A catch … freedom costs

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

Long before posting the news of Julian Assange’s release I was scouring sources and waiting to see what the catch was. I only posted after feeling reasonably confident that we had the whole story. But we didn’t. Here is the part that was not known at that time:

For the “privilege” Julian Assange must pay over half a million US dollars.

Please help if you can: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/p/free-julian-assange

(From https://x.com/wikileaks/status/1805643584328098080 )

From the crowdfunding site

I’ve already chipped in a little.

The following two tabs change content below.

Neil Godfrey

Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!

9 thoughts on “A catch … freedom costs”

    1. You should pick up some bios about him and examine what wikileaks has and has not done — I think you would be suprised at what you might learn. The exposing war crimes is not a crime. I was listening to some high profile pundit imply that nothing Assange did had any benefit, did only harm, and the only one who benefitted was Assange. I can’t conceive of a more perverse disunderstanding.

      1. The court proceedings remind me of “Bart versus Australia”. (Except Bart deserved a booting of course!)

        I cannot conceive of what he did was a crime apart from the fact that whistle-blowing is considered a crime by most western governments.
        I am not sure how the “proceeds from crime” laws work, but it was applied to Hicks and Shappelle Corby.


        I cannot see if it is at the discretion of the Attorney General?

        I suspect if he publishes before Dutton becomes PM he will probably won’t get sanctioned by the AG, but I would not like his chances of keeping his cheque after that!

        1. I would not begrudge any compensation that might come Julian Assange’s way. I understand that his father has lost his savings and his home through this ordeal. Who knows how this experience will have affected him and what he will do now. If a book does come out in his name at any time no doubt it will directed to “the cause” — as per Edward Snowden’s.

          1. Well that was my point – I am hoping that he can recover some of these costs with a lucrative book deal, but I just wonder if the Australian government will decide to be mean. (Will the US put pressure on the AG to use the “proceeds from crime” laws?)

            The movie rights themselves would surely pay his costs several times over. (maybe it should be a Baz Lurhmann musical as the story is surreal)

            1. I erroneously interpreted your initial response as coming from among those who have a jaundiced view of Assange, sorry. The half million for the charter flight has to be paid within a month so that money is needed immediately. It looks like that is no longer going to be an issue now. I agree with your sentiments about our government: I would not trust the Australian government — under either major party — to do anything but comply with any future US directive were he to resume his activities from here.

  1. Julian Assange is probably the greatest hero of the last thirty years, and his treatment at the hands of ‘Liberal’ ‘Democracies’ is very instructive. Following the twists and turns of the legal arguments made on Craig Murray’s blog proved beyond a shadow of doubt that justice does not exist in my country, the United Kingdom, or Sweden, or the US. For one egregious example: recently in the UK case it was argued by the prosecution that Julian should not be able to use the fact that the CIA plotted to assassinate him as evidence, because, if the CIA had him in prison in the US, they would no longer need to assassinate him. This was accepted by the judge and thereafter the defence was no longer able to argue that point. The prosecution was then allowed to give various undertakings about how they would look after the welfare of a man they had actively tried to murder, and these were all accepted as being given in good faith.

    That mainstream hack claiming that she is a ‘proper’ journalist …with ‘integrity’, no less… and Julian is not… well, it is hard to overestimate the moral culpability of these repugnant people. One remembers the spectacle of The Guardian publicly smashing the Snowden hard drive in ritual obeisance to the security state – and the sorry state of their reporting ever since. The UK state could not have got away with what they did if The Guardian had simply reported it, like Craig did.

    1. Yeh, too many politicians and too many other journalists have made themselves absolutely nauseous over Assange. The palpable falsehoods they keep recycling — endangering lives, publishing unfiltered/unredacted material. Hero is not overstating it. He knew what he was risking when he started out on wikileaks and probably considers himself lucky he is still alive (for now).

Leave a Comment

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Vridar

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading