Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar 2008


I am slightly updating and reposting this from 2012 because the mainstream media have ensured very few people know the detail of the “case” against Julian Assange in Sweden. The UN Working Group ruled that Assange ought never to have been arrested in the UK in the first place because there is no case, and no genuine investigation. Read this and you will know why.

The other thing not widely understood is there is NO JURY in a rape trial in Sweden and it is a SECRET TRIAL. All of the evidence, all of the witnesses, are heard in secret. No public, no jury, no media. The only public part is the charging and the verdict. There is a judge and two advisers directly appointed by political parties. So you never would get to understand how plainly the case is a stitch-up. Unless you read this.

There are so many inconsistencies in Anna Ardin’s accusation of sexual assault against Julian Assange. But the key question which leaps out at me – and which strangely I have not seen asked anywhere else – is this:

Why did Anna Ardin not warn Sofia Wilen?

On 16 August, Julian Assange had sex with Sofia Wilen. Sofia had become known in the Swedish group around Assange for the shocking pink cashmere sweater she had worn in the front row of Assange’s press conference. Anna Ardin knew Assange was planning to have sex with Sofia Wilen. On 17 August, Ardin texted a friend who was looking for Assange:

“He’s not here. He’s planned to have sex with the cashmere girl every evening, but not made it. Maybe he finally found time yesterday?”

Yet Ardin later testified that just three days earlier, on 13 August, she had been sexually assaulted by Assange; an assault so serious she was willing to try (with great success) to ruin Julian Assange’s entire life. She was also to state that this assault involved enforced unprotected sex and she was concerned about HIV.

If Ardin really believed that on 13 August Assange had forced unprotected sex on her and this could have transmitted HIV, why did she make no attempt to warn Sofia Wilen that Wilen was in danger of her life? And why was Ardin discussing with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and texting about it to friends, with no evident disapproval or discouragement?

Ardin had Wilen’s contact details and indeed had organised her registration for the press conference. She could have warned her. But she didn’t.

Let us fit that into a very brief survey of the whole Ardin/Assange relationship. .

11 August: Assange arrives in Stockholm for a press conference organised by a branch of the Social Democratic Party.
Anna Ardin has offered her one bed flat for him to stay in as she will be away.

13 August: Ardin comes back early. She has dinner with Assange and they have consensual sex, on the first day of meeting. Ardin subsequently alleges this turned into assault by surreptitious mutilation of the condom.

14 August: Anna volunteers to act as Julian’s press secretary. She sits next to him on the dais at his press conference. Assange meets Sofia Wilen there.

Anna tweets at 14.00:

‘Julian wants to go to a crayfish party, anyone have a couple of available seats tonight or tomorrow? #fb’

This attempt to find a crayfish party fails, so Ardin organises one herself for him, in a garden outside her flat. Anna and Julian seem good together. One guest hears Anna rib Assange that she thought “you had dumped me” when he got up from bed early that morning. Another offers to Anna that Julian can leave her flat and come stay with them. She replies:
“He can stay with me.”

15 August Still at the crayfish party with Julian, Anna tweets:

‘Sitting outdoors at 02:00 and hardly freezing with the world’s coolest smartest people, it’s amazing! #fb’

Julian and Anna, according to both their police testimonies, sleep again in the same single bed, and continue to do so for the next few days. Assange tells police they continue to have sex; Anna tells police they do not. That evening, Anna and Julian go together to, and leave together from, a dinner with the leadership of the Pirate Party. They again sleep in the same bed.

16 August: Julian goes to have sex with Sofia Wilen: Ardin does not warn her of potential sexual assault.
Another friend offers Anna to take over housing Julian. Anna again refuses.

