Detta är en viktig artikel som faktiskt förmedlar ny information efter ingående analys av Marcello Ferrada de Noli, professor emeritus vid Karolinska Institutet och ordförande för is Swedish Doctors for Human Rights och chefredaktör för tidningen ”The Indicter” där artikeln publiceras. Han driver också The Professors’ Blog, och Libertarian Books – Sweden. Han är författare till boken Sweden VS. Assange – Human Rights Issues. Kan nås via mail till firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Artikelns titel på engelska är ”Former paid agent of Swedish Security Police dictated Amnesty Sweden’s stance against Assange” och i Googles och min översättning ”Tidigare agent hos svenska säkerhetspolisen dikterade svenska Amnestys inställning till Assange”
Denna och andra artiklar har bidragit till positiv och hedrande uppmärksamhet från Wikileaks. Marcello skrev:
Two days ago, WikiLeaks selected @SWEDHR (see our followers list) as one of the relatively few accounts they follow on Twitter (they are followed by nearly three million!).
And now we can see that our message is reaching via WikiLeaks to main international human-rights organizations as well as key media & journalists or key political players. This, via direct separate messages from WikiLeaks (more than 80 separate tweets), for instance, to UN-Human Rights, to Edward Snowden, to G Greenwald, to Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth, to Ecuador’s minister of foreign affairs, to Sweden’s minister of foreign affairs Margot Wallström, etc., and to diverse media and HR organizations (see examples below).
”Dear colleagues,I thank you all for supporting from the start this publishing initiative, our dear The Indicter. Dr Nozomi Hayase’s articles on The Indicter deserved republications in respectable outlets (e.g. CounterPunch and CounterCurents) which have further placed The Indicter in news indexed by Google; Prof Anders Romelsjö has spread in Sweden several of The Indicter’s reports and analyses at Jinge.se, which has been essential for both SWEDHR and The Indicter in reaching the Swedish audience; Dr Andrew Kreig is spreading our word at the Washington-based JIP; etc., while prominent members at the Editorial Board are publishing at SvT-opinion (Maj Wechselmann – soon again at The Indicter), News Junkie Post (John Goss); etc.
I december 2010 avslöjades ett nära samarbete mellan Sverige, CIA och FBI i internationella medier: en underrättelsesamarbete mellan Sverige och amerikanska organ som hemlighölls för den svenska allmänheten, och även för den svenska riksdagen (1) Den brittiska tidningen The Telegraph berömde Wikileaks för att de avslöjade detta. 
Avslöjandet orsakade mycket mer uppståndelse internationellt än i Sverige och i vilket fall som helst, kom inga regeringstjänstemän någonsin till svars för det. Washington Post rapporterade och citerar en svenskt parlamentarisk utredning: ”Även om den parlamentariska utredaren kommit fram till att den svenska säkerhetspolisen förtjänade” extremt allvarlig kritik ”för att förlora kontrollen över verksamheten och för en påtaglig undfallenhet inför amerikanska tjänstemän har ”inga svenska tjänstemän har åtalats och inget har korrigerats. ” Denna artikel undersöker i vilken utsträckning samarbete mellan svenska och amerikanska säkerhetsorganen kan ha relevans för, eller direkt innebär ingripande i det politiska fallet Sverige vs Assange.  Svenska Dagbladet (SVD), en av Sveriges ledande tidningar, har nu avslöjat att en välkänd journalist och ”vänster aktivist” – som bland annat utövade stort inflytande på Amnesty International Sverige – var en betald agent av Sveriges säkerhetspolisen ( SÄPO).  Regeringen säkerhetsagent, Martin Fredriksson, var främst verksamt under de år då förre utrikesminister Carl Bildt dikterade svensk utrikespolitik, då ”Assange-affären” fick stor uppmärksamhet på hemsidan för Sveriges utrikesdepartementet. Enligt uttalanden Fredriksson publicerat på Twitter, täckte hans ”arbete” på SÄPO lika perioder mellan 2004 och 2010, då Sverige öppnade sin ”undersökning” mot Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange.
Den svenska medieetablissemanget tilldelade denne hemlige SÄPO-agent Martin Fredriksson sin högsta utmärkelse för undersökande ”Guldspaden” 2014. Han fick priset just för det arbete han hade genomfört som en betald agent för Sveriges hemliga polisen.  På bilden nedan ses han i mitten.
