The Rape of Democracy, Liberty & Justice

ꕤ Article SOURCE http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/11/30/the-strange-case-of-julian-assange/ The strange case of Julian Assange Bernard Keane | Nov 30, 2015 1:10PM It’s become clear that the Swedish and UK governments will do virtually anything to ensure the investigation of Julian Assange never proceeds. Julian Assange faces very serious allegations, politicians like to say. That was the description from UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s office three years ago, defending the UK’s determination to extradite him to Sweden. And that was the description early this year from then-UK deputy PM Nick Clegg, too — “he should go to Sweden to face very serious allegations and charges of rape,” said Clegg, not long before leading his party to annihilation in this year’s general election. Clegg, of course, was peddling the oft-repeated lie that there are charges against Assange. But for very serious allegations – sexual molestation, unlawful coercion, sexual assault — the UK and Swedish governments have displayed zero interest in investigating them. In fact, the history of the case against Assange is a history of increasingly bizarre efforts by authorities to avoid questioning him. When Swedish prosecutors first examined complaints about Assange by two women in 2010, the Chief Prosecutor of Stockholm dismissed all but one of the allegations, including the accusation of sexual assault, saying “there is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever”. After speaking to prosecutors, Assange remained in Sweden for another week to be interviewed about the one remaining allegation (of molestation). However, after an appeal by former Swedish politician Claes Borgstrom, another prosecutor, Marianne Ny, reopened the whole case. Assange remained in Sweden and offered to be interviewed again, but, in the first of what would turn out to be a long litany of excuses, was told Ny was ill and unable to speak to him. Ny’s office then told Assange’s lawyer he was free to leave Sweden, but once Assange did so, an arrest warrant was issued for him. Assange then offered to return to Sweden to speak to Ny and gave her a full week of dates in which he would do so. These were all rejected. This was all despite Swedish police having access to the texts of one of the alleged victims of Assange saying she “did not want to put any charges on JA but that the police were keen on getting a grip on him”, that she was shocked when he was arrested given she only wanted him to take an STD test, and that “it was the police who made up the charges”. Ny’s unwillingnness to interview Assange would become the pattern for the next five years: Assange repeatedly offered to speak to Swedish authorities by phone, by videolink, or in person at the Australian embassy. The Swedes refused all opportunities to do so and demanded Assange return to Sweden, issuing a European arrest warrant for him. Eventually the EAW would be upheld by British courts under UK laws, which since then have been amended. Under current British law, a similar case to Assange’s would now be successfully appealed and the EAW rejected. Once he had sought refuge in the Ecaudorean embassy in 2012, Assange continued to offer Swedish authorities the opportunity to speak with him, and they continued to reject them. But while they regularly rejected Assange’s offer to be interviewed, other suspects were treated very differently: during the last five years, the Swedes have on 44 occasions asked to travel to the UK to interview, or asked British police to interview, other people in Britain in relation to allegations including violent crime, fraud and even murder. Assange, however, couldn’t be treated the same way — he had to go to Sweden. In fact, so absurd was Ny’s refusal to question Assange that in November last year, a Swedish court found she had breached her duty in failing to progress the case. With Assange’s Swedish arrest warrant in danger of being quashed due to her inaction and the expiry of three elements of the investigation looming due to Sweden’s statute of limitations, Ny then performed a sudden about-face — she said she would question Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy, as requested by Assange and Ecuador for years, and contacted UK authorities about the process for doing so. But Ny still had a card left to play: despite her saying in March that she would do so, she never contacted the Ecuadoreans about the interview — in fact, eventually she admitted that she hadn’t bothered contacting the Ecuadorean Foreign Ministry in Quito until “a late stage” — just five days before a scheduled interview with Assange in June. When the Ecuadoreans said they wanted diplomatic staff present during the interview given the country