Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Anna Ardin and the CIA

The excellent Australian documentary on the persecution of Julian Assange tells us much about the main accuser, Anna Ardin, but not enough. For more background, go here (for a reprint of a story originally published on Darker Net):
First, a summary of Ardin's past history (as blogged mostly by her detractors):

• Anna Ardin worked on behalf of a number of Miami-based, U.S. government-paid intelligence agencies and was an associate of the anti-Cuban terrorist, Carlos Aberto Montaner. Source: Cuban news agencies, Granma and Prensa Latina.

• While in Cuba, Ardin worked with the Ladies in White, a feminist anti-Castro group that is partially funded by the US Government and counts among its supporters Luis Posada Carriles, a CIA agent convicted of terrorist attacks that killed hundreds of people. Source: Indymedia.

• After leaving Cuba, Ardin worked on websites financed by USAID and controlled by the CIA.  One of these websites was ‘Miscelánea de Cuba’, run by the Cuban, Alexis Gainza. Source: Australia-Cuba Friendship Society.

• Through Gainza, Ms. Ardin became involved with several Swedish agencies, including Dagens Nyheter and SVT, and then entered the Swedish Social Democrat party. Gainza is connected with the German Internationale Gesellschaft für Menschenrechte (International Human Rights Society), a group linked to German and U.S. intelligence and includes former Nazis (such as Ludwig Martin) and ex-military figures (Dieter von Glahn) in its ranks. The current president of the IGFM, Martin Lessenthin, works closely with the Venezuelan opposition party Primero Justicia, led by anti-Chavez terrorist Alejandro Peña Esclusa. Primero Justicia, in turn, is the main partner of the International Republican Institute, an extreme right-wing group funded by the US Government’s National Endowment for Democracy. Both USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy are funded by the CIA. Sources: various.
Darker Net says that the evidence against Ardin is all a matter of "interpretation." I say that when we combine this data with Ardin's use of a law firm known for aiding CIA renditions, only one interpretation is likely. From a 2010 story on Firedoglake:
Who is Julian Assange’s chief accuser in Sweden?  She’s a gender equity officer at Uppsula University – who chose to associate with a US funded group openly supported by a convicted terrorist and mass murderer.  She just happens to have her work published by a very well funded group connected with Union Liberal Cubana – whose leader, Carlos Alberto Montaner, in turn just happened to pop up on right wing Colombian TV a few hours after the right-wing coup in Honduras.
Canadian journalist Jean-Guy Allard, who wrote the book on the notorious Luis Posada Carilles, states outright that Montaner is a CIA agent.

Naomi Wolf offers eight further indicators of skullduggery in the Assange case (and many thanks to a reader named wxyz for the link):
Based on my 23 years of reporting on global rape law, and my five years of supporting women at rape crisis centers and battered women’s shelters, I can say with certainty that this case is not being treated as a normal rape or sexual assault case. New details from the Swedish police make this quite clear. Their transcript of the complaints against Assange is strikingly unlike the dozens of such transcripts that I have read throughout the years as an advocate for victims of sex crimes.

Specifically, there are eight ways in which this transcript is unusual:

1) Police never pursue complaints in which there is no indication of lack of consent.

Ask Sweden to produce ANY other police report in which any action was taken in a situation in which there is no stated lack of consent or threat of force. Police simply won’t act on a complaint if there is no indication of a lack of consent, or of consent in the face of violence. The Assange transcripts, in contrast to any typical sex crime report, are a set of transcripts in which neither of the women has indicated a lack of consent. (There is one point at which Miss W asserts she was asleep – in which case it would indeed have been illegal to have sex with her – but her deleted tweets show that she was not asleep, and subsequent discussion indicates consent.)

The Assange transcript is therefore anomalous, as it does not suggest in any way that either woman was unconsenting, or felt threatened. On this basis alone, therefore, the Assange transcript is completely aberrant.

2) Police do not let two women report an accusation about one man together.

The transcripts seem to indicate that the police processed the two accusers’ complaints together.

This is completely unheard-of in sex crime procedures; and the burden should be on Clare Mongomery, QC, or Marianne Ny, to produce a single other example of this being permitted.

Never will two victims be allowed by police to come in and tell their stories together–even, or especially, if the stories are about one man.

Indeed, this is a great frustration to those who advocate for rape victims. You can have seven alleged victims all accusing the same guy — and none will be permitted to tell their stories together.

It doesn’t matter if they coordinated in advance as the Assange accusers did, or if they are close friends and came in together: the police simply will not take their complaints together or even in the same room. No matter how much they may wish to file a report together, their wishes won’t matter: the women will be separated, given separate interview times and even locations, and their cases will be processed completely separately.