20 August: After Sofia Wilen contacts her to say she is worried about STD’s including HIV after unprotected sex with Julian, Anna takes her to see Anna’s friend, fellow Social Democrat member, former colleague on the same ballot in a council election, and campaigning feminist police officer, Irmeli Krans. Ardin tells Wilen the police can compel Assange to take an HIV test. Ardin sits in throughout Wilen’s unrecorded – in breach of procedure – police interview. Krans prepares a statement accusing Assange of rape. Wilen refuses to sign it.

21 August Having heard Wilen’s interview and Krans’ statement from it, Ardin makes her own police statement alleging Assange has surreptiously had unprotected sex with her eight days previously.

Some days later: Ardin produces a broken condom to the police as evidence; but a forensic examination finds no traces of Assange’s – or anyone else’s – DNA on it, and indeed it is apparently unused.

No witness has come forward to say that Ardin complained of sexual assault by Assange before Wilen’s Ardin-arranged interview with Krans – and Wilen came forward not to complain of an assault, but enquire about STDs. Wilen refused to sign the statement alleging rape, which was drawn up by Ardin’s friend Krans in Ardin’s presence.

It is therefore plain that one of two things happened:

Either

Ardin was sexually assaulted with unprotected sex, but failed to warn Wilen when she knew Assange was going to see her in hope of sex.

Ardin also continued to host Assange, help him, appear in public and private with him, act as his press secretary, and sleep in the same bed with him, refusing repeated offers to accommodate him elsewhere, all after he assaulted her.

Or

Ardin wanted sex with Assange – from whatever motive.. She “unexpectedly” returned home early after offering him the use of her one bed flat while she was away. By her own admission, she had consensual sex with him, within hours of meeting him.

She discussed with Assange his desire for sex with Wilen, and appears at least not to have been discouraging. Hearing of Wilen’s concern about HIV after unprotected sex, she took Wilen to her campaigning feminist friend, policewoman Irmeli Krans, in order to twist Wilen’s story into a sexual assault – very easy given Sweden’s astonishing “second-wave feminism” rape laws. Wilen refused to sign.

At the police station on 20 August, Wilen texted a friend at 14.25 “did not want to put any charges against JA but the police wanted to get a grip on him.”

At 17.26 she texted that she was “shocked when they arrested JA because I only wanted him to take a test”.

The next evening at 22.22 she texted “it was the police who fabricated the charges”.

Ardin then made up her own story of sexual assault. As so many friends knew she was having sex with Assange, she could not claim non-consensual sex. So she manufactured her story to fit in with Wilen’s concerns by alleging the affair of the torn condom. But the torn condom she produced has no trace of Assange on it. It is impossible to wear a condom and not leave a DNA trace.

Conclusion

I have no difficulty in saying that I firmly believe Ardin to be a liar. For her story to be true involves acceptance of behaviour which is, in the literal sense, incredible.

Ardin’s story is of course incredibly weak, but that does not matter. Firstly, you were never supposed to see all this detail. Rape trials in Sweden are held entirely in secret. There is no jury, and the government appointed judge is flanked by assessors appointed directly by political parties. If Assange goes to Sweden, he will disappear into jail, the trial will be secret, and the next thing you will hear is that he is guilty and a rapist.

Secondly, of course, it does not matter the evidence is so weak, as just to cry rape is to tarnish a man’s reputation forever. Anna Ardin has already succeeded in ruining much of the work and life of Assange. The details of the story being pathetic is unimportant.

By crying rape, politically correct opinion falls in behind the line that it is wrong even to look at the evidence. If you are not allowed to know who the accuser is, how can you find out that she worked with CIA-funded anti-Castro groups in Havana and Miami?

Finally, to those useful idiots who claim that the way to test these matters is in court, I would say of course, you are right, we should trust the state always, fit-ups never happen, and we should absolutely condemn the disgraceful behaviour of those who campaigned for the Birmingham Six.

