Nachrichten Archiv

Nachrichten, die andere verschweigen

Schweden: Vergewaltiger werden geschützt – Andersdenkende werden verfolgt wegen angeblicher Vergewaltigung

Wer Frauen vergewaltigt, hat in Schweden am wenigsten zu befürchten.

Damit bekommt die Verfolgung von Julian Assange eine völlig andere Wertigkeit. Assange ist kein Vergewaltiger, sondern ein politisch Verfolgter. Und da man gegen ihn nichts in der Hand hat, hat man eine Vergewaltigung konstruiert. Und das nur, weil die USA Druck macht und gedrucktes Geld als Schmiermittel einsetzt.

Aber sie erreichen alle das Gegenteil. Selbst der letzte Sesselfurzer merkt, was um ihn herum tatsächlich passiert. Welche Blutsauger und Parasiten ihm ans Leder wollen. Welche korrupten Politiker die Informationsfreiheit und die Meinungsfreiheit abschaffen wollen.

Mit der größten Kinderschänder-Organisation dieses Planeten, mit dem Vatikan und seiner römisch-katholischen Kirche, machen sie alle ihre dreckigen, korrupten Geschäfte.

Amplify’d from
Michael Moore

Michael Moore

Oscar and Emmy-winning director

Posted: December 17, 2010 12:06 AM

Dear Government of Sweden …

Dear Swedish Government:

Hi there — or as you all say, Hallå! You know, all of us here in the U.S. love your country. Your Volvos, your meatballs, your hard-to-put-together furniture — we can’t get enough!

There’s just one thing that bothers me — why has Amnesty International, in a special report (described in detail here by Naomi Wolf), declared that Sweden refuses to deal with the very real tragedy of rape? In fact, they say that all over Scandinavia, including in your country, rapists „enjoy impunity.“ And the United Nations, the EU and Swedish human rights groups have come to the same conclusion: Sweden just doesn’t take sexual assault against women seriously. How else do you explain these statistics from Katrin Axelsson of Women Against Rape:

– Sweden has the HIGHEST per capita number of reported rapes in Europe.

– This number of rapes has quadrupled in the last 20 years.

– The conviction rates? They have steadily DECREASED.

Axelsson says: „On April 23rd of this year, Carina Hägg and Nalin Pekgul (respectively MP and chairwoman of Social Democratic Women in Sweden) wrote in the Göteborgs [newspaper] that ‚up to 90% of all reported rapes [in Sweden] never get to court.'“

Let me say that again: nine out of ten times, when women report they have been raped, you never even bother to start legal proceedings. No wonder that, according to the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, it is now statistically more likely that someone in Sweden will be sexually assaulted than that they will be robbed.

Message to rapists? Sweden loves you!

So imagine our surprise when all of a sudden you decided to go after one Julian Assange on sexual assault charges. Well, sort of: first you charged him. Then after investigating it, you dropped the most serious charges and rescinded the arrest warrant.

Then a conservative MP put pressure on you and, lo and behold, you did a 180 and reopened the Assange investigation. Except you still didn’t charge him with anything. You just wanted him for „questioning.“ So you — you who have sat by and let thousands of Swedish women be raped while letting their rapists go scott-free — you decided it was now time to crack down on one man — the one man the American government wants arrested, jailed or (depending on which politician or pundit you listen to) executed. You just happened to go after him, on one possible „count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape (third degree).“ And while thousands of Swedish rapists roam free, you instigated a huge international manhunt on Interpol for this Julian Assange!

What anti-rape crusaders you’ve become, Swedish government! Women in Sweden must suddenly feel safer?

Well, not really. Actually, many see right through you. They know what these „non-charge charges“ are really about. And they know that you are cynically and disgustingly using the real and everyday threat that exists against women everywhere to help further the American government’s interest in silencing the work of WikiLeaks.

