Wikileaks: SVT reports the US had illegal cooperation with Swedish security services

[Lars77]

Source: VG/SVT

TV-kanalen SVT har fått tilgang til dokumenter fra organisasjonen WikiLeaks som viser at svenske myndigheter har hatt et samarbeid med amerikanerne som ikke offentligheten har kjent til.

Sverige skal i flere år ha utlevert informasjon om svenske borgere til USA - og ha kjent til USAs overvåkning av svenske borgere. Målet var å identifisere personer som kanskje kunne kobles til terrorisme.


Read more: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10012021

---

Translation:

According to Swedish television SVT, Wikileaks documents reveal that Swedish authorities have had a cooperation with the US Government that the public did not know about.

For years, Sweden have been handing over information about Swedish citizens to America - and had known about American surveillance of Swedish citizens. The goal was to identify people who might be associated with terrorism.

According to SVT it is unclear which specific information us intelligence had access to, but it is stated clearly that the US is handed information.

In the report, US ambassador Michael Woods writes that this cooperation would not pass a parlamentiary hearing, and that it could be unconstitutional. The ambassador reccomends that they keep doing it the way they have been doing it (in secrecy).

People from the Swedish justice department had given the same advice to the Americans during meetings.

The Swedish minister of justice claims she has no knowledge of this type of cooperation.


Interesting, considering that the exact same thing happened in here in Norway after the leak. The US embassy in Oslo have been spying on Norwegian citizens with the blessing of the Norwegian intelligence community. The political leadership claims they had no knowledge..

[Forkboy]

1. "The political leadership claims they had no knowledge.."

[Lars77]

3. It's not completely implausible

Security institutions, whether they are the armed forces, intelligence institutions or police forces have a scary habit of "going rogue" to use a palinesque term.

They justify their actions by asserting that they are the experts in their field, and that their field is the most important field. In other words, who's to tell them they should'nt be doing it when everyone else are not as competent?


It will be interesting to see what's going to happen next. Here in Norway things quieted down really quickly, because even if the politicians didn't know they sure don't want a public confrontation with security services.

[earcandle]

12. 'cause we actually need to shut them down if we hope for any peace ever again.

[EFerrari]

18. Watching the way all these countries behave

either caving to the US or collaborating with in all kinds of illegal activities, the American government's hatred for Venezuela and the other un-aligned nations in Latin America makes much more sense. How dare they not fall in line like everyone else.

[Lars77]

32. It's worth noticing that Sweden are supposed to be neutral too...

At least Norway is a NATO partner.

[No Elephants]

22. And Swedish officials pursuing Swedish rape charges against Assange--pure coincidence.

I know nossing. I see nossing.

[Pavulon]

2. no shit, its called sharing and has been standard practice since the second world war

mi6 and the rest of the west have similar arrangements. the sky is also blue.

[Lars77]

4. There's a difference

between sharing intelligence information, and allowing a foreign government to spy on your citizens inside your country.

But from what i've seen of your previous post you seem to have a thing for totalitarianism and draconian measures.

[Pavulon]

5. It left over from the cold war and there is a system in place

to allow intelligence sharing. Hey did you hear your boy is going to drop unredacted names if he gets arrested.

Now can you tell me who killed the guy in Iran who gets his brains blown out for passing information to the US?

The way I see it, Julian (meaning his people as well) and Bradley manning might as well have killed that person.

If he dumps names and people die the game changes.

[JDPriestly]

9. If he isn't arrested then, by your logic, no one dies.

Intriguing dilemma for our government. Maybe they should let Assange release these documents -- and then decide what to do. That would save lives under your theory.

I still don't know how anyone can classify Assange as a terrorist. Please explain what violent acts he has performed either to persons or things.

He did precisely the same thing that Judy Miller did -- he published news that was classified as secret. He acted as a journalist receiving information from a source. We don't even know whether he knows where the information really came from.

[flyarm]

11. when do we arrest Cheney for doing exactly what you are postting here as a theory..

we know gosh damned well what Cheney did and got people killed..so when do we hold our "OWN" accountable??????????

After all the real game Changed when Cheney Outed an active NOC CIA operative..the highest covert agents we have...the hardest and most expensive high risk agents we have.

WHEN DO WE HOLD CHENEY ACCOUNTABLE FOR TREASON????????????

[Alamuti Lotus]

16. X

[No Elephants]

26. Yet, you said the U.S. was correct to refuse to confer with Assange about redacting names.

And good thing no one has died before wikileaks, from the acts of government that don't get exposed to sunlight.


P.S. You forgot the bit about how payment for damage control will come out of our paychecks.


Guess what. Payment or EVERYthing government does comes out of our paychecks, much as every troop who dies came out of our loins. Which is precisely why we should know what goes on from lobbyists to info sharing to the extent of Karzai's corruption and how much we give him for walking around money.

[ronnie624]

30. You would have never heard of Julian Assange, if not for the War on Terror™,

the current pretext for U.S. aggression and pursuit of global dominance. Every death that results, is the responsibility of the U.S. government, in my opinion.

[alittlelark]

6. +1

[Hardrada]

14. One of our homegrown fascisti.

[alittlelark]

7. You sound like part of the problem

You believe that secrecy is a functional and necessary part of a democracy.

Many of us are sick of the damage it causes and want TRANSPARENCY.

I don't think any "Valerie Plame" type disasters will happen w/ the level of info they appear to have.

Wikileaks is also practicing due diligence in regards to names and places by sifting the info through 6 organizations.