Liked this article? Share using the links below. Then View Latest Posts


Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

2,008 thoughts on “Why I am Convinced that Anna Ardin is a Liar

1 34 35 36 37 38 67
  • Arbed

    Swedish Svea Appeal Court rules compensation must be paid for violations of the presumption of innocence, even when there is no formal acquital (Svea Court of Appeal T 692-12 – Compensation Act (1998:714)):

    https://www.flashback.org/sp41743430

    You’ll have to use Google translate, I’m afraid. But keep a note of that thar case number – I think it might come in handy later… 😉

  • Arbed

    Replying to a comment on another thread:

    “Amelia Hill in this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/9296954/Phone-Hacking-Guardian-journalist-and-Met-Police-detective-will-not-face-charges.html appears to have worked closely to Nick Davis, and I think we know were he stands on the WikiLeaks story.”

    Interesting. The Martha Mitchell Effect link I posted earlier also has quite a lot of detail on Nick Davies’ involvement in the Guardian spin machine against Assange, the absolute low-point of which has to be his atrocious performance to camera in the Guardian co-produced “Secrets & Lies” documentary screened by Channel 4 just before Assange’s appeal hearing at the High Court.

    No, I take that back. Nick Davies’ absolute low-point has to be committing perjury at the Leveson Inquiry about the “they’re [Afghan] informants – they deserve to die” libel propagated by his colleague David Leigh. Davies told the Inquiry he had heard Assange make this remark with his own ears, despite the fact he wasn’t even at the dinner where Leigh claims (and Der Spiegel journalist John Goetz, who was there, refutes) Assange made it:

    http://wlstorage.net/file/cms/Folder%204/2.%20Transcript-of-Morning-Hearing-29-November-2011.pdf

    http://wlstorage.net/file/cms/Folder%204/1.%20Signed%20statement%20by%20John%20Goetz.pdf

    The reason I’m re-posting this here, in Craig’s thread concerning the Swedish case, is because of some of the details contained in the Martha Mitchell Effect link mentioned.

    http://marthamitchelleffect.org/#/cases-of-the-old-media-2/4572966061

    The article details how the earliest mention of the ‘Wikileaks passed cables to Lukashenko via Israel Shamir’ smear – in a hurriedly compiled blog post by Andrew Brown – came on the same day (a few hours before, in fact) Nick Davies published his notoriously skewed account of the not-yet-public domain police protocol and witness statements, “10 Days in Sweden”.

    Two points:

    Israel Shamir’s son is Johannes Walstrom, Witness E in the protocol, and favourable to Assange’s defence/innocence. Andrew Brown’s blog devotes quite a lot of time to smearing Walstrom, a respected freelance journalist, by association with his father.

    Andrew Brown is the Guardian’s religious affairs correspondent, based in Sweden. He has ties with the Social Democrats Christian Brotherhood – the same politicial/religious organisation of which Anna Ardin is Political Secretary and, it is believed, Sophia Wilen is/was a member.

    Questions:
    1. Who leaked the police protocol to Nick Davies, and when exactly?

    2. How long did Davies take to get it translated?

    3. Did he sit on it a while, waiting for the ‘right moment’ to publish (ie. the day after Assange is granted bail and is released from solitary confinement in Wandsworth prison)?

  • Arbed

    And they blithely say the US has no interest in extraditing Assange…

    DOJ Tells Judge WikiLeaks Investigation Details Should Remain Secret:
    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/01/doj-tells-judge-wikileaks-investigation-details-should-remain-secret.html

    OMG, some of the quotes in this article are mind-blowing.

    “Today, DOJ filed papers in Washington’s federal trial court asking a judge to shut down the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

    In support of the request, the government submitted a series of secret declarations to the chambers of the presiding judge, Richard Roberts, articulating why none of the responsive records—including evidence summaries and confidential source statements—should be released to the public. The WikiLeaks investigation, DOJ said, is ongoing.”

    “Congress did not enact FOIA to permit such unwarranted intrusion.”

