The Wikileaks Question

[Joe Hillshoist]

And now she's telling people what the govt thinks about Assange.

[vanlose kid]

The Scramble By Bank Of America To Negate Wikileaks Upcoming "Ecosystem Of Corruption" Disclosure
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/03/2011 04:21 -0500


So far, Bank of America has been aggressively denying it will in any way be compromised by any possible Wikileaks disclosure. After all the bank claims it has done nothing to merit a take down based on what Assange has claimed is an "ecosystem of corruption." As everyone knows, Bank of America is the most non-MERS abusing, bonus non-extracting, putback over-reserved, and otherwise law abiding bank in existence. Which is why we are just modestly troubled by the fact that this innocent not until proven guilty but in perpetuity bank is doing all it can to demonstrate that there is in fact a very disturbing ecosystem just below the surface. The NYT reports that "a team of 15 to 20 top Bank of America officials, led by the chief risk officer, Bruce R. Thompson, has been overseeing a broad internal investigation — scouring thousands of documents in the event that they become public, reviewing every case where a computer has gone missing and hunting for any sign that its systems might have been compromised." What goes unsaid is that BofA is really looking for what the disclosed dirty laundry is. Which really makes no sense: after all, for that to be the case, there would have to be dirty laundry in the first place, which would mean Bank of America is lying. How does one go about reconciling these two mindbogglingly contradictory facts...

More from the NYT:

By the time the conference call ended, it was nearly midnight at Bank of America’s headquarters in Charlotte, N.C., but the bank’s counterespionage work was only just beginning.

A day earlier, on Nov. 29, the director of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, said in an interview that he intended to “take down” a major American bank and reveal an “ecosystem of corruption” with a cache of data from an executive’s hard drive. With Bank of America’s share price falling on the widely held suspicion that the hard drive was theirs, the executives on the call concluded it was time to take action.

In addition to the internal team drawn from departments like finance, technology, legal and communications, the bank has brought in Booz Allen Hamilton, the consulting firm, to help manage the review. It has also sought advice from several top law firms about legal problems that could arise from a disclosure, including the bank’s potential liability if private information was disclosed about clients.

Also as was reported previously, BofA mockery of a public redemption campaign continues as the firm ploughs hundreds of thousands of taxpayer capital (how about repaying that TALF money boys?) into buying up every single possible DNS entry which is a permutation of the following: i) executive name (correctly and incorrectly spelled) and ii) act of sexual innuendo (that said if Brian Moynihan would like to recover brianmoynihanswallows.com he should feel free to contact Zero Hedge: we know a guy who knows a guy).

Last month, the bank bought up Web addresses that could prove embarrassing to the company or its top executives in the event of a large-scale public assault, but a spokesman for the bank said the move was unrelated to any possible leak.

Yet it would not be surprising if it turns out Assange is bluffing.

Bank of America’s internal review has turned up no evidence that would substantiate Mr. Assange’s claim that he has a hard drive, according to interviews with executives there. The company declined to otherwise comment on the case. A WikiLeaks representative also declined to comment.

With the data trail cold, one working theory both inside and outside the bank is that internal documents in Mr. Assange’s possession, if any, probably came from the mountains of material turned over to the Securities and Exchange Commission, Congressional investigators and the New York attorney general’s office during separate investigations in 2009 and 2010 into the bank’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

As it happens, Mr. Assange’s first mention of the Bank of America hard drive, in October 2009, coincided with hearings by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform into the Merrill merger, and with wide-ranging requests for information by the committee.

One thing is certain: the purchased, corrupt and co-opted US regulators, whose only purpose in life is to settle civial fraud claims over a token wrist slap amount, have nothing to do with exposing potential fraud at America's, and probably the world's biggest mortgage lender:

Officials at the S.E.C., the House oversight committee and the New York attorney general’s office insist the information they received had been turned over in the form of papers and discs, never a hard drive, and deny they are the source of the WikiLeaks cache.

At the same time, Mr. Assange’s own statements would seem to undermine the government-as-source theory, hinting instead that resignations might follow as evidence emerges of corruption among top executives, something the public investigations never found.