[gateley]

10. I realized I had become accepting of "that's how it's done". Not acceptable.

Another reason I don't think any Valerie Plame type disasters will occur is because his goal isn't to 'out' somebody and cause them harm (unlike Cheney), his goal is to 'out' the truth. I don't think he'll release any names, it appears with all the effort he's made to protect the sources he has too much integrity. Again, unlike Cheney.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

20. Does these two parts from an article sound like 'don't think he'll release any names' to you

The 1.3-gigabyte file, distributed through file-sharing services this summer and protected with an unbreakable 256-bit encryption key, contains full versions of all the U.S. documents received by WikiLeaks to date – including those that have been withheld from publication or have had names and details removed in order to protect the lives of spies, sources and soldiers.

*snip*

Mr. Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephens warned that if Mr. Assange were to be brought to trial on rape accusations he faces in Sweden, or for treason charges that have been suggested by U.S. politicians, he would release the encryption key. The tens of thousands of people who have downloaded the file would instantly have access to the names, addresses and details contained in the file.

**

Bold part highlighted by me

[gateley]

21. I understand what the threat is, I just don't think he'd actually do it. nt

[No Elephants]

29. So, he redacted tens of thousands of names?

You do know that, by statute, it's illegal in the U.S. to classify info simply because it might be embarrassing.

Will anyone be prosecuted for the mountains of junior high bs in those cables that never should have been classified?

[No Elephants]

25. YESSSSS! Evil is evil, no matter how commonplace evil has become or how used to hearing about it

we've become.

I just posted this on another thread.

"And they say Assange is not like Ellsberg because, this time, no one exposed a lie by our government to get us into war. Well, the WMD lie exposed itself. But we've heard plenty of crap all along. Maybe, between Gulf of Tonking and now, we've become so enured to lies and misrepresentation, by omission and otherwise, they seem like truth. Or truthiness."

We've become too enured to having our government lie to us and otherwise be evil. "Everybody does it" didn't even cut it as an excuse in Junior High. Why should it from the leaders of our nation and world/

[No Elephants]

24. Sing it, lark!

[No Elephants]

23. LOL

[JDPriestly]

8. Theoretically, sharing information about terrorists is a great idea.

But in practice, we have to ask a lot of questions: How do we define terrorism? How do we define terrorist?

What precise conduct constitutes a terrorist act? Is it any violent act by civilians motivated by the desire to make a political point? Can it, under certain conditions, include expressions of opinion? Can it include making statements that might incite others to violence? Does it include meeting with people who have committed acts of political violence?

Are terrorist acts limited to acts that harm civilians? Are acts by members of a military that harm civilians possibly terrorism?

Are the acts included in the operative definition of a terrorist crimes? Under whose law? Under what law? And then we get back to the initial question: How do we define terrorism? How do we differentiate between political dissidents and terrorists?

For example, what about the people who demonstrated against the outcome of the elections in Iran? Were they terrorists? Iran seemed to think so.

What about the dissidents in the Soviet Union? Were they terrorists?

What about the rag-tag army that fought our Revolution? Would we now consider them to be terrorists? If George Washington were alive today, would our government be reading his e-mails, listening to his phone calls, snooping on his private life?

To what extent can the laws against terrorism be used to simply stop dissent?

This is an especially important question if you think about the recent demonstrations in Greece and France. What if something goes wrong during a demonstration? What if something unplanned happens, something that is violent?

Are the laws defining terrorists clear enough so that they promote human rights? Are the parameters of the definitions of terrorism and terrorist behavior clear enough so that law-abiding people can avoid conduct that would put them under surveillance?

Anybody have any answers to these questions? Do we use the word terrorist just to denote someone we don't like. Is there anyone in the US that you would consider to be a terrorist?

[flyarm]

13. Great questions..how about some here look up who Bob Graham met with the morning of 9/11??

Along with Porter Goss..

Hint...........

"On the morning of September 11, Pakistan's Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees."

[JDPriestly]

15. And wasn't George H. Bush at some meeting in the Watergate building

with one of the Bin Ladens? Some meeting of the Carlyle Group? They all ran in the same circles. I have no idea whether that has any meaning about anything or not. They were all rich and important. The rich and important hang out together. What's new?

It might be significant. It might not. But we can always theorize. We never learn the truth unless we think of theories and then test them against the empirical data. N'est-ce pas?

[flyarm]

34. Point is , as per your post..anyone could be accused of being a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer

just by who they associate!

And Yes GHBUSH did meet with several of the BIn Laden family for Carlyle the morning of 9/11..o he too could be called a terrorist.

As the saying goes..becareful what you wish for..that goes for our congress critters as well!

[Downwinder]

17. Let me put it this way. When I go out the door I don't look for Muslim terrorists.

I look for Police cars. After I was IDed for about the sixth time I was told I had a "bad attitude." An Officer told me that anyone walking on the sidewalk after dark should "expect" to be IDed. All of the terrorists I have seen have been in uniform.

[No Elephants]

27. Anti-Vietnam War protestor Ayers is now referred to as a "domestic terrorist. Whistleblower

Assange is referred to as an electonic terrorist. Theft of intellectual property from corporations fits under the definition of terrorism and is in the jurisdiction of Homeland Security.

Does that answer some of your questions?

[JDPriestly]

31. Theft of intellectual property is an ordinary crime.

Homeland Security should be focused on more important things than that -- like preventing future Wikileaks.

[defendandprotect]

19. kr

[Catherina]

28. Rec'd. May the Swedes take appropriate action against the traitors to their rights n/t

[CJvR]

33. Can't say Im surprised.

Sweden have kept double books on it's cooperation with the US since the end of WWII. In public a neutral face, in private one of the US most loyal allies. This situation have caused problems in the past, as when past right wing goverments stepped on the US toes because they were unaware of the deals made in private by earlier socialist goverments, and will likely continue to do so.