Julian Assange: rapist or not?

[JihadJane]

And again, what source do you have, in this case that he actually was involved - not just that somebody claims that he was involved?

To which partner are you referring?

And again, what is the source for that. I cannot see anything on page 24 that supports this, and the document from NNN is not sourced.

There is a link to Wikipedia:

"In 2010 Borgström successfully appealed the decision to close the sexual assault case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and became the legal representative of the two Swedish women who have accused Assange of sexual misconduct."

which references this article which says

"Borgstrom said that he was dissatisfied with the prosecutor’s decision to terminate the rape investigation, and that he was likely to appeal this decision to a higher-ranking prosecutor as early as Thursday. Rosander confirmed that there is a legal procedure available for such an appeal. Borgstrom said that in his personal opinion, there was “more than enough” evidence in the case for authorities to continue to investigate Assange. "

The complaint that I used to many details in this discussion? No, I found that overall complaint quite hilarious, and WildCat answered on the specifics.

No, your specific quibble that I quoted in the post I linked to.

Yes. And when they asked for him to come, he didn't, so that promise turned out to be worth nothing.

He didn't come because a new secret arrest warrant was issued, by the prosecutor who had just told him that he was free to leave Sweden, while he was on his way to England

Excuse me - are you saying that Marianne Ny is an active member of the Social Democratic party?

No, I said she was part of the same political milieu, IIRC.

Again, what source do you have for that? Do note that Claes Borgström states that before this case, he has only met Ms Ny twice.

She used the EAW, that was approved by two Swedish courts, and deemed valid by three English courts.

You know - you could search yourself for if it's used, right now there are 160 persons wanted for sexual offences. http://www.interpol.int/Wanted-Persons. It is certainly not reserved for terrorists, which is very easy to see if you search.

The abuse of EAW powers has received widespread criticism.

 

[Here_to_learn]

To which partner are you referring?

You claimed that Borgströms partner was involved - please show your sources that he actually was involved.

There is a link to Wikipedia:

"In 2010 Borgström successfully appealed the decision to close the sexual assault case against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and became the legal representative of the two Swedish women who have accused Assange of sexual misconduct."

which references this article which says

"Borgstrom said that he was dissatisfied with the prosecutor’s decision to terminate the rape investigation, and that he was likely to appeal this decision to a higher-ranking prosecutor as early as Thursday. Rosander confirmed that there is a legal procedure available for such an appeal. Borgstrom said that in his personal opinion, there was “more than enough” evidence in the case for authorities to continue to investigate Assange. "

Which still doesn't say that he did not do this on behalf of his clients. My two sources - one of them being the agreed facts, the other one being Borgström himself, claims that he is acting on behalf of the Women.

If you want to claim that he is acting against his clients wishes, and doing things that is no in their best interest, you have grounds to show that he is breaking the rules of conduct for the Swedish Bar Association. I'm looking forward to that evidence, as is (I'm sure) the Bar Association.

No, your specific quibble that I quoted in the post I linked to.

And what I did was add more facts to it - that is apparently not something you like.

He didn't come because a new secret arrest warrant was issued, by the prosecutor who had just told him that he was free to leave Sweden, while he was on his way to England

Oh, it sounds so bad when you phrase it like that. Of course, if you phrase the way it actually happened, it's slightly different:

On the 15th JA was told that he was free to leave, but that the investigation was ongoing.

The prosecutor had tried to schedule a meeting with him for almost a week (from the 21st to the 27th) before he left.

On the 27th, JAs legal counsel told the prosecutor that he had been unable to reach JA to schedule the interview. The prosecutor then ordered him arrested, and on the 30th, JAs legal counsel was told about it. I guess you could call it secret then during those three days, after that it certainly was not secret.

After JA was informed of the arrest warrant, he still offered to return to Sweden, but when it came to the details of the scheduling, again the legal counsel couldn't reach JA. Finally, nov 18th the prosecution moved to the next step, which resulted in the EAW.

No, I said she was part of the same political milieu, IIRC.

So it's not the social democratic party then - so tell me, what milieu is it then, and why does it matter?

The abuse of EAW powers has received widespread criticism.

Or to say it in another way - some people claim that Sweden has abused the EAW. Turned out that they were wrong, as has been settled in English courts. Also, you claimed that it was reserved for terrorists, I gave you (and everybody else) the link where it's possible to verify that you are wrong.