I don’t pretend to know what happened between Mr. Assange and the two women complainants (all I know is what I’ve heard in the media, so I’m as confused as the next person). And I’m sorry if I’ve jumped to any unnecessary or wrong-headed conclusions in my efforts to state a very core American value: All people are absolutely innocent until proven otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. I strongly believe every accusation of sexual assault must be investigated vigorously. There is nothing wrong with your police wanting to question Mr. Assange about these allegations, and while I understand why he seemed to go into hiding (people tend to do that when threatened with assassination), he nonetheless should answer the police’s questions. He should also submit to the STD testing the alleged victims have requested. I believe Sweden and the UK have a treaty and a means for you to send your investigators to London so they can question Mr. Assange where he is under house arrest while out on bail.

But that really wouldn’t be like you would it, to go all the way to another country to pursue a suspect for sexual assault when you can’t even bring yourselves to make it down to the street to your own courthouse to go after the scores of reported rapists in your country. That you, Sweden, have chosen to rarely do that in the past, is why this whole thing stinks to the high heavens.

And let’s not forget this one final point from Women Against Rape’s Katrin Axelsson:

„There is a long tradition of the use of rape and sexual assault for political agendas that have nothing to do with women’s safety. In the south of the US, the lynching of black men was often justified on grounds that they had raped or even looked at a white woman. Women don’t take kindly to our demand for safety being misused, while rape continues to be neglected at best or protected at worst.“

This tactic of using a rape charge to go after minorities or troublemakers, guilty or innocent — while turning a blind eye to clear crimes of rape the rest of the time — is what I fear is happening here. I want to make sure that good people not remain silent and that you, Sweden, will not succeed if in fact you are in cahoots with corrupt governments such as ours.

Last week Naomi Klein wrote: „Rape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that ‚women’s freedom‘ was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake up!“

I agree.

Unless you have the evidence (and it seems if you did you would have issued an arrest warrant by now), drop the extradition attempt and get to work doing the job you’ve so far refused to do: Protecting the women of Sweden.

Michael Moore

Follow Michael Moore on Twitter:

Related News On Huffington Post:




17/12/2010 Posted by | ALLE | , , , , , , , , , | Hinterlasse einen Kommentar

Kindes-Missbrauchs-Internat Odenwaldschule verweigert Entschädigungszahlungen an Opfer

Perverser geht es nicht mehr: Die Odenwaldschule will die Opfer mit Spenden entschädigen, die eine Stiftung einsammeln soll. Geld aus dem Schulvermögen soll nicht fließen.

Ich bin dafür, dass diese Schule geschlossen wird. Sie hat ihr Existenzrecht verwirkt.

Amplify’d from


132 Opfer an Odenwaldschule

Die Zahl der Missbrauchsopfer an der Odenwaldschule ist höher als bisher angenommen. Laut einem am Freitag präsentierten vorläufigen Abschlussbericht waren 132 Schüler betroffen.


Mehr zum Thema

Aktuelles, Hintergründe und Wissenswertes zum Thema Prävention.

Mehr zum Thema

Am Freitag wurde der vorläufige Abschlussbericht über den sexuellen Missbrauch an der Odenwaldschule in Heppenheim vorgelegt: Nach Angaben der Juristinnen Brigitte Tilmann und Claudia Burgsmüller wurden insgesamt 132 Schüler in den Jahren von 1965 bis 2004 Opfer sexuellen Missbrauchs. „Doch das sind nicht alle, die Dokumentation bleibt unvollständig“, hieß es bei der Präsentation. Mit dem Bericht steigt die Zahl der Opfer an, zuletzt war von rund 125 Opfern die Rede gewesen.

Die Taten liegen meist Jahrzehnte zurück. Die Staatsanwaltschaft hat gegen rund ein Dutzend Lehrer ermittelt, die Verfahren aber meist wegen Verjährung eingestellt. Auch wegen ihrer Erfahrungen in der Untersuchung forderten die beiden Juristinnen am Freitag die Aufhebung strafrechtlicher Verjährungsfristen. „Bisher war ich gegen eine Fristverlängerung“, sagte Tilmann. „Das hat sich durch die Arbeit am Abschlussbericht geändert.“


Streit um Entschädigung

Der Skandal war Anfang März an die Öffentlichkeit gekommen, als das Elite-Internat seine Feiern zum 100. Geburtstag vorbereitete. Die sexuellen Übergriffe an der Reformschule sollen sich von 1966 bis in die neunziger Jahre ereignet haben. Als Haupttäter wird der inzwischen verstorbene Schulleiter Gerold Becker vermutet.

