse, Assange said he is most concerned about extradition to the United States.
JULIAN ASSANGE: I don’t have too many fears about being extradited to Sweden. There are much bigger concerns about being extradited to the United States. We have a rumor today from my lawyers in the United States. We have not confirmed yet that there has been an indictment made against me in the United States.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Although Assange hasn’t been charged, there are reports the Justice Department has convened a grand jury in Virginia to indict him for WikiLeaks’ release of tens of thousands of secret government documents.
Earlier this month, Vice President Joe Biden confirmed the U.S. is looking at ways to pursue Assange while he remains under house arrest in Britain. In an interview on Meet the Press, Biden said he thinks Assange could be a, quote, "high-tech terrorist."
VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I would argue that it’s closer to being a high-tech terrorist than the Pentagon Papers. But look, this guy has done things that have damaged and put in jeopardy the lives and occupations of people in other parts of the world. He has made it more difficult for us to conduct our business with our allies and our friends.
AMY GOODMAN: U.S. officials have said Julian Assange could be charged under the Espionage Act of 1917 and suggested laws could be amended to overcome any legal obstacles to his prosecution.
Well, the potential use of the Espionage Act has special significance for our next guest. In a moment we’ll speak with Robert Meeropol. He’s the younger son of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. They’re the only U.S. citizens to be executed for conspiracy to commit espionage, described as the most controversial death sentence in U.S. history.
The government alleged the couple, along with Morton Sobell, helped the Soviet Union acquire the secret of the atomic bomb. But supporters say there’s no evidence Ethel Rosenberg took part in espionage. And the Rosenbergs’ family has admitted that while Julius Rosenberg did pass on information to the Soviet Union, none of it aided development of the atomic bomb.
This is a clip of a newscast after the Rosenbergs’ execution.
NEWSREEL: Dateline: Sing Sing, June 19th, 1953. Someone had passed America’s atomic bomb secrets to Russia. This was an undisputed fact that the whole world knew. The federal government had laid the crime at the doorstep of two native New Yorkers, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. But to the end, they both protested their innocence of the theft. In April of 1951, the federal court of Judge Irving R. Kaufman found the pair guilty as charged and sentenced them to death in the electric chair to pay for their crime of treason.
AMY GOODMAN: Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were killed on June 19, 1953, after being sent to the electric chair at New York’s Sing Sing Prison. The Rosenbergs’ younger son, Robert Meeropol, was six years old at the time. He’s author of the autobiography An Execution in the Family: One Son’s Journey. He’s the founder and executive director of the Rosenberg Fund for Children. This week, he released a widely read statement in support of WikiLeaks called "My Parents Were Executed Under the Unconstitutional Espionage Act—Here’s Why We Must Fight to Protect Julian Assange." Robert Meeropol joins us now from Chicopee, Massachusetts.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Why do feel people must fight to support Julian Assange?
ROBERT MEEROPOL: Well, thank you for having me.
Well, there’s several layers that we should get into here. Perhaps the start is to understand what he may be indicted for—that is, conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917. A lot of people in the United States have been saying, since post-9/11 America—in post-9/11 America, that we feel we have echoes of the McCarthy period. But in the McCarthy period itself, we really had the echoes of the aftermath of our entry into World War I, that period between 1917 and the early 1920s. And World War I was very unpopular in the United States, and there was an effort to convince the public about this war, and that was a two-pronged effort. One was propaganda was put in place to drum up support for the war, but the other was the Espionage Act of 1917 was passed, basically to criminalize dissent. And this criminalization of criticism of government policy landed hundreds of people in jail, perhaps most famously Eugene Debs, the Socialist Party candidate for president who ran from a jail cell and got almost a million votes in 1920. That whole panoply of repressive activity, that quieted down after a while. But in the McCarthy period, it was reinstituted.