 

[eirik]

The only "evidence" you have offered that contradicts this statement is Anna Ardin falsely claiming, in a story she sold to a tabloid newspaper, that the Sofia Wilén had made this accusation.

Please show where Sofia Wilén says that Assange raped her.

Ask the Swedish prosecution and police. Oh, that's right, they are in on it.

Or you could ask her lawyer, Clas Borgström. Oh, according to you he is not her lawyer, he's just som random guy appealing decisions he don't like, and get's away with it.

Because that's legal and just how things work in Sweden. I will not spend more time on your nonsense.

 

[uke2se]

I will not spend more time on your nonsense.

It would seem that nonsense is all the rape-apologists have left. Hard to believe I used to see quite a few of them as rational.

 

[JihadJane]

You claimed that Borgströms partner was involved -

No, I didn't.

please show your sources that he actually was involved.

n/a

Which still doesn't say that he did not do this on behalf of his clients. My two sources - one of them being the agreed facts, the other one being Borgström himself, claims that he is acting on behalf of the Women.

I never claimed that he wasn't acting "on behalf of" (a legal term) the women, only that it wasn't the women themselves who pressed for the case to be reactivated.

If you want to claim that he is acting against his clients wishes, and doing things that is no in their best interest, you have grounds to show that he is breaking the rules of conduct for the Swedish Bar Association. I'm looking forward to that evidence, as is (I'm sure) the Bar Association.

Good luck with your forward looking.

And what I did was add more facts to it -

No, I don't think it's fair to represent it as such. Less than a day easily falls under the umbrella of "initially".

that is apparently not something you like.

Infantile ad hom. (i.e. not a fact!).

Oh, it sounds so bad when you phrase it like that. Of course, if you phrase the way it actually happened, it's slightly different:

On the 15th JA was told that he was free to leave, but that the investigation was ongoing.

The prosecutor had tried to schedule a meeting with him for almost a week (from the 21st to the 27th) before he left.

On the 27th, JAs legal counsel told the prosecutor that he had been unable to reach JA to schedule the interview. The prosecutor then ordered him arrested, and on the 30th, JAs legal counsel was told about it. I guess you could call it secret then during those three days, after that it certainly was not secret.

After JA was informed of the arrest warrant, he still offered to return to Sweden, but when it came to the details of the scheduling, again the legal counsel couldn't reach JA. Finally, nov 18th the prosecution moved to the next step, which resulted in the EAW.

Oh, it sounds so good when you phrase it like that.

So it's not the social democratic party then - so tell me, what milieu is it then, ...

Sweden's peculiar version of radical feminism which, as a supporter of radical feminism myself, seems to be major distortion of radical feminism as I understand it, and one that it is open to abuse by politicians and the police with career ambitions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/10/AR2011031002719.html


"The trial of a former Swedish police chief accused of 23 counts of sex crimes, including rape, pimping and attempting to sexually abuse children opened on Tuesday near Stockholm amid intense media scrutiny.

Goeran Lindberg, 64, retired in 2006 but had served as the police chief of Sweden's fourth largest city Uppsala and as the head of the country's police school.

Before his arrest in January, Lindberg was known as a defender of gender equality and gruesome details of his alleged double life have made Swedish headlines."
[My bold -JJ]

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...p-cop-tried-for-sex-crimes-20100629-zj32.html

'Göran Lindberg and Sweden's dark side
The Sweden of Henning Mankell and Stieg Larsson - all shadowy rightwing conspiracies and prostitution rings – might not be so far from the truth'

"Many Swedes I spoke to suggested that Lindberg embodied a widespread cultural disconnection between official rhetoric and individual behaviour. As one well-placed observer of the Stockholm scene put it to me: "Some of the most outspoken male politicians on gender equality are also renowned as the most active pursuers of women."

But Gunnar Pettersson, a Swedish writer and commentator who lives in London, had a different take on the problem Lindberg represents. "Sweden has two elites," he told me. "The political elite is internationalist and neutralist in outlook, whereas the other elite, the military-industrial, is essentially nationalist and west-supporting. The two have left each other alone very largely, especially throughout the 20th century when the Swedish model was built up. The thing about Lindberg is that he adopted the rhetoric of the political elite but he belonged by nature and biology to the military-industrial elite, where these things are just *********. You just say it to get on in your career.""

