Appeal #1

Appeal for review of AM-185260-11: the government, parliament and armed forces under reported for war crimes in Libya 2011

Click here for the original report..

Click here for the suspects..

Dec 9, 2011

The International Prosecution Chamber in Stockholm

P.O. Box 70296
107 22 Stockholm

Request for appeal/review of report on serious offences subject to public prosecution: AM-185260-11

On Nov 21, 2011, your office arrived at the decision that since "the reported events are not crimes"1 no investigation would be started.

We know them to be just that, horrendous crimes of tremendous public interest, and we urgently appeal and request a review of the decision.

There is a crime scene the combined size of the United Kingdom, France, Sweden, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and Greece.

Inside this crime scene one finds up to 150 thousand dead (current figure), a million refugees and a civilian national infrastructure bombed back several decades.

Why was the war against Libya a crime?

The NATO-led war against Libya was a war of aggression used as instrument for the national policy of some states to meddle in the internal affairs of another state for the purpose of regime-change . As such the war was a violation of the UN-charter and the Kellogg-Briand treaty and went way, way beyond what UN resolution 1973 allowed for (protection of civilian life and infrastructure).

It was also a war which saw systematic violations of the Geneva convention in its execution.2

  1. The Kellogg-Briand treaty declares wars as tools for national policy illegal.

    The treaty is still in force. Sweden is a signatory (SÖ 1929:23).3

  2. In case the prosecution chooses to ignore point 1 – the second reason why the
    war against Libya was a crime is that the UN-charter explicitly forbids the UN
    to meddle in the internal affairs of other states.4
  3. Libya was never considered a threat to other states, neither by the UN nor by NATO or any of the eighteen aggressor states, including Sweden. The only reason given for the war was unconfirmed concerns for civilian inside Libya.5

  4. In case the prosecution chooses to ignore points 1 and 2, the third reason why the war against Libya was a crime is that the only situation in which article 42 of the UN-charter can be invoked (cf. resolution 1973)  is if attempts to settle the issue with non-violent means has first been exhausted (article 41).6
  5. This step was skipped by the security council, by the eighteen aggressor states – including Sweden – and by NATO.7

  6. In case the prosecution chooses to ignore points 1, 2, and 3, the fourth reason the war against Libya was a crime is that even if resolution 1973 is accepted as valid, the war waged against Libya was, and is, a violation of what resolution 1973 allowed for – protection of civilian life and infrastructure.8

Who are those responsible in Sweden for the war crimes in Libya?

Given that the war was illegal and the existence of concepts such as "command responsibility",9 "shared responsibility", "common purpose",10 "joint enterprise",11 and more recently "Joint Criminal Enterprise"12 in International Law, all members of the Swedish armed forces part of the war effort as well as all cabinet members and member of parliaments directing Sweden’s armed forces to this war, are responsible for the war crimes committed by the NATO-war effort "Unified Protector" in total.

It does not matter if Swedish forces did, or did not, fire a single shot (or dropped a single bomb or fired a single rocket) – in anger. The fact that the government and parliament of Sweden directed the armed forces of Sweden to support others operating under the same NATO-command who did do this makes the government, parliament and armed forces of Sweden equally culpable.

If the prosecution fails to see the established legal connection of shared responsibility, then the prosecution needs to investigate the reality of i.a. which of the over 10 thousand strike sorties resulting in up to 150 thousand dead (latest known figure) and other casualties were made as the result of i.a. Swedish reconnaissance and information sharing – thus establishing the causal links, and not only the legal responsibility link, which is already there.

Finally, in the case the prosecution fails to grasp that the way the war was waged is evidence that the toppling of the Qaddafi-regime was the real, albeit hidden agenda – it is now directed the statements made by Foreign Minister Carl Bildt on his personal blog to understand the hidden agenda of regime-change.

Mar 21, 2011: Foreign Minister Carl Bildt comments on a meeting
with the EU Foreign Affairs council regarding the war in Libya:

".. we were in agreement that the most important and difficult are political actions to try to build a new functioning Libya after Qaddafi".13

There it is. For Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, regime-change was the purpose of resolution 1973 as it was taken – a position he held over a week before he would present the government proposition, he wrote himself, and in which he drags Sweden into an illegal war.14

However, neither Bildt’s proposition, nor resolution 1973, mention regime-change.

Mar 27, 2011: More self-incriminating statements by Carl Bildt:

"On Tuesday I will be in London for the big international conferences that will take place there in order to discuss the direction of the coming operations.

The UN’s Ban Ki-moon, the Arab League and hopefully also leaders from the African Union, will also be there.

I would like to see that the meetings focus more on the political and diplomatic efforts that will be required before and after direct military actions have come to an end.

It will then take a broad political process to lay prepare the ground for a unified Libya for the time after Qaddafi. The challenges then will hardly be less the they are now."15

Indicated by the last paragraph is Carl Bildt’s understanding the highly destructive nature of the recently started NATO-campaign as well as the true nature of the Al-Qaeda rebel council waiting in the wings.

Apr 11, 2011: Comment in relation to meetings with EU foreign ministers, NATO foreign ministers and representatives of the African Union:

"It is important that they are clear [on the point] that there is no future for Qaddafi and his closest family in Libya ['s political life."16

The reality that swims into focus here appears to be that Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt was a political driving force for regime-change also in an international context.