And the act, the Espionage Act, has been criticized as an attempt to do an end run around the constitutional definition of "treason." You see, the founders of our nation were very anxious to make sure that the term "treason" wasn’t thrown around to attack people who were dissenters. So they put, within the Constitution, a very narrow definition—giving aid and comfort to the enemy—in as the only way you could be convicted of treason. But as you saw in that television clip of the 1950s, my parents charged under the Espionage Act of 1917, here’s the press reporting "executed for their crime of treason." So this was an effort to do an end run around the treason clause of the Constitution and turn dissent into treason.
Well, now we fast-forward to today, and we have the possibility that Julian Assange will be charged under that act. That act, by the way, is—it’s pages and pages and pages of things that you can’t do, and if you do it, if you disseminate, publicize, information that the government today declares secret, then you could be subject to massive prison sentences. And again, we have to place this in a broad context. A functioning democracy needs a free flow of information. But what we have in post-9/11 America is a vast expansion of the secrecy complex. So, vast amounts of material can be declared secret. And then, if you reveal those secrets, you could be sent to jail. And, of course, this—well, this undermines the basis for democracy. And that’s what’s going on here. And that doesn’t even get into the question of conspiracy.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Robert Meeropol, younger son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. And he’ll stay with us after break. This is Democracy Now!,, The War and Peace Report. Back in a minute.
AMY GOODMAN: "Strange Fruit," written by Abel Meeropol, the adoptive father of the young sons of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Robert and Michael Meeropol. Robert Meeropol joins us now from Massachusetts, who put out a piece in call of support for Julian Assange, because his parents, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the most famous case, the only people to be executed under the Espionage Act, that possibly the U.S. government is looking to charge Julian Assange with. Juan?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Robert, I’d like to ask you—this whole issue, as you were saying, about the government possibly trying to look at being able to charge Julian Assange under the Espionage Act, even if you get past—or those who believe that the Espionage Act is constitutional—the mere idea of charging someone who is not a U.S. citizen, who wasn’t even in the country, with a violation of the U.S. Espionage Act really begins to take the American legal system to whole new realms of arrogance, I would—it seems to me, in terms of its power around the world.
ROBERT MEEROPOL: Well, yes, that’s true, but we shouldn’t forget the case of Manuel Noriega. The United States—and, of course, we have Guantánamo and black site prisons all over the world. Our government rejects the universal jurisdiction of other nations or of the World Court. But as far as we’re concerned, we are free to indict, and if we can get our hands on anyone anywhere all over the world. And that is, I would say, a prerogative of empire. It’s a reality we face. It’s not one that I approve of, but I think it’s the reality of today.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to some more news footage from June 1953. These reports are right before the Rosenbergs were executed, after their final appeals were rejected. One newscaster here lampoons the protesters who demonstrated in support of the Rosenbergs.
