Pirate Bay co-founder Gottfrid Svartholm has been deported from Cambodia to Sweden to serve a one year jail sentence for breach of copyright. On arrival he was charged with a further offence; I have received several messages that this new charge relates to his work in hosting Wikileaks, but I have no confirmation at the moment and Svartholm is being held incommunicado. Can anyone confirm or contradict this?
Svartholm had been assured by Swedish authorities that, if he returned back to serve his jail sentence, he would not face further charges; that was broken the moment he arrived back in Sweden. That may well be a pointer for how seriously we can take assurances that the patently false “sexual assault” charges fabricated against Julian Assange are the real motive for the Swedish authorities’ pursuit of him.
EU Commission sources tell me that Sweden paid Cambodia around 50 million euros for Svartholm’s deportation to Sweden (there is no extradition agreement). The money is in government to government aid and targeted on development of democratic institutions and global warming. The Cambodian government is scarcely a democracy, and the idea that the money will, once paid over, in fact be usefully spent in those areas is extremely fanciful. From my own very substantial experience of development aid, 50 million Euros is a very large sum to dedicate to those areas in terms of the overall Swedish development aid budget, and absolutely unprecedented between Sweden and Cambodia. My EU Commission source is adamant that this “aid” payment and Svartholm’s extradition were agreed at the same meeting between Swedish and Cambodian officials a week ago.
The Svartholm case and the dodgy “aid” payment has been very little covered by the mainstream media, because it reveals the extraordinary lengths to which the Swedish authorities are prepared to go, to please the US in bringing down those involved with Wikileaks, and to dissociate themeselves from Sweden’s brief period as the home of internet freedom.
Vague Hague – I have read the article you link. Nothing in there makes my version less plausible. I don’t see any reason why it should be more complicated than a revoked passport and an overstayed visa.
One thing that Niklas doesn’t address in his article is that Svartholm’s passport very likely is revoked (We know Fredrik Neij’s passport is revoked, that’s public knowledge since he has contested the decision and wants his passport reinstated.)
Niklas is upset because Svartholm has not been informed that he can go anywhere when he is deported. Truth is, without passport he can’t. The only country that will accept him is Sweden.
So in summary: If the Swedish government can achieve their goal of bringing Svartholm home through simple, uncontroversial, legal methods – why would they resort to dodgy payments and underhand deals? When it is not neccessary? I just don’t see any reason why they would when they don’t have to.
For the record, I would have preferred another outcome in the silly TPB trial and I believe that immaterial rights laws are outdated in this day and age. But in this matter – to bring Svartholm home – there has been absolutely no need for underhand methods when the tools legally available to the authorities work so well.
And for readers and commentators here: Why look for conspiracies and controversy where they are not required by government to get what they want?
Clark, you´re saying that Eric´s opinion, just an unkown commenter, has the same weight of Craig´s, an ex-British diplomat with strong knowledge of all the inside work? Give me a break. Eric is too busy watching TV, leave him alone.
Clark – I have no insight at all in Swedish-Cambodian negotiations. All I have is an assertion in the media from Swedish authorities that the deal was negotiated long ago. It’s possible they lie, but why should they when the case is so easy and straightforward?
When it is so easy to achieve the desired outcome through simple legal means (revoked passport, deportation after expired visa) I think it is reasonable to assume that authorities would prefer to take the easy, transparent way out rather than underhand dodgy deals.
And I don’t think Cambodia would have any problem deporting a convicted criminal without passport who has overstayed his visa if prompted to do so by a friendly country (Sweden). And I don’t see any reason why tens of millions of dollars would be required to get that wish granted.
Why disregard the simple solution and look for something more murky and dodgy at every opportunity? I just don’t see the motivation for getting involved in underhand deals when it is simply not necessary.
Eric
The major issue in Gottfrid’s friend’s account is the Swedish official not informing Gottfrid of his right to challenge his deportation and indeed her very obvious efforts to circumvent his rights in this regard – precisely the same sort of tactics we’ve seen in the Assange case.
What say you to that?
Yes Mauricio, always look for the dodgy conspiracy, not the simple solution.
What exactly in my version of events is it that you see as improbable? Why would a government resort to dodgy deals when they simply don’t have to? The legal tools are powerful enough.
I wonder who has been watching too much TV?
Vague Hague – I don’t know what rights he was or wasn’t informed about. I wasn’t there. It is possible that the Swedish embassy has a case to answer there, that they haven’t informed Svartholm of his rights in the appropriate way. I’m not sure what their obligations are in that respect. I imagine that are not enthusiatic to provide any more help than the absolute minimum of their obligations though, since they were keen to bring him back to Sweden.