Who does this guy work for - Swedish tax-payers or a cabal of  foreign financial oligarchs?

Apr 30, 2011: More Carl Bildt:

"The Libyan operation with the pressure exerted on Qaddafi must of course continue until he is gone."17

If the prosecution is looking to identify the main culprit responsible for dragging Sweden into this illegal war, their best suspect may be Foreign Minister Carl Bildt.

Mar 30, 2011:  Carl Bildt on the depth of his personal involvement:

"Friday Morning the parliament will decide on the Libya-operation and as the minister responsible for the proposition I will of course be there to be part of that debate."18

Regarding the question of admissibility

Regarding the question of admissibility, raised by your office in a telephone conversation, here is our response:

Who paid for the war?

We did.

This is the fact, albeit no one in the government and parliament asked us before they joined in the seven month NATO-directed crime spree in North Africa - and doing so in our name.

This means that the prosecution not only has to start this investigation because it is of tremendous public interest. It also has to do it since most of the individuals making this report are taxpayers to the state of Sweden and thus unwitting parties/stake-holders to the reported war crimes by the actions of the government, parliament and armed forces of Sweden - as apparently initiated by Foreign Minister Carl Bildt under the aegis of Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt.

Regardless of the prosecution's decision to initiate an investigation (or not), we expect a detailed written deliberation on all the points above as well as the question of admissibility and the prosecution's view on the relationship (and the reason for this relationship) between the individuals calling for this investigation and the state of Sweden.

December 9, 2011

Kristoffer Hell
Peter Pettersson
Yrsa Häggström
Leif Erlingsson
Leif Bengtsson
Carl Lundström
Åse Pedersen
Jonathan Björklund
Haideh Åkesson
Ulf Bittner
Gunnar Nordin
Lennart Mogren
Hans Carlsson
Stefan Danerek
Arne Bengtsson
 Carl Hamilton
Einar Kjolaas
Marcus Borg
Johan Lindquist
Jan Wiklund
Rita Bardsäter
Ulla Johansson
Mikael Vatjus
Bengt Larsson
Jan-Åke Jönsson
Roland Holm
Björn Naess Johansen
Linus Abrahamson
Stig-Lennart Johansson
Stephan Markusson
Anders Paulsson
Dennis Zackrisson
Leo Holtter
Kalle Hellberg
Lukas Konrad Swenninger
Pia Hanzén
Einar Schlereth
Stefan Lundblad
Mattias Gyllenhak Liss
Patrique Ståhl Dordevic
Ann Hellberg
Brigitte Gustavsson
Snorre Lindquist
Simon Hansson
Torbjörn Rönnberg
Dick Österlund
Lars Lindeberg
Katarina Lindmark
Roland Nordlund
Thomas Schützer
Jakob Lipczynski
Lasse Wilhelmsson
Gabriel Amanatiadis
Lena Holfve
Johan Björnsson
Martin Dahr


[1] "Det förfarande som anmälts är inte brottsligt", Beslut 2011-11-21.<>
[2] cf. AM-185260-11, Nov 4, 2011.
[3], 2011-12-06.
[4] UN-charter, chapter I article 2, clause 7.
[5] cf., 2011-12-07.
[6], 2011-11-30.
[7], 2011-11-30.
[8] Cf., 2011-12-07; cf., 2011-11-30; cf. AM-185260-11, Nov 4, 2011.
[9], 2011-12-07.
[10], 2011-12-07.
[11], 2011-12-07.
[12], 2011-12-07. cf., 2011-12-07.
[13], 2011-12-07: " var eniga om att viktigast och svårast är de politiska insatserna för att försöka att bygga ett fungerande Libyen efter Khaddafi."
[14], 2011-12-07: "På fredag morgon skall riksdagen ta ställning till Libyen-insatsen, och som statsråd ansvarig för propositionen kommer jag självfallet att vara på plats för att delta i den debatten", 2011-12-07: "På tisdag kommer jag så att befinna mig i London på de stora internationella sammandragningar som kommer att äga rum där för att diskutera inriktningen av de kommande insatserna. Dit kommer också FN:s Ban Ki-moon, Arabförbundet och förhoppningsvis också ledande företrädare för Afrikanska Unionen. Jag skulle gärna se att de mötena fokuserar mer på de politiska och diplomatiska ansträngningar som kommer att krävas inför och efter det att de direkta militära operationerna har kommit till sitt slut. Då kommer det att krävas en bred politisk process för att skapa förutsättningar för ett enat Libyen för tiden efter Khaddafi. Utmaningarna så kommer näppeligen att vara mindre än utmaningarna nu."
[16], 2011-12-07: "Det är viktigt att de är tydliga med att det inte finns någon framtid för Khaddafi och hans närmaste familj i Libyens politik."
[17], 2011-12-07: "Libyen-insatsen med trycket på Khaddafi måste självfallet fortsätta intill dess att han kommer bort."
[18], 2011-12-07: "På fredag morgon skall riksdagen ta ställning till Libyen-insatsen, och som statsråd ansvarig för propositionen kommer jag självfallet att vara på plats för att delta i den debatten"


Comments are closed.