NEWSCASTER: Inside the stone walls of Sing Sing Prison, the Rosenbergs wait all day for word of their fate. It’s now more than two years since they were first sentenced to die for organizing atomic espionage for Russia. Rabbi Irving Koslowe, a prison chaplain, goes in. He will not leave until after the execution, which is being held before sundown, because the setting of the sun this Friday marks the beginning of the Holy Sabbath in the Jewish calendar. A matron, Mamie Crayton, comes out after seeing Ethel Rosenberg. She says the woman refuses to believe she’s going to die, insists she is innocent. State troopers surround the prison to prevent demonstrations. Again, there are none. The hours pass slowly. Julius Rosenberg, now 35, his wife Ethel, now 37, married 14 years and one day, parents of two boys, tonight dined on hard-boiled eggs, macaroni salad and tea. There was no time for the usual last meal. Their fate is decided in Washington. And here is that story from David Brinkley.
DAVID BRINKLEY: In these last minutes before the Rosenbergs are electrocuted at Sing Sing Prison, here’s how in Washington today their attorneys went through the last possible legal maneuvers to save them. It began at noon at the Supreme Court, normally quiet, but today surrounded by groups of the curious. The Court met at noon. At 12:06, it announced the decision to end the Rosenbergs’ stay of execution. That was a stay granted two days ago by Justice Douglas. That seemed to be the end, but it wasn’t. Their attorneys promptly asked for another stay while they appeal to President Eisenhower again for clemency. The Court said it would consider it.
Meanwhile, a lobbyist who came to Washington to work for the Rosenbergs kept up their parade in front of the White House. People riding by in automobiles shouted and asked why they didn’t go to Russia. But there was no other disorder, so the police left them alone. They even sang a little song somebody wrote especially for this occasion. But the picketing and singing did them no good, because at the Supreme Court, by this time, the government’s lawyers, having won their case, were leaving. The Court had refused again to delay the execution. A few minutes later, Emanuel Bloch, chief counsel, came out, read us a telegram he had sent to the President.
EMANUEL BLOCH: For sake of American tradition, prestige and influence, urge redress for Rosenbergs, demand you be afforded sufficient time to consider this serious matter.
DAVID BRINKLEY: The President’s answer came quickly. Here it is, read by a White House press officer.
WHITE HOUSE PRESS OFFICER: The following is part of a statement just issued by the President of the United States. "I am convinced that the only conclusion to be drawn from the history of this case is that the Rosenbergs have received the benefit of every safeguard which American justice can provide. There is no question in my mind that their original trial and the long series of appeals constitute the fullest measure of justice and due process of law. Throughout the innumerable complications and technicalities of this case no judge has ever expressed any doubt that they committed most serious acts of espionage. Accordingly, only most extraordinary circumstances could warrant executive intervention in the case.
"When democracy’s enemies have been judged guilty of a crime as horrible as that of which the Rosenbergs were convicted, when the legal processes of democracy have been marshaled to their maximum strength to protect the lives of convicted spies, when in their most solemn judgment the tribunals of the United States has adjudged them guilty and the sentence just, I will not intervene in this matter."
DAVID BRINKLEY: The President and the Attorney General were standing by to the last, in case the Rosenbergs decided at the last minute they wanted to talk.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, in this news clip from the Sing Sing Prison, a reporter who witnessed the executions describes Ethel Rosenberg’s death in the electric chair. Like many in the news media at the time, the reporter, Bob Considine of the International News Service, indicates that he supports the executions.
BOB CONSIDINE: She died a lot harder. When it appeared that she had received enough electricity to kill an ordinary person and had received the exact amount that had killed her husband, the doctors went over and pulled down the cheap prison dress, a little dark green printed job, and placed the stethoscope—I can’t say it—placed the stethoscopes to her and then looked around and looked at each other, rather dumbfounded, and seemed surprised that she was not dead. Believing she was dead, the attendants had taken off the ghastly strappings and electrodes and the black belts and so forth. These had to be readjusted again, and she was given more electricity, which started again a kind of a ghastly plume of smoke that rose from her head and went up against the skylight overhead. After two more of those jolts, Ethel Rosenberg had met a maker she’ll have a lot of explaining to do to.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Bob Considine of the International News Service describing the execution of Ethel Rosenberg. Our guest is Robert Meeropol in Massachusetts, her younger son. Juan?