Die immer neuen Enthüllungen sorgten für den Rücktritt des Vorstands der Reformschule. Doch auch mit einer neuen Führungsspitze kam das Internat nicht zur Ruhe: Ende November traten zwei Vorstandsmitglieder im Streit um Entschädigungszahlungen für die Opfer zurück. Die Odenwaldschule will die Opfer mit Spenden entschädigen, die eine Stiftung einsammeln soll. Geld aus dem Schulvermögen soll nicht fließen. Opfervertreter kritisierten das scharf.




17/12/2010 Posted by | ALLE | , , , , | Hinterlasse einen Kommentar

Informationsfreiheit, Aufdeckung von Kriegsverbrechen, Insidejobs und Korruption, etc. statt geplatzte Kondome

Wikileaks deckt den United Swindle of America auf. Außerdem, welche kriminellen, korrupten Witzfiguren-Kabinette die Welt regieren und terrorisieren.

Die Menschen wachen auf. Sie kapieren, dass man mit allen Mitteln Julian Assange fertigmachen, ein Exempel statuieren möchte.

Vor allem wird deutlich, wie ernst es Herrn Obama ist mit der Informationsfreiheit. Der Vergleich von Arianna Huffington spricht Bände: Obama vor und nach seiner Wahl – da liegen Welten dazwischen.

Amplify’d from
Arianna Huffington

Arianna Huffington

Posted: December 15, 2010 09:19 PM

The Media Gets It Wrong on WikiLeaks: It’s About Broken Trust, Not Broken Condoms

Do you like this story?


I attend a lot of conferences on media and technology — indeed, they might actually be the biggest growth sector of the media — but the one I attended this past weekend was one of the most fascinating I’ve been to in quite a while. Entitled „A Symposium on WikiLeaks and Internet Freedom,“ the one-day event was sponsored by the Personal Democracy Forum and was moderated by the group’s Micah Sifry and Andrew Rasiej.

The WikiLeaks story is an ever-shifting one — witness the latest twists of the Air Force blocking its personnel from accessing more than 25 news sites that have posted material released by WikiLeaks, and the shocking treatment of Bradley Manning, the U.S. Army private accused of being the source of the leaks.

One of the problems with the WikiLeaks story is that there has been way too much conflating going on, as Katrin Verclas pointed out at the symposium. So some serious unconflating (disconflating?) is in order.

I see four main aspects to the story. The first important aspect of the revelations is… the revelations.

Too much of the coverage has been meta — focusing on questions about whether the leaks were justified, while too little has dealt with the details of what has actually been revealed and what those revelations say about the wisdom of our ongoing effort in Afghanistan. There’s a reason why the administration is so upset about these leaks.

True, there hasn’t been one smoking-gun, bombshell revelation — but that’s certainly not to say the cables haven’t been revealing. What there has been instead is more of the consistent drip, drip, drip of damning details we keep getting about the war. Details that belie the upbeat talk the administration wants us to believe. The effect is cumulative — not unlike mercury poisoning.

It’s notable that the latest leaks came out the same week President Obama went to Afghanistan for his surprise visit to the troops — and made a speech about how we are „succeeding“ and „making important progress“ and bound to „prevail.“

The WikiLeaks cables present quite a different picture. What emerges is one reality (the real one) colliding with another (the official one). We see smart, good-faith diplomats and foreign service personnel trying to make the truth on the ground match up to the one the administration has proclaimed to the public. The cables show the widening disconnect. It’s like a foreign policy Ponzi scheme — this one fueled not by the public’s money, but the public’s acquiescence.

The cables show that the administration has been cooking the books. And what’s scandalous is not the actions of the diplomats doing their best to minimize the damage from our policies, but the policies themselves. Of course, we’ve known about them, but the cables provide another opportunity to see the truth behind the spin — so it’s no wonder the administration has reacted so hysterically to them.

The second aspect of the story — the one that was the focus of the symposium — is the changing relationship to government that technology has made possible.

