Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
ONLINE PAYMENT service PayPal has frozen the account of a group that had been raising funds in support of Bradley Manning, the US Army private suspected of passing on confidential US war documents and diplomatic messages to WikiLeaks.
Courage to Resist, a group founded to collect support funds for Manning’s legal defence, said yesterday PayPal had frozen its account, which was one of the main ways that international residents could make donations to support Manning.
A spokesperson for the Bradley Manning Support Network, which had been partnering with Courage to Resist, said the group had been “in discussions with PayPal for weeks, and by their own admission there’s no legal obligation for them to close down our account.”
Another claimed that PayPal was not willing to remove the restrictions placed on the account unless it was given the authorisation to withdraw some of the funds by default.
“Our accounting does not allow for this type of direct access by a third party,” the spokesman added, “nor do I trust PayPal as a business entity with this responsibility given their punitive actions against WikiLeaks”.
The action taken against WikiLeaks had been unwarranted, he continued, because the whistleblowing website had “not charged with any crime by any government on Earth.”
The PayPal account had been set up in 2006 but there were “no issues with this account,” Courage to Resist said, until supporters were specifically asked to provide donations for Manning’s defence.
Maning is widely considered the source of both the Afghan and Iraqi ‘war logs’ posted to WikiLeaks last year, as well as a possible source of the US diplomatic cables currently being published by the site.
He has been in solitary confinement at a military unit in Virginia since June 2010, and is not likely to face trial until autumn of this year. He is only allowed out of his cell for an hour a day, and is denied any exercise or access to the media.
The United Nations is continuing an investigation into his treatment, after suggestions his treatment was tantamount to torture.
WikiLeaks itself has seen PayPal block its fundraising accounts in the wake of the latter publication, while a number of banks worldwide had also frozen accounts set up to provide legal support for its founder, Julian Assange.
PayPal and the websites of a number of credit card companies were attacked by the hacktivist collective Anonymous in the wake of the moves.
The decision to freeze the account came hours before Assange lost his fight in a London court against extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted on rape charges. Assange is set to appeal that decision.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I really hope they charge them, it’s the right road to take and might make other parents think twice about buying a gun for a 15 year old on black Friday!?! What a pair of human meat sacks…. They need to answer to the poor parents of the kids he killed. What a warped country.
@Dawn Harvey: they have been charged. It’s why they are in court.
@transik: a few teens hanging around on a street corner is the exact same as multiple school shootings every year alright.
The comments section for this article is open but the one below it about Prince Andrew is closed??
Are they not just as responsible as the leader who instigated the Capitol building riots? Leading to murdr
@Dean: “Are they not just as responsible as the leader who instigated the Capitol building riots? Leading to murdr”
Who was murdered at the Capitol riot?
@Dean: what murder?
If you start charging people over the actions of their children, where do you stop. And where’s the line. I just don’t see this case sticking at all. The fact they’re having a break in the case has all the signalling that this case won’t stand up. And I think that’s the right decision. Sure you can charge someone with not safety storing a weapon but this leap to murder is far too remote. This case is a knee jerk reaction by local authorities towards a grieving community.
@RogersRabbit: the father bought a gun for his 15-year old and knew about his intention to carry out a school massacre. That’s at least manslaughter, if not enticing to murder.
@RogersRabbit: the school asked the parents to remove the child from school and to bring him to a counsellor because of his concerning behaviour. They refused and left the child in school, without any support. They have at the very least neglected their own child big way, that’s criminally punishable
@RogersRabbit: michigan is one of the only, if not the only state in the USA that doesn’t require that a gun be stored under lock and key by law. However it is illegal for someone under the age of 18 to possess a handgun there and they bought it for him for his 16th birthday. Furthermore the mother told the kid not to get caught in future when the school reported that he was caught looking at amunition on his phone. I agree that it’s going to be tough to get the manslaughter charges to stick though. Which is a pity because his parents come across as s c u m. Hopefully they’ll get some sort of federal conviction so they are never able to own guns again.
@Sebastian Manka: that hasn’t been established. The father buying a gun and the parents being told teachers were concerned about him once or twice are two independent things.
@Daniela Monza: since when is not bringing your child to a counsellor criminally punishable. There’s a big diff between being a bad parent and one that should be in prison.
@RogersRabbit: they failed to secure their weapon as the law requires resulting in the commission of a crime. We don’t need further gun laws; we need the existing laws enforced.
Because he is 15 and the crimes he’s alleged to have committed are so serious. And at 15 he’s old enough to know what he did was wrong. Also the age at with serious crimes are been committed is dropping, and consideration is taken into account if this person poses a serious threat or is likely to reoffend.
Could someone explain why/how he is being tried as an adult please?
@Waylanderj: it is a legal option subject to a legal challenge pending his mental health evaluation. Setting an arbitrary age is not a standard across the US. Do you think a standard period is superior to an individual maturity assessment? His trial should he plead not guilty, will be informative.
have your say