    “Risner defended the filing of three ex parte declarations, written by DOJ officials, saying that “certain information concerning the requested documents and the bases for their withholding cannot be provided publicly.” – Ex parte on an FOI case? They’re having a laugh…

    “EPIC filed record requests to three DOJ components—the FBI, the National Security Division and the Criminal Division. The privacy group is seeking information about any individuals targeted for surveillance “for support for or interest in WikiLeaks.”

    The privacy group also wants to see any federal agency communication with Internet and social media companies—for instance Google and Facebook—about WikiLeaks supporters.

    DOJ lawyers said EPIC is requesting information that “would reveal whether, and to what extent, the government has employed particular investigative techniques in its attempts to identify suspects and obtain evidence.”

    “DOJ lawyers said today that disclosure of the requested information “would identify potential witnesses and other individuals who have cooperated with the investigation.” The FBI, for instance, according to DOJ, gave “expressed or implied assurances” that the identities of sources would remain confidential.”

    “The government also said the FBI has withheld from disclosure information created “in relation to the pending prosecution” of Bradley Manning and “in anticipation of potential other prosecutions stemming from “the disclosure of classified information that was subsequently published on the WikiLeaks website.”

    ****

    Speaking of the FBI, hurrah for Iceland, who booted them out when they turned up there – with no prior notice – in August 2011 demanding full access to Icelandic national police and national prosecutor records to further their investigation of Wikileaks:

    http://rixstep.com/1/20130131,00.shtml

  • Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    Among other things, I think DOJ is concerned about the fingerprints all over Aaron Scwartz. So far, the public really doesn’t give a shit about any investigation into Wiki. But sympathy for Aaron might change those dynamics.

  • Arbed

    Looks like there were also a few raised eyebrows at Wikileaks regarding news of the US Government’s ex parte application to summarily close down EPIC’s (Electronic Privacy Information Center) FOI request for details of surveillance of Wikileaks supporters as part of its Grand Jury investigation:

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/297341643684712448

    Here’s the news report of the US Government motion that I pulled all those eye-popping quotes out of again:

    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/01/doj-tells-judge-wikileaks-investigation-details-should-remain-secret.html

    and here’s the actual motion itself (pdf)

    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/doj-wikileaks.pdf

    First, bear in mind what it was exactly that EPIC were asking for in their FOI request:

    1. All records regarding any individuals targeted for surveillance for
    support for or interest in WikiLeaks;

    2. All records regarding lists of names of individuals who have
    demonstrated support for or interest in WikiLeaks;

    3. All records of any agency communications with Internet and social
    media companies including, but not limited to Facebook and Google,
    regarding lists of individuals who have demonstrated, through
    advocacy or other means, support for or interest in WikiLeaks; and

    4. All records of any agency communications with financial services
    companies including, but not limited to Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal,
    regarding lists of individuals who have demonstrated, through
    monetary donations or other means, support or interest in WikiLeaks.

    Hmmm, sounds suspiciously like it’s common or garden ‘citizens’ the FBI’s going after to me, albeit ones with political opinions the US government may not like.

    Anyone who’s interested in what exactly lay behind the prosecutorial overreach in Aaron Swartz’s JSTOR case and who has read Mary Wheeler’s (of the Empty Wheel blog) multiple postings about the Secret Service involvement in Aaron’s case and the overlap between the JSTOR and Wikileaks Grand Jury investigations should check out page 24 of this pdf. Makes you wonder, doesn’t it? These articles give some more context (look at the dates):

    http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N30/wikileaks.html

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-stallman/protect-your-friends-prot_b_816438.html

    I think Wikileaks tweet is referring to this part of the motion to suppress EPIC’s FOIs:

    “E.O. 13526, § 1.1(a). In section 1.4, the Executive Order establishes eight categories of classification. Of relevance here, the order provides that information may be classified if it concerns: “(b) foreign government information; (c) intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology; [or] (d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources.”

    and over the page it says:

    Section 1.4(b) of the Executive Order protects “foreign government information.” That includes “information provided to the United States Government by a foreign government or governments . . . with the expectation that the information, the source of the information, or both,
    are to be held in confidence.” E.O. 13526, § 6.1(s)(1). The protection of such information is critical because, “[t]he free exchange of information between United States intelligence and law enforcement services and their foreign counterparts is predicated upon the understanding that these liaisons, and information exchanged between them, must be kept in confidence.” Hardy Decl. (Ex. 1) ¶ 46. Here, the FBI has determined that numerous responsive documents contain such information.”