...and why does it matter?

It matters for obvious reasons which I'll leave you to work out for yourself!

I suggest you spend as much time looking at the wood as the trees.

Or to say it in another way - some people claim that Sweden has abused the EAW. Turned out that they were wrong, as has been settled in English courts. Also, you claimed that it was reserved for terrorists, I gave you (and everybody else) the link where it's possible to verify that you are wrong.

The list does not contain any people wanted on suspicion of not having used a condom during consensual sex.

English courts are sometimes wrong and/or politicized.

 

[JihadJane]

Ask the Swedish prosecution and police. Oh, that's right, they are in on it.

I'm asking you.

Or you could ask her lawyer, Clas Borgström.

I'm asking you.

Oh, according to you he is not her lawyer, he's just som random guy appealing decisions he don't like, and get's away with i

Invented rubbish.

Because that's legal and just how things work in Sweden. I will not spend more time on your nonsense.

I asked for concrete, verifiable evidence, not a random rant consisting of nothing but straw-man invention and appeals to authority and incredulity.

 

[uke2se]

I never claimed that he wasn't acting "on behalf of" (a legal term) the women, only that it wasn't the women themselves who pressed for the case to be reactivated.

So he was acting on behalf of the women while doing something they didn't want?

Infantile ad hom. (i.e. not a fact!).

Actually, a factual representation of reality (i.e. a truth!)

Sweden's peculiar version of radical feminism which, as a supporter of radical feminism myself, seems to be major distortion of radical feminism as I understand it, and one that it is open to abuse by politicians and the police with career ambitions.

Yes, those nasty Swedish men and their femi-nazidom, forcing two women to accuse Assange of rape, then letting him leave the country, all in order to get him extradited to the US... or something.

It's also interesting that Swedish radical feminists aren't actually speaking up on this case. That is, unless you invent facts like you do constantly.

"The trial of a former Swedish police chief accused of 23 counts of sex crimes, including rape, pimping and attempting to sexually abuse children opened on Tuesday near Stockholm amid intense media scrutiny.

Goeran Lindberg, 64, retired in 2006 but had served as the police chief of Sweden's fourth largest city Uppsala and as the head of the country's police school.

Before his arrest in January, Lindberg was known as a defender of gender equality and gruesome details of his alleged double life have made Swedish headlines."
[My bold -JJ]

Completely irrelevant.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...p-cop-tried-for-sex-crimes-20100629-zj32.html

'Göran Lindberg and Sweden's dark side
The Sweden of Henning Mankell and Stieg Larsson - all shadowy rightwing conspiracies and prostitution rings – might not be so far from the truth'

"Many Swedes I spoke to suggested that Lindberg embodied a widespread cultural disconnection between official rhetoric and individual behaviour. As one well-placed observer of the Stockholm scene put it to me: "Some of the most outspoken male politicians on gender equality are also renowned as the most active pursuers of women."

But Gunnar Pettersson, a Swedish writer and commentator who lives in London, had a different take on the problem Lindberg represents. "Sweden has two elites," he told me. "The political elite is internationalist and neutralist in outlook, whereas the other elite, the military-industrial, is essentially nationalist and west-supporting. The two have left each other alone very largely, especially throughout the 20th century when the Swedish model was built up. The thing about Lindberg is that he adopted the rhetoric of the political elite but he belonged by nature and biology to the military-industrial elite, where these things are just *********. You just say it to get on in your career.""

Completely irrelevant and in fact not supportive of your own argument.

It matters for obvious reasons which I'll leave you to work out for yourself!

No, it doesn't.

I suggest you spend as much time looking at the wood as the trees.

It's not a question of not seeing the woods for the trees. It's a question of seeing the shadows in the woods as light being blocked or as gnomes and goblins and other fairy-tales.

The list does not contain any people wanted on suspicion of not having used a condom during consensual sex.

This case is not about not using a condom during consensual sex. Stop lying.

English courts are sometimes wrong and/or politicized.

Yes. Sometimes everyone makes a mistake. Except you, it seems.

 

[uke2se]

I asked for concrete, verifiable evidence, not a random rant consisting of nothing but straw-man invention and appeals to authority and incredulity.