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, Robert Meeropol, you were just a young boy at the time of this ghastly description. I’m wondering, your response? And also, as new evidence has emerged of—indicating that your parents were not involved in—certainly in espionage toward—of sending atomic secrets to the Russians, and that your mother was completely innocent. Your sense?
ROBERT MEEROPOL: Well, first of all, you know, I’m sure it’s—it’s always hard for me to hear Bob Considine’s description, to relive the last day of my parents’ lives. And people may wonder, you know, how I can react in such a cool and calm manner. I mean, part of it is, is I’ve dedicated my life, through the Rosenberg Fund for Children, to providing for the educational and emotional needs of the children of targeted activists in the United States, my people who I consider kindred spirits, people suffering what I’ve suffered. And that, finding that positive outlet for my grief and rage and anger, has really enabled me, again, to respond in a positive manner.
That said, I think it’s very fitting that you focused on my mother, particularly in the context of the charges that Julian Assange may face, and that is conspiracy. My mother was involved in this case because she was deemed or dubbed a conspirator. She was convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage. All that means is that—all that "conspiracy" means is that two for more people got together and planned to commit an illegal act and took one step in furtherance of that plan—could be a phone call, could be a conversation. Well, that was used in my parents’ case. My parents’ chief accusers, David and Ruth Greenglass, testified that my mother was present during the critical espionage meeting, and she typed up David Greenglass’s handwritten notes, descriptions of a sketch, that supposedly gave away the secret of the atomic bomb. Well, it’s come out since that this testimony was false and that David Greenglass himself has even admitted that. But even if it were true, that would mean that the United States government executed someone for typing.
Now, but it’s not surprising that the government would use conspiracy, whether it’s against my parents or whether it’s against the WikiLeaks people, because if you’re anybody who engages in conversation or discussion, and the government can get one person to testify that that discussion was to leak classified material, or to transmit information to the Soviet Union, in my parents case, they could be swept up in the dragnet. And you could get people to rat out their friends in order to get more lenient sentences. It sows distrust among the community of support. It scares other people into silence.
And so, what we see here is, if there is a criminal indictment for conspiracy, not an attack on just Julian Assange himself, but on the entire community of support that is seeking to promote the very revolutionary idea that the people have the right to know what their government is doing, that’s what this ultimately is all about. And every left-wing, every progressive organizer, every organizer, in general—how can you engage in organizing, in getting groups of people to protest and coordinating activities, without engaging in what the government would term a conspiracy? And so, it is a threat to all of us. And that is really why I issued my call for us to recognize this. This Espionage Act of 1917 has been the sword of Damocles, sitting quietly, mostly unused, ready to spring out and attack dissenters. And when you have it in the context of the growing secrecy that we face today—
AMY GOODMAN: We have five seconds.
ROBERT MEEROPOL:—and an authoritarian-oriented Supreme Court, it is a danger to us all.
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Meeropol, we want to thank you very much for being with us, younger son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, founder and executive director of the Rosenberg Fund for Children.