The prosecutor, rather than being able to draw on both women’s testimony, will actually have to struggle to get the judge to allow a second or additional accusation or evidence from another case.

Usually other such evidence will NOT be allowed. Miss A would have her case processed and then Miss W — with absolutely no ability for the prosecutor to draw form one set of testimony to the next.

The reason for this is sound: it is to keep testimony from contaminating separate trials–a source of great frustration to prosecutors and rape victim advocates.

Thus the dual testimonies taken in this case are utterly atypical and against all Western and especially Swedish rape law practice and policy.

3) Police never take testimony from former boyfriends.

There’s another remarkable aberration in this transcript: the report of a former boyfriend of “Miss A,” testifying that she’d always used a condom in their relationship.

Now, as one who has supported many rape victims through the reporting process, I have to say that the inclusion of this utterly atypical–and, in fact, illegal–note will make anyone who has counselled rape victims through the legal process’ feel as though her head might explode.

There’s a rape shield law in Sweden (as there is throughout Europe) that prevents anyone not involved in the case to say anything to the police, whether it be positive or negative, about the prior sexual habits of the complainant. No matter how much a former or current boyfriend may want to testify about his girlfriends’ sex practices — even if that woman wants him to — the courts will, rightly, refused to hear it, or record it, or otherwise allow it in the record.

4) Prosecutors never let two alleged victims have the same lawyer.

Both women are being advised by the same high-powered, politically connected lawyer. That would never happen under normal circumstances because the prosecutor would not permit the risk of losing the case because of contamination of evidence and the risk of the judge objecting to possible coaching or shared testimony in the context of a shared attorney.

So why would the Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, allow such a thing in this case? Perhaps — bearing in mind the threat that Assange will be extradited to the US once he is in Sweden — because she does not expect to have a trial, let alone have to try to win one.

5) A lawyer never typically takes on two alleged rape victims as clients.

No attorney–and certainly no high-powered attorney– would want to represent two women claiming to have been victimized by the same man, for the reasons above: the second woman’s testimony could be weaker than the other one’s, thus lessening the lawyer’s chances of success.

There also is a danger that the judge may well object to the potential cross-contamination of the women’s stories.

Again, the only reason why a lawyer would thus weaken his own clients’ cases us that s/he does not expect the case to come to trial.

6) A rape victim never uses a corporate attorney.

Typically, if a woman needs a lawyer in addition to the prosecutor who is pursuing her case (as in the Swedish system) she will be advised by rape victim advocates, the prosecutor and the police to use a criminal attorney — someone who handles rape cases or other kinds of assault, who is familiar with the judges and the courts in these cases. She will never hire a high-powered corporate attorney who does not specialize in these cases or work with the local court that would be hearing her sex crime case if it ever got to trial. Given that a law firm such as this one charges about four hundred euros an hour, and a typical rape case takes eight months to a year to get through the courts – given that legal advice will cost tens of thousands of euros, which young women victims usually do not have access to – it is reasonable to ask: who is paying the legal bills?

7) A rape victim is never encouraged to make any kind of contact with her assailant and she may never use police to compel her alleged assailant to take medical tests.

The two women went to police to ask if they could get Assange to take an HIV test.

Sources close to the investigation confirm that indeed Assange was asked by police to take an HIV test, which came back negative. This is utterly unheard of and against standard sex crime policy. The Police do not act as medical mediators for STD testing, since rapists are dangerous and vindictive. A victim is NEVER advised to manage, even with police guidance, any further communication with her assailant that is not through formal judicial channels. Under ordinary procedures, the women’s wishes for the alleged assailant to take medical tests would be discouraged by rape victim advocates and deterred and disregarded by police.

First, the State normally has no power to compel a man who has not been convicted, let alone formally charged, to take any medical tests whatsoever. Secondly, rape victims usually fear STD’s or AIDS infection, naturally enough, and the normal police and prosecutorial guidance is for them to take their own battery of tests – you don’t need the man’s test results to know if you have contracted a disease. Normal rape kit processing–in Sweden as elsewhere–includes such tests for the alleged victim as a matter of course, partly to help prevent any contact between the victim and the assailant outside legal channels.

8) Police and prosecutors never leak police transcripts during an active investigation because they face punishment for doing so.

The full transcripts of the women’s complaints have been leaked to the US media. The only people who have access to those documents are police, prosecutors and the attorneys. Often, frustratingly, rape victims themselves cannot get their own full set of records related to their cases. In normal circumstances, the leaking of those transcripts would be grounds for an immediate investigation of the police and prosecutors who had access to them. Any official who leaks such confidential papers faces serious penalties; lawyers who do so can be disbarred. And yet no one in this case is being investigated or facing any consequences. It seems quite likely that the Assange documents were leaked by the police or prosecutors because they got a signal from higher-ups that they could do so with impunity.

