Appeal #2

February 10, 2012

The Prosecution Development Center Stockholm
Prosecutor Roger Waldenström

Re: ÅM 2011/8263 (AM-185260-11)

On November 4, 2011, a number of individuals inside the government, parliament and armed forces of Sweden were reported for war crimes in Libya.

During the seven rounds of dismissals and appeals that have followed, the following has become increasingly clear:

1. The strength of the war crimes case:
   1. The clear identification of a Swedish cabinet member (Carl Bildt 490715-4613) as the ain suspect in having deceived the Parliament and possibly also the cabinet into a war with the ostensible motive of protecting civilians, but whose true objective all along, even before this minister authored the bill that was presented to the Parliament, was regime change – a measure never authorised by UN resolution 1973.
   2. After Sweden’s and NATO’s unprovoked attack on it, Libya has gone from being the most prosperous state in all of Africa (UN 2010) to a war zone with a reported one million refugees and 150 000 dead.¹ It is today under the nominal control of terrorist designated organizations. Although a de facto civil war appear to rage between the various factions, the new contollers still find the means to send rebels to southern Turkey, from where they launch terrorist raids into Syria for the apparent purpose of toppling also that government.²
2. A remarkable reluctance on the part of the public prosecutor to initiate the investigation into war crimes.

   This reluctance flies in the face of the fact that the prosecution by law is required to initiate such an investigation.3

3. An apparently widespread lack of understanding among prosecutors as to which laws actually regulate their official work.
   In telephone conversations with three different prosecutors on January 16, 2012 (the Stockholm on-call prosecutor; Sweden’s Prosecutor-General; and the Prosecutor Development Center in Stockholm) revealed that none of them could answer question “a” below – or simply gave the absolutely wrong answer. In case “b” below, all replied, also erroneously, “no”:
   1. What is the legal definition of ‘plaintiff’?
   2. Is there a section in Swedish law that defines the relationship between those have reported these war crimes (Swedish citizens, registered voters, defence conscripts, and tax-payers) and the government of Sweden?

We now request that the prosecution / Prosecutor-General immediately launches the criminal investigation called for in the attached documentation.

Since there is a very strong public interest in the reported crimes being investigated it is incumbent with the prosecution to initiate such an investigation. To not do it, is tantamount to malpractice.3

This already already strong legal need is further strenghtened by the fact that we who have reported these war crimes also are plaintiffs.

This is so since everything that the government of Sweden did in Libya was done in our names with our money.

In case it has not yet become clear to the prosecution, the situation is that we who have made this report are deeply “offended” – to express it mildly – by the crimes the government, parliament and armed forces of Sweden in Libya in 2011.

RB 20:8

Finally, as we who have reported the war crimes are the very same “people” mentioned in the Swedish Constitution (RF 1:1), the prosecution is recommended to start viewing this appeal as a direct instruction from their ultimate employers that time now has come to initiate this criminal investigation.

RF 1:1

Yours faithfully,