had given him refuge, the Swedes called the interview off and blamed the Ecuadoreans for failing to co-operate. Ny had managed to avoid yet another interview opportunity. The refusal of the Swedes to interview Assange seems to give credence to Assange’s fears the Swedes’ priority is to get him in custody not so the now one remaining allegation of sexual assault can be progressed, but so he can be extradited to the United States under the investigation into WikiLeaks’ role in the release of Chelsea Manning cables. We learnt in March that this US investigation is still on foot, despite Manning now being in the third year of her sentence. But if that seems like a conspiracy theory, it gets better: in October, it was revealed via freedom of information laws that UK prosecutors had urged Ny not to interview Assange in the UK, even before he sought refuge with the Ecuadoreans. “I suggest you interview him only on surrender to Sweden,” prosecutor Paul Close told Ny in 2011. He was concerned that the interview might suggest Assange was innocent. So despite the serious allegations the UK government said Assange faced, its prosecutors didn’t want him interviewed by the Swedes about them. Meantime, the Australian government had said nothing. Julie Bishop was happy to use Assange to criticise the Gillard government but since becoming Foreign Minister has barely mentioned him. If the plan was to use a sexual assault allegation — one prosecutors refused to investigate, one described by one of alleged victims as invented by police — to nullify WikiLeaks even if Assange avoided being extradited to the United States, it’s only partly worked. This year WikiLeaks has had its best year since 2010, releasing, inter alia, repeated iterations of chapters from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a vast accumulation of diplomatic cables from the monstrous Saudi Arabian regime, emails from CIA director John Brennan’s unauthorised personal email account, more revelations about National Security Agency surveillance targets, the text of the secret Trade In Services Agreement draft and details of the NSA’s massive spying on French presidents, which infuriated the government of Francois Hollande. Even so, Assange remains confined on the basis of very serious allegations, with the Swedish and UK governments apparently keen to ensure they are never properly investigated, while his own government would prefer that Australians forget about him entirely. http://www.crikey.com.au/2015/11/30/the-strange-case-of-julian-assange ---------------------- ꕤ ----------------------     Totalitarianism, Empire & Poodles Soviet WWII Propaganda Cartoons Soviet WWII [Napoleon Tomb is funniest.] COMMENT The Rape of Democracy, Liberty & Justice Governments of morally 'superior' and 'democratic' nations of the 'emancipated' and 'enlightened' West, commit abuse of state power, as if the powers wielded by publicly appointed, and therefore representative and accountable assembled governments, were derived from their very existence per se, independently of their role as representative and public servant. Such governments behave as if they were the embodiment and representation of god, as were rulers of an age gone by, and thus entitled to  practically function as:  absolute, opaque and unaccountable authorities, without obligation to function in accordance with law, or in accordance with principles of democracy. Governments of the deceived West transgress against democracy, law, justice and freedom, in an enlightened third millennium, while holding position as:  intended democracies, by appointment and in the service of the emancipated. Yet a journalist performing a rightful & vital function in democracy, upon publishing evidence of war rimes committed by multiple states, has been undemocratically and unjustly entombed by those he exposed, as criminal, corrupt. As evidenced by: the political persecution of Assange (which includes a 5-year US 120-man taskforce investigation and closed-door US grand jury investigation in relation to non-US nationals, WikiLeaks and Assange, whereby: (i) the US is seeking to redefine journalism as 'espionage'; and  (ii) seeking to extend their national boundaries & jurisdiction across the globe, in efforts to: 1) to decommission WikiLeaks;  2) and, more generally, to eliminate all checks on government conduct and power & to eliminate potential exposure of state wrongdoings And therefore to: ELIMINATE restrictions on state power, moving from democracy to (open) totalitarianism. the 5-year detention of Assange, without charge; the astounding amount of money the corrupt state has spent subverting justice and democracy the last 3 years alone, detaining journalist Julian Assange (24-hour uniformed and plain clothes police presence / now less high profile, plain