And he's telling you who to ask. It seems you'd rather just invent grand conspiracies as ususal.

Jane, lying this much doesn't help your case. Nor does apologizing for rape.

 

[Here_to_learn]

No, I didn't.

Really...

No, one who is also a politician with major political ambitions, even of becoming Prime Minister of Sweden, largely on the back of his “feminism”, and one whose law partner was involved in facilitating the US illegal "extraordinary rendition" (abduction/torture) program.

My bolding.

Now, could you please give source for that this is true.

I never claimed that he wasn't acting "on behalf of" (a legal term) the women, only that it wasn't the women themselves who pressed for the case to be reactivated.

Really, a legal term! Well, this is about the law. But since you have nothing to add, let's leave it.

No, I don't think it's fair to represent it as such. Less than a day easily falls under the umbrella of "initially".

Then you should have no problem with me adding additional details. You have not shown that any of the details I added was wrong.

Oh, it sounds so good when you phrase it like that.

Yes. And my description was fully fact based, and that description is from the Agreed Facts document that is not disputed.

Anyone can compare the two descriptions, and see which one seems most complete. One of them skips over everything that makes JA looks bad, the other one contains things that makes both sides look bad. Which one did you chose as your argument?

Sweden's peculiar version of radical feminism which, as a supporter of radical feminism myself, seems to be major distortion of radical feminism as I understand it, and one that it is open to abuse by politicians and the police with career ambitions.

Ah, so since you do not politically agree with some of the people involved, they are therefore abusing the system.

The list does not contain any people wanted on suspicion of not having used a condom during consensual sex.

No, probably not, since that would probably not be illegal. But since that is not what JA is suspected of, that's not relevant.

However, you specifically stated that the Red Notice is reserved for terrorists, and I have shown that you are incorrect. But nice try to move the goal posts.

English courts are sometimes wrong and/or politicized.

And "sometimes" is not the same as "always", nor is it the same as "in this specific case". And since you are not doing anything in the form of legal analysis to show that they actually in this case are wrong, your argument is worthless.

 

[BenBurch]

And he's telling you who to ask. It seems you'd rather just invent grand conspiracies as ususal.

Jane, lying this much doesn't help your case. Nor does apologizing for rape.

I wonder how these people will react after Assange is hauled to Sweden in irons and is tried and sentenced for rape, serves his ~5 years, and then is free to leave?

Because unless he gets killed in an escape attempt (positional asphyxia is common when packed into luggage) or dies in that embassy , that is what is going to happen.

I think we will hear only crickets - not one of these people will have the decency to apologize for their truculent behavior.

 

[uke2se]

I wonder how these people will react after Assange is hauled to Sweden in irons and is tried and sentenced for rape, serves his ~5 years, and then is free to leave?

Because unless he gets killed in an escape attempt (positional asphyxia is common when packed into luggage) or dies in that embassy , that is what is going to happen.

I think we will hear only crickets - not one of these people will have the decency to apologize for their truculent behavior.

To be honest, I don't think Assange will get any jail-time in Sweden. Most likely, if convicted, he'll get a suspended sentence and a fine.

Don't know what the penalty is for skipping bail in the UK though.

 

[BenBurch]

To be honest, I don't think Assange will get any jail-time in Sweden. Most likely, if convicted, he'll get a suspended sentence and a fine.

Don't know what the penalty is for skipping bail in the UK though.

Fair enough. I don't know how penalties are done up there, and was basing this on some discussion on the BBC a while back. I think the question was "how bad could it be for him?"

As long as they try him.

I do not think the UK will want him back even to try him for this mess he's created. I would like to see them sue him for the cost of the police guard around the Embassy, however, blood from a stone - he is broke.

 

[uke2se]

Fair enough. I don't know how penalties are done up there, and was basing this on some discussion on the BBC a while back. I think the question was "how bad could it be for him?"

As long as they try him.

I do not think the UK will want him back even to try him for this mess he's created. I would like to see them sue him for the cost of the police guard around the Embassy, however, blood from a stone - he is broke.

He can apparently afford to hire publicists, though. Or perhaps they work pro-bono.

 

[a_unique_person]

I wonder how these people will react after Assange is hauled to Sweden in irons and is tried and sentenced for rape, serves his ~5 years, and then is free to leave?