    In fact, just read pages 26 to 30. Wikileaks has got it bang to rights.

    Jeez, that is one of the scariest documents I’ve ever read.

  • Arbed

    Following on from the 28 Jan, 9.43am post above about Marianne Ny’s sly substitution of the on-duty prosecutor’s 21 August 2010 diary (almost completely obliterated by redaction to boot] for that of the 20 August in response to an FOI request for the latter, here’s a useful timeline of the other events of 21 August.

    http://rixstep.com/1/20130202,00.shtml

    Rixstep makes pretty clear what Anna Ardin’s game was but, personally, I feel there’s much more to Sophie Wilen’s story than he outlines here.

    I’ve set out in detail further back in the thread the areas of Sophie Wilen’s story I feel need more investigation, to wit:

    1. The disparity between what is said in Mats Gehlin’s notes on the forensic report about the piece of condom relating to Sophie Wilen’s complaint and remarks attributed to Sophie Wilen there, and her formal witness statement taken by Irmeli Krans (the 26 August version we have in the public domain).

    2. The fact that the physical evidence backing Wilen’s complaint is only a piece of condom, not the whole thing, and that we don’t know exactly how/when/from where/by whom it was submitted to the police. Various scenarios have been discussed but none of them really hold up logically. My personal belief is that the heavily redacted memo from Linda Wassgren (policewoman serving on reception at Klara police station) to Eva Finne dated 22 August is the key to the mystery.

    3. The issue of when exactly it came to be understood that Sophie Wilen only wished to ask advice from the police about forcing Assange to get a HIV test. The testimony of Wilen’s ‘witness’ friends, that of Anna Ardin and Ardin’s earliest media statements would seem to indicate that this narrative was a later addition.

    I’ve detailed all this in lengthy posts but offhand I can’t recall which page of the thread they’re on.

  • Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    Arbed @12:44

    Apparently no commentators thought my suggestion worthwhile, but ‘rope-a-dope’ could well be a strategy for dissident forces.

    “Slogging through the PDF, it struck me. This is a major pain-in-the-ass for principles of the DOJ, just answering these FOIA requests.

    Perhaps multiple requests from separate sources would help the overall situation. BTIM, if we manage to keep these assholes busy with FOIA’s, it might tamp down the resource reservoir. Keep them busy with the bullshit of bureaucracy. Make them so fucking overtime crazy, they have less time for their mischief. It is a game of inches, after all.”

  • Arbed

    Hey Ben,

    Well, I like your idea! Unfortunately, I’m not a US citizen so I can’t contribute that side of the pond. Over here in the UK, the government is plotting to trim the FOI laws to make it possible to refuse FOIs if similar requests come from different quarters but together the cost of fulfilling – or, wait for it, the cost of considering whether the request should be granted – comes to more than £600. Jerks!

  • Ben Franklin -Machine Gun Preacher (unleaded version)

    Arbed; Wasn’t sure of your nationality. I’m more a ‘big idea’ guy than a detail-oriented, eye for detail person, like yourself. I have a hard time with the verbose minutiae, and get bogged down in timelines, and such. I admire your attention to detail. Word craft and heuristic jumps with synthesis attached is my talent, but I need help getting across the street. :0

  • Arbed

    Hi Ben,

    Oh, I like the big ideas genius stuff too – I totally agree with your comments on the TV Estadão interview on the front page. I remember not long after Wikileaks first crossed my radar (the press conference for the Afghan War Diaries release, which struck me as something ‘new’ in a zeitgeisty way) reading Assange’s essay Conspiracy as Governance and thinking ‘Wow!Stone cold genius’.