clothes surveillance): @ GBP £13-MILLION + @ USD $19-MILLION + @ AUD $27-MILLION + @ EUR €18-MILLION + https://govwaste.co.uk/ as well as extraordinary refusal of the British authorities to abide by international law and to recognise political asylum granted to Assange by Ecuador, pursuant to  such law; the vengeful state authorities (whose corruption Assange exposed), presently wield power that is absolutely illegitimate in functioning democracy. That state feloniously commits unlawful and undemocratic political persecution of a journalist and has exacted 5 years detention without charge, in violation of the core principles of democracy, and, otherwise, in violation of international law. We, the divested, are rendered subjects of an authoritarian state and a (usurped) power unto itself. We are passive, silent and complaint sleepwalkers in the face of totalitarian injustice and abuse of power  -- a corrupted power that, in fact, derives from a public that is comprised of free men who must individually and collectively challenge injustice and perversion of democracy. The public remains misled by journalists, whose very role in a properly functioning democracy is that of guardian of liberty and democracy, and therefore voice against the abuse of state power. But the spineless, collective of emasculated lowlifes known as Western journalists, generally prefer to kneel and otherwise prostrate themselves in the service of the banker and corporate-serving, totalitarian (usurped) state, slobbering at the feet of corrupt authority. Not only do these contemptible cowards fail to challenge the corrupt state,  they perform the dirty work of that state by heaping smear and denigration on a politically persecuted and entombed journalist, who courageously defied corrupt authority and state might, to reveal the truth. A courageous Australian journalist and an outstanding Australian, who embodies the spirit of the Australian nation, is entombed in London. Nominally Australian politicians of the Antipodean colony that is Australia, shall, jointly and severally, be known by history for their role in the corruption and the rape of democracy, liberty, justice, and the betrayal of Australian journalist, Julian Assange. Julian Assange deserves fierce and unwavering national support, yet he has been abandoned by those appointed to represent all Australians. Politicians who remain silent and complicit in the face of abuse of power, corruption and violation of democracy that has robbed an Australian journalist of 5 years of his liberty and life, betray all Australians and make a mockery of sovereign Australian nationhood and a lie of freedom. Australians cannot continue to stand by and let this Australian journalist go unprotected and undefended, while the light that is his life is entombed and snuffed out by the lawless and corrupt state wielding undemocratic and, therefore, illegitimate power & a state that has so far spent: Over AUD$27-MILLION spent by Britain in 3 years blocking Assange's lawful political asylum ------------- 'STATE' refers to one or more of the following, individually and/or collectively:  Britain, Sweden, United States of America and Australia. AMERICA Managed Democracy. POLITICS DOMINATED BY ECONOMICS.  'Inverted totalitarianism'. Corporate Totalitarianism / Corporate State.  Extinguishes democracy.  Courts & legislative bodies, in the service of corporate power.  American 'Inverted totalitarianism' effectively seized all mechanisms of power to render citizen impotent.  Inverted totalitarianism exploits the poor.  Antithesis of constitutional power.  Show elections. Money has effectively replaced the vote.   FUNNEL OF POWER UPWARD.  Citizen of US Empire irrelevant spectator.  IMPOTENT CITIZEN. Misrepresentative or Clientry Government.  Corporate Power UNCHALLENGED Link | here ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Corporate State Capture Link | here ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Julian Assange Australian Journalist FAQ & Support https://justice4assange.com/ ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Collateral Murder WikiLeaks Iraq https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0 ꕤ

"How Sweden Collaborated With CIA on Renditions & Framing of Assange" | Saley, Osewe & Goss