Hopefully if indeed Assange has anything, and the threat is credible, he will present it sooner or later. After all there is nothing to validate a job well done in packaging trillions of mortgages where nobody knows how is the titleholder then the Dow hitting 36k. Which at the rate the Chairman is going should be attained within 6-12 months.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/scramb ... disclosure

*

[Bruce Dazzling]

Smears that get a platform at this Columbia University, School of International and Public Affairs, panel discussion. The sole brown dissenting voice is relegated to last minutes - though the lady-journalist makes some good points but she's foreign too. It's really worth taking the time to watch this - enjoy:

I'm watching this now and just shuddered when Lee Bollinger, the moderator, was introduced as having "recently published an Op Ed piece in the WSJ calling for strengthening the government's roll in the financing of journalism, creating an American World Service that can compete with the BBC and other global broadcasters, and support a free press around the world as it does so."



I'm buckling my seat belt for the remainder...

NOTE: edited to correct the quote.

[nathan28]

I'm watching this now and just shuddered when Lee Bollinger, the moderator, was introduced as having "recently published an Op Ed piece in the WSJ calling for strengthening the government's roll in the financing of journalism, creating an American World Service that can create with the BBC and other global broadcasters, and support a free press around the world as it does so."

You mean like NPR and the various Radio Free Wherevers? Or more of an Operation Mockingbird deal?

[Bruce Dazzling]

I'm watching this now and just shuddered when Lee Bollinger, the moderator, was introduced as having "recently published an Op Ed piece in the WSJ calling for strengthening the government's roll in the financing of journalism, creating an American World Service that can compete with the BBC and other global broadcasters, and support a free press around the world as it does so."

You mean like NPR and the various Radio Free Wherevers? Or more of an Operation Mockingbird deal?

I was just making the point that governments, as a rule, don't finance journalism in order to create a more free press.

NOTE: I edited your quote of mine in order to switch the word "create" to "compete" because I typed it wrong in the post that you quoted...

[nathan28]

I'm watching this now and just shuddered when Lee Bollinger, the moderator, was introduced as having "recently published an Op Ed piece in the WSJ calling for strengthening the government's roll in the financing of journalism, creating an American World Service that can compete with the BBC and other global broadcasters, and support a free press around the world as it does so."

You mean like NPR and the various Radio Free Wherevers? Or more of an Operation Mockingbird deal?

I was just making the point that governments, as a rule, don't finance journalism in order to create a more free press.

NOTE: I edited your quote of mine in order to switch the word "create" to "compete" because I typed it wrong in the post that you quoted...

No disagreement, I'm just flabberghasted by the stupidity of the suggestion by the WSJ, which I'm fairly certain has at other points lobbied against anything like this, and by the inconsistency from the WSJ that This Time Is Different w/r/t gov't $$$. You know, that really free information from the media is such a threat to the free market that we need to start putting out Free Market Information in the media.

[Bruce Dazzling]

I'm watching this now and just shuddered when Lee Bollinger, the moderator, was introduced as having "recently published an Op Ed piece in the WSJ calling for strengthening the government's roll in the financing of journalism, creating an American World Service that can compete with the BBC and other global broadcasters, and support a free press around the world as it does so."

You mean like NPR and the various Radio Free Wherevers? Or more of an Operation Mockingbird deal?

I was just making the point that governments, as a rule, don't finance journalism in order to create a more free press.

NOTE: I edited your quote of mine in order to switch the word "create" to "compete" because I typed it wrong in the post that you quoted...

No disagreement, I'm just flabberghasted by the stupidity of the suggestion by the WSJ, which I'm fairly certain has at other points lobbied against anything like this, and by the inconsistency from the WSJ that This Time Is Different w/r/t gov't $$$. You know, that really free information from the media is such a threat to the free market that we need to start putting out Free Market Information in the media.

Yes, totally.

[Joe Hillshoist]

I'm watching this now and just shuddered when Lee Bollinger, the moderator, was introduced as having "recently published an Op Ed piece in the WSJ calling for strengthening the government's roll in the financing of journalism, creating an American World Service that can compete with the BBC and other global broadcasters, and support a free press around the world as it does so."

You mean like NPR and the various Radio Free Wherevers? Or more of an Operation Mockingbird deal?

I was just making the point that governments, as a rule, don't finance journalism in order to create a more free press.

NOTE: I edited your quote of mine in order to switch the word "create" to "compete" because I typed it wrong in the post that you quoted...

