@Ducan: "2) His situation is being adjusted by President Obama. I can't help but think there's a degree of fabrication in some of the reports of Manning's predicament. Let's not forget also that this man was willing to compromise US military intelligence..."

No sir, and your answer is emblematic of the problem with Obama's treatment of Manning. Manning is charged with certain crimes at this point. His is not guilty of these crimes. After his trial (a military tribunal, unfortunately), a determination of his innocence of the charges will be evaluated, and an ensueing judgement rendered. Up until the past few years, the United States was, by and large, a nation of law. The executive branch has run amok recently, however. I for one am deeply troubled and deeply frightened to be a citizen of the United States these days. The executive branch has been hacking away at our constitutional freedoms, and also acting as a rogue entity that does not answer to the rule of law.

Daft. Obama isn't British and is under no obligation to sit through an examination by the BBC. Although he's among the most important politicians in the world, he's basically a celebrity over here.

Hi Mehdi,

Due to the success of the campaign against the obviously outrageous conditions of Bradley Manning's detention, Bradley was moved to a medium-custody facility last month. He is now allowed to associate with others to an extent.

Nevertheless, Andrew Marr could well have asked Barack Obama whether, in his opinion, the principle that someone is innocent until proven guilty is important. He might have enquired whether he is proud that the UN Special Rapporteur is investigating the conduct of this case. If he were feeling particularly daring, Mr. Marr could also have asked the President whether those who reveal (or are alleged to have revealed) violations of humanitarian law or malpractice at the heart of government should be treated more or less harshly than those who commit, condone or indulge such abuses.

All the best,

Naomi Colvin

UK Friends of Bradley Manning

I think overall this is a good choice of questions - and important that you write them. I don't know a lot about Marr's politics, but certainly he did press occasionally:

"... your troops could have ended up shooting at Pakistani troops had things gone wrong."

"... [Bin Laden] was always going to be killed, wasn't he?"

"... it would presumably have been very difficult for America to take this man and put him on trial..."

"would you do the same again? [i.e., basically invade Pakistan]"

"... what would the President Obama say looking back at the Barack Obama who won on all those wonderful images of hope and change and yes we can? What would you say to him now? You're a good guy?"

There was enough to plant seeds of morality into the dreams and nightmares of Obama.

Typical. Like Paxman and the other supposed big boys, when it comes to the most powerful, Marr kisses serious ass.

2) His situation is being adjusted by President Obama. I can't help but think there's a degree of fabrication in some of the reports of Manning's predicament. Let's not forget also that this man was willing to compromise US military intelligence.

4) I guess, by that logic, Blair couldn't have been an arbiter of the Northern Irish Peace Process given the amount of aid given to the North and to Unionists? The US provides a lot of aid to a lot of nations. Israel is its ally. That does not mean Obama is myopic to the concerns of the Palestinians. It would be untenable for any other body to resolve the conflict. Do you think it would be facilitated by the inertial bureaucracy of the UN? No, as Obama conveyed in his interview to Andrew Marr.

6) "I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage." -- from his acceptance speech. Even then Obama had the humility to recognise that there were "men and women - some known, some obscure to all but those they help - to be far more deserving of this honor than I." As far as I can see, anyway, he is attempting to arbitrate peace and is pursuing a tempered foreign policy.

In one sense, this is a perfect combination. The BBC is a corporate network. Obama is a corporate President. But also, it is disappointing that it's considered "rude" to actually do your job and ask tough questions.

BBC is a statefunded service, which means that farce of an interview was simply British tax payer money going into kissing the arse of the man who treats their country like scum.

Obama's opening remark which I have abridged here: "If you have met with families who lost loved ones on 9/11 - if you think about what an extraordinary trauma it was for the country and you think that all traces back to this maniacal action by al-Qaeda. For us, to be able to say unequivocally that the mastermind behind that event had been removed was a powerful moment".

My question to Obama would be if your so sure that Bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11 how come over 1500 American architects and engineers are unequivocal in there belief that only explosives could have brought down the three skyscrapers (including World Trade Center 7, a 47 storey building which came down at 5.00PM) which imploded that day? Despite their qualifications, their loyalty to the US and their knowledge of the laws of physics and engineering are they all wrong? Or could it be that Bin Laden was just one player in a group which extended into the bowels of the American establishment which also played their part in executing the drama of 9/11. The evidence of insider trading (over 60 billion fradulently earned through shorting key 9/11 stocks) and foreknowledge in advance of 9/11 is now so extensive that without an independent investigation into what went on that day, the contention that Osama Bin Laden was the mastermind behind 9/11 is pure speculation.