How Sweden Collaborated With CIA on Renditions and Framing of Assange By Feature Article    NEWS JUNKIE POST Dec 19, 2012 at 5:54 pm By Rafik Saley, Okoth Osewe, and John Goss By his own admission, Sweden’s Ambassador to Australia Mr. Sven-Olof Petersson had advance knowledge of the CIA rendition flight that took place on December 18, 2001 from Stockholm to Egypt. This flight ended in Egyptian nationals Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery being illegally rendered and tortured. Mr. Petersson’s admission comes from a statement to the Swedish Parliament’s Constitutional Committee, confirming that he attended a briefing on December 17, 2001 at which the rendition process was finalized. Moreover, the Constitutional Committee’s report shows that he knew about the renditions at the end of November and probably even in mid-November. In fact, it was he who kept Minister of Foreign Affairs Anna Lindh updated on the progress of deportation arrangements with the CIA in November 2001.[i] Petersson was then Sweden’s Director General for Political Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.[ii] Illegal and unconstitutional decisions of this sort, made behind closed doors, show contempt for the Swedish legal system, which has been further denigrated by attempts to get Wikileaks founder Julian Assange flown to Sweden on flimsy allegations of a sexual nature, from where, concerned parties believe the CIA would pick him up and put him on trial in the United States. Ironically, it was through Wikileaks that the world learned about the diplomatic tiff between the US and Sweden that brought an end to Swedish rendition in 2006.[iii] As the Director General for Political Affairs, Mr. Petersson was in regular contact with the US Embassy in Stockholm and was aware of the US request that two Egyptian nationals be illegally rendered.[iv] The rendition went ahead without protest or representation on behalf of the victims, and no one in the Swedish government has been made accountable for this flagrant breach of the law. An admission of Sweden’s culpability can be found in the SEK 3 million (about $458,000) compensation paid to each of the two men after their eventual release.[v] This “hush money” appears to have paid for the non-disclosure of the identities of the Swedish representatives who sought assurances from Cairo prior to the men’s rendition.[vi] Not only Petersson, but also Minister of Justice Thomas Bodström and then Foreign Minister Anna Lindh knew about the renditions.[vii] Thomas Bodström spent a year in the US between 2010 – 2011, purportedly for rehabilitation in connection with alcohol and substance abuse, while he was a partner in the legal firm Borgström & Bodström. It would be lax not to point out to readers that Claes Borgström is the lawyer who was called upon to prosecute Julian Assange over allegations that had previously been dismissed. Further, Borgström is known to be friendly with Irmeli Krans, the police interrogator who took SW’s original statement against Assange. Irmeli Krans, in turn, is friendly with the other complainant, AA, who, it is said, illegally sat in on Irmeli Krans’ interview of SW. [viii] The rendered Egyptians, both of whom were asylum seekers, were returned to Egypt despite Sweden’s Aliens Act (1989) that forbids repatriation to a country where nationals are likely to be tortured. It was well known even then that Egypt uses torture against political prisoners.[ix] The torture of both men on the flight to Egypt, included them being hooded, handcuffed and strapped down. The brutality of the torture in Egypt was captured in a comment by Mr. Agiza who noted that the interrogators routinely beat him, strapped him to a wet mattress and subjected him to electric shock through electrodes attached to his ear lobes, nipples, and genitals.[x] Mr. Petersson´s statements to the Australian media on the impartiality of the Swedish legal system ring hollow when judged against his prior personal involvement in renditions. Even more disturbing is the fact that they have been echoed by Australian Foreign minister Bob Carr. The adoption of the statements shows a lack of judgment on Carr’s part and brings the Australian government’s foreign policy under scrutiny. Carr has urged Assange to travel to Sweden and claimed that it was unlikely that he would be extradited.[xi] Recent statements by EU Home Affairs Minister Cecilia Malmström, urging Mr. Assange to “just go to Sweden” have the same hollow ring.[xii] Malmström has worked closely with US interests in Sweden and elsewhere in adopting harsh measures to stifle free speech in Europe. She purports to know nothing about the Assange case. On the other hand, her partiality and close affinity to the United States are demonstrated by her recent joint briefing with US attorney general Eric Holder.[xiii] She has also co-authored an article with him.[xiv] The question on every reasonable person’s lips is: why can’t the Swedish government “just give Mr. Assange the diplomatic guarantees that he has asked for?” In light of Sweden´s complicity in illegal rendition right up to 2006, a diplomatic guarantee to Assange that he won’t be extradited to the US is of integral importance. After all, the Swedish government has the final say in the matter and, if its past history in illegal renditions is anything to go by, Assange’s fears about extradition or rendition to the United States are justifiable. The Swedish Ambassador accuses Sydney Morning Herald columnist Elizabeth Farrelly of having no knowledge of Sweden.