The Assange extradition conspiracy theory explained

“brilliant (and sourced) parody of the global conspiracy against Assange” – David Allen Green, lawyer and New Statesman legal blogger.
“genuinely brilliant” – Peter Ede, New Statesman blogger and lawyer

We thought it time to round up quickly what the conspiracy theory says, so that it is clear.

Let’s assume that the USA definitely want Assange and definitely have (or will have) a sealed indictment for espionage or something similar. What options do they have?

Plan A

Wait until Assange is in a country that has an extradition treaty with the USA, and apply for his extradition. Make sure that country extradites for espionage.

Plan B

Put pressure on Sweden to arrest Assange on unrelated charges. Put political pressure on a local prosecutor, following the normal appeal process, to reinstate a the investigation into rape, despite other allegations not having been dropped.

Have Assange’s lawyer arrange an interview, but then not be able to contact Assange, so that the prosecutor is forced to order his arrest.  Assange will then flee the country, as he has been tipped off about the USA connection, and not return.

Since the whole thing is a put-up job with no evidence to speak of, the court will have to be controlled in order to get an arrest warrant. Then the Swedish Appeal Court and the Supreme Court must be “managed” to allow the EAW.  Interpol must also be infiltrated, so they can do their usual job, and issue a Red Notice for a suspect who is a abroad – normally they would reject such overt political requests which have only been examined by two Swedish courts in detail.

But alas, Assange got tipped off and ended up in England.  Since the warrant and the EAW is a put-up job, the English courts will also have to be “persuaded” to “make the right decision”.  This can be manufactured using the scandalous claim that in England, “charges” mean the start of criminal proceedings, and that criminal proceedings have begun in Sweden, so it’s roughly the same thing. We are not sure how they thought they could get away with that, but it was indeed the plan.

Once the English courts play along, of course, the European Court may get involved, so there had better be a plan to subvert them as well.

We are not sure how Assange’s then lawyer Bjorn Hurtig got involved, but he changed his evidence in court; presumably the USA had managed to inject text messages on his phone and got him to change his story at the last minute.

But that’s not all: lawyers in Sweden, England, and all over the world will notice this bypassing of the process. They are bound to say something. So we’ll need a prominent lawyer, like David Allen Green. Better pay him off.  He’ll need reliable sources to sound even barely plausible, so we’ll have to pay off Klamberg and Wrange as well so he can use them.

But of course, if Green puts anything obviously wrong out in public, all the other legal bloggers will cry foul, as well as the lawyers who read their blogs – they’ll complain and some of them will offer to act pro bono to help right the wrong, and Green will be reported to the Bar Association and it’ll all be exposed. So we’d better pay off all the lawyers in England – and in Sweden, come to that.   That could be tricky. Some of them might blow the whistle on the gig.

We are not privy to the mechanism used to pay off Charon QC and all the other experienced lawyers who think that Green got it right, but it must be a terribly good method.  Foolproof, one might say.  We note that they did not manage to subvert Glenn Greenwald, but good old Klamberg was probably paid a bonus for his “clarification“.

Anyway, once Assange is back in Sweden, the US will apply for extradition.  They will apply using an accusation of espionage, and then get the Swedish courts to agree to extradite for that for the first time, in blatant violation of the extradition treaty and basic Swedish moral principles (with another round of cover-up and bribing on a massive scale).  But that’s complex, so they will probably will just use another accusation.  If they get Assange for another accusation, they can’t then legally charge him with anything else – so they will then have to subvert all the US courts and the US lawyers with another coverup and massive bribing scheme, while jeopardising all other US extradition requests worldwide.  This all relies once more, of course, on nobody saying that they have been bribed or pressured to agree with the view that the secret US government agency have mandated.


So there we have it: Plan A was bypassed in favour of Plan B. We are unsure why this is so, but it is apparently what has happened according to many Wikileaks supporters.  If  one claims that Plan B is ridiculous, one is likely to be called naive.  So it must be true, because we aren’t naive. We don’t just wonder why they chose plan B over Plan A, we have to wonder how on earth they have managed to implement it, and how they have got to almost all the lawyers in the Western World.  Scary stuff indeed.

And watch out: we are on the payroll, according to this retweet from the ultra-reliable authority Christine Assange:

 To see the serious and actually real human rights issues involved in the extradition, see here.

16 Responses to The Assange extradition conspiracy theory explained

  1. mary eng says:

    i will come clean with my version of the cia conspircy.

    once upon a time there was a cadre of war vets returning home from the second great war. they began to collect files, which eventually became the internet.

    they also collected salaries for collecting this data.

    the data is an ongoing project.

    thusly, the internet itself is a CIA conspiracy. confused?

    please only put data on the internet, if you want it to also be in government databases.

    otherwise, make your own DARPA.

  2. Pips says:

    Here’s some more paranoid nonsense from an Assange supporter. Click on the link below and read this insider perspective from an ex US diplomat.

