Comments on: Accused WikiLeaker defense argues Obama must testify

By: asjadvocacy

asjadvocacy — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 15:57:11 +0000

Hear hear! We can cover those costs. Next pathetic excuse please.

By: Jack Bishop

Jack Bishop — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:02:02 +0000

I listen to WBAI radio and a Marine Corp. Gen (ret) said that Bradley Manning should be Time’s person of the year. I agree. He did the right thing, the governement isnt always interested in the truth or doesnt like to be embarrassed, Id love to see some people in power squiriming on the stand, but if they lie, nothing will be done to them, that’s the real crime. He is a whistle blower, not a criminal.

By: Daniel Scheinhaus

Daniel Scheinhaus — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 21:03:40 +0000

By coincidence I read an article in today’s NY Times about pages and pages of evidence that was found in a pile of garbage that was, shockingly, supposed to have been destroyed. This evidence gave a picture of the massive extent of the killing of innocent civilians, including disabled, women and even small children in the Iraq War, presumably as collateral, while protecting troops from dangerous Iraqis. This helicopter incident shows that these victims were not collateral damage but simply victims of a hyped-up nut who happened to be flying a helicopter and was looking for people to kill for his personal pleasure. What the pilot had to say before he fired made that clear. He should be on trial, not Private Manning. The picture does not show any weaponry among those civilians, and if one had such a weapon (clearly not visible), U.S. troops, armed to the teeth as they were, could easily have apprehended him without taking any casualties.

By: minxy

minxy — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 20:53:39 +0000

As PFC Manning has millions of supporters around the world… and we all just donated $20….surely that would cover such a cost?

By: Ken E.

Ken E. — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:51:47 +0000

I would like to echo John Ward’s comment. I would like to donate directly for this exact purpose. It would be great to be able to have the prosecution give a dollar-cost figure and then respond, “We have been able to raise that amount ourselves for specifically this purpose from those who would like to ensure PFC Manning get’s a fair trial.”

By: someone

someone — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 04:49:34 +0000

“If the government’s only reason to deny the defense witnesses is cost”
What a lame argument, what does a day of holding Mr. Manning in a maximum security prison cost?
It obvious to see that they are trying to prevent the hearing of these witnesses (President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Robert Gates), because they could be asked a lot of questions which could be “unpleasant” for the government, which could open lots of new can of worms, that every government in war prefers not to talk about.

By: John Ward

John Ward — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 22:29:32 +0000

If the government’s only reason to deny the defense witnesses is cost, then can the defense offer to pay those costs? I would donate toward that and I’m sure many others would too. We shouldn’t have to, but this case is too important to lose because of money.