Sunday, 15 December 2013

Open Letter to Intelligence Employees After Snowden- By Peter Kofod, Thomas Andrew Drake, Daniel Ellsberg, Katharina Gun, Jesselyn Raddack, Ray McGovern, Coleen Rowley

Open Letter to Intelligence Employees: [1]

At least since the aftermath of September 2001, Western Governments and  Intelligence Agencies have been hard at work expanding the scope of their own power, while eroding privacy, civil liberties and public control of policy. What used to be viewed as paranoid, Orwellian, tin-foil hat fantasies turned out post-Snowden, to be not even the whole story.

What's really remarkable is, that we've been warned for years that these things were going on: Whole-sale surveillance of entire populations, militarization of the Internet, the end of privacy.

All is done in the name of "National Security" which has more or less become a chant to fence off debate and make sure governments aren't held to account – that they can't be held to account– because everything is being done in the dark; secret laws, secret interpretations of secret laws by secret courts - and no effective parliamentary oversight whatsoever.

We are your friends – Big Brother loves you!

By and large the media have paid scant attention to this, even as more and more courageous, principled whistle-blowers stepped forward. The unprecedented persecution of truth-tellers, initiated by the Bush administration and severely accelerated by the Obama administration, has been mostly ignored, while record numbers of well-meaning people are charged with serious felonies simply for letting their fellow citizens know what's going on.
It's one of the bitter ironies of our time that while John Kiriakou (ex-CIA) is in prison for blowing the whistle on U.S. torture, the torturers and their enablers walk free.

Likewise WikiLeaks-source Chelsea (née Bradley) Manning was charged with – amongst other serious crimes – aiding the enemy (read: the public). Manning was sentenced to 35 years in prison while the people who planned the illegal and disastrous war on Iraq in 2003 are still treated as dignitaries.

Numerous ex-NSA officials have come forward in the past decade, disclosing massive fraud, vast illegalities and abuse of power in said agency, including Thomas Drake, William Binney and Kirk Wiebe. The response was 100% persecution and 0% accountability on part of neither the NSA nor the government.

Blowing the whistle on powerful factions is not a fun thing to do, but despite the poor track record of Western media, whistle-blowing remains the last avenue for for truth, balanced debate and upholding democracy – that fragile construct which Winston Churchill is quoted as calling "the worst form of government, except all the others".

The Winds They Are A Changing

Since the summer of 2013 the public has witnessed a shift in debate over these matters. The reason is that one courageous person, Edward Snowden, not only blew the whistle on the litany of government abuses but made sure to supply an avalanche of supporting documents to a few trustworthy journalists.
The echoes of his actions are still heard around the world – and there are still MANY revelations to come.

Now The Public Need You

For every Daniel Ellsberg, Drake, Binney, Katharina Gun, Manning or Snowden there are thousands of civil servants who go by their daily job of spying on everybody and feeding cooked or even made-up information to the public and parliament, destroying everything we as a society pretend to care about.
Some of them may feel favourable towards what they're doing, but many of them are  able to hear their inner Jiminy Cricket over the voices of their leaders and crooked politicians – and of the people whose intimate communication they're tapping.

Hidden away in offices of various government departments, intelligence agencies, police forces and armed forces are dozens and dozens of people who are very much upset by what our societies are turning into: at the very least , turnkey tyrannies.

One of them is you.

You're thinking:

●       Undermining democracy and eroding civil liberties isn't put explicitly in your job contract.
●       You grew up in a democratic society and want to keep it that way
●       You were taught to respect ordinary people's right to live a life in privacy
●        You don't really want a system of institutionalized strategic surveillance that would make the dreaded Stasi green with envy – do you?

Still, why bother? What can one person do?

Well, Edward Snowden just showed you, what one person can do.

He stands out as a whistle-blower both because of the severity of the crimes and misconduct that he is divulging to the public – and the sheer amount of evidence he has presented us with so far – more is coming. But Snowden shouldn't have to stand alone, and his revelations shouldn't be the only ones.
You can be part of the solution; provide trustworthy journalists – either from old media (like this newspaper) or from new media (such as WikiLeaks) with documents that prove what illegal, immoral, wasteful activites are going on where you work.

There IS strength in numbers; you won’t be the first – nor the last - to follow your conscience and let us know what’s being done in our names.

Truth is coming – it can't be stopped. Crooked politicians will be held accountable: It's in your hands to be on the right side of history and accelerate the process.

Courage is contagious.

Peter Kofod, Musician/Ex Human Shield in Iraq (Denmark)
Thomas Andrew Drake, Whistle-blower, Former senior executive of the NSA (US)
Daniel Ellsberg, Whistle-blower, Former US military analyst (US)
Katharina Gun, Whistle-blower, Former GCHQ (UK)
Jesselyn Raddack, Whistle-blower, Former DOJ (US)
Ray McGovern, Former senior CIA-analytist (US)
Coleen Rowley, Whistle-blower, Former FBJ (US)
[1] Sent for publication in Professorsblogg by Peter Kofod, 15 Dec 2013

Supplementary Letter to the Swedish Bar Association Regarding a formal complain on lawyer in “Swedish case VS Assange”

Update received from Rafik Saley (general secretary African Committee for Sustainable Development – Sweden), of the letter delivered to the Chairman of the Swedish Bar Association regarding a formal complain on lawyer Ms. Elisabeth Massi Fritz, in the Swedish case VS the founder of WikiLeaks, Mr. Julian Assange

We have reasons to update the complaint against Elisabeth Massi Fritz as outlined in this supplementary letter.
Since writing to you about Ms Fritz’s political motivation against Mr Julian Assange she has made subsequent comments of a political nature:

Ms Fritz cannot possibly know that Julian Assange would be safe from extradition to the United States. If that was the case, the prosecution would guarantee what Mr. Assange’s legal team has been asking for, which would bring this despicable case to an end. They have refused to do so and continue to prolong the suffering of all parties involved, excluding the legal profession and politicians. Not only does Ms. Fritz make unwarrantable public statements but her whole strategy appears to be a character assassination campaign against Mr Assange despite him not having been charged with a crime. This is a most improper conduct from a lawyer.