[xv] It is imperative that the columnist learns about Sweden and its foreign policy of the past 20 years, so she might pass on the sinister dealings to her readership. Until recent years, Sweden had a peace policy of which to be proud. For 150 years, the country abstained from war and, in 1966, to celebrate this highly-enviable record, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) was established. After Sweden started cooperating with NATO, the situation began to change.[xvi] Not long afterwards, the Swedish military became involved in world conflicts, and more recently it has looked poised for greater involvement.[xvii] This is not the old Sweden but a new country that demonstrates an unparalleled hypocrisy in its international relations. This trend continues in the refusal by authorities to grant Assange the reasonable assurances that he seeks. Prominent international supporters of Mr. Assange, like Baltasar Garzon, John Pilger, Michael Moore, and Jemima Khan are ridiculed in Sweden today. In addition to the recent changes in foreign and domestic policy, the third largest political party in the country, called Sweden Democrats (SD), has made massive gains during the last elections, despite openly calling for the repatriation of immigrants from Sweden. The SD party enjoyed a 10%  parliamentary share of the vote, which translated into 20 Parliamentary seats. The Swedish government seems to be following the direction of the SD party, especially in its foreign policy positions, which are increasingly pro-American and anti-democratic. Because of Sweden’s pro-American stance on key political issues, a legal system has developed with multiple loopholes that could easily be exploited to Assange’s disadvantage. This legal framework is constitutionally racist against foreigners, especially when they contest ethnic Swedish nationals of the cherished blond-haired, blue-eyed Nordic model. Most worrying of all, Sweden’s history of hypocrisy, lopsidedness and double-speak in dealings with the international community highlights the risk that Julian Assange would be in physical danger if extradited to Sweden from the UK. Under such circumstances, it is reasonable for him to seek unequivocal diplomatic assurances that he would not be extradited to the US if he agrees to go to Sweden for questioning. Despite the pressures from the United States and other pro-western governments, the Republic of Ecuador has granted political asylum to Mr. Assange. On the other hand, the United Kingdom has hindered the free movement of Mr. Assange even though the same government blocked the extradition to Spain of the late Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet. Mr. Pinochet was wanted for the murder of 94 Spanish citizens and many other charges of torture and rape against his own people. Although Julian Assange is an Australian citizen, the Australian government has refused to protect him and has instead accommodated Swedish Ambassador Sven-Olof Petersson, who supports rendition and torture. This is unacceptable in a free, democratic and transparent society. Editor’s Notes: Rafik Saley is general secretary of the African Committee for Development in Stockholm, Sweden; Okoth Osewe writes for Kenya Stockholm Blog; John Goss is a writer and researcher, United Kingdom. SOURCE (WITH CITATIONS & LINKS) http://newsjunkiepost.com/2012/12/19/how-sweden-collaborated-with-cia-on-renditions-and-framing-of-assange/#sthash.VTKJNK95.dpuf  ---------------------- ꕤ  ----------------------  COMMENT  This article totally blows me away.  ꕤ

Sweden Prosecutor's Delay Blamed for Destroying Three Lives

GOOGLE TRANSLATION * CAUTION * * INEXACT * STERN http://www.stern.de/panorama/wikileaks-gruender-julian-assange-kaempft-gegen-schweden-2180034.html Julian Assange to Sweden destroyed three lives, a culprit GOOGLE TRANSLATION * CAUTION * * INEXACT* March 14, 2015, 11:35 clock Wikileaks founder Julian Assange had to wait for years for no reason on an interrogation. A scandal that destroyed three existences, but only one culprit knows: the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny. A commentary by Sylvia Margaret Steinitz The Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange © Adam Ihse / AFP / Facundo Arrizabalaga / EPA The whole thing would have been so not necessary. The international arrest warrant. Applications to court. The asylum at the Embassy of Ecuador, the existential twilight seventy square meters. One thousand days without sunlight and fresh air. Sentry outside the windows, which devoured already rumored 15 million pounds of British taxpayers' money. The