Yes and no, there are some state funded media orgs on the planet that do a far better job than commercial ones.

[JackRiddler]

Yes and no, there are some state funded media orgs on the planet that do a far better job than commercial ones.

I was going to say! A comparison of state and private news media in Europe leaves absolutely no doubt of this as a relative proposition, despite instances of abuse, censorship and ideological control in both.

.

[Bruce Dazzling]

I'm watching this now and just shuddered when Lee Bollinger, the moderator, was introduced as having "recently published an Op Ed piece in the WSJ calling for strengthening the government's roll in the financing of journalism, creating an American World Service that can compete with the BBC and other global broadcasters, and support a free press around the world as it does so."

You mean like NPR and the various Radio Free Wherevers? Or more of an Operation Mockingbird deal?

I was just making the point that governments, as a rule, don't finance journalism in order to create a more free press.

NOTE: I edited your quote of mine in order to switch the word "create" to "compete" because I typed it wrong in the post that you quoted...

Yes and no, there are some state funded media orgs on the planet that do a far better job than commercial ones.

In your opinion, which ones would those be, Joe?

I'm not completely opposed to the idea that you may be right, but my original point had more to do with the specific notion of a U.S. government-funded journalistic service and the corporatist motives that most likely slither beneath the veil of such "philanthropy," as opposed to a general argument over state funding vs. commercial funding.

Although, I stand by this statement:

I was just making the point that governments, as a rule, don't finance journalism in order to create a more free press.

...with the caveat of changing "as a rule" to "in general."

[JackRiddler]

Gotta go again, kids, but this looks like a very interesting development (if not completely made up).

"Karl Rove hjälper Reinfeldt att hantera Julian Assange"

Enligt källor till Huffington Post har George W Bushs högra hand, Karl Rove, hjälpt den svenska regeringen att hantera fallet Julian Assange.

STOCKHOLM/WASHINGTON.

SWEDES! READ IT TO ME!

http://nyheter24.se/nyheter/inrikes/506 ... an-assange

[Joe Hillshoist]

I'm watching this now and just shuddered when Lee Bollinger, the moderator, was introduced as having "recently published an Op Ed piece in the WSJ calling for strengthening the government's roll in the financing of journalism, creating an American World Service that can compete with the BBC and other global broadcasters, and support a free press around the world as it does so."

You mean like NPR and the various Radio Free Wherevers? Or more of an Operation Mockingbird deal?

I was just making the point that governments, as a rule, don't finance journalism in order to create a more free press.

NOTE: I edited your quote of mine in order to switch the word "create" to "compete" because I typed it wrong in the post that you quoted...

Yes and no, there are some state funded media orgs on the planet that do a far better job than commercial ones.

In your opinion, which ones would those be, Joe?

I'm not completely opposed to the idea that you may be right, but my original point had more to do with the specific notion of a U.S. government-funded journalistic service and the corporatist motives that most likely slither beneath the veil of such "philanthropy," as opposed to a general argument over state funding vs. commercial funding.

Although, I stand by this statement:

I was just making the point that governments, as a rule, don't finance journalism in order to create a more free press.

...with the caveat of changing "as a rule" to "in general."

If you'd asked me 18 months ago I would have said the Australian Broadcasting Corp. (Our abc) and actually to a large extent it still is. Local ABC radio is one of the most reliable things in the bush in Australia.

The ABC used to be a good national broadcaster. But years of assault by Murdoch owned politicians has seen it go to shit since 2009. Probably earlier.

The ABC was based on the BBC model, but was perhaps a bit less an establishment mouthpiece. I seem to remember George Negus doing an investigation into the Hilton Hotel bombing in Sydney that seemed to suggest ASIO and the NSW police special branch were involved.

SBS, the network set up especially for non English speaking Australians back in the 70s or 80s is another that comes to mind. Many of the good (and bad) docos people have mentioned here have been shown on SBS.

That was the general consensus among most people for years anyway.

Honestly I think govt funded media has more potential to be independent than privately owned media, especially if the owners are "media moguls". But it depends on the climate in the country. I don't know enough about PBS and NPR in the US to really judge it. My entire opinion of those orgs is based on the low opinion most people here have of them.

[Plutonia]

Daniel Domscheit-Berg talks about Wikileaks and Israel at 27C- that the Chaos Computer Club's annual congress that just occurred in Berlin (min 30:30):

[JackRiddler]

.