Here is the original Washington Post story to which Expressen alludes and you can see that the Grand Jury investigation is still ongoing.

Further confirmation that an investigation into Wikileaks is continuing comes from Fay Brundage at the attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia, USA.

In the Expressen article, Ms Massi Fritz also makes a statement that “My client will be involved in the case and stick to the story of the serious violation that she believes that she suffered”. However, it would appear from evidence already in the public domain since September 2013 - [see paragraphs 97-99] – that her client’s earliest comments regarding the matter on 20th and 21st August 2010 flatly contradict Ms. Massi Fritz’s statement in Espressen:

According to a phone record of 20th August 2010 (17:06), Ms. S. W. said she was shocked “when they arrested JA because she only wanted him to take a test.” According to the younger woman’s phone records, to whom an allegation of ‘rape’ has been indicated, she wrote at 07:27 on 21st August 2010 that she “did not want to accuse JA for anything”; and at 22:25 that “it was the police who made up the charges”.

It is not credible that Ms. Massi Fritz would be unaware of her own client’s earlier statements, and this makes her public statement on the case made to Expressen last week an infringement of the Bar Association’s rules:

“§2. Lawyers’ conduct must be factual and correct, and such that confidence in the legal profession is maintained.”

Yours sincerely

Okoth Osewe – journalist and author – Kenya and Sweden

Rafik Saley – general secretary African Committee for Sustainable Development – Sweden

John Goss – writer and researcher – United Kingdom

Dr. Selim Y Gool – retired, ex-teacher / academic, Norway

Tema Orígenes del MIR. Entrevista por prof. Matías Ortiza a M. Ferrada de Noli

El profesor Matías Ignacio Ortiz Figueroa es licenciado en Historia de la Universidad Andrés Bello, y Profesor Ayudante en Universidad Academia de Humanismo Cristiano, cátedras “América Latina: Formación de los Estados Nacionales”,  y “Metodología de la Investigación Histórica”. Su proyecto de investigación se desarrolla en torno al tema "la construcción identitaria mirista (1965- 1969)".


MIR flag with legend_year 1965

1 - En primer lugar, y aunque la extensa bibliografía que se ha escrito sobre el MIR ha sancionado alguna respuesta, me gustaría preguntarle acerca del proceso fundacional de esta organización, esto es, ¿qué organizaciones recuerda que confluyeron en él?

El MIR no lo fundó ninguna confluencia de organizaciones; el MIR lo fundaron 65 revolucionarios, en su mayoría estudiantes de la Universidad de Concepción. Nuestro promedio de edad era 21-22 años. Este tema, lo mismo que varios de los Ud. alza en esta entrevista, los desarrollo en mi libro “Rebeldes Con Causa. Mi vida con Miguel Enríquez, el MIR, y los Derechos Humanos”, y que estará accesible en la red en Enero de 2014.

Respecto a la organizaciones confluyentes, generalmente se nombra al “PSP”, al “POR” – lo que es un error por duplicidad – y a la “VRM-R” (en cuyo ‘congreso de fundación’ en Mayo de 1964 también participaron “los jóvenes de Concepción”). Aunque en relación a los orígenes del MIR se menciona a menudo a “los jóvenes de Concepción”, generalmente se oculta la caracterización, e incluso el nombre de la organización original de aquellos jóvenes. Me refiero al “Movimiento Socialista Revolucionario” (MSR) que iniciamos en 1961 en Concepción, y que luego instituimos como fracción en la Juventud Socialista y más tarde en la VRM. Esta agrupación (MSR) es nombrada por Pedro Naranjo en su biografía sobre Miguel. Funcionábamos todavía como grupo “fraccional” ad portas de la fundación del MIR en agosto de 1965. Allí se terminó el MSR, no antes.

2 - ¿Por qué se eligió el local de Ernesto Miranda para su fundación? (¿cómo recuerda este lugar? Físicamente) 

Efectivamente hubo “elección” del local, cuya discusión surgió durante las reuniones preparativas. Para nosotros tenía una mística muy especial que era un local tan asociado con el movimiento anarquista, contestatario del leninismo ortodoxo, de los reformistas, pero también de la izquierda dogmática no-tradicional. La proposición vino en la forma de una invitación por parte de Miranda, transmitida por el Dr. Sepúlveda. Luis Vitale y la gente del “PSP” propiciaban un local más emblemáticamente asociado con la CUT.

3 - ¿Cómo recuerda este lugar? (Físicamente) 

Bueno, estaba ubicado en San Francisco Nº 269. Tenía una amplia sala de reuniones y con un espacio en el fondo usado como "strado". Las discusiones se desarrollaron fundamentalmente en la “platea”, en una suerte de diálogo directo con los que hacían uso de la palabra desde el estrado, por ejemplo al presentar un documento. Este fue el caso en la presentación de “la Tesis” durante la cuál, luego que fue leída en su totalidad, Miguel, Marco Antonio y yo permanecimos en el estrado para responder a las preguntas y/u objeciones que venían del la “platea”, que comenzaba sólo a un metro y medio del “estrado”.