Saturday, February 26, 2011

IRAQ largest oil refinery attacked

CAMERON: Now he has a fully furnished apartment living up the backside of 'MURDOCH' he can tell the BBC to shove it...

CAMERON: Another two faced hypocritical bastard...what deals has he made with MURDOCH ?

Nick Clegg despicable hypocritical lying bastard has betrayed Mrs.McKinnon

Nick Clegg hypocritical despicable bastard had already planned to betray young students....

Revealed: Lib Dems planned before election to abandon tuition fees pledge

Exclusive: Documents show Nick Clegg's public claim was at odds with secret decision made by party in March
Nick Clegg holds up the pledge he signed in April to vote against any increase in tuition fees
In addition to the party's manifesto pledge, Nick Clegg signed an NUS pledge in April to vote against any increase in tuition fees. Photograph: NUS press office

The Liberal Democrats were drawing up plans to abandon Nick Clegg's flagship policy to scrap university tuition fees two months before the general election, secret party documents reveal.
As the Lib Dem leader faces a growing revolt after this week's violent protest against fee rises, internal documents show the party was drawing up proposals for coalition negotiations which contrasted sharply with Clegg's public pronouncements.
A month before Clegg pledged in April to scrap the "dead weight of debt", a secret team of key Lib Dems made clear that, in the event of a hung parliament, the party would not waste political capital defending its manifesto pledge to abolish university tuition fees within six years. In a document marked "confidential" and dated 16 March, the head of the secret pre-election coalition negotiating team, Danny Alexander, wrote: "On tuition fees we should seek agreement on part-time students and leave the rest. We will have clear yellow water with the other [parties] on raising the tuition fee cap, so let us not cause ourselves more headaches."
The document is likely to fuel criticism among Lib Dem backbenchers and in the National Union of Students that the party courted the university vote in the full knowledge that its pledge would have to be abandoned as the party sought to achieve a foot in government. Within a month of the secret document, Clegg recorded a YouTube video for the annual NUS conference on 13 April in which he pledged to abolish fees within six years.
"You've got people leaving university with this dead weight of debt, around £24,000, round their neck," the future deputy PM said in the video.
Clegg also joined all other Lib Dem MPs in signing an NUS pledge to "vote against any increase in fees". The leaked document showed that during the preparations for a hung parliament the Lib Dems still intended to fulfil that commitment.
The Lib Dems, who are now under intense pressure after agreeing in government that tuition fees should be allowed to rise, said the document was designed to work out how to reach agreement with the Tories and Labour, who were "diametrically" opposed to them.
As the party was isolated, the negotiators concentrated on trying to win ground where they could find consensus. Sources say that, in government, they have succeeded in tackling the discrimination against part-time students identified in the secret document.
The Lib Dem document is disclosed in a new book on the coalition negotiations by Rob Wilson, Conservative MP for Reading East. Wilson, who interviewed 60 key figures from the main parties for Five Days to Power, reveals that:
• The Lib Dems made no attempt to stand by their two key economic election pledges – no deficit reduction this year and opposition to a VAT increase – in the coalition negotiations. A Clegg aide told Wilson: "The thing that changed minds was George Osborne saying that he had seen the figures and it was quite horrific in real life as opposed to spin life."
• Alexander, appointed by Clegg last year to lead a secret four-strong coalition negotiating team, had thought the Lib Dems would only support a minority Tory government and not a coalition because of a "substantial gulf" between the two parties. In his confidential document on 16 March, Alexander wrote that it "would make it all but impossible for a coalition to be sustainable if it were formed, and extremely difficult to form without splitting the party."
• Chris Huhne, a member of the secret team, wrote a dissenting report to Clegg saying the Lib Dems would have to form a full-blown coalition with the Tories, and not prop up a minority government. He warned there was no precedent for a minority government delivering a fiscal consolidation, raising the prospect both parties would face a backlash. "Financial crises are catastrophic for the political parties that are blamed, and we should avoid this at all costs."
• George Osborne, who had long feared the Tories would struggle to win an overall parliamentary majority, persuaded David Cameron to allow him to form the Tories' own secret coalition negotiating team two weeks before the election. The Tory leader demanded total secrecy and asked only to be given the barest details for fear that he would blurt it out "unplanned in an interview".
• David Laws, a member of the secret Lib Dem negotiating team who briefly served in the cabinet, predicted on 24 February 2010 that the Tories would make a "very early offer of co-operation or coalition" in the event of a hung parliament. Laws told Wilson that he has a high regard for Osborne who tried to persuade him to join the Tories in 2006.
• Gordon Brown was so keen to form a coalition with the Lib Dems that on Monday 10 May, the day before his resignation, he offered to form "a completely new sort of government" in which Clegg would run EU policy. The Lib Dems understood they would take half of the seats in cabinet.

A Lib Dem spokesman said tonight: "These are selective extracts of documents which discussed a range of options ahead of any possible negotiations. As the Liberal Democrats made clear throughout the election and in negotiations, they had four key priorities which were set out on the front page of the manifesto. All of these priorities were agreed in the coalition document. The nature of the coalition agreement has meant we were able to set the foundations for a stable five-year government that will deliver many of the priorities the Liberal Democrats have long supported."
Clegg tried to downgrade the pledge to abolish tuition fees at the 2009 party conference, prompting a backlash from the left. A plan to abolish them over six years was included in the general election manifesto.