I'm lazy and busy. Anyone want to check the Rove-Assange story?

Following is very carefully parsed but puts an establishment US human rights advocate on the record opposing the moral insanity of an espionage prosecution for Wikileaks:

US: WikiLeaks Publishers Should Not Face Prosecution

Open Letter to President Barack Obama from Human Rights Watch
December 15, 2010


Dear President Obama:

We write to express our concern at the prospect that the US government would employ espionage laws against WikiLeaks or its founder for the release of US State Department cables. Regardless of how one views the intentions, wisdom or strict legality of the WikiLeaks release, we believe that resorting to prosecution will degrade freedom of expression for all media, researchers and reporters, and set a terrible precedent that will be eagerly grasped by other governments, particularly those with a record of trying to muzzle legitimate political reporting.

Both international law and the US Constitution prohibit criminal punishment of those who report matters of public interest except in fairly narrow circumstances. One such situation would be the release of official secrets with the effect and intent of harming the security of a nation, in the sense of genuine threats to use force against the government or territorial integrity of a country. Diplomatic embarrassment, though potentially detrimental to the interests of the government, is not itself a threat to national security. Indeed, the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, rejected "overwrought" descriptions of the release's impact and described the effect on foreign policy as "fairly modest,"<1> a characterization that finds support in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's remarks that "I have not had any concerns expressed about whether any nation will not continue to work with, and discuss matters of importance to us both, going forward."<2>

Even if some cognizable security threat were to be presented by a cable (only half of which are classified, and of those, most classified at low levels of sensitivity), it would be both unwise and of questionable legality to use the 1917 Espionage Act against WikiLeaks or other media who receive or republish information leaked by government employees. A distinguishing characteristic of the United States has always been its high standard of protection for speech. This leadership would be lost if the administration were to reverse the usual practice of pursuing only those who leak information and not those who receive it.

For the same reason, we urge you to reject legislative proposals that would broaden the scope of criminal sanction beyond that permitted by the Constitution and international human rights law to which the US is party. Instead, we urge you to pursue the declassification of information that is of public interest and not essential to national security, rather than to expand the scope of information subject to classification.

Once classified information is released to the public, particularly through means of mass circulation such as the Internet, a very strong presumption should attach that further restriction is unwarranted. Indeed, efforts to remove WikiLeaks and other websites from global accessibility have largely backfired by promoting mirror sites and further circulation. We note with concern government agency directives, such as that issued by the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget, warning employees from accessing the classified materials that have already been published to the world on numerous websites,<3> and reports that the Library of Congress has consequently blocked access to the WikiLeaks site.<4> By asking people to ignore what has become widely known, such directives look ridiculous, invite widespread disobedience, and place federal employees at risk of arbitrary discipline and prosecution. Over-interpreting the 1917 Espionage Act to authorize prosecution of non-government agents who simply receive and publish leaked classified information could have similar chilling results. By that token, not only could the news media who republish the disclosed information be prosecuted, but so could all who download and read the material.<5>

The United States government and the Department of State in particular, has been an outspoken champion of Internet freedom globally, and condemned national "firewalls" and censorship of Internet sites. To maintain its credibility, we urge you to affirm that your administration will not seek to bar services to Internet publishers, or take down websites, merely because they have published material that the government believes should not be publicly available. We also believe it is important for the administration to affirm that it will not seek to pressure or influence any private enterprise to block or undermine any such website in the absence of a legal judgment. Human Rights Watch is very concerned by private companies' denial of services to WikiLeaks in the absence of any showing that any of its publications can legitimately be restricted consistent with the international right to freedom of expression.

This is a signature moment for freedom of expression, a value that the United States has defended vigorously throughout its history, at home and abroad. Human Rights Watch urges your administration to act positively to secure the rights of the media in a democratic society, and the record of the United States as a champion of speech.

Yours sincerely,

Kenneth Roth

Executive Director

Human Rights Watch

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... 604#114192

.

[vanlose kid]

Gotta go again, kids, but this looks like a very interesting development (if not completely made up).

"Karl Rove hjälper Reinfeldt att hantera Julian Assange"

Enligt källor till Huffington Post har George W Bushs högra hand, Karl Rove, hjälpt den svenska regeringen att hantera fallet Julian Assange.