But that’s not the point of my intervention here. I am just trying to point out that it was a simple operation to get Svartholm back. There is simply no conspiracy needed. Transparent, legal methods were sufficient. And the information Svartholm did – or didn’t – get at the point of his apprehension probably wouldn’t have made any difference. I can’t see how he could contest a deportation under the circumstances (no passport, expired visa, convicted and wanted in another country)
Guys – I’m not here as a defender of the authorities. What I am saying here that I don’t see the conspiracy that everyone else seems to be seeing. What I am seeing is a straightforward case of deportation, and with a revoked passport Svartholm is left with very little choice. Sweden is that only destination for him. And no pay-offs would be required to achieve this.
I can’t understand why this explanation of simple procedures would cause a storm here?
Eric
Fair enough. You concede that Gottfrid’s rights may not have been well attended by the Swedish consular official.
I would contend that such a cavalier approach to due process indicates that all is not well in Sweden. We’ve seen similar failings in the Swedish judicial system re: the Assange case.
Craig
Can you please read the account of Gottfrid’s friend and give us the benefit of your experience here, particularly wrt the consular episodes and Gottfrid’s whereabouts at the time etc:
https://torrentfreak.com/sweden-kidnapped-my-friend-pirate-bay-co-founder-anakata-120810/
Maurício, no, I called upon Eric (or anyone else) for evidence, and Eric replied in the negative:
Craig’s testimony is already evidence, in my opinion:
Vague Hague, that’s a very absorbing account of how the United States uses its cheque book to buy off countries like Cambodia for the exchange of people with a political conscience. This is not a pretty world we live in.
Friends, have we not let “Eric” sidetrack us here? We all seem to be focussing on whether or not the Swedes followed proper procedure and whether or not it was necessary to pay the Cambodians money to sweeten the deal…whereas the real point Craig is tring to make – and it’s a very important one – is that the Swedish authorite apparentl have no difficulty in giving people they’re after assurances and then breaking their word once the guy’s back in Sweden.
Link to Assange case?
Real democracy is the greatest obstacle to those who would concentrate power to themselves, but democracy has a major vulnerability; the power of Big Media to influence the opinions of large numbers of people. Mass media is how the voters’ opinions have been manipulated for decades or even centuries. “Broadcast” – cast widely to many.
Decentralised media, i.e. the Internet, is the biggest threat to the powerful political influence of the mass media.
A number of concepts are being used as tools to promote control over and censorship of the Internet, and to rob us of our newly developed digital freedom of information and expression:
# Censorship of sexual content in order to “protect children”,
# Slavish adherence to badly regulated copyright laws, to “protect artists”,
# Software patents to prevent users from developing or commissioning their own software, ie. software that doesn’t abuse users the way that proprietary software does,
# State or corporately controlled encryption (eg. “Digital Rights Management” which, ironically, has already been used by Amazon to retroactively delete copies of Orwell’s 1984 which users had downloaded to their Kindles).
Once you realise that there is a battle, you begin to recognise who’s on each side.
Ok, I made my point. But for deaf ears it seems. More fun with conspiracy than logic I guess?
I still don’t understand why everyoone here seems to think that the authorities would prefer to resort to dodgy deals (just for the fun of it then, or why?) when legal means and correct procedure are more than sufficient to bring Svartholm home.
Revoked passport + expired visa = easy transport to Sweden. No money needed.
But each to their own I guess. Enjoy your world. Don’t forget your tin foil hats…
Always, the corporate (“news”) media campaigns for the right of corporate (“creative”) media to cream off lots of money by the exploitation of the creative people they pretend to be defending. They never defend our right to read whatever we wish.
The following is by Richard Stallman, without whose work we would have no Wikipedia (Stallman invented the copyright licence that made Wikipedia possible), and no free Internet (the Internet runs mostly on Free Software, and Stallman invented the copyright licence that legally protects the freedom of such software). It’s a short story set in the future, but please do read the references at the end; the story is fictional, but the dangers are factual:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Yes thank you Eric, you have indeed made your point – and, as Maurice says succeeded in side-tracking the discussion. So a period of silence on your part would now be welcome. Thank you.
Eric, I think you have got extradition and deportation confused.
Cambodia and Sweden have no extradition treaty which means Cambodia had no obligation to extradite him. Countries with no extradition agreements usually deny such requests even if there are outstanding charges or convictions on a person. People trying to get across the mexican border comes to mind although I am sure that example will come back to haunt me!
Cambodia can however deport someone for an invalid/expired visa but the person being deported has the choice of where they are deported too, passport or not. This option was denied in this case. Even if the country they go to will not let them out of the airport, the next step gets worked out at that point. Be it a request of asylum or whatever. This is how I understand it to be anyway.