4. Además, si bien usted expone algunos elementos motrices que nos permiten estudiar la problemática de la bandera en su artículo ¿qué otros elementos van a confluir en la decisión por optar por el rojo y negro que usted diseñó y defendió? (incluso podría hablarme sobre los temas culturales, existió algún himno? ¿cómo Trabajadores al poder” se transforma en tal, y cuándo?,

Como cualquier sobreviviente de entre los que participaron en el Congreso de Fundación se lo podrá confirmar, yo tuve el honor de presentar tanto la proposición de nombre para el nuevo partido, el diseño de su bandera, y también una proposición para su primer himno de combate. Sobre el nombre MIR se trataba de un acuerdo tomado por nosotros en la fracción MSR. Las dos primeras proposiciones perduraron; en cuanto al himno, éste fue cambiado alrededor de 1972, si recuerdo bien, y por lo que me dijeron tiempo después. Creo que en ese tiempo yo estaba en México. El autor de la nueva versión es Nelson Villagra, y yo se la escuché personalmente en Roma, en Mayo de 1974.
Sobre la bandera, bueno, como le dije, la tradición ideológica anarquista en algunos de nosotros, y en el caso mío particularmente, era influyente. Luego está el hecho que yo había llegado a fines de Marzo 1964 de Cuba, en dónde estuve para instrucción militar; y también tuve la oportunidad de conocer al Comandante Ernesto Che Guevara, en febrero de ese mismo año. Como el libertario de izquierda  que me sentía, está claro que el contacto con las tradiciones revolucionarias del Movimiento 26 de Julio o la organización 13 de Marzo eran en ese tiempo, por mi parte, más empático que con las del emergente Partido Comunista. Por lo demás, el primer contacto que hicimos (hice) con Cuba en 1962 fue a través del Agregado Cultural de la Embajada de Cuba en Santiago, Manuel Pallán, que había sido combatiente del Movimiento 13 de Marzo.  A las pocas semanas de mi regreso a Chile, si recuerdo bien, se realizó el congreso constituyente de la VRM-R, y allí yo presenté el proyecto rojo y negro por primera vez. En esa oportunidad también hube de fundamentar con los colores del Movimiento 26 de Julio, que demostró ser, entre los recalcitrantes “leninistas” de la VRM, un razonamiento más aceptable que mi discurso anarquista. Finalmente, sólo nosotros en Concepción terminamos utilizando esos colores en 1964-65. Los puede ver en la portada de una de las revistas de esa época, en la cual yo era director. Me parece que era “Polémica Universitaria”, porque “Revolución” era ya de anterior.

Además, me gustaría que me contase a grandes rasgos quiénes eran los principales sujetos identificables en la fundación, aparte de los referentes históricos. ¿Es verdad que Vitale –según se desprende de algunos relatos de él mismo- diseñó la declaración de principios y programa del MIR? 

Diseño único de Vitale? Absolutamente no. La versión de que Vitale solo habría presentado el borrador de la declaración de principios, o como Ud. menciona, del Programa, es tan incorrecta como absurda. Fue todo un trabajo colectivo y recuerdo muy bien la participación de Bautista van Schouwen en eso. La participación a que Vitale se referirá vino después de aquello, en la revisión de aquel primer borrador leído en el “plenario” del Congreso, y que también se hizo colectivamente. Por otra parte, de la gente de Concepción, Miguel Enríquez, Marco Antonio y yo presentamos la Tesis Insurreccional (la tesis político-militar) que era el documento ideológico principal, y que defendimos en la discusión que siguió - y se aprobó.  Le agrego que Miguel también participó en el trabajo del programa. En cuanto a la Tesis Insurreccional, la información que circula sobre que el documento habría sido presentado por Miguel Enríquez pero redactado con la colaboración de Marco Antonio y mía, es imprecisa. La Tesis fue leída por Miguel, pero presentada por nosotros tres, y así estaba escrito en la primera página (arriba a la derecha debajo del título: “Por Viriato, Bravo y Atacama”, correspondiendo respectivamnente a Miguel Enríquez, Marco Antonio Enríquez y Marcello Ferrada). Copia mimeografiada de la Tesis Insurreccional se había entregado a todos los presentes. Como le dije, en la discusión de la Tesis estuvimos los tres en el “pódium” respondiendo y argumentando. Particularmente, sobre la discusión que yo tuve con Vitale acerca de las “condiciones objetivas” y el rol de las “subjetivas” en el proceso insurreccional, me refiero con detalle en mi libro [de publicarse en la Red en Enero de 2014].

En la imágen de la portada, Bautista van Shouwen, M Ferrada de Noli, y Miguel Enríquez. En Santiago, 1961

*El libro aparecerá en el sitio  a partir de Enero 2014; en el año de conmemoración del 40 Aniversario de la muerte en combate de Miguel Enríquez Espinosa, el fundador del MIR.