Nick Clegg is a two faced hypocritical bastard.. with this mornings news about CLEGGS 'washing his hands' of Gary McKinnon, a comment left on FACEBOOK never seemed more appropriate..


Writing in the Guardian last year Nick Clegg gave a forceful condemnation of the blockade of Gaza and attacked Brown for inaction. He said
Brown must stop sitting on his hands. He must condemn unambiguously Israel's tactics, just as he has rightly condemned Hamas's rocket attacks. Then he must lead the EU into using its economic and diplomatic leverage in the region to broker peace. The EU is by far Israel's biggest export market, and by far the biggest donor to the Palestinians. It must immediately suspend the proposed new cooperation agreement with Israel until things change in Gaza, and apply tough conditions on any long-term assistance to the Palestinian community.

Brown must also halt Britain's arms exports to Israel, and persuade our EU counterparts to do the same. The government's own figures show Britain is selling more and more weapons to Israel, despite the questions about the country's use of force. In 2007, our government approved £6m of arms exports. In 2008, it licensed sales 12 times as fast: £20m in the first three months alone.

There is a strong case that, given the Gaza conflict, any military exports contravene EU licensing criteria. Reports, though denied, that Israel is using illegal cluster munitions and white phosphorus should heighten our caution. I want an immediate suspension of all arms exports from the EU, but if that cannot be secured, Brown must act unilaterally"

Appearing on the Breakfast show this morning Clegg called for an end to the blockade and droned on about Israel's interests blah blah. I listened patiently. Words words and crocodile tears.

Lets say it clear.

Either Nick Clegg begins an immediate suspension of arms exports and ceases all economic cooperation with Israel or he should go down in history as a two faced hypocritical bastard of historic proportions and Lib dems should never be allowed to forget it.

There comes a time in our lives when we face a cross roads. Two paths ahead of us, two choices and the choice of path will define who we are and how we are seen for the rest of our lives. This is what Nick Clegg faces today.

We know the choice he will make. He will betray his own words and choose the path of the hypocritical two faced bastard. He will talk the talk and do nothing. The very thing he accused Brown of doing.

When he does. We should hang him on his words forever. As Thatcher never shook off the Milk snatcher label, so Clegg should be made to wear the cloak of hypocrite for ever and ever. He should be made to wear it and it should bury him.

We should invent a new word, "Cleggism, the act of shamelessly betraying your own words in front of the world. The verb, to Clegg. "Oh i think he is going to clegg us". They spoke well but in the end they clegged us didn't they."

We should make this despicable hypocrisy cling to him like the white phosphorous of the IDF clung to the skin of the screaming children of Gaza. His name should be made synonymous with hypocrite.The dictionary definition of hypocrite will read "see Nick Clegg" When you think of the word hypocrite that smarmy fucking grin and sharp suit should come to mind.

Long after his little affair with Cameron is left in the dust we will ask people "Do you remember Nick Clegg" and they will stop and think a moment and they will say "Oh, is that the shameless two faced hypocritical bastard who threw all remnants of his self respect in the mud for a wiff of power" and we will say "yeah that's him." and they will say "Yes I remember him he was a hypocritical bastard" and spit on the ground.

It will follow him and hover over him like a bad smell. The words hypocrite" should follow his every appearance. Lonely and miserable he will spend his life avoiding the stares of the public who will point and say "look there is that stinking hypicrite who sold his soul to sit in the shadow of power." Kids will throw stones, shops will refuse to serve him.The postman will refuse to deliver his mail and he will be politely asked to leave restaurants and cafes. "Sorry sir, we have a no disgusting hypocritical bastard policy,"

When he is on his death bed at 96 alone and dying, people will sneak up to his window and shout "hypocritical bastard" through the gaps in the curtains. His last words will be "why did I write that article in the Guardian.Why? Why?"