Also when someone gets arrested abroad, the embassy of their country gets involved to advise them of their rights and to make sure they get legal representation. This didn’t happen here and the Swedish embassy went out of their way to make sure that legal aid and family could not get any contact with him. Even murderers are extended this privilege usually.
Its not as if Sweden hasn’t got form for underhand extradition attempts if you have followed the ENTIRE Assange case. This along with the aid package and the US Representative visit are nails in the coffin which was already locked shut. This case was dodgy enough without these.
Eric
“Revoked passport + expired visa = easy transport to Sweden. No money needed”.
Not quite. You haven’t explained the Swedish and Cambodian collusion in ensuring Gottfrid wasn’t able to contest his deportation in a Cambodian court.
It’s all there in the document I posted.
Nice try, but I’m afraid you’ve fallen for far too simplistic an account of what’s gone on here.
“The money is …targeted on…..global warming. – Like the CO2 “pollutant” taxes that your governments are so keen to make you pay, (while of course preventing developing nations to have the utilization of natural resources advantage the right and powerful ones did) not one Krona will combat the natural fluctuations of our amazingly complex global weather system with or without mankinds finger prodding perturbations. And all the while REAL pollution (nuclear, pharmaceutical, chemical) gets worse every day.
.
Methinks allocations of monies for ‘climate change’ is a fancy label for a bung.
.
Your post shows how duplicitous Sweden is and that it’s famed liberal socialism and exemplary civic life is the same old PR trick well known in the ‘West’
Sweden gives about 4 billion euros in aid annually, BUT most of that is given through multilateral institutions. The Cambodian payment is about 3% of Sweden’s annual BILATERAL aid budget, which is an awful lot for Cambodia, and for governmental, non-economic programmes. It is more than Sweden gives bilaterally to countries like Nigeria and Ethiopia. Sweden’s bilateral aid has always been very political and is controlled out of the Prime Minister’s office, in my recollection. Very often it is used to sweeten deals for the Swedish arms industry – which seems not to worry public opinion in Sweden. As long as most of the aid budget goes to multilaterals, the bilateral portion is viewed as a legitimate area for political influence.
It sounds too familiar Craig 🙁
Not much point in chasing the troll here: the Swedish government’s payment was clearly unconnected with its regular aid disbursements. The fact that the money was earmarked for “democracy promotion” or some such nonsense is an indication that it was destined for private bank accounts, probably in Switzerland.
“The idea of democracy is perhaps not so bad; it is the fact that it has been hijacked by the rich and powerful and made totally dependent on oodles of money to even think about contesting an election, is the real problem…”
The Ancient Greeks ran into this problem in Athens. Their solution was to distribute offices on the basis of lotteries. All citizens were liable to be called upon to discharge their democratic duties. A bit like the jury system.
It is hard to believe that Parliaments so chosen would not contain the small percentage of honest and socially minded people needed to bring some decency to public policy debates.
So far as our image of Sweden is concerned, it is helpful to remember that two extremely high profile assassinations, changing the balance of power within Swedish Social Democracy, have taken place in, historically, recent years.
Those dirty filthy fascist Swedes are at it again!!
“EU Parliament votes for an end to impunity on CIA rendition. Poles are prosecuting, but Sweden refuses”
Just how much American ass can these Swedes swallow!
https://twitter.com/wikileaks
WSJ on Svartholm: fresh allegations…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443884104577645153822983344.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
(the updated story is not accessible on the WSJ site itself atm)
People who liked this also bought:
http://news.hitb.org/content/anonymous-doxes-cambodian-gov-latest-attack
And for those who missed the back story (with links, would download latest AV signatures first)
http://www.dailydot.com/news/anonymous-optpb-cambodia-sweden-pirate-bay/
It’s a complete can of worms. I imagine the Swedes aren’t very popular right now in Cambodia. Or India. Or Nepal. Or Ukraine. Or Kyrgyzstan. Or…
http://ki-media.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/released-documents-by-anonymous-could.html
You were missed Komodo. I asked on the previous where was Werritty and where were you!
In connection with this question at PMQs.
Q6.[120390]
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab):
The Adam Werritty affair should have taught Ministers important lessons about becoming too close to their outside advisers. Now it appears that the Prime Minister’s climate change Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), may be making similar mistakes. Given media reports today, does the Prime Minister have the same complete confidence in his climate change Minister as he had in his former Defence Secretary?
The Prime Minister:
The climate change Minister is doing an excellent job; I want to put that on the record. I have consulted with the Cabinet Secretary, and both he and the permanent secretary at the Department of Energy and Climate Change have examined the issue, and I do not see the need for a further inquiry on that basis. The key point I would make is that the individual in question was hired by civil servants after a properly run competition.
