By Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights chairman
The news refer to a refusal by the Swedish prosecutor to interrogate Mr Julian Assange lasting “almost 3 years” – and that now she decided to interrogate him in London. But this is not completely accurate, because she also refused to interrogate Assange while he made himself available in Sweden 2010. Why the Swedish prosecutor authority never really intended to “finish” the pre-investigation around the “case”?
In the first place this has never been a “legal case”; only a political case. And it has not been only a political case by proxy – as the Snowden documents indicated – requested by the U.S. government [See Snowden document reveals Swedish prosecution of Assange was requested by the U.S.]. This is also a political case serving the ideological stances of the prosecutor and of some of the lawyers instigating the “accusations” against the WikiLeaks founder. For a brief background, see Who are behind the “Swedish prosecution” of Assange, and Why? For an extended fact-background I refer to my book Sweden VS. Assange. Human Rights Issues (free download PDF file, 340 pages].
The stalemate of the case Assange decided by the Swedish authorities – meaning the refusal of the prosecutor to interrogate him in London – has had one and only aim: to inhibit the publicist endeavour of WikiLeaks.
According to a dispatch from Stockholm by Daily News, the prosecutor Marianne Ny “dismissed claims of any U.S. involvement in the Swedish investigation.” Her declarations are thou contradicted by facts:
The Snowden documents revealed in 2013 that the U.S. asked the prosecution of Assange in August 2010 to the handful of governments participating under US command in the military occupation of Afghanistan. Only Sweden complied – at a time with a foreign policy under the subservient rule of Carl Bildt, in its turn exposed by WikiLeaks of being secret information officer for the US.
The true tactical reason why the Prosecutor authority, through chief prosecutor Marianne Ny, has now announced she is ready to interrogate Assange in London, it is because the Swedish Supreme Court has recently decided to take up the case in view of “the conduct of the investigation and the proportionality principle”. This is unequivocally referred to the prosecutors’ conduct in carrying/not-carrying the investigation. And this in its turn anticipated the dismissed of the case by the Supreme Court.
All the “new” reasons adduced now by Marianne Ny to explain “changing her mind” appears as nonsense, for in the main, the situations she refers to have existed in exactly the same legal and/or practical fashion year after year.
The new move by prosecutor Ny and the recent declarations by lawyers of the firm Bodström and Borgström (Bodström has been linked as main actor in the secret collaboration of Sweden with the CIA in the extraordinary renditions of refugees in Sweden, to be transported to torture camps elsewhere) only show that the U.S. government will not give up its plan A: The “Swedish” case against the WikiLeaks founder.
Plan B is to get Assange arrested in the UK on charges of abandon the house arrest at the opportunity he sought political asylum at the Embassy of Ecuador.
My contention is also that the “Assange case” in Sweden has served the ideological stances of several of the actors from the part of the “prosecution” and the lawyers of the “accusers”  (More in Duckpond in Swedish legal system), “the police investigation“, and the forum of extremist right-wing “feminists”. For details on this I refer to the following chapters in the aforementioned book:
References and Notes
 The US government approached Sweden’s authorities on the situation around Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks exposures of 2010, in August that year. The Swedish press reported on the meetings in Stockholm. Secondly, as reported in both the Phillip Shenon and NSA documents (the report by Greenwald & Gallagher in Intercept), the US contacted all countries with forces in Afghanistan with the request to initiate prosecution against the WikiLeaks founder. As being Sweden a principal country participating with military troops in Afghanistan, it is beyond discussion as to whether Sweden was also among the nations contacted by the US for that purpose. My conclusion being that it is highly likely that the reopening of the “case Assange” by Swedish authorities on the 20 of August 2010 was part of the US request of the 10 of August to prosecute Julian Assange by any means.
But it is not only a design to simply “prosecute Assange”. The meaning of the strategic design in the context of the referred US request was not Assange as person, but the concept was (is) to immobilize WikiLeaks. For this a long protracted process had to be brought in place.
Follows a sequence around the European Arrest Warrant issues by the Swedish prosecutor against Julian Assange, and where the conclusion emerging is that the real target of the EAW was not the detention of Assange, but the creation of an extradition process:
- Assange arrived to the airport around noon, and even chosen to change to a later SAS flight of his preferences. He finally left Arlanda Airport for Berlin Tegel at 17.15. Latest around 16.55 he would have gone through airport security where, with the usual heavy police presence, staff at the gate leading to the departure hall checked his passport (if not already checked at the desk), boarding card, etc. Besides, the police have all the passengers’ lists in advance.
