Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
The US government has played this game before:

Psychological Warfare From the Outside: The FBI and police used a myriad of other "dirty tricks" to undermine progressive movements. They planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents, employers, landlords, school officials and others to cause trouble for activists.

"Harassment Through the Legal System: The FBI and police abused the legal system to harass dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers of the law gave perjured testimony and presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for false arrests and wrongful imprisonment. They discriminatorily enforced tax laws and other government regulations and used conspicuous surveillance, "investigative" interviews, and grand jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists and silence their supporters."

COINTELPRO is merely the best known example.  The FBI and other Federal government agencies have a history of such tactics going back to the "Palmer Red Raids" of the 1920s forward to alleged operations against the anti-war movement in 2003/4.  

If the record of the US government's respect for law and the rights of non-US citizens is even worse.  We know employees of the US government have kidnapped, tortured,  and murdered under the 'saving grace' of The Global War on Terror; people are being held without trial and without judicial review; it is enough for them to be denounced by a "qualified" - who says they are, how do we know they are - informers.  

These are not charges but facts, as can be proven by anyone spending thirty minutes on a search engine.  

Now let's return to a news story running in several publications and venues on August 6th:

"Wikileaks' Julian Assange defies Pentagon threats"

The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, was today remaining defiant in the face of intense pressure from the US military to hand over tens of thousands of classified files. In a televised statement yesterday, the Pentagon threatened to "compel" the whistle-blowing website to return the documents.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said: "If doing the right thing is not good enough for them, then we will figure out what other alternatives we have to compel them to do the right thing. Let me leave it at that."

And - mirabile dictu! - out of the blue in a country that takes sexual harassment VERY seriously (unlike the US, I point out) comes charges of rape and molestation thereupon the prosecutor's office violates - I understand - proper procedure(s), the police certainly violate proper procedure(s), and within less than 8 hours Mr. Assange is being globally headlined as a sexual pervert.

Now we are finding out the rape charge is bogus, the molestation - the word, in the US, has a strong semantic cluster association with/to pedophilia, just by the way - charge has been reduced to a non-sexual offense.

And all this before Mr. Assange has even been questioned by the proper authorities.

It has been suggested in various places that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) could be behind this.  I take the opportunity to remind anybody still reading the US Federal government has a host of "alphabet soup"  intelligence agencies and bureaus and the Department of Defense has another soup bowl, to boot.   And, it may be, a concoction of a particular slime-rag ... beg pardon, "newspaper," I'm sure ... to that has, if nothing else, gotten several hundred million krona free advertising out of the deal as well as, I'm willing to bet, a sudden upswing in sales over the weekend.

What seems to be clear, de minimis, is some group circumvented proper Swedish legal procedures causing an international ad hominem attack against Mr. Assange and, by implication, Wilileaks.  Who and Why are questions still be to answered.  The weight of the circumstantial evidence for 'Who would want to' strongly suggests the US government; the weight of the operational evidence 'Who could have' points to the Swedish prosecutor and police organizations.    

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Wed Aug 25th, 2010 at 11:36:30 PM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series