 Índice de Contenidos se puede leer en
El autor agradece su comentario/sugerencia enviado directamente por email a

Thursday, 12 December 2013

Who is behind the “people’s Intelligence apparatus”? On the Swedish collaboration with US spying

In a thought-provoking piece in SvD by columnist Sam Sundberg, the author opens with one reflection done by Julian Asssange on the imperative for people’s own Intelligence endeavours:

“The organization, [Assange] believes, will reveal the abuse of power and corruption in the world's ruling class. Things that people deserve to know. It is a beautiful thought. Most journalists would probably like to be a part of people's intelligence. But the question also points to the unpleasant gap between [Swedish] citizens and the mysterious Intelligence apparatuses acting in our name. If FRA, the [Military Intelligence MUST], and the [Swedish Security Service] SÄPO are not the people's intelligence services, whose are they? The government? Carl Bildt? Foreign powers?" [1]

Casus belli = An event or behaviour that justifies the armed response or declaration of war by a country against another. The term is attributed to Hugo de Groot (1583-1645)

By Marcello Ferrada de Noli

I believe that there are some alternative answers to Sundberg’s quest, and that those are found a) partly in main political parties of the Swedish establishment, and b) partly in the economic-military establishment; c) also the assisting role played by the Swedish state-owned media and MSM monopolies is paramount.
I have done some background research on those items, and which I have published in Professors blogg.  Examples, respectively: on a)  the analysis Swedish/U.S. Intelligence "co-operation" [2]; on b) the series on the Sweden-Saudi weaponry scandal [3]; on c) the training and  participation of currently active Swedish journalists in the Military Intelligence apparatus. In these themes the ”Assange case” had emerged manifestly as a diverting manoeuvring from the part of the Swedish authorities, as I review in each of the articles which this series comprises.

In this sense, I think it was sad that the long expected Uppdrag Granskning program [“Mission Investigation”] on the FRA/NSA whereabouts fallen short in some very important issues. One was not mentioning WikiLeaks’ Diplomatic Cables as the forerunner in the revelation about the Swedish collaboration with the US Intelligence and spying agencies (which unequivocally explains the “Assange case”, as a whole); the other it was that the program, apparently, failed to meet the highly important issue, announced by Greenwald himself, about exposing in the program the economic-espionage as one main component. I will develop this in a separate column.
Meanwhile, I will publish here excerpts of the articles mentioned, that shown further episodes on the background in the Swedish collaboration with NSA and CIA which are not mentioned in the current Swedish media-debate. Please notice that I am referring to "Swedish collaboration towards the US", rather than "Swedish cooperation with US". In my personal view, all these agreements on the back of the Swedish people (and in fact many of those also known by Swedish Parliament members), do not serve the interests of Sweden; they are only to serve the interests of a foreign nation. With this said, of course I fully recognize the right if the US of protecting their own national interests. I have nothing against that (actually my position being that a real NEUTRAL Sweden would serve better the national interests of the US and of all countries in the world).
However,  the spectacular increase of the Swedish collaboration with NSA - although it might serve some Swedish industrial corporations - is definitely not serving the Swedish people, and it will sooner or later take all of us to stand a  military confrontation with Russia.  In this case, the best prognosis from the part of the Swedish Armed Forces Command is that we will able to stand one week. In fact, it will be unfortunately just a matter of hours, sad.

Professor Wilhelm Agrell, a respected conflict-researcher with a main focus in  Surveillance Intelligence, declared today in SVT , that the newly exposed FRA operations  could be equated with an act of war. Casus belli, in other words; Prof. Agrell's own words were:
"Cyber ​​warfare, if it is directed against vital infrastructure in another country, can certainly be tantamount to an armed attack. Naturally, we are not there now, but (this type of) hacking is not a triviality at all." 
["Cyberkrigföring kan ju om, om den riktas mot vital infrastruktur i ett annat land, vara liktydigt med ett väpnat angrepp. Där är vi naturligtvis inte nu, men dataintrång är inte vilken trivialitet som helst"].

one week standGeneral Sverker Göranson, Head of the Swedish Armed Forces declared in SvD: "If Sweden today is attacked militarily, we could in the best of cases defend ourselves during one week" ["Om Sverige i dag angrips militärt kan vi i bästa fall försvara oss i en vecka"]


Swedish collaboration with US Intelligence, and Surveillance apparatus of political organizations

"Swedish (government) officials got the impression that they were working under direct orders of the CIA" - Mike Ölander's reportage "CIA demanded that Sweden would expand cooperation", Expressen, 6 December 2010

This article reviews a) Sweden's traditional culture among its rulers of spying on their own citizens - also a political culture of "Neutral" Sweden consisting of dealing in secrecy with (and on behalf of) NATO powers in matters of Intelligence; b) the allegations about a systematic cooperation between the Social Democratic Party and the country's Security Police, c) the juridical context of this  illegal violation of the citizens' civil liberties and integrity - a context that has been characterised as "The Bodström Society", and the veritable threat to those abusing powers represented by WikiLeaks and its founder and forerunner Julian Assange.

From that perspective, best way of keeping that threat as far away as possible, is to secure the arrest or seclusion of WikiLeaks’ sole and active forerunner Julian Assange as long as possible, and in "better" of cases, to keep him as incommunicado as possible. In the US, some top-ranking politicians and journalists have declared that the one and only optimum choice to solve "the problem" is to kill Assange. Just like that.

In this political context, and nowhere else, a true explanation for the so-called "Sweden VS Assange" case - better named the "Sweden against WikiLeaks" case - is to be found.

By Marcello Ferrada de Noli

In 2008 the Swedish Parliament approved the infamous Surveillance legislation - an Intelligence-gathering instrument aimed at monitoring in detail and registering all electronic communications of Swedish individuals [See Debating Sweden’s surveillance legislation: The FRA-lagen VS civil liberties]. The ferocious – and unusual – struggle opposed by Human Rights activists together with the Swedish Pirate Party and some members of other political organizations was in vein.

The government and its allies in Parliament motivated the new legislation on issues of Sweden’s national interest. However, only two years later, the WikiLeaks cables gave evidence that the US government had ordered the Surveillance-law (FRA-lagen) directly to the Swedish rulers. In actual fact, the beneficiaries of such legislation that sacrificed Swedes’ civil rights and personal integrity  all resulted from US-based entertainment companies to US Intelligence & enforcement agencies.