I don't know, who are "they"? Is it anyone who disagree's with your view of this issue?

Because unless he gets killed in an escape attempt (positional asphyxia is common when packed into luggage) or dies in that embassy , that is what is going to happen.

I think we will hear only crickets - not one of these people will have the decency to apologize for their truculent behavior.

Assange could well be guilty. I was going to say it would be good to finally see the evidence in full, but IIRC, evidence in rape cases is not made public to protect the victims. At the moment, we are going on bits and pieces. I do believe, however, that it is very rare for a false accusation of rape to be made, since the trauma for the victim is often considerable, so such accusations are not made lightly. I do feel that not agreeing with people on this topic does invite considerable abuse, and do not expect anyone to have the decency to apologize.

 

[JihadJane]

Really...

No, one who is also a politician with major political ambitions, even of becoming Prime Minister of Sweden, largely on the back of his “feminism”, and one whose law partner was involved in facilitating the US illegal "extraordinary rendition" (abduction/torture) program.

My bolding.

Now, could you please give source for that this is true.

Where, in that sentence, do I say that Bodström is involved in the Assange case?

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Ethan Thane Allen, I agree, don't read the entire thread. Life's too short.

However, I am hopeful that you can contribute something to the thread. Specifically, I hope you can answer a couple questions I have for you.

You wrote, "...the general consensus of my friends and colleagues is that these are screamingly obvious trumped up charges that are making both the UK and Sweden look like idiots / American lapdogs."

Is there a particular piece of evidence that made it obvious to your friends and colleagues that the charges were trumped up?

Also, when your friends and colleagues talk about "American lapdogs", are they referring to any specific evidence of American involvement?

Sorry, just noticed this and will now try to respond...

No one particular piece. Combination of US obviously wants to get hold of him. Rape charges seem odd (cue ridiculous accusations from some quarters that I'm now a rape apologist) in that they appeared to arise some time after consensual sex and apparent happiness thereafter* and seemed to carry little chance of actual prosecution ie won't it just be he said / she said (assuming there's not evidence I'm missing)? That was clearly the view of the initial prosecutor (though I was missing the fact that only one of the charges was dropped). I / we had also picked up on the second prosecutor possibly having political motivation (though I accept now that may well have been pro-Assange propaganda). And isn't the time to argue about condom use, at the time not later? ie if it was at the time and she wasn't happy, don't have sex (haven't heard suggestions about it being forced? As for the 'whilst I was asleep' - can't see anyone being able to prove that either way...he said / she said again.

Still confused why, on what is an innocent until proven guilty accusation, people seem so convinced he's a sleazeball** / rapist and I'm really uncertain about how the hell they're ever going to prove it if he is guilty. This should in no way be taken as excusing his actions if he is guilty.

I guess the simplistic notion we all had was 'Blimey, these women seemed happy to have sex with him, knew he was an 'international jet-setter' and therefore unlikely to be monogamous but decided days later that they were unhappy about it and now a government wants to extradite him to face rape charges. How scary is that?'.

This thread has added some further understanding but, to be honest, the level of vitriol (especially to anyone who doesn't automatically subscribe to the 'he's clearly a scumbag, rapist' camp) has put me off contributing further. Once again, I am not an Assange supporter - think he's a bit of a dick to be honest...though that doesn't make him a rapist - and if there's evidence to prosecute a case then he should face it but I'm surprised there's evidence and I wouldn't be at all surprised if he got off should he ever go to court.

*I freely admit I am no expert in how someone would behave after a rape and it's interesting that some say this is not atypical behaviour but just being honest that, with my casual interest in the case, admitted consensual sex followed by making the guy breakfast, tweets about hanging out with cool people etc did not match my (admitted inexpert) expectations...and I suspect would not match a juries either.

**Only reason I can see is refusing to take the STD test which is certainly not great behaviour but I wonder how I would react if someone who'd happily slept with me suddenly started demanding I take a test (not sure if he was aware of the molestation / rape charge at that point but that wouldn't help my mood about the whole thing!).

 

[uke2se]

I don't know, who are "they"? Is it anyone who disagree's with your view of this issue?