The article in English starts below (Engelsk text nedanför). Första delen har översatts ovan.
In December 2010 a close collaboration between Sweden and the CIA and FBI was exposed in the international media: an intelligence collaboration between Sweden and US agencies that was kept secret from the Swedish public, and even from the Swedish Parliament.  CIA demanded that Sweden would expand cooperationThe Telegraph credited WikiLeaks for exposing the deal.  The revelations caused far more commotion internationally than in Sweden and, in any event, no government officials were ever held accountable for it. The Washington Post reported, quoting a Swedish Parliamentary investigation: “Although the Parliamentary investigator concluded that the Swedish security police deserved ‘extremely grave criticism’ for losing control of the operation and for being ‘remarkably submissive to the American officials,’ no Swedish officials have been charged or disciplined.”  This article explores to what extent intelligence collaboration between Swedish and US security agencies might have relevance to, or direct intervention in, the political case of Sweden vs Assange.  Svenska Dagbladet (Svd), one of Sweden’s leading newspapers, has now revealed that a well-known journalist and ‘left activist’ – who, among other things, exerted considerable influence with Amnesty International Sweden – was a paid agent of Sweden’s Security Police (SÄPO).  The government security agent, Martin Fredriksson, was mainly active during the years that former Foreign Minister Carl Bildt was dictating Sweden’s foreign policy, when the “Assange Affair” was widely publicized on the home page of Sweden’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. According to statements Fredriksson posted on Twitter, his “work” at SÄPO covered different periods between 2004 and 2010, the year Sweden opened its ‘investigation’ against the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
The Swedish media establishment awarded this SÄPO secret agent its highest investigative journalism prize, ‘Guldspaden’ (Golden Spade), in 2014. The rationale on which the award was given to Fredriksson referred precisely to the work he had implemented as a paid agent of Sweden’s Secret Police.  In the photo below, at the centre of the group, the ex-Security Police agent Martin Fredriksson.
Continuation/fortsättning: The former SÄPO agent was significantly involved in the government’s efforts to ensure that the Swedish section of Amnesty International (for brevity, hereafter called Amnesty Sweden) would not advocate for the Swedish government to issue guarantees against the onward extradition of Julian Assange to the US, as called for by Amnesty International, Amnesty Sweden’s parent organization headquartered in London. 
In an email sent to Amnesty Sweden on 27 September 2012, Fredriksson asked a representative of Amnesty Sweden, Bobby Vellucci:
“Would Amnesty Sweden endorse the statement of Amnesty International on Assange? Meaning, that Sweden should issue guarantees that he shall not be extradited to the US? Should you not contact your mother organization (AI) and inform them that the Swedish legal system does not issue any promises or guarantees in advance, that the judiciary is independent of political decisions and that, practically, there are no legal possibilities to give Mr Assange any kind of amnesty towards the United States? …In my view, Assange first shall be handled for the crimes he is suspected of in Sweden, and according to the existing law.” 
The content, even the phrasing, of Fredriksson’s message to Amnesty Sweden is nearly identical to remarks made in an interview just weeks before by the Swedish Foreign Minister at the time, Carl Bildt.  Amnesty Sweden complied immediately, and fully, with Fredriksson’s request. The following day (28 September) Bobby Vellucci declared in The Local:
“We do not consider it to be appropriate or possible to ask the Swedish government to give guarantees ensuring Assange is not extradited to the US.” And he added, “Amnesty’s primary focus is the Swedish preliminary investigation and that Julian Assange’s presence in Sweden would of course assist in the further investigation of the charges against him.”  By using the word “charges” instead of “accusations”, Amnesty Sweden was further misleading the international public on the actual legal status of the Swedish case against Assange. 
It is important to clarify that the above statements by ex-SÄPO agent Fredriksson and Carl Bildt referring to the impossibility of issuing extradition guarantees are complete falsehoods. This was made clear in the filing submitted by Sweden’s Prosecutor-General Anders Perklev to the Supreme Court in March 2015. With regard to the actual facts on the prospective extradition of Assange to the US, see the evidence I recently posted in “Sweden’s argument for refusing to issue non-extradition guarantees to Mr Assange is fallacious and hides real commitment to the US“. 