Author Oscar Swartz had anticipated it all in “Marching towards the Bodström Society” (Marcshen mot Bodsträmsamhället). “Bodström Society” [Bodströmsamhället in Swedish] is a term coined by Swartz ca 2005, denoting an Orwellian-like development in the Swedish society that Swartz - and many with him -  ascribes to regulation proposals or declarations by the reactionary former Minister of Justice Thomas Bodström (of the law-firm Bodström & Borgström). Bodström himself is ostensibly very proud of the epithet, and even adopted it as header for his blog he publishes from Virginia, U.S. (read 2011).

Almost concomitantly, other cables released by WikiLeaks exposed the secret agreements between high-ranking officials of the Swedish Ministry of Justice with CIA and FBI – with participation of the Swedish Foreign Office – with regard to the transference to the US of personal, political, and other private or sensitive information of Swedish citizens. The agreements was – again – conducted on the back of the Swedish Parliament [See This is Why].

 Ths is Why - professorsblogg
Historically seen, we find a veritable inquisitorial culture among autocratic Swedish authorities, particularly in regard the registering of the citizens’ leftist political opinions.

Perhaps the most infamous (so far exposed) of such registers occurring prior the New Surveillance law of 2009 - was the “IB Register”. This was an Intelligence-gathering program kept by the Intelligence Services of Swedish Armed Forces. The revelations indicated, among others, that individuals with left-wing sympathies were systematically monitored and registered by the Swedish Armed Forces - in a period coinciding with the relatively strong public opposition to the Vietnam War. This surveillance and register of the leftist political opinions among populations was done “behind the back” of the Parliament t (See the IB affair).

It was also exposed in this context that Swedish Military (the IB-bureau) ”co-operated extensively with the Central Intelligence Agency and Shin Bet of Israel“ (Wikipedia quote) and also that Sweden sent spies abroad. This was of course mentioned in severe contrast with the publicized international Swedish "Neutrality". At the time, the Swedish authorities responded to the IB-exposures with the arresting by the Swedish Security Police of whistle-blower Håkan Isacson (a former employee at the IB Office) and the authors of the disclosure, journalists Jan Gillou and Peter Bratt - and photographer Ove Holmqvist - in charges of espionage.  They were sentenced to one-year in prison each.

The allegations about a systematic cooperation between the Social Democratic Party and the country's Security Police. The issue of "SAPO" and "SÄPO"
During decades it has been discussed in Sweden the alleged relationships between the country's official Intelligence service (The Security Police) and an Intelligence service allegedly carried on by the Social Democratic Party. Besides the publications by Bratt & Gillou, an important research source on the subject is the book of Thomas Kanger and Jonas Gummeson “The Communists Hunters”  (Kommunistjägarna,  Ordfronts Förlag 1990). The all issue in was later taken up in connection to a special investigation ordered by the Swedish government. The document Rikets säkerhet och den personliga integriteten - Säkerhetstjänstkommissionens betänkande (SOU 2002:87) was finished on the 17 December 2002.

Even the old discussion about the origin or background of the acronym-name used by Sweden's National Security Police  is referred in the 160-pages document. In fact, the acronym used by the Social Democratic Party in Sweden is SAP (for Socialdemokratiska Arbetare Partiet), and the acronym used by the National Security Police is SÄPO (kerhets POlisen = Security Police). Further, the acronym SAPO (without the "¨") it is said to refer to the Social Democratic Party's own Intelligence service.

In a document I first found as an on-line publication of the Swedish Parliament (Statens offentliga utredningar SOU 2002:92) it is given that "SAPO" would stand for Socialdemokratiska ArbetsPlatsombudsOrganisationen [my capitalization]. Where  the four words Socialdemokratiska = Social Democratic; Arbets = at/of the work ; Platsombud = person representing the Party, i.e. at a working place. The referred document is shatered in several places or some content deleted. There is however this seemingly extended - or at least readable version - in three parts, with the title "Det grå brödraskapet. En berättelse om IB" [found here] published on the base of the "Security Services Committee" Report of 2002.

I emphasized "brödraskapet" (means brotherhood) because I found it peculiar, if not coincidental, that bröderskapsrörelse is the name of the social democratic organization that invited Julian Assange to Sweden in 2010 [See down below].
One most striking revelation was that the Social Democratic Party, that has been in the government of Sweden for decades, was originally pivotal in the architecture of the above mentioned IB-bureau (referred as "Group B" in the SOU 2002:87 document). For the IB Intelligence-gathering activity was also devised to espionage and register “communists” and other militants or left-wing sympathizers that the Social democrats would perceive as competitors in the so-called arbetarrörelsen (workers unions and similar organizations).

The joint operation between the Armed Forces Intelligence and the Social Democratic Party had begun long ago in the 50’s with an agreement signed by the Minister of Defence Torsten Nilsson and the general secretary of the party Sven Andersson. The agreement was based in the fact that the Armed-Forces Intelligence would be using the listings kept by the social democrats (collected at the working places where the party had control of the unions).