Assange could well be guilty. I was going to say it would be good to finally see the evidence in full, but IIRC, evidence in rape cases is not made public to protect the victims. At the moment, we are going on bits and pieces. I do believe, however, that it is very rare for a false accusation of rape to be made, since the trauma for the victim is often considerable, so such accusations are not made lightly. I do feel that not agreeing with people on this topic does invite considerable abuse, and do not expect anyone to have the decency to apologize.

I will apologize for calling people rape-apologists right after they apologize for villifying the victims of rape, trying to diminish what happened and applauding the flight from justice of the accused.

 

[uke2se]

Where, in that sentence, do I say that Bodström is involved in the Assange case?

Nowhere. Relevance?

 

[Sabrina]

You seem to have comprehension problems. The point was, is he paranoid justifiably or not, not is he a rapist or not.



http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm

At no point during that entire interview did she ever say that the US intended to bring charges against him. She merely stated that there was a case being worked on in the Justice Department (against Wikileaks, not Assange himself, I might add) and that she had no further information on it.

I would assume the reporter in question followed up with the Justice Department as directed (assuming he was a thorough reporter and not a sensationalist reporter) and attempted to determine if there were any charges potentially being brought against Assange. The fact that there has been no reporting on this one way or another says to me that there are very likely no charges being brought against him, and any case against Wikileaks that is in the works is against the organization as a whole, not Assange personally. IANAL of course, but it's been twelve days since that press briefing you cited. Subsequent briefings have provided the following statements:

QUESTION: WikiLeaks.

MS. NULAND: Yeah.

QUESTION: Of course there is – you spoke about this a little bit last week. Over the weekend, Julian Assange has made a somewhat public appearance. WikiLeaks has been calling for the U.S. to make assurances that he wouldn’t be extradited or prosecuted here. I know you spoke a little bit to that last week, but is there something clearer? Is there something more that the U.S. can say about the possibility of prosecution of Julian Assange here?

MS. NULAND: Well, let me start with the fact that he is making all kinds of wild assertions about us, when, in fact, his issue with the Government of the United Kingdom has to do with whether he’s going to go stand – face justice in Sweden for something that has nothing to do with WikiLeaks. It has to do with charges of sexual misconduct. So he is clearly trying to deflect attention away from the real issue, which is whether he’s going to face justice in Sweden, which is the immediate issue. So that case has nothing to do with us. It’s a matter between the U.K., Sweden, and now Ecuador has inserted itself.

With regard to where we are in our own judicial issues following the WikiLeaks incident, I’m going to send you to the Department of Justice. I don’t have anything new to add from here.

From the briefing on the twentieth. He's not mentioned at all on the twenty-first, twenty-second, twenty-third, or twenty-seventh, nor is any Wikileaks case. A search of the Justice Department website finds no official statement being released regarding any Wikileaks cases, and in fact only mentions Wikileaks in passing in relation to other cases they're investigating. There has been no reporting from anyone stating that we intend to bring charges against him, and in fact it's likely that the possibility is receding, according to this article from Reuters on August 22nd.

(Reuters) - Despite claims by Julian Assange that Washington is plotting to extradite and execute him, U.S. and European government sources say the United States has issued no criminal charges against the WikiLeaks founder and has launched no attempt to extradite him.
Moreover, Obama administration officials remain divided over the wisdom of prosecuting Assange, the sources said, and the likelihood of U.S. criminal charges against him is probably receding rather than growing.

The Obama administration has said Assange's immediate fate is in the hands of Britain, Sweden and Ecuador.

The article goes on to note that, with the waning popularity and relevancy of Wikileaks, if the US WERE to bring charges against Assange, it would likely backfire on us rather than end up with justice being served. The general consensus appears to be that Assange is trying a desperate ploy to distract from the rape case being brought against him by Sweden, and it would be best for the US to simply sit back and let him implode on his own, which we appear to be doing. So, to answer your question regarding if he has a justifiable reason for his paranoia; the answer would seem to be that he doesn't. He's paranoid with no factual basis to be paranoid.

 

[Here_to_learn]

Where, in that sentence, do I say that Bodström is involved in the Assange case?

Nowhere, and I have never claimed that you have. Don't try to move the goal posts.

But even though you say that Bodström is not involved, you still find it important to say things about him with relations to Borgström.

But, back to my question, you claim that Bodström was involved "in facilitating the US illegal "extraordinary rendition" (abduction/torture) program", please show your sources.