  • John Goss

    Two Swedish colleagues and myself wrote to Senator Bob Carr, Australia’s Foreign Minister, to ask why he courted the company of Sweden’s ambassador to Australia, Sven Olof Petersson. Petersson has a track record for rendition to countries where torture is endemic and has also called for Julian Assange to go to Sweden (presumably so he can be handed over to the CIA). The reply from his office was totally evasive.

    http://newsjunkiepost.com/2013/02/08/pressure-australia-to-act-on-behalf-of-wikileaks-assange/

  • Arbed

    Hi John,

    Yes, I found your letter doing the rounds on Twitter and read it last night. Thanks for posting it here too.

    I think it’s a brilliant letter – and a very important one because it calls attention to the previously unknown close links between Bob Carr and one of the Swedish politicians who nodded through an illegal extraordinary rendition from Sweden.

    I’ll do my best to help spread the word.

  • Arbed

    Actually, just to add to what John Goss’s article above is pointing out. While we are all busy focusing on the latest empty-headed smear pieces in the UK press, the REAL campaign against Assange is going on behind closed doors.

    Sweden’s Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has just visited South America (a week before the Ecuador elections) to lobby CELAC. Here’s what else is going on with CELAC:

    25/1/13: REGION : Sabotaging CELAC – The US and Sweden
    http://tortillaconsal.com/tortilla/es/node/12421

    The article mentions that this destabilisation push is being organised from Chile but is aimed at the 5-nation ALBA alliance including Ecuador (the source of that CIA-backed drug running op to fund anti-Correa activities too). The article also mentions a Swedish diplomat, Cederberg, who ran the embassy in Cuba while Anna Ardin was up to her destabilisation tricks there. And – you’ll love this bit, John – Timbro, a Swedish outfit aligned to US rightwing orgs that is thought to be behind a lot of the smear campaign against Julian Assange in Sweden.

    Here’s a webcache of a blogpost Anna Ardin wrote describing her deportation from Cuba (inc about her visit the embassy there – sounds cosy), which she’s since scrubbed from the net:

    https://www.flashback.org/sp25035413
    (use Google translate – it doesn’t muck this one up too much)

    Meanwhile, Ecuador’s opposition candidate (albeit with bugger-all chance of winning) has stated publicly that, if elected, he will rescind JA’s asylum…

    http://archive.is/2UYLb

    Not sure whether Carl Bildt is back in Sweden already, but he’s heading to Australia next, on 27 February…

    Looks like the Ecuadorian elections are bringing things to a head, just as Ricardo Patino hinted there would be “new developments in the Assange case in February or March”.

  • John Goss

    Arbed, I wonder if the author of the above article is aware that Timbro’s staff (some of whom are now with Prime PR but doing the same job) are the one’s advising Fredrik Reinfeldt, Carl Bildt and other political players in the Assange affair? Let’s hope that Correa does get elected. I’m pretty sure he will. But we must always be mindful of what the CIA is capable of doing.

    http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/11/hilarcia-plot-against-correa-funded-by-drug-money/

  • Arbed

    Precisely, John – it’s the same gruesome bunch every time, isn’t it. As you’re probably better prepped on Timbro than I am, why don’t you drop a quick email to the contact address for tortillconsal.com giving them a precis of Timbro’s connection to Assange’s case, just to be sure they know that angle?