STOCKHOLM/WASHINGTON.

SWEDES! READ IT TO ME!

http://nyheter24.se/nyheter/inrikes/506 ... an-assange

there's this:

The Rove/Assange Story Hits the International Press in Sweden
Roger Shuler

Legal Schnauzer, January 3, 2011

The story of Karl Rove's likely connection to the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been picked up by a major news site in Sweden. We are pleased to say that our work here at Legal Schnauzer played a part in an important story going global.

Nyheter24 ("News 24"), a Stockholm-based online tabloid that is targeted at the 15-39 age group, broke the story in Sweden. The newspaper cites reporting by Andrew Kreig at Huffington Post (and the Justice Integrity Project(some good stuff there, it seems]), plus our work at Legal Schnauzer. Here is the Nyheter24 headline:

Karl Rove hjälper Reinfeldt att hantera Julian Assange: Enligt källor till Huffington Post har George W Bushs högra hand, Karl Rove, hjälpt den svenska regeringen att hantera fallet Julian Assange.

What does that mean? Well, we've been working on our Swedish--by pushing the translation button on our Google toolbar--and we will get to that in a moment.

But first, we must say that it's pretty cool for our humble blog to have reached a global audience. We have international visitors to the blog on a regular basis, and they have picked up considerably since we've been writing about the Rove/Assange story. But to our knowledge, this is the first time our work has been picked up by a major news outlet in a foreign country.

Even though we can't read Swedish, we pretty quickly discerned that Nyheter24 reporter Aaron Israelson had cited our work:



Nu anklagas Karl Rove för att ligga bakom den svenska regeringens kampanj för att få Wikileaks grundare och chefredaktör, Julian Assange, utlämnad hit. I syfte att därefter utlämna honom till USA - där ett spionåtal hotar Assange.

Den amerikanske journalisten Roger Shuler, som bloggar på välbesökta och ansedda Legal Schnauzer, skriver att en säker källa uppger att Rove hjälper regeringen Reinfeldt med fallet Assange.

What does that mean? With the click of a button, here is the translation I came up with--and I swear I didn't have anything to do with the writing of this story:


Now accused Karl Rove of being behind the Swedish government's campaign to get Wikileaks founder and editor, Julian Assange , extradited here. In order to then hand him over to the U.S.--where a spy prosecutions threaten Assange.

The American journalist Roger Shuler, who blogs on the popular and prestigious Legal Schnauzer, writes that a reliable source says that Rove will help the government Reinfeldt case Assange.

Popular and prestigious? Man, you gotta love those Swedish journalists. Mrs. Schnauzer and I got quite a hoot out of that translation. Even we would not describe the blog in such glowing terms. But given that we both have been cheated out of our jobs here in Alabama, largely because of the progressive tone of this blog, it's nice to see that our work is appreciated across the Atlantic.

It's also interesting to see how the work of a blogger based in Birmingham can travel. To those who doubt the potential power of the alternative press . . . well, they might want to take a gander at the Nyheter24 article.

What was my first thought upon seeing a reference to my little Alabama-based blog in a Swedish publication? Well, as a long-time fan of tennis and pop music, I immediately thought, "Geez, I wonder if Bjorn Borg or one of the chicks in ABBA will read this."

As for the headline, here's how it translates into English, with a reference to Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt:

Karl Rove helps Reinfeldt to manage Julian Assange: According to sources at the Huffington Post, Bush's right-hand man, Karl Rove, helped the Swedish government to handle the case Julian Assange.


Where does Nyheter24 fit in the Swedish media pecking order? Well, it's a feisty up and comer. The country's two largest newspapers appear to be the "centre-right" Expressen, published by Bonnior AB, and the "social democratic" Aftonbladet. Nyheter24 was launched in 2008 as an online challenger for the left-leaning audience of Aftonbladet.

One report says Nyheter24 receives inspiration from the The Sun tabloid of London. One of the news site's founders is Douglas Roos, former CEO of Ladbrokes, a London-based gaming company. Ladbrokes used to be associated with the Hilton Hotel Group and apparently involves some seriously deep pockets. With its emphasis on 24-hour online news coverage and the youth market--plus the fact it has strong financial backers--we suspect Nyheter24 could become a major force in the international press.