~~~
The minister concerned is Greg Barker and the adviser Ms Myriam Maes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/12/greg-barker-miriam-maes-emails?newsfeed=true
.
Sorry, Mary, had urgent business with a dead animal.
May I present for your entertainment (o/t) – The Gentleman’s Guide to Forum Spies ?
http://par-anoia.net/forum-spies.html
The breed doesn’t seem to have died out yet.
deadership was a typo – probably my grandfather coming through from the somme
so i can only correct it by posting a link to the best essay, I have ever read on the subject
“It’s Something Else Entirely”
“The Difference Between Leadership and Domination”
http://thinkorbeeaten.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/its-something-else-entirely.html
Extract
“It is commonplace to refer to our dearly elected as leaders. But are they leaders? Who or what do they lead? Using the word in the strict sense of going first while everyone else follows, our elected officialdom consistently takes the country in the wrong direction; away from where the people who live and work here, by vast majority, want to go.
That is not leadership. It is something else entirely.
I think it’s important to define leadership and understand its purpose. I have some strong ideas on leadership and what a leader is. I offer them to you for your perusal and consideration. If you find that you agree with my take on what a leader is and what they are supposed to do, then you can decide for yourself what our dearly elected in Washington D.C. are actually up to. You may come to the same conclusion that I have, that they are not by any stretch “leaders”.
There is an easily discerned line between leaders and tyrants. It would do us well to know the difference.
The main role of leadership is to help people get where they want to go. Leadership is specifically about individuals. It challenges individuals to think in new ways and to try to achieve things they don’t believe they can achieve. Leadership is coaching. It is guidance. It is experience and wisdom. Leadership is never about the leaders because the end goal of good leaders is to become useless; to no longer be needed by others in order to achieve their goals. Leaders empower others.
The main goal of dominators/controllers is to get people to go where they themselves want to go and do what they themselves want done. Nothing is done for the benefit of the individuals they control, in fact those being controlled give much more than they receive in return. Domination and control is all about the dominators and controllers. Individuals become irrelevant when they are controlled or dominated. Domination is undemocratic. There is rigidity in thought and action and a tendency to focus on the letter of the law as opposed to the spirit of the law. Domination and control is about hierarchy and illegitimate power over others. Dominators use others for their own ends. Dominators and controllers jobs are never done because people will always need to be controlled or they’ll be something other than what the dominators want them to be. Dominators disempower others.
Leaders don’t tell people what to do, or what to think. Leaders are not controllers, dominators or enforcers. We have different words for all those things because they are not the same things, they are different. Leadership may at times encompass certain elements of these other things but it will never be fully comprised of them, else leaders cease being leaders and become controllers, dominators or enforcers. If that happens it should be clear that leadership has nothing to do with it, and it becomes something else entirely.
Leaders are first and foremost guides. Facilitators. Enablers who help others get where they want to go. Leadership is about management, but management that is intensely people focused and very personal. Leadership is specifically about people; it is guiding people out of their own way to help them realize themselves. When it’s done right, individuals are empowered and armed to go forth and use the best of themselves to full capacity. When it’s done wrong, individuals are controlled and dominated down to being what their “leaders” demand, usually at the cost of individuality and critical thinking, as well as personal dignity, creativity, power, and choice.”
Read the rest of Angie’s words on her link I posted above. I have no idea what she looks like, but she has a soul of an angel. She lives in California, last I heard. I am in awe of her. She just dumps her entire soul using an amazingly large number of words, but only a few times a year.
If you can only handle a text message, you probably won’t get that she writes almost an entire book in one post on her blog, which hardly anyone ever reads.
Tony
Glen Greenwald has been noting, for years now, how hackers and whistleblowers are being persecuted, and that this, most of all, is Obama’s signature policy. I’m afraid us lefties have to admit that some of the Obama-bashers had a point: he’s an empty suit, with serious character deficiencies – and I begin to wonder about some of the wilder accusations as well …
Ah, but it’s Sweden, A Troll Writes. If Wikileaks has done us one service it is this: we now know, based on actual evidence, that that the US routinely manipulates politicians in almost every country, and that careers are built on willing subservience to Empire. Not an exaggeration or conspiracy, just facts of life. I have to admit to being somewhat surprised at the extent of US influence, on this I believe I had previously been somewhat naive.
And here we are. A guy gets arrested for a crime that isn’t a crime, a Government appears to have bribed another Government, and the authorities lie with impunity to the accused, and nobody gets fired, and nobody resigns. Julian Assange may be a bell-end, but he’s perfectly right to avoid Sweden at all costs. Personally I’d give him the Nobel Peace Prize, though I suspect even that prize is subject to US manipulations. Depressing.