  • Arbed

    Superb article by SACC setting out very clearly why Assange is right to fear US extradition via Sweden, proposing an alternative resolution for the allegations against him to be heard by a court of law that protects his human rights, and why the uptick in the UK MSM smear campaign against him matters so much:

    http://www.sacc.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=931&catid=56

    Within this, there is also a link to an equally clear and comprehensive article on the extradition cases of Babar Ahmad and Talha Ahsan:

    http://www.sacc.org.uk/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=921&catid=55

  • Arbed

    I’m sorry to say this but I think Birgitta Jonsdottir’s motives for travelling to the US are a bit suspect. I read somewhere that she had made overtures to be taken back into the fold of Wikileaks (she’s contributed to several smear documentaries alongside Daniel Domscheit-Berg over the last two years, so she had grouped herself in with the ‘detractors’ pretty much), but I haven’t seen anything further on this so it’s not clear whether Wikileaks welcomed her back.

    Then there’s her twitter reaction to Jemima Khan’s article last week:

    https://twitter.com/birgittaj/status/299285475724754944

    which Glenn Greenwald responded to with:

    “the notion that there’s anything “brave” about criticizing Assange – easily one of the most hated people by western governments and establishment media outlets – is an embarrassing joke.

    http://www.twitlonger.com/show/kv97s0

    Then there’s her involvement as a consultant on Dreamworks’ film about Wikileaks. When Assange first criticised this movie and said it had a scene set in an Iranian nuclear facility (this was before he read a section of the script out to the Oxford Union audience) she first claimed on twitter the scene had been changed to refer to Stuxnet, then two days later after Assange read out the scene, she claimed on Twitter the scene had been cut entirely. On the face of it, this doesn’t seem truthful behaviour.

    On the matter of her trip to the US, last week I posted this as a comment to her blog post about the Wikileaks movie:

    http://joyb.blogspot.com.au/2013/01/statement-dreamworking-wikileaks.html?spref=tw

    Don’t know about the movie but I think Birgitta’s decision to travel to the US in April is a silly move. If anything happens to Birgitta, it could actually detract from the focus being placed on the pre-trial hearings of poor Bradley Manning. If nothing happens to her (and, in my mind, that would raise BIG questions about Birgitta), the media will use that fact to say there is no possibility of onward extradition to the US from Sweden for Assange – “see, they aren’t interested in prosecuting Wikileaks personnel” – and he MUST go to Sweden. So, if you think it through, Birgitta’s not actually being supportive of Wikileaks.

    Back in July 2012 Birgitta wrote in the Guardian how she received a diplomatic message that she had nothing to fear in travelling to the US, but there were specific instructions that the message was to be passed to her only VERBALLY. Nothing in writing? Now why would the US government insist on that? Her US lawyers, the ACLU, also found a secret docket in US court filings with her name on it. They couldn’t get it unsealed. What’s it for? Witness subpoena to the Wikileaks Grand Jury would be my guess.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/03/evidence-us-judicial-vendetta-wikileaks-activists-mounts

    Look at this article from 31 January 2013 on how the US government went to a court ex parte to stop even the basis on which they were refusing an FOI request about FBI surveillance of Wikileaks supporters in the Wikileaks Grand Jury investigation from becoming public:

    DOJ Tells Judge WikiLeaks Investigation Details Should Remain Secret:

    http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2013/01/doj-tells-judge-wikileaks-investigation-details-should-remain-secret.html

    One of those reasons was that the FBI already had testimony from informants in the investigation and it would cause an international furore if their identity was revealed.

    And they are using a secret interpretation of Section 215 of the Patriot Act to get it:

    http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/02/01/doj-we-cant-tell-which-secret-application-of-section-215-prevents-us-from-telling-you-how-youre-surveilled/

    Long and the short of it? I think she may have cut a deal with the US Grand Jury prosecution team to give her testimony to the Grand Jury and have her identity concealed as a “protected witness”.

  • Arbed

    Update: I’ve just seen this tweet from Wikileaks about Birgitta’s trip:

    .@birgittaj have you checked with WikiLeaks and Manning lawyers to see that such a trip to the US would be helpful and not harmful to them?