The co-operation between the Swedish Security Police, which inherited the espionage activities of the former IB-Office, and the Social Democratic Party continued over the years. The journalists reported that the social democrats had their own Intelligence apparatus in close co-operation with the official Security Police. Olof Palme and Sten Andersson flatly denied that. However, I can personally witness that such co-operation could have remained operative at least in 1977, four years after the IB affair:

A first-hand testimony on the counterintelligence cooperation between the Social Democratic Party and the Sweden's Security Police. MIR helps to tackle "Operation Condor" activities in Sweden


There were approximately 25,000 Chileans exiles in Sweden in the years after the military coup of Augusto Pinochet of 1973.  In the spring of 1977, Gösta Ohlsson, a member of the leadership of the Social Democratic Party (Partistyrelsen) and the official in charge of the Latin-American desk (or international relations) contacted Mario Espinoza (nom de guerre “Juancho”) – at that time a member of the Central Committee of the Movement of the Revolutionary Left (MIR), and in charge both of the MIR-Exterior Office in Sweden, and the "Junta de Coordinación Revolucionaria" [The Revolutionary Coordinating Junta, composed of the Chilean Revolutionary Left Movement (MIR), the Argentine People's Revolutionary Army (ERP), the Uruguayan Tupamaros, and the Bolivian National Liberation Army (ELN)].
War on Terror. The author at the time of the 1977 events
The MIR-Exterior was the international bureau of the MIR, Movement of the Revolutionary Left, operating abroad to support activities of the anti-Pinochet Resistance led by MIR in Chile. During that time the military governments of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay, had formed an operative terrorist alliance called the “Operación Condor” (Operation Condor, aimed a) To liquidate oppositional figures in exile – several bloody executions took place in different countries - and b) To counter arrest Resistance activities of the “Junta de Coordinación Revolucionaria” of South America’s Southern Cone, formed mainly by, MIR-Chile, ERP-Argentina, ELN-Bolivia, and the Tupamaros of Uruguay). Being the presence of MIR in Scandinavia the main among these organizations, MIR instituted in Sweden a counter-intelligence unit to fight Operación Condor activities in Scandinavia. I was designated to lead the unit.

gösta ohlsson visitcard sm.

Mario Espinoza and I went to the meeting with the social democrats, which took place in Sveavägen 68. In the meeting, the senior party official, Mr Gösta Ohlsson, declared to us the following, as I recall it: “Our contacts in the Swedish Security Police informed that (Operation Condor) is to initiate activities for Northern Europe . . . from their current base in the Chilean Embassy in Madrid they may be sending more operatives here . . . We know also of the monitoring activities deployed in those regards by MIR . . . We therefore ask your organization to avoid any retaliating-action in Swedish territory, and also, for MIR’s own behalf, we ask you to synchronize your monitoring results with the one conducted on Operation Condor activities by the Swedish Security Police"

Mario Espinoza agreed with the proposal, and said, “The people working with it should get in contact with Ferrada-Noli who is in charge of our counter-intelligence unit”. The same afternoon I received a call by an officer from the Swedish Security Police (the meeting with the social democrats at Sveavägen 68 was held 11.00 AM). At the end of the meeting Mr Ohlsson handed over to me his visit-card and told I was welcome to contact him on the progress made (I never did, as the contacts went on with the SÄPO and the activities were undercover).

We wondered how it was that social democrats knew about our monitoring of the Junta agents and presumably operatives of Operation Condor. After all we worked with tight clandestine routines, encrypted communications, etc.; all members of my unit – and we were only few - were former combatants with long experience in undercover work and also survivors of Pinochet harsh prisoners camps (Quiriquina Island, Chacabuco, and Concepción). It was no task for “civilian” social democrats - or for that part not a possibility for any civil organization – that with normal means they would be able to get insight about our operations. The most credible, we reasoned from the beginning, is that the information was passed to the social democrats after a professional surveillance – technically superior – done by the Swedish Security Police. But again, how come it was the Social Democratic central bureau that contacted us? Why the high-ranking party official at 68 Sveavägen st. said explicitly “Our contacts in the Swedish Security Police informed . . .” ? Further, the Social Democratic Party it was not at that time in charge of the Government, it was not an “official” party – why they would enjoy official contacts with an official institution such as the National Security Police?

Marcello Ferrada de Noli - 1977 - Outside Court & Police buildning Kungsholmen Stockhiolm - sideSome answers became clearer while doing the talks on behalf of my unit at the Security Police headquarters at the Kungsholmen compound. It is not that solely judging after the contact-episode above I would be in position to prove that some kind of communication pipes between the Security Police and the Social Democratic Party did exist systematically. Yet, my strong impression was - after the conferences and several walks I had together with the gentlemanly senior official of the Security Police in the nearby park - that this was the case. That they did cooperate. [in the picture at right, the author standing outside the Court & Police building in Kungsholmen, Stockholm, 1977. Zoomed photo taken by one member of the UCI (our operative unit) and film developed in our artesian lab].

The contacts lasted for about two months, until the situation was declared under control. Operación Condor in Scandinavia was namely neutralized and no political exile figure was killed in spite of the over 30,000 exiles from the corresponding Operation Condor countries living there at the time. However several assassinations occurred elsewhere. During these activities I met several Swedish Security Police officers – outstanding professionals - including two senior-ranking officers. Incidentally one senior officer presented me fortuitously to Prime Minister Thorbjörn Fälldin, while he was at the Security Police headquarters using a "sport facility" located in the building - I omit saying where. I will not give here more details, or names, etc.

