“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?
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.
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:
— Christine Assange (@AssangeC) October 6, 2012