- According to the prosecutor office in Gothenburg, Assange was “detained in absentia” already at 14.15 on 27 September 2010.  Normally, such order goes to all police units in the country. Why wasn’t he detained at the airport? It could not be that they missed his identity. Quite the opposite: because they knew his identity at the airport desk or at the control gate, the police (or government officials, or whoever agency was operating) managed to take the laptops from Assange’s checked-in suitcase.  Besides, he stayed around five hours at the airport’s premises. They just couldn’t have missed him.
- Assange was never informed about the “detention in absentia”. Further, Assange’s laywer Björn Hurtig had obtained an agreement from the prosecutor Marianne Ny that Julian Assange “was free to leave Sweden”. 
- In fact, Assange’s lawyer received the communication on the “detention warrant” issued my Marianne Ny (the warrant that Elisabeth Massi Fritz is writing about in connection to Assange’s departure for Berlin on the 27 of September), as late as the 30 September 2010. This means three days after that it was issued by the same Marianne Ny.
- In support of this claim I refer here to the Supreme Court document “Agreed Statement of Facts And Issues. Between: Julian Paul Assange (Applicant) V. Swedish Prosecution Authority (Respondent)”, hearings 1-2 Feb 2012,. In Item 17, page 5, it reads: “On 30th September 2010, the Appellant’s counsel [Björn Hurtig] was advised of the existence of the arrest warrant.”
The EAW immobilized Assange and, to a greater extent, WikiLeaks’ activities. In previous analyses, I have demonstrated that it is beyond doubt that this case is political motivated. There isn’t a genuine legal case behind the charade of the Swedish Prosecutor Authority and the plaintiff’s prejudiced lawyers. This is not the first time that this sort of behaviour has been seen in Sweden.
What would have happened if Assange had been detained at the airport? The prosecutor would have had to interrogate Assange within a few hours. Assange would have requested the presence of a lawyer or that the interview was videotaped. Afterwards he would have been released, because in terms of the evidence available to the prosecutor, there would have been nothing new that had not already come up in the preliminary investigation, conducted by prosecutor Finne (who had previously dismissed the case on this evidence). He would have never been held incommunicado, as he will certainly be if he comes to Sweden under the extradition terms that resulted from the EAW.
Only the EAW could have produced the political benefits created by this scenario, which enables a prolongation of Assange’s prisoner status. My “stalling-the-process hypothesis”  was correct from the start.
. Firstly, the Snowden document says “including Australia, United Kingdom and Germany”. Nevertheless, the document also provided the inclusion criteria: “nations with forces in Afghanistan”. One amongst these was (is) Sweden, conspicuously; one of the few nations, and longest lasting, participating in the U.S. led military occupation of Afghanistan.
Secondly, This request was put forward on the 10 of August 2010. In the document “Affidavit of Julian Paul Assange”, we read that it was around that date when Sweden took decisive steps to “consider filing criminal charges against Julian Assange” – as requested by the U.S. government.
 Thomas Bodström is the senior partner, together with the above-mentioned Claes Borgström, of the law firm that represents one of the supposedly accusers in the Swedish case VS. Assange. Mr. Claes Borgström have made no secret on that it was he who took the initiative of reopening the case! In this constellation of “radical-feminists” politicians and collaborators with the disgraceful events mentioned earlier, is worth to mention that Claes Bodström was the Swedish ombudsan för genders issues, while Marianne Ny the chief prosecutor for an special unit dealing with issues associate with women abuse. She was already known in Sweden for advocating “preventive detention” of suspected men accused (not charged) of abusive behavioir. Both offices, Ny’s and respectively Bodström & Borgstrom’s, are stationed in the City of Gothenburg.
Further, Thomas Bodström was also in the same organised ideological faction within the Social Democratic Party called the “Brotherhood”, another member of this faction was one of the so-called accusers. The faction consists of Christian believers and other religions’ disciples. While Thomas Bodström was one of the highest-ranking politicians within the faction, the nominal woman-accuser held the position of secretary.
For his part, Thomas Bodström’s colleague, Mr. Claes Borgström, sat together with prosecutor Marianne Ny in the same governmental committee planning to extend the sexual-crimes legislation of Sweden.
Thomas Bodström and Claes Borgström are in the same ideological line with that of Chief Prosecutor Marianne Ny. Ms. Marianne Ny, at the time of reviewing the case presented to her by Claes Borgström, still held a government assignment as a special committee member of a new legislation body studying legislative reforms to exactly the same type of offences described in the “accusations” against Mr. Assange.
 Some Swedish “Radical Feminists” Declared Julian Assange A Symbolic Issue. Page 202 of the book Sweden VS Assange – Human Rights Issues.