Indeed, these are all major aberrations–suggesting that somebody at the top has interfered.

And who is at the very top in Sweden? Players working with Karl Rove, who was a party to the Swedish government’s collusion in the Bush regime’s rendition/torture program. As Britain holds its hearings into Julian Assange’s fate, we must take careful note of that connection.
Originally, I toyed with alternative "theories of Ardin." Maybe she was simply unhinged. Maybe the government "had something" on her. But at the end of the day, one conclusion becomes inescapable: She's a spook.

Ardin helped to organize the Gaza relief effort which resulted in a notorious -- and deadly -- Israeli raid. Obviously, she was an infiltrator. In 2010, she moved to the West Bank...
Ardin, who also goes by the name Bernardin, has moved to the West Bank in the Palestinian Territories, as part of a Christian outreach group, aimed at bringing reconciliation between Palestinians and Israelis. She has moved to the small town of Yanoun, which sits close to Israel’s security/sequestration wall. Yanoun is constantly besieged by fundamentalist Jewish settlers, and international groups have frequently stationed themselves there.
I hope the Palestinians now know that she is CIA.

Anna, just give it up. You've been made. Nobody in the world will ever trust you again.
There's a bit of an overview of the Karl Rove connections here. Not much, but a start.
Good work, Joe. The suspicions of this being a classic Mata Hari setup are now confirmed.

Very sophisticated job, though, and the sheer level of synchronized media control on two continents is a sight to behold. Operation Mockingbird was nothing compared to what we see today.
Has anyone asked -- or better, has anyone received an answer to -- this question: who is paying Claes Borgström's fee here? Or is this "pro bono" on his part.

Follow the money.
Can't say I'm at all surprised, but it's good to see the evidence laid out clearly. A lot of conspira-nuts think Assange is a plant for spreading disinfo. If so, they sure are making it look like he isn't.
Ardin and Assange are BOTH spooks, Joe. Check into his birthplace (a CIA-operated mind-control cult/experiment in Aussieland) and consider the fact that none of his thousands of "leaked" government documents ever touched on such dangerous topics as:

1. Longterm CIA drug-running and the crucial need to invade Afghanistan to protect the poppy crop (for the money-laundering international banksters).

2. CIA orchestration of most post-2000 Al Qaeda manouevres, including the bogus assassination of their "leaders" and their recent alliance with the "freedom-loving rebels" of the Arab Spring.

3. Israeli Mossad covert management of many other "Arab terror" cells and attacks worldwide.

IF the Assange entity is eventually extradited to the U.S. for successful prosecution under the 1918 Espionage Act, this will likely lead to a de facto (via judicial construction) establishment of an American version of Britain's notorious "Official Secrets Act" --and the terminal wounding of the First Amendment.

That's the long-term goal of this tawdry, titillating and drawn-out piece of international political theatre, IMHO.
Anna Ardin's name has been banned from mention on the BBC. So has Irmela Krans's. She was Ardin's friend and political associate who also happened to be the police officer who first took a statement from Sofia Wilen.

Why exactly the BBC has banned Krans's name from mention is not clear at present.

Some interesting info about Krans is here - she is a friend not only of Ardin but also of Thomas Bodstrom, who apparently nearly became prime minister, and she has friends in high places in the Social Democratic party, other parties, and among well-known Swedish journalists.

Can't be long until clear and strong links to Karl Rove appear.
Andy Tyme: "Ardin and Assange are BOTH spooks [...]"

Yes, most likely. They are actors in an internationally staged play that has the purpose of distracting citizens all over the world. The long-legged mack daddy watches it with great amusement as he is heading for his second illegal term in a white house.
Magnus, you have attained a level of paranoia that creeps even ME out.
Joseph: "Magnus, you have attained a level of paranoia that creeps even ME out."

Ha, ha, ha! Even you, the cannonfirer! I had contact with Anna Ardin some time before she went to bed with Julian Assange, and the impression I got of that girl was quite a puzzling one. There you could talk about being beside (para) your mind (noia).
Satirical video about Anna Ardin and her friend, police interrogator, Irmeli Krans.
Hmm. This kind of a story can be heard by where the Twin Towers used to stand. Who knows. Still don't get how consensual sex turns into abuse. Btw there are no "nevers" in law. Sophisticated? Diletanti, more like? But then, anyone can leak anything and they do. Why should Assange pose more threat than others? What an ego massage!
I hope he makes it to Ecuador and continues leaking. It's entertaining.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?