How prevalent, and how secret, is the espionage that the Swedish authorities exercise upon their citizens on behalf of the US? The role of WikiLeaks in disclosing abuses of power = The reason for Sweden's Vendetta

To give an idea of the scope of such collaboration, I source a reportage done by prize-winner journalist Mikael Ölander, who interviewed several Swedish government officials working in the Intelligence front. The reportage was published in Expressen the 6 of December 2010 with the title "CIA demanded that Sweden would expand cooperation" [“CIA krävde att Sverige skulle utöka samarbetet”]:

CIA demanded screen capture 2012-12-28-14-17-41
Google translation of the original Swedish publication
In 2003, the CIA sent a new station manager to Stockholm. He would have been who, during a meeting in the Cabinet Office, put forward the stricter requirements for enhanced cooperation declared in the reportage. The requirements were met at the Ministry of Justice, which has the tuition for all police activities including the Secret Police or Security Police. And who was Minister of Justice in 2003? The very same social democrat politician Thomas Bodström.

The WikiLeaks diplomatic cables have indicated that the current Swedish government of Fredrik Reinfeldt has opted for keeping the Bodström-era U.S. Intelligence collaboration in the frame of “informal agreements”. Read, let us keep the agreement secret from the Parliament and the public. But as I wrote in my Second Opinion article Assange buried the Swedish neutrality myth (December 2010) “In truth, it was not the USA government and its envoys that wanted to deceive the Swedish Parliament. The Americans instead wished to have a formal and correct agreement. However, the even more pro American-benefit proposition (than the one from the Americans themselves) was all on the part of the Swedish government officials”

In fact, those “informal” agreements have placed the Swedish security and military intelligence so heavily under the control and command of the Americans, that, as reported by Ölander, referring to the years ensuing 2003, Sweden officials got the impression that they were working under direct orders of the CIA [“Under de kommande åren förändrades svensk underrättelse-och säkerhetstjänst på ett sådant sätt att enskilda tjänstemän uppfattade det som att de arbetade på direkt beställning av CIA”].

The article, published in December 2010 - just a couple of months after  the international arresting order issued by Sweden against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and the scandalous interrogations procedures at the Police - also quoted the following from a source with insight:

"CIA has taken such liberties and carried out operations in Sweden and has gone so far that in SAPO had high-level meetings to discuss what you can do to get them to calm down"

[- "CIA har tagit sig sådana friheter och utfört operationer i Sverige och gått så långt att man inom Säpo haft möten på hög nivå för att diskutera vad man kan göra för att få dom att lugna ner sig, uppger en person med insyn."]

And this is the context truly explaining the shameful episode in which Sweden delivered in secret one night at Bromma Airport, in the heart of Stockholm, the political prisoners to CIA operatives fir further transport in US aeroplane to Egypt – to be interrogated under torture. And this was done with the direct participation of the Ministry of Justice. At the time the Minister of Justice was Thomas Bodström; he was signalled in an Aftonbladet article by Margareta Zetterström, a close friend and working colleague of the late Foreign Minister Anna Lindh, as a central gestalt in the referred rendition-flights operation.

In the context above denoting such pervasive and ubiquitous collaboration between the social democrats with both the National Police and the CIA, it is not at all strange that a hypotheses on a “CIA connection” and a “Police connection” linked to the social-democratic organization Bröderskaprörelsen flourished – as they did in the early explanations of the “case” of Sweden against the WikiLeaks founder. “Bröderskaprörelsen” is an intern religious circle within the Social Democratic Party. The current (Swedish) Wikipedia article refers to this organization as “Religiös sidoorganisation till Sveriges socialdemokratiska arbetareparti”.

Both Göran Persson, Thomas Bodström and one of the Assange nominal accusers are prominent political figures in this clique. This woman – AA – was at the time of the “accusations” nothing less than the Political Secretary of the said social-democratic organization Bröderskapsrörelsen – now after the exposures renamed “Tro & solidaritet“. Further, this was the organization that invited Assange to lecture in Sweden. The rest of the set-up is well known.

It is worth noting that political officials representing political parties in the government of Sweden do make all these geopolitical-sensitive decisions. Such decisions – unlike in other countries – are not taken by or at the initiative of officials at the Security Police. They are only to implement decisions coming from the government or respective ministries. It is also known that the Swedish Security Police has indicated the need for an actualization of the Swedish legislation dealing with illicit espionage activities by foreign agents operating in Swedish territory. Further, according to SÄPO, "foreign intelligence gatherers in Sweden are today less interested in military bases or airfields and more turned to political or research espionage" (source: "Sweden's spy laws need updating: Säpo", The Local, 24 of May 2011).

Moreover, it is known that in some occasions (and there might be also - for the public - unknown episodes) the Swedish Security Police have acted more independently from their American counterparts, or have pursued obtaining further or explicit directives from the government authorities. That was the case in the Egyptians episode when a top chief of the Security Police insisted in having a clearance from the Ministry of Justice. For in the Swedish praxis these authorities are mainly the Ministry of Justice and the Foreign Office, apart of the Central Government Office (Regeringskansliet).

The Central Government Office (Regeringskansliet)
Ambassador Maria Lundqvist
The Head of the "America Section" at the Central Government Office, Maria Lundqvist (photo at right), was apparently one of the first high-ranking officials that met the delegation representing the US government and US Intelligence establishment.
According to the evidence reviewed in the documentary at SvT "De hemliga telegrammen" [See down bellow], Ambassador Lundqvist warned the American delegation about Sweden having at the moment a "sensitive time", politically speaking, regarding issues of Government surveillance and of personal integrity. She made also clear that  the matter (the collaboration with the US on Intelligence gathering of Swedish citizens) was "an issue to be negotiated only with the Ministry of Justice. The role of the Foreign Office was only to get informed on what the matter is about".

ambssador lundqvist - screen capture 2012-12-28-20-58-3

The Foreign Office - Minister Carl Bildt

Bildt-nws24 screen capture 2012-12-31-0-18-5
Google translation of the original article in Nyheter 24
Carl Bildt was asked about this secret collaboration with the US Intelligence agencies and the issue of keeping the agreements away from Parliament’s insight. Bildt declared,
- That is done in the frame of existing legislation and regulations, and they are generally known (in Parliament).