Back in the year 2007, B.W. (Before WikiLeaks), Barack Obama waxed lyrical about government and the internet: „We have to use technology to open up our democracy. It’s no coincidence that one of the most secretive administrations in our history has favored special interest and pursued policy that could not stand up to the sunlight.“

At that moment he was, of course, busy building an internet framework that would play an important part in his becoming the head of the next administration. Not long after the election, in announcing his „Transparency and Open Government“ policy, the president proclaimed: „Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their Government is doing. Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset.“

Cut to a few years later. Now that he’s defending a reality that doesn’t match up to, well, reality, he’s suddenly not so keen on the people having a chance to access this „national asset.“

Even more wikironic are the statements by his Secretary of State who, less than a year ago, was lecturing other nations about the value of an unfettered and free internet. Given her description of the WikiLeaks as „an attack on America’s foreign policy interests“ that have put in danger „innocent people,“ her comments take on a whole different light. Some highlights:

In authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable… technologies with the potential to open up access to government and promote transparency can also be hijacked by governments to crush dissent and deny human rights… As in the dictatorships of the past, governments are targeting independent thinkers who use these tools.

Now „making government accountable“ is, as White House spokesman Robert Gibbs put it, a „reckless and dangerous action.“

And the government isn’t stopping at shameless demagoguery, hypocrisy, and fear-mongering — it’s putting its words into action. According to The Hill, this week the House Judiciary Committee will open hearings into whether WikiLeaks has somehow violated the Espionage Act of 1917.

What’s more, ABC News reports that Assange’s lawyers are hearing that U.S. indictments could be forthcoming: „The American people themselves have been put at risk by these actions that are, I believe, arrogant, misguided and ultimately not helpful in any way,“ said Attorney General Eric Holder. „We have a very serious, active, ongoing investigation that is criminal in nature. I authorized just last week a number of things to be done so that we can hopefully get to the bottom of this and hold people accountable… as they should be.“

For the Obama administration, it appears that accountability is a one-way street. When he had the chance to bring the principle of accountability to our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and investigate how we got into them, the president passed. As John Perry Barlow tweeted, „We have reached a point in our history where lies are protected speech and the truth is criminal.“

Any process of real accountability, would, of course, also include the key role the press played in bringing us the war in Iraq. Jay Rosen, one of the participants in the symposium, wrote a brilliant essay entitled „From Judith Miller to Julian Assange.“ He writes:

For the portion of the American press that still looks to Watergate and the Pentagon Papers for inspiration, and that considers itself a check on state power, the hour of its greatest humiliation can, I think, be located with some precision: it happened on Sunday, September 8, 2002.

That was when the New York Times published Judith Miller and Michael Gordon’s breathless, spoon-fed — and ultimately inaccurate — account of Iraqi attempts to buy aluminum tubes to produce fuel for a nuclear bomb.

Miller’s after-the-facts-proved-wrong response, as quoted in a Michael Massing piece in the New York Review of Books, was: „My job isn’t to assess the government’s information and be an independent intelligence analyst myself. My job is to tell readers of The New York Times what the government thought about Iraq’s arsenal.“

In other words, her job is to tell citizens what their government is saying, not, as Obama called for in his transparency initiative, what their government is doing. As Jay Rosen put it:

Today it is recognized at the Times and in the journalism world that Judy Miller was a bad actor who did a lot of damage and had to go. But it has never been recognized that secrecy was itself a bad actor in the events that led to the collapse, that it did a lot of damage, and parts of it might have to go. Our press has never come to terms with the ways in which it got itself on the wrong side of secrecy as the national security state swelled in size after September 11th.

And in the WikiLeaks case, much of media has again found itself on the wrong side of secrecy — and so much of the reporting about WikiLeaks has served to obscure, to conflate, to mislead.

For instance, how many stories have you heard or read about all the cables being „dumped“ in „indiscriminate“ ways with no attempt to „vet“ and „redact“ the stories first. In truth, only just over 1,200 of the 250,000 cables have been released, and WikiLeaks is now publishing only those cables vetted and redacted by their media partners, which includes the New York Times here and the Guardian in England.