Where will the Rove/Assange story go from here? That remains to be seen, but the story seems to be picking up steam. We knew that numerous European blogs had picked up on the story. But the Nyheter24 piece appears to take things to a new level.

Here is the full English translation of the Rove/Assange story. The translation from Swedish to English apparently is not seamless, so the wording is rough in some places:


STOCKHOLM/WASHINGTON--The Republican strategist Karl Rove made his name worldwide as an advisor to President George W. Bush. He helped him to become governor of Texas and then also president of the United States.

In addition, norskättade Karl Rove since the 80s also acted as advisor to the Swedish Moderate Party--the only foreign party as "the king of spin" brag about to his credit.

Helped win the election
According to several tasks hired Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt also Rove to help moderates win the 2010 election. These data, however, denied by the Moderates former party secretary Per Schlingmann--now Secretary of State in the Prime Minister with responsibility for communications.

Now accused Karl Rove of being behind the Swedish government's campaign to get Wikileaks founder and editor, Julian Assange, extradited here. In order to then hand him over to the U.S.--where a spy prosecutions threaten Assange.

The American journalist Roger Shuler, who blogs on the popular and prestigious Legal Schnauzer, writes that a reliable source says that Rove will help the government Reinfeldt case Assange. Apparently, it seems that [Rove], who claims he is svenskättad, feel a kinship to Sweden . . . and he has taken advantage of it several times.

Protects legacy of Bush
Why then should Rove be interested in prosecuting Assange for sex crimes charges in Sweden? In order to protect the legacy of George W. Bush, the source said.

"Just the guy who leaked the documents, to the detriment of the Bush family the most, is also the guy that Bush's right hand can control by being the Swedish prime minister's brain and adviser to the intelligence and economic affairs," said the source to the Legal Schnauzer.

Also, journalist and lawyer Andrew Kreig, which include writing for the Huffington Post, has received the same information of a credible political agents.

"This bear [Karl's] signature. He must be so happy. He is back in action. He makes a lot of value to his new friends and get to see the U.S. government to do exactly what he himself would have done--while he makes life miserable for their opponents," the source to the Huffington Post.

Engaged in political trials
Karl Rove has since Barack Obama and the Democrats regained power in Washington has been under fire for his alleged involvement in a politicized trial of former Alabama governor Don Siegelman.

Democrat Siegelman was accused of corruption and threatened by a 30-year prison term, but has always maintained that the process against him was politically motivated--and directed by Karl Rove. When Rove was questioned by the U.S. Congress about his involvement, he saw to flee the country--to Sweden.

"When he was in trouble and did not want to testify at the three occasions when he called he ended up in Sweden," a source told Legal Schnauzer. "Moreover, it was Reinfeldt who first hired Karl when he was expelled from the White House."

Wikileaks embarrassing for Sweden
According to reports, it was just mess around Don Siegelman who was George W. Bush to finally ask his closest advisers to throw in the towel. This too has been denied by Rove himself.

Wikileaks has caused not only the U.S. government embarrassment, but also the Swedish. Among other things, it has been revealed that the Swedish government representative has asked the U.S. Embassy to allow surveillance in the context of Surveillance Detection Unit (SDU), run "informally" to ensure that parliament would [not] examine it.

The latest in a series of revelations also show how the U.S. helped--or renutav dictated--the Swedish government's policy in the war against file sharing.

Julian Assange, the 39-year-old Australian nomad, searched for previous residence in Sweden to carry on from here Wikileaks activities.

But instead he fell into the arms of two Swedish women who went to police with the sex allegations.

This was followed by an infected right process and try to get him extradited to Sweden from the UK.

Here is the translation of a sidebar about Rove:


This is Karl Rove

Karl Christian Rove was born December 25, 1950, in Denver, Colorado. He is an American political consultant--so-called spin doctor--and was previously general counsel and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

Rove is regarded as the political architect of Bush's electoral victories, first as governor of Texas and then in the two presidential elections.

Karl Rove visited Sweden a few days in the early 80s to give the Conservatives tips on fund-raising --that is, how to raise money for political campaigns.

During the political week Almedalen Gotland 2008, Rove at a seminar organized by industry think tank Timbro.

Rove has appeared in numerous criminal investigations, but never prosecuted.

According to information on the web, Karl Rove has advised Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt in the election campaign 2010.