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/301406439807787008

    THAT is a politely coded but very strong signal to the world that no, she hasn’t, and that yes, it is an extremely dangerous move for them (but not necessarily her – if she’s already done a deal). For me, it also answers the open question in the first paragraph of my previous post:

    I read somewhere that she had made overtures to be taken back into the fold of Wikileaks (she’s contributed to several smear documentaries alongside Daniel Domscheit-Berg over the last two years, so she had grouped herself in with the ‘detractors’ pretty much), but I haven’t seen anything further on this so it’s not clear whether Wikileaks welcomed her back.

    Clearly, they didn’t.

  • Arbed

    Okkkkkaay, here’s a further hint that Birgitta has indeed cut a deal with the US prosecution:

    https://twitter.com/birgittaj/status/301338605593452548

    No one can be that hopelessly naive. Here’s Kevin Gosztola calling for a Wikileaks subpoena victims support group back in June 2011:

    “Time for Those Subpoenaed in WikiLeaks Grand Jury Investigation to Setup Support Committee?”
    http://my.firedoglake.com/kgosztola/2011/06/09/new-subpoenas-issued-in-wikileaks-grand-jury-investigation/

    And here’s the really scary version of that (a very detailed rundown of how Grand Juries work and also covering the current targeting of anarchist and other protest movements):

    http://darkernet.in/obamas-inquisition-style-grand-jury-system-spreads-net-wide/

    And here’s a link to the Grand Jury flowchart mentioned in the above article:

    http://darkernet.in/obamas-inquisition-style-grand-jury-system-spreads-net-wide/grand-jury-flowchart-2/

  • Arbed

    This morning Birgitta Jonsdottir claimed on Twitter that the FBI visit to Iceland to quiz a Wikileaks volunteer (known as Q or ‘siggi’) was to do with the Anonymous hacker group, Lulzsec.

    “#fbi operations in #iceland based on fbi covert operations within #lulzsec. There was never any threat of attack on gov computers.”

    https://twitter.com/birgittaj/status/302016771626528768

    I previously posted a Twitter alert sent by Wikileaks to Birgitta, but ensuring ALL their 1.7 million followers saw it by adding a dot in front of her username:

    .@birgittaj have you checked with WikiLeaks and Manning lawyers to see that such a trip to the US would be helpful and not harmful to them?

    https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/301406439807787008

    … and Birgitta’s breezily insouciant reply (not direct to Wikileaks, but to a supporter asking whether she was afraid of being subpoenaed as a Grand Jury witness in the US investigation of Wikileaks):

    “@treisiroon i dont worry. if it happens – then it will happen, i will deal with it then:)”

    https://twitter.com/birgittaj/status/301338605593452548

    Now read these two Icelandic news account, in order:

    13.02.2013 | 12:30
    WikiLeaks and Icelandic Authorities Discuss FBI-Affair
    http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/WikiLeaks_and_Icelandic_Authorities_Discuss_FBI_Affair_0_397798.news.aspx

    14.02.2013 | 15:30
    Iceland Minister: FBI Used Hacker to Bait WikiLeaks
    http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=29314&ew_0_a_id=397837&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    Here is Wikileaks’ official statement on the issue:

    Thursday February 7th 2013, 10:30 GMT
    Eight FBI agents conduct interrogation in Iceland in relation to ongoing U.S. investigation of WikiLeaks
    http://wikileaks.org/Eight-FBI-agents-conduct.html

    Notice how in the Icelandic Parliamentary committee investigating the FBI’s unauthorised behaviour in August 2011 the only person who is bringing Lulzsec into the whole affair is Birgitta herself. Well, that doesn’t mean all that much by itself – Birgitta was involved in Occupy and Anonymous too, so maybe she has inside info no one else has – but, but, but… look at the very last sentence of the second article:

    “The Icelandic police opened the possibility for the FBI to come to Iceland under false pretense, Birgitta claimed.”

    She’s covering the FBI’s ass here, and blaming the Icelandic police for drawing the poor wee innocent lambs into conducting a bogus investigation. WTF is she up to?

1 34 35 36 37 38 67

Comments are closed.