The Obama administration couldn't have asked for anything more compliant with their interests, if they'd contacted the BBC and asked for a twenty minute propaganda platform. http://www.howtoinstalllaminateflooring.org/

"Obama isn't British and is under no obligation to sit through an examination by the BBC."

First, he is hardly likely to be grilled by any American broadcaster.

Secondly, the US sets itself up as the leader of something called the "free" world. Our governments are only too happy to collude in his maintaining this posture. Granted it is unusual for empires to hold themselves answerable to their subjugated provinces, but Obama could be certain no really challenging questions were about to be asked. In fact Marr was always going to be supportive to the imperial narrative rather than probing. And was.

So why not?

As that song of yesteryear, 'That's What I Love about the South' - goes "Knock on any door, and ask them who won the Civil War?"
Seems the North won the battle but the South won the war.
Seems that old Mason-Dixey line runs right through Alaska and every other state in the 48(50),
American football teams are at least 70% Afro-American and American basketball teams - well! Don't mention athletics either.
Most spectators are Caucasian - price rationing!

Say it isn't so

RK: Don't be a moron. The biggest international issues at the moment are all centred on the Middle East.

Mehdi: This is one of the few occasions when I'm on your side. I'm pretty sure though, that any questions to be asked would have to be approved first.

You Brits have always wanted America to love you blindly while you flogged us bloody. Like the French, you screamed the Marshall plan was both and overblown bribe and monsterously stingy. And you've maintained that drumbeat for nearly seventy years. The European colonial powers, and Britain was the greatest of these by far, slaughtered more innocents each decade from 1850 to 1970 than Hitler did in the Holocaust, and racked up a body count greater than the sum total of all Native Americans that have lived, in the areas that are now the USA, since 1607. And that by orders of magnitude. Then left America to clean up the mess.

Do you ever feel shame for your vanity and arrogence? Any shame at all?

Even your best Marxist Historians have had to admit America (whom you call an Empire) never practised colonialism or imperialism. At least nothing that can be coherently defined as such.

Do you ever feel like telling fewer lies about us?

On a different topic, and with regard to previous references to sycophancy , I predict we shall shortly observe Cameron raising it to a new art form.

@Thomas: 'Even your best Marxist Historians have had to admit America (whom you call an Empire) never practised colonialism or imperialism'

What about the colonisation of Sioux, Apache and Little Big Foot land?

As an anti-nuclear lobbyist, I would love to interview my President. Looks like I need to have an illicit affair and enact a superinjunction in order to land one. Oh well, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Poliphobis, you European, and you Brits most of all left a vast mess from your colonial empires. You guys coned us into cleaning up the mess and slyly tranfered the blame for your blood spatter crimes to us. Just come up with a way the resign the blame, burden, and misery, to the Europeans (yourselves amoung them) responcible for causing the mess, and we'll go home dancing.

Mr. Divine please justify the Saxon crimes against the Celts. Remember, you Brits live on land that had previous owners. Before you can say one word to us about the Native Americans, you English must leave Britain and compensate the Celts for your crimes against them.

And be quick about it!

Perhaps they should have asked Paxman to interview him instead. Paxman's philosophy about politicians is well known... Put at its simplest and in his own words it's..."What is this weasel up to now?"

Thomas Devine, despite invasions by Saxons, Romans, Vikings, Normans, and others, the genetic makeup of today's white English is much the same as it was 12,000 ago, it's around 80 percent we English have the same genetic characteristics just like most other white Britons which has been passed down from a few thousand Ice Age hunters.

8/10 questions relates to Muslims / Islamic countries.

My own 2 questions, worth a penny each to Leftists and Mehdi Hasan.

1) Mehdi, when are you leaving terrorists and joining the mainstream?
2) Leftist NSM, when are you kicking the Islamist editor if yours?

i've been daily sending george orwell's 1984 with comments to our new canadian pm since he got elected may 2. today the comments were these questions to ask 0bama next time they go for a beer. his sinister persona matches 0bama's closely. they also both use populism to capture votes and minds. wish us luck when their next global insolvency crisis hits. they both like giving our future taxes to banksters and casino financiers.

Jug ears is just the sort of interviewer the ruling elite love - a servile geeky creep.

He was the war criminal Blair's pet journalist throughout 2002/3.