:: Article nr. 73561 sent on 04-jan-2011 07:59 ECT


http://www.uruknet.info?p=73561

on edit:

Karl Rove in SwedenThis is about the Nobel prizes and how Karl Rove is helping Sweden’s prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt.

By Amy Goodman

STOCKHOLM, Sweden—The days are short here in Stockholm, which is so far north that winter daylight is limited to about four hours a day. But the city is buzzing with visitors, media and activities, for the Nobel prizes are being given this week. While the Nobels recognize lifetime achievements in medicine, chemistry, physics, literature, economics and peace, and Sweden is a paragon among progressive, social democracies, there is another side to Sweden and the Nobels that warrants a closer look.

Alfred Nobel made a fortune as an inventor, principally for his invention of dynamite. He died in 1896, leaving most of his fortune to endow the Nobel prizes. Nobel lived in a time when European rivalries and wars were the norm. He believed the destructive power of his inventions could promote peace. He wrote to his lifelong friend, peace activist Bertha von Suttner, who would win the Nobel Peace Prize almost a decade after his death, “Perhaps my factories will put an end to war even sooner than your Congresses; on the day when two army corps will be able to annihilate each other in a second, all civilised nations will recoil with horror and disband their troops.”

If only. Now countries can destroy each other many times over, but instead of recoiling in horror, they just continue buying ever more destructive weapons, ironically making Sweden one of the world leaders, per capita, in weapons exports. Nobel turned Swedish munitions into a stable, multinational enterprise. In 1894, he acquired the weapons company Bofors, now a subsidiary of the weapons maker BAE Systems. While the world’s eyes are on the Nobel Prize winners, several Swedes are facing prison time for taking direct action against Bofors.

Cattis Laska is a member of the anti-war groups Ofog and Avrusta, Swedish for mischief and disarm. She told me about their protests against the Swedish weapons industry: “We went into two weapon factories the same night. Two went into Saab Bofors Dynamics (while General Motors bought Saab’s auto division, Saab in Sweden makes weapons) ... and they disarmed about 20 [grenade launchers] ... to prevent them from being used in wars. They did it by using a hammer. There’s very much details in those launchers, so they have to be perfect. So it’s enough just to scrape inside to disable them. And then, me and another person went into the BAE Systems Bofors factory, where we disabled some parts for howitzers going to India. We also used hammers.” Like the Plowshares activists in the United States, they follow the biblical prescription from Isaiah 2:4, turning “swords into plowshares.”

Annika Spalde also participated in the actions: “We sell weapons to countries at war and to countries who seriously violate human rights, and still these sales just grow bigger and bigger, so we feel that we, as ordinary citizens, have a responsibility to act then and to physically try to stop these weapons from being shipped off.” Spalde is awaiting trial. Laska has been sentenced to three months in prison.

Traditional Swedish politics also are in flux. Brian Palmer is an American, a former Harvard lecturer, who has immigrated to Sweden and become a Swedish citizen. Palmer has penned a biography of Sweden’s prime minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt. Palmer credits Reinfeldt, 43, with leading the shift away from the progressive social policies for which Sweden has become world-famous. He said Reinfeldt, in 1993, “wrote a book, ‘The Sleeping People,’ where he said that the welfare state should only prevent starvation, nothing beyond that. After being elected ... one of his first major visits abroad was to George Bush in the White House.”

Reinfeldt and his Moderate Party hired Karl Rove as a political consultant to help with the election coming in 2010. Palmer went on: “We have a real kind of silent war on the labor movement. We have a rather dramatic change in the tax system, abolishing the inheritance tax and most property taxes, cutbacks in social-welfare institutions.” This week, a new coalition of center-left political parties formed to challenge this rightward drift.

The U.S. electorate has thoroughly rebuked the Bush administration, handing Barack Obama and the Democrats a mandate for change on issues of war and health care, among others. One of the world’s leading laboratories for innovative social policies, Sweden is now wrestling with its own future. Those seeking change in the U.S. would be wise to watch Sweden, beyond Nobel week.

Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 700 stations in North America. She has been awarded the 2008 Right Livelihood Award, dubbed the “Alternative Nobel” prize, and will receive the award in the Swedish Parliament this month.


Date Added: 12/10/2008 Date Revised: 12/10/2008

http://www.socialdems.com/page.asp?PID=1406