When he is dead, the news reports and obituaries will read. "Nick Clegg hypocritical bastard is dead" and spontaneous street parties will break out across the country. A national holiday will be declared on May 31st entitled "National Nick Clegg is a hypocritical bastard" day and effigies will be burnt and children will be told horror stories about the consequences of betraying all your principles for power. "Be careful children you don't want to end up like Nick Clegg." His tombstone will bear the legend "here lies Nick Clegg, he was a two faced hypocritical bastard" and people will stop and piss on it. (well I can dream)

Or he could just grow a pair and expel the Israeli Ambassador.

CLEGG betrays Gary McKinnon...

CLEGG betrays students...

Friday, February 25, 2011

Merkel stands up to Netanyahu, I remember this mans words well ? " My aim, is to wipe every ARAB from the face of the earth" broadcast live on SKY NEWS.....

Merkel rebukes Israeli PM Netanyahu for failing to advance peace

Israeli paper reports that PM was told in fractious phone call: 'You haven't made a single step'
Binyamin Netanyahu
Binyamin Netanyahu was rebuked after expressing disappointment that Germany voted for a UN resolution condemning Israeli settlements. Photograph: Reuters

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has sternly rebuked the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, in an unusually fractious telephone call, according to media reports.
Netanyahu had done nothing to advance the peace process, Merkel said in a conversation this week, reported in the Israeli daily Haaretz.
The Israeli prime minister telephoned Merkel on Monday to say he was disappointed that Germany had voted for a UN security council resolution condemning settlements that was vetoed by the US.
According to a German official quoted by Haaretz, Merkel was furious. "How dare you?" she said. "You are the one who has disappointed us. You haven't made a single step to advance peace."
A spokesman for the Israeli prime minister said he could not confirm the report.
The quoted comments reflect growing impatience in Europe with the impasse in the Israeli-Palestinian talks and a belief that Israel is stalling or impeding progress. With the exception of the US last Friday's resolution was backed by all the security council members including Britain, Germany and France.
Despite the resolution being carefully worded to reflect American policy on settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, the US wielded its veto for the first time under Barack Obama's presidency.
Reaction among Palestinians has been angry. Demonstrations have been held across the West Bank, in Ramallah, Nablus and Bethlehem.
Netanyahu told Merkel that he was planning a new initiative to be disclosed in the next few weeks. "I intend to make a new speech about the peace process in the next two to three weeks," he was quoted as saying.
An Israeli government official confirmed that a fresh statement by Netanyahu on negotiations was in preparation but declined to say when it might be delivered.
During a visit to Israel this month the German chancellor warned that "the stalemate in negotiation is dangerous. There is no room for excuses."
She dismissed the notion that Europe was becoming more hostile to Israel. "Europe will not turn its back on Israel and neither will the United States. We feel uncomfortable because things are not progressing. In an honest and straightforward manner I will tell you that you are missing an opportunity. History will not give you many more."
At a joint press conference on Thursday with the Polish prime minister, Donald Tusk, Netanyahu said he expected Poland to be robust in defending Israel when it took over the presidency of the European Union on 1 July.
"We have two expectations: upgrading Israel's standing in the EU and upgrading the truth," he said. "Israel is fighting for its right to exist, to live in security and exist at all, against ceaseless waves of attacks."

Nick Clegg, traitors and cowards come in many forms, Clegg is only one example..

ISRAEL taking advantage of the Middle East troubles to slaughter more civilians...