whole theater - in vain. Years ago, it now turns out, the Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny would have to arrange that Julian Assange interviewed in the UK to allegations of sexual offenses from 2010 and whether charges are brought. She always had declared a survey in the message is not possible, Assange had come to Sweden. The unspoken "or": In case of refusal, he would just go stale in the message. The warrant remained upright and in any case so that the whole farce about the Wikileaks founder, who fears being extradited to the US, he should enter the Swedish soil. Fairness And now that Assange's legal team called the Supreme Court, an Attorney General has taken responsibility and also the limitation period for some of Assange threatens to spread alleged actions, as it suddenly goes but Marianne Ny has submitted a request to question Assange in London to take a sample of DNA. What she needs is unclear, the Swedish authorities have already from the year 2010. But, after all. It is an examination that is desired by all parties, especially by Julian Assange. The course is not Uschuldslamm. Do the statements of the two affected women in the matter only half the truth, this man has a huge problem with people in general, and respect for women in particular.  [Uschuldslamm, means 'innocent lamb' (I think).  The bit about the 'huge problem with people" and 'respect for women in particular', is arguable, of course.] Assange is smart, arrogant, irrational, utterly fearless. On a ten-point scale from hero to asshole he is a clear five. But heroes and assholes have to prove the same right to due process, the possibility of her innocence, if convicted on appropriate punishment and the chance of rehabilitation. Assange may already sitting longer than a prison sentence would make if convicted.  [LOL, I don't know how the author came up with an Assange is 5 on an 'assh*le' scale assessment, if that's a proper translation.] But while the situation in which Julian Assange is located, has been sufficiently discussed, one thing remains largely unnoticed by the public: what does this long waiting time for the two women. Help protect the mighty lawyer Since XXX & XXX released in August 2010 on a Stockholm police station to seek advice on how to Julian Assange could be forced to have an HIV test is over her life basically. XXX stated that Assange had had intercourse with her while she was half asleep, and that without prevention protection, even though she had repeatedly emphasized to want to have sex only with condom. XXX had come along to support XXX and explain his sexual encounter with Assange, who she'd felt as violent. The police saw among other things, satisfies the conditions of the rape and put an ad on. Rape in Sweden is a public offense that needs no own display by the victim. 24 hours later dropped the competent prosecutor this fall again. XXX  brought forward Protect your help with a ideologically related Advocate Claes Borgström, well-connected politically powerful, ambitious. By a legal trick he left the lodge a complaint again and took a very different prosecutor from the nearly 500 kilometers from Gothenburg on board: his old friend Marianne Ny, which should delay the process until 2015. Video Swedish authorities want to question Assange in London The end of a career For more than four years, XXX and XXX maligned as intelligence officials, who Assange had set a trap, abandoned their personal experiences with Assange ridicule - not least by Geoffrey Robertson, Assange's acclaimed lawyer and head of Amal Clooney stated that the portrayal of XXX describe "what is commonly known as a missionary position". XXX and XXX full names were mentioned in violation of the protection of their identity in articles published their photos in the network appeared ace address and a picture of her house on input. She eventually fled to Palestine to participate, on a project. XXX popped up quite as. It has created a new lawyer who is primarily concerned with photos and other items that affect XXX personal lives to sue from the network. For the aspiring artist video of farewell from the Internet also meant the end of a career that had just begun. The political career of XXX, who worked for a subset of the Swedish Social Democrats will never take the path that might have been possible without this floating method. Assange spurred the witch hunt Assange did nothing against the witch-hunt against XXX and XXX, on the contrary, in a subtle way he spurred the agitation also still on. He has switched Only since 2014, and stressed that the two women had not introduced the display. Much too late. Marianne Ny that could be provoked by Assange attacks in their direction into a power struggle, it is understandable though unprofessional. But with their