But what Bildt is referring to with “they are widely known in the Parliament” is the “existing legislation and regulations”. In his concrete answer Bildt is in fact confirming that the collaboration as such, or what the different collaboration agreements in concrete are about, is kept secret from the Parliament. And this is against the law; it is unconstitutional.

My conclusion is that Carld Bildt is bluntly lying on this issue. And he is not the only minister doing so in the Reinfeldt government. And that was equally the praxis referring the collaboration-issue under the (for Sweden’s truly national interests) catastrophe government of the confessed pro-Bush admirer Göran Persson – and of his Justice Minister Thomas Bodström.
The Ministry of Justice - Minister Beatrice Ask
bea-ask English screen capture 2012-12-28-14-59-52 
Google translation of the original Expressen article
There is (or there was – because it is officially deleted from Internet) this remarkable research-journalistic documentary based on the WikiLeaks released diplomatic cables of 2010. The documentary – a chapter of the program Dokument Inifrån - was headed “The secret cables” [De hemliga telegrammen] and was aired December 2010. Professors blogg has found an online copy of the disappeared documentary. It is here below: Click on the image of Minister of Justice Beatrice Ask to see the video "The Secret Cables" (Swedish)

hemliga telegrammen - screen capture 2012-12-28-21-15-3
The documentary "The Secret Telegrams" was aired on December 5th 2010. The SVT Redaction team comprised Pär Fjällström Johan Ripas, Evin Rubar, Marianne Spanner, and Johannes Wahlström
The Swedish Police, including the Security Police, are under the Ministry of Justice. The documentary clearly shows that a high-rank official at the Ministry of Justice, Anna-Carin Svensson (in charge at the Ministry of Police matters) asked the Americans to better keep the “cooperation” informal. This, as we said above, on the occasion that the US wished a formal, legal agreement, with their Swedish counterparts on matters of Intelligence cooperation.

However, the Minister of Justice Beatrice Asks – as her colleague Carl Bildt has done towards the press - denied bluntly in the referred documentary any knowledge of any “secret agreement” performed with the Americans by her Ministry. This, spite of the fact that the reporter confronted her with the leaked evidence. Minister Asks declined to comment. It is a most revealing documentary and a good piece of journalism. I wished I had the possibility to insert English texts in it!

The Swedish authorities’ culture of spying on their own citizens
DN - Polce-illegal screen capture 2012-12-28-15-4-28
While I am writing this article – previously announced in the Introduction of my series Sweden VS Assange – Insider Analyses – I read in Dagens Nyheter (DN) of today  27 December that “Individuals' ethnicity and religion are recorded illegally by the Swedish National Police” [Enskilda personers etnicitet och religion registreras på ett olagligt sätt av Rikspolisstyrelsen]. That is the conclusion reached by the Swedish Commission on Security and Integrity Protection whose spokesperson refers further investigation on the issue.
And just a week ago it was disclosed that the State-owned Swedish Radio register the political affiliation or political sympathies of Swedish listeners participating in the call-in program Ring P1!
P1 DN screen capture 2012-12-28-14-55-32 
Google translation of the original DN article
Now that Julian Assange has announced a massive release of information that would affect "every country", Sweden's rulers can with all right feel uncomfortable. But there is one certain way to impede or greatly obstruct the “disrupting” disclosures done or to be done by WikiLeaks.

From that perspective, best way of keeping that threat as far away as possible, is to secure the arrest or seclusion of WikiLeaks’ sole and active forerunner Julian Assange as long as possible, and in "better" of cases, to keep him as incommunicado as possible. In the US, some top-ranking politicians and journalists have declared that the one and only optimum choice to solve "the problem" is to kill Assange. Just like that.

Defend Julian Assange’s Human Rights. Defend his right to live and let us secure WikiLeaks enormous contribution to free information on behalf of true democracy.
[1] Sam Sundberg, Folket behöver egen underrättelsetjänst, SvD, 11 Dec 2013. The full quote in Swedish:
"I Julian Assanges biografi från förra året beskriver han Wikileaks med ett begrepp som har gnagt sig fast i mitt minne: folkets underrättelsetjänst. Organisationen, menar han, ska avslöja maktmissbruk och korruption i världens härskarskikt. Sådant som folket förjänar att veta.Det är en vacker tanke. De flesta journalister vill nog vara en del av folkets underrättelsetjänst. Men begreppet pekar också på det obehagliga glappet mellan medborgarna och det hemlighetsfulla underrättelseväsende som verkar i våra namn. Om inte FRA, MUST och Säpo är folkets underrättelsetjänster, vems är de då? Regeringens? Carl Bildts? Främmande makts?"
[2] M Ferrada de Noli, Swedish/U.S. Intelligence co-operation in the Bodström Society. Part IV of the series “Sweden VS Assange” – Insider Analyses. Professors blogg, 28 Dec 2012.
[3] M Ferrada de Noli, Sweden's FOI publicly slandering WikiLeaks while in secret help building missile factory for Saudi Arabia dictatorship. Professors blogg, 6 March 2012. / Sweden-Saudi arms factory scandal: "Arms Export Control" Authority participated in the secret negotiations. Called by Defence Minister. Professors blogg, 7 March 2012.
[4] M Ferrada de Noli, MSM Journalists Trained by Swedish Military Intelligence. Professorsblogg, 11 June 2012