Demand open justice for Julian Assange

Our high court should refuse extradition when the trial in prospect is likely to be unfair – as it is in this case
Julian Assange
'Julian Assange’s appeal to the high court may demonstrate the extent to which it allows our judges to stand up against unfair European systems.' Photograph: Leon Neal/AFP/Getty Images
Julian Assange will, according to the judge's finding of fact, be held in prison in solitary confinement when he is returned to Sweden and will then be interrogated, held without bail and later subjected to a secret trial on accusations that have been bruited around the world, not least by this newspaper. He has a complete answer to these charges, which he considers false and baseless. Even if acquitted, however, the mud will stick and, if convicted, the public will never be able to able to assess whether justice has miscarried. This country, which has given to the world the most basic principles of a fair trial – that justice must be seen to be done – denies that basic liberty for those that are extradited to Sweden.
How come our courts abandon our cherished principles in deference to European systems and prosecutors? The answer is that they are bound to regard the prosecutors of no less than 26 countries, including Poland and Romania – as perfect. This is the result of the European arrest warrant (EAW), one of the civil liberties disasters bequeathed by the Labour government when it passed the Extradition Act in 2003.
This act, quite incredibly, allows European countries to deem prosecutors and even policemen "as judicial authorities" (a contradiction in terms, because they are neither independent nor impartial) and to pluck their suspects from the UK so long as they tick the right box on the EAW form. In Assange's case, for example, they ticked "rape" and the court cannot dispute that the allegation is of rape, even though the leading authority on sexual offences, the Oxford Vinerian professor, Andrew Ashworth, disputes this characterisation. There can be no questioning on the merits of the charges – in 2003 parliament abolished the traditional right of a suspect to require foreign governments to show a prima facie case before dragging them off to unfair trials.
An inquiry into the working of the EAW system has been set up and Assange's appeal to the high court may demonstrate the extent to which it allows our judges to stand up against unfair European systems. In the case of Sweden, for all its civilised and rational approach to many criminal justice issues – especially sentencing – it is a human rights black spot in relation to solitary confinement, the lack of a money-bail system and ill-treatment of foreigners in the very prison for which Assange may be destined – all matters for which it has been condemned by the recent European Committee report on torture.
But nothing so breaches the most fundamental principle of justice as its custom of holding all rape trials behind closed doors. This, so the prosecutor Marianne Ny explains, is so that "complainants may give their evidence better". Of course it is absolutely right to give complainants the protection of anonymity and to limit the right to cross examine them on their past, but it is utterly wrong to keep it from public view, for three reasons:

1. As Jeremy Bentham pointed out, "publicity is the very soil of justice, it keeps the judge, while trying, under trial". In this case, which will be heard by three lay judges appointed by political parties who are usually members of such parties, it is essential to see justice being done, especially since the Swedish prime minister has publicly attacked Assange.
2. Second, openness is essential to truth. It ensures that witnesses will be afraid to perjure themselves less they be found out. Others will come forward to confound them if they learn that they are lying. In this case, where both complainants tweeted and text-messaged their friends in ways which can be said to be inconsistent with their complaint, justice demands a public hearing.
3. Finally, the public itself has an interest, and that must override the interest of individuals whether the complainant or even defendants are happy that their details of conduct are hidden from public view. No democracy can commit secret court, because then there is no check that the formidable powers of prosecutors and judges are not being abused.
There are two philosophic approaches to the EAWs open to our courts. At present most adopt the "rubber stamp" approach – hand suspects over to the European policeman and prosecutors if the formalities on the warrant are correct. But the alternative – which we will invite the high court to adopt in this case – is that the EAW system should be used to actually improve the quality of justice throughout Europe, but to refuse extradition when the trial in prospect is likely to be unfair, judged according to our fundamental principles. That way, things can only improve and human rights blind spots can be eradicated. If our courts declare that open justice is the only possible justice by denying Sweden the extradition of Assange, this would very likely have the result that Sweden would change its unacceptable policy.
Open justice is one of the greatest contributions the UK has made to international human rights law. It goes back to the famous demand of "freeborn John Lilburne the leveller" – to have the doors of his court opened so that Cromwell's judges could not try him in "holes or corner". The rhetoric about the importance of open justice is found throughout law reports and often in cases brought by journalists at newspapers like this one. Will all this judicial rhetoric be empty or even hypocritical when it comes to deporting Julian Assange? We must wait and see.