blockade, they also took the women affected the ability to finally finish the thing. How much suffering victims of sexual violence through lengthy proceedings, is sufficiently well known. Marianne Ny is considered to be declared feminist and expert on Sexual Violence and yet consciously accepts the gain of a possible post-traumatic stress disorder in buying, apparently to punish an unpleasant counterparty. To leave two women in an unnecessary and intolerable, endanger its existence condition is inexcusable. But senior public prosecutor Ny is accountable to no one, seated at her job, Swedish workers law goodness. And so she plays for four years God. If a person is responsible for the mess in which not only Julian Assange, but XXX and XXX stuck, it's Marianne Ny. COMMENT The article is a poor Google translation of German, so all you can get from it is a few snippets and an overall feel for the article.  Some of it, I'm not entirely clear on.  And some translates hilariously:  as in the 5 points on the assh*le-scale.  Sorry, people, but I find that really funny.  Not so funny is the bit where Assange is deemed to have issues with 'people' and with 'respect for women in particular'.  Not quite sure how the author has come to that conclusion, unless she knows him personally.  And even if he was known personally, such a statement would be a statement of subjective opinion, rather than a statement of objective fact. Moving on:  I thought the criticism of Ny was interesting.  Ny in a job 'accountable to no one', plays God for four years.  Ny a declared feminist and expert on sexual violence who has, nonetheless, let this matter stagnate, risking possible post-traumatic stress disorder  ("PTSD"). However, that risk of PTSD is, of course, on presumption that the state of Sweden's allegations of wrongdoing reflect an actual trespass upon the two women (which the women themselves have previously and separately denied). Alternatively, even if the women in question were caught up in political intrigue, Sweden dragging this highly political and public matter out over the space of nearly 5 years is enough to give anyone PTSD, including Assange, I should think. The writer indicates that one of the women has fled to Palestine on a project and the other woman  cut short an otherwise promising career (if I understand this translation correctly). That woman's career appears to have been on the periphery of the Swedish Social Democratic party. Swedish Social Democratic party seems to connect a number of people associated with this intriguing Swedish predicament:  including the lawyer who resurrected the dismissed matter — 500km away in Gothenburg:  Claes Borgström. The author of the Stern article refers to, lawyer, Claes Borgström, as "well-connected politically powerful, ambitious." It appears from the article that prosecutor, Marianne Ny, is the prosecutor Claes Borgström found (500km away) to resurrect the dismissed matter — and this obliging prosecutor is referred to, in this Google translation, as Claes Borgström's 'old friend'.  Found this pretty exciting news (assuming the translation is correct).  Wow, how mind-blowing is all of this?  It's probably one of the first mainstream articles I've seen that sort of connects the dots (or it gets rather close).  On the other hand, this could be old news to everyone else and nothing to get excited about.  But I still think it's rather cool to see Sweden come under criticism in mainstream media. The author made a good point about Sweden dragging this out and the potential effects of doing so, particularly when the person taking the hit for the delay is a 'radical feminist' (who presumably ought to have more concern as to the impact of delay on the two women involved). This is a most interesting and pertinent criticism of the prosecutor's delay. And perhaps the criticism is even more interesting in light of the probability that the delay did not really come down to a single person in Sweden holding up progressing the matter by refusing to question Assange.  The disregard for the women's welfare — by a feminist state and feminist prosecutor — is perhaps more disturbing when the delay is considered alongside the strategy of a governmental, legal and political apparatus that's held Assange in place on behalf of the US Department of Justice, for more than 4 years.  Regardless of who in Sweden is responsible for not progressing this matter in a timely manner, the point about the delay by Sweden still stands and deserves examination, in the aftermath of Sweden's improbable about-face. As for the Claes Borgström and Marianne Ny 'old friend' factor referred to in Stern, how awkward.  LOL * Checked the distance between Gothenburg & Stockholm.  Varied figures.  470km was one of those figures, which is near enough to the author's 500km.