4 ms·

>Not only did they do this (and Sweden was forced to pay restitution) Source?

vidarh 12y ago
Here's an article covering the most well known incident: http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b... They did obtain assurances from Egyptian authorities that the asylum seekers would not be tortured, but didn't do anything to ensure this could be enforced, and of course they ended up getting tortured. (EDIT: But even if one were to believe that Swedish authorities actually believed those assurances, a parliamentary investigator also determined that the treatment in Sweden violated Swedish law - they were arrested and violated and handed over without any required legal procedures, and even if they had been legally extradited, the treatment itself still would be illegal - see below) Here's an article about Swedish military intelligence interfering after the CIA continued the rendition flights via Sweden for years after they had supposedly stopped: http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7497-cia-rendition-flights-stopped-by-swedish-military http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7497-cia-rendition-fligh... This article also has more details about the Egyptian incident, including: > Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, two Egyptians who had been seeking asylum in Sweden, were arrested by Swedish police in December 2001. They were taken to Bromma airport in Stockholm, had their clothes cut from their bodies, suppositories inserted in their anuses and in diapers, overall, handcuffs and chains put on an executive jet with American registration N379P with a crew of masked men. > They were flown to Egypt, where they were imprisoned, beaten, and tortured according to reports by Swedish investigative pogramme "Kalla fakta". The Swedish ambassador visited them only six weeks later. We can hope that was the end of it, given that Swedish military intelligence did act, but the fact of the matter is someone high up authorised it initially, given that it required the cooperation of police, security services and the CIA, and to this date it is not clear who did. Either someone did it under the nose of top levels of government, or the very same people who claimed to have put a stop to it authorised it in the first place. What we do know is that there's been no proper investigation apart from a finding by a parliamentary investigator that the rendition flights were in violation of Swedish law. In other words there are no guarantees that the arrangement haven't simply been changed.
- rmc 12y ago
  The UK has treated it's own political prisoners horribly. Ever watch the film Hunger? Sweden might be shite (I don't know much about it), but the UK is no angel.
vacri 12y ago
Admittedly the article states that to date (in 2006) Sweden hadn't actually coughed up yet, however the ruling had been made against them by the UN, which at least answers the spirit of your question. "The Swedish government must now comply with the Human Rights Committee’s decision in the al-Zari case. The committee has indicated that monetary compensation for the petitioner is one appropriate remedy." http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b...

Here's an article covering the most well known incident: http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b... They did obtain assurances from Egyptian authorities that the asylum seekers would not be tortured, but didn't do anything to ensure this could be enforced, and of course they ended up getting tortured. (EDIT: But even if one were to believe that Swedish authorities actually believed those assurances, a parliamentary investigator also determined that the treatment in Sweden violated Swedish law - they were arrested and violated and handed over without any required legal procedures, and even if they had been legally extradited, the treatment itself still would be illegal - see below) Here's an article about Swedish military intelligence interfering after the CIA continued the rendition flights via Sweden for years after they had supposedly stopped: http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7497-cia-rendition-flights-stopped-by-swedish-military http://www.swedishwire.com/politics/7497-cia-rendition-fligh... This article also has more details about the Egyptian incident, including: > Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery, two Egyptians who had been seeking asylum in Sweden, were arrested by Swedish police in December 2001. They were taken to Bromma airport in Stockholm, had their clothes cut from their bodies, suppositories inserted in their anuses and in diapers, overall, handcuffs and chains put on an executive jet with American registration N379P with a crew of masked men. > They were flown to Egypt, where they were imprisoned, beaten, and tortured according to reports by Swedish investigative pogramme "Kalla fakta". The Swedish ambassador visited them only six weeks later. We can hope that was the end of it, given that Swedish military intelligence did act, but the fact of the matter is someone high up authorised it initially, given that it required the cooperation of police, security services and the CIA, and to this date it is not clear who did. Either someone did it under the nose of top levels of government, or the very same people who claimed to have put a stop to it authorised it in the first place. What we do know is that there's been no proper investigation apart from a finding by a parliamentary investigator that the rendition flights were in violation of Swedish law. In other words there are no guarantees that the arrangement haven't simply been changed.

rmc 12y ago
The UK has treated it's own political prisoners horribly. Ever watch the film Hunger? Sweden might be shite (I don't know much about it), but the UK is no angel.

vacri 12y ago

Admittedly the article states that to date (in 2006) Sweden hadn't actually coughed up yet, however the ruling had been made against them by the UN, which at least answers the spirit of your question. "The Swedish government must now comply with the Human Rights Committee’s decision in the al-Zari case. The committee has indicated that monetary compensation for the petitioner is one appropriate remedy." http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-ban-cia-rendition http://www.hrw.org/news/2006/11/09/sweden-violated-torture-b...