Four years later, Amnesty Sweden’s stance on Julian Assange appears to be still under the influence of the Swedish government. In a recent statement to the Swedish news agency TT, the representative of Amnesty Sweden, Madelaine Seidlitz – commenting on the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention’s ruling that he is arbitrarily detained – insisted on reaffirming the Swedish government’s narrative: “…We also say that it is extremely important that the investigation has to be completed.” 
In fact, lawyer Madelaine Seidlitz is the representative given as the contact person for Amnesty Sweden’s press statement arguing against Sweden giving Assange any guarantee against onward extradition, the content of which exactly conforms with former SÄPO agent Fredriksson’s request. The Amnesty Sweden statement reads:
“It is neither appropriate nor possible to ask the Swedish government for the issuing of guarantees that Assange shall not be extradited to the US. Amnesty Sweden’s primary focus is the pre-trial investigation and that Julian Assange should be on site in Sweden…”
It’s worth noting that Amnesty Sweden’s statement has been modified several times since its original release and was eventually deleted entirely sometime around February 2016, but cached versions – such as the one reproduced in the image – still exist. Considering the fact-based risk assessment of the likelihood of Julian Assange’s extradition to the US provided he is physically in custody on Swedish territory,  one plausible conclusion – now confirmed by the intervention of SÄPO’s former agent Martin Fredriksson – would be that Amnesty Sweden simply follows the Swedish government’s position, and indirectly, the US government’s design.
After Svd’s expose, Researchgruppen – an organisation headed by Fredriksson that has done a lot of work for feminist media – distanced itself from its former CEO in a statement of 1 March 2016 (See translated excerpt of the statement in Notes & References). Amnesty Sweden, however, has not said a word.
It is high time for Amnesty International to intervene in this situation to maintain its prestige, both in Sweden and internationally. The Swedish section of Amnesty International has shown a persistent tendency to deviate from the stance of its parent organization – from which Amnesty Sweden derives both funding and prestige – on a variety of important geopolitical issues. That was the case, for instance, in Amnesty Sweden’s scandalous opposition to denouncing the arbitrary and inhuman detention of Palestinian children by the Israeli authorities.  Or when Amnesty Sweden’s executive board rejected human rights initiatives proposed at its AGM regarding Assange and Snowden following the persecution both have been subjected to by the US. 
Although Amnesty Sweden declares that, in principle, it is totally independent from the Swedish state, it receives government funding for the implementation of projects referred to as “training on Human Rights”.    This is quite contrary to the stance we take in Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR). We believe that a sine qua non factor in a human rights organization’s credibility is total independence from government and corporate funding.  (Fastän Amnesty Sverige förklarar att man i princip är det helt oberoende av den svenska staten, får man statliga medel för genomförandet av projektet ”utbildning om de mänskliga rättigheterna”.    Detta är helt i motsats till Svenska Läkare för mänskliga rättigheter (SWEDHR). Vi tror att en nödvändig faktor för en människorättsorganisations trovärdighet är totalt oberoende från statliga och privata medel. )
The email exchange was first published in the abovementioned forum on the 28 Sept 2012. There it referred the source “http://www.martinfredriksson.net/wik…ange_vs_Sweden” – a link which now appears blind. Here below the screenshot (click on image to enlarge):
declared in DN 19 August 2012:
– Rättssystemet i Sverige är oberoende. Jag kan inte göra några uttalanden som binder rättssystemet på något sätt. Då skulle jag bryta mot den svenska grundlagen.
Previously, Bild said during an interview in Belgrade:
Sweden has “independent judiciary, guaranteed by law,” and that “political authorities do not influence its work” Oliver Gee, “Assange ‘guarantees’ spark Amnesty spat”. The Local, 28 Sept 2012.  M Ferrada de Noli, “Sweden’s argument for refusing to issue non-extradition guarantees to Mr Assange is fallacious and hides real commitment to the U.S.” The Indicter, 20 Feb 2016.  Amnesty Press, 2016, N° 1, page 28.  Statement posted by Researchgruppen at research.nu, 1 March 2016. Excerpts:
“Following the statements and information Martin Fredriksson has given on his Twitter account on February 28, 2016, Researchgruppen wishes to clarify the following: It came as a shock and complete surprise to us when Martin Fredriksson revealed that he was paid over several years by the Security Police…” “Researchgruppen’s position is that any journalism at all times must be free from official interference. Therefore, we are strongly critical of Martin Fredriksson’s actions, and that he concealed his cooperation with the Security Police for us and everyone else.”