The establishment media may be part of the media, but they’re also part of the establishment. And they’re circling the wagons. One method they’re using, as Andrew Rasiej put it after the symposium, is to conflate the secrecy that governments use to operate and the secrecy that is used to hide the truth and allow governments to mislead us.

Nobody, including WikiLeaks, is promoting the idea that government should exist in total transparency, or that, for instance, all government meetings should be live-streamed and cameras placed around the White House like a DC-based spin-off of Big Brother.

Assange himself would not disagree. „Secrecy is important for many things,“ he told Time’s Richard Stengel. „We keep secret the identity of our sources, as an example, take great pains to do it.“ At the same time, however, secrecy „shouldn’t be used to cover up abuses.“

But the government’s legitimate need for secrecy is very different from the government’s desire to get away with hiding the truth. Conflating the two is dangerously unhealthy for a democracy. And this is why it’s especially important to look at what WikiLeaks is actually doing, as distinct from what its critics claim it’s doing.

And this is why it’s also important to look at the fact that even though the cables are being published in mainstream outlets like the Times, the information first went to WikiLeaks. „You’ve heard of voting with your feet?“ Rosen said during the symposium. „The sources are voting with their leaks. If they trusted the newspapers more, they would be going to the newspapers.“

Our democracy’s need for accountability transcends left and right divisions. Over at American Conservative magazine, Jack Hunter penned „The Conservative Case for WikiLeaks,“ writing:

Decentralizing government power, limiting it, and challenging it was the Founders‘ intent and these have always been core conservative principles. Conservatives should prefer an explosion of whistleblower groups like WikiLeaks to a federal government powerful enough to take them down. Government officials who now attack WikiLeaks don’t fear national endangerment, they fear personal embarrassment. And while scores of conservatives have long promised to undermine or challenge the current monstrosity in Washington, D.C., it is now an organization not recognizably conservative that best undermines the political establishment and challenges its very foundations.

It is not, as Simon Jenkins put it in the Guardian, the job of the media to protect the powerful from embarrassment. As I said at the symposium, its job is to play the role of the little boy in The Emperor’s New Clothes — brave enough to point out what nobody else is willing to say.

When the press trades truth for access, it is WikiLeaks that acts like the little boy. „Power,“ wrote Jenkins, „loathes truth revealed. When the public interest is undermined by the lies and paranoia of power, it is disclosure that takes sanity by the scruff of its neck and sets it back on its feet.“

A final aspect of the story is Julian Assange himself. Is he a visionary? Is he an anarchist? Is he a jerk? This is fun speculation, but why does it have an impact on the value of the WikiLeaks revelations?

Of course, it’s not terribly surprising that those who are made uncomfortable by the discrepancy between what the leaked cables show and what our government claims would rather make this all about the psychological makeup of Assange. But doing so is a virtual admission that they have nothing tangible with which to counter the reality exposed by WikiLeaks.

Maybe Assange „often acts without completely thinking through every repercussion of his actions,“ writes Slate’s Jack Shafer. „But if you want to dismiss him just because he’s a seething jerk, there are about 2,000 journalists I’d like you to meet.“

Whether Assange is a world-class jerk or not, this is bigger than Assange — and will continue whether or not he continues to be a central player in it. In fact, there is already an offshoot site soon to be launched, called Openleaks, which will be run by veterans of WikiLeaks.

And I doubt this will be the only offshoot. So as interesting as the Assange saga is, and I’m sure there will be books and movies recounting Assange’s personal tale, this is not about one man. Nor is it about one site, though the precedent of allowing the government to shut it down is very important.

It is about our future. For our democracy to survive, citizens have to be able to know what our government is really doing. We can’t change course if we don’t have accurate information about where we really are. Whether this comes from a website or a newspaper or both doesn’t matter.

But if our government is successful in its efforts to shut down this new avenue of accountability, it will have done our country far more damage than what it claims is being done by WikiLeaks.

Air Force Reportedly Blocks Sites Posting WikiLeaks

This story is being updated. The U.S. Air Force is reportedly blocking news websites which have posted the WikiLeaks cables. In what some are calling…



17/12/2010 Posted by | ALLE | , , , , , , , , , , | Hinterlasse einen Kommentar