    How could this twit’s opinion possibly rate over the opinions of an army of quasi-journos/bloggers whose info sources – other bloggers- are somehow more reliable

  3. Pips says:

    Dear Andy

    Are we to assume you think the Assange extradition is not politically motivated? Not irregular in regards to normal Swedish proceedings? The timing of all this a mere coincidence and not at all suspicious to you? One final question…

    Have you recently received a blow to the head?

  4. Andy mccoy says:

    You are presuming the cia is intelligent bad move any time of the day. Assange has become a pawn in a game of media peekaboo to keep our minds off real issues not much more meat to it than williams wifes tits he will be used and abused like the rest of us. But at least he had a go. You cant take that away from him.. Your post is nonsensical at best, in the interest of intelligence.. please refrain.@

  5. Steven Cracknell says:

    They are not bribed, they actually pay money to do this.

  6. PIPS says:


    No one is suggesting acquiescence to US interests is this literal – and if they are then they’re as daft as you!

    How might you explain Pinochet’s acquittal ? Or the WMD justification for invading Iraq?? People being paid off?

    no you fool…

    It’s about manipulating the system – progressing a plan via sympathetic or motivated individuals/organizations. We’re talking about massive mechanisms of state power populated by A LOT of people.

    Are you honestly suggesting there is nothing irregular in the Assange arrest proceedings – the timing not at all suspicious to you – honey traps a figment of imagination??

    This is to say nothing of one of the two accusers – the instigator as records show – once being an intern at the Swedish Embassy in Washington, her being kicked out of Cuba on suspicion of spying, fleeing to – of all places – the West Bank!!! She doesn’t at all fit the profile of a Swedish intelligence asset now does she…

    Smelling the fish heads right about now – a great steaming pile of them – or is your nose blocked along with your ability to perform the most basic deductive reasoning…


    • Objectiviser says:

      Thank you for clarifying that this is a subconscious reaction by all the lawyers in the West, rather than overt pressure being put on them by a shady organisation. That does explain a lot, but we are left wondering quite who is operating the mind-control device, and how long ago they invented it.

      Thanks also for pointing out the identical situations of a former dictator being propped up by a right-wing authoritarian Prime Minister- a dictator who eventually return to the country who requested him (in a politically settled “resolution”), and the invasion of Iraq at a time when GWB desperately needed the sort of popularity that a war always brings.

      It all makes a lot more sense now, but I must say that the timing of your post is suspicious: right after we outed Green and co, there you are saying it’s NOT them. So I’m afraid we must conclude that you are, in fact, CIA, and this is just an extension of the already elaborate Plan B – a contingency in case it is discovered! Nice try, “agent Pips”, but we’re not buying today – not even with your marvellous mind-control device capable of brainwashing everyone in Sweden!

  7. ObiterJ says:

    To find out the law, there was no need to read any of the many law blogs. Just look at the Swedish government’s website where it gives clear material on how extradition works in Sweden.

    Also, you must not think that every law blogger in the UK slavish follows the opinion and views of Mr Green. Most law bloggers follow their own reasoning and do their own research on the law even if they end up agreeing with Mr Green.

    • Objectiviser says:

      Sorry for the belated reply; just saw this again. If you compare Klamberg to the Swedish govt blog, you’ll see that it isn’t, in fact, clear cut. I actually told David Allen Green that he may be wrong by using the govt website. It took Klamberg’s clarification for me to realise that I was wrong; the govt website doesn’t cover how treaties affect the domestic law, and how it is overridden.

  8. mike says:

    Is this really what people are saying, not sure they are? Or are they saying Assange was wreckless, a heady mixture of rock star type hubris and paranoia on the go. The approach to the police by the women was genuine, but hugely amplified and distorted because of who he was, and the international heat surrounding him. No conspiratorial orders or directives were made, it’s obvious you could make a name for yourself nailing Assange, and most of the police and legals dealing with his case, like many updtanding citizens would be instinctively hugely disapproving of Wikileaks. Understanding this and being pretty jumpy anyway, not surprising he hit the panic button and ran.

  9. PG714 says:

    Why is my Giants playoff game not on? Rain? That’s no excuse. Wait, what forum is this? Where the heck am I? Oh. Nevermind.

  10. Richard says:

    It is so scary to understand that this is the truth, which is obviously when you describe it ! Why have I not understod this before?? And the scale of the bribeing.. My god this must be the reason why USA is in a financial crisis!! Those bastards!
    By the way where do I aply for a bribe?? They must have forgotten me!?

    Love this!!

    • Objectiviser says:

      Tweet the message “The butler is in the RED ROOM”, and you will be contacted shortly. Ask for expenses form EX-154b. Not EX-154a; that has a green border. You need the red border. Destroy this comment after you read it. By eating it.

  11. Nick says:

    Excellent analysis, and clearly this is exactly what happened. But, as usual, the whole edifice collapses because do a simple error. D A Green is a solicitor, and thus under the authority of the Law Society/Solicitors Regulatory Authority, not the Bar Association.

    Thus, your whole argument falls flat and you are shown to be no more than pawns in the CIA conspiracy.

    Or something

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>