Dennis Blair on Chelsea Manning

May 29, Blair to Bell and Kiss:

John - 

I see that the Warden has invited Chelsea Manning to speak at a Rhodes Forum in November.

I cannot describe how wrong this invitation is to those of us who have served in the US armed forces and other national security positions.  Manning was an intelligence analyst in the Army with a security clearance.  He provided thousands of classified documents to Wikileaks, where they were published for all our enemies to read and use against the United States and its allies.  

He was convicted by court martial of multiple offenses, to most of which he pleaded guilty, and was sent to military prison.  His conviction was upheld by the US Army Court of Criminal Appeals. 

President Obama shortened her 35-year term, announcing, ""it makes sense to commute—and not pardon—her sentence."

Manning has become a whistle-blowing hero to many left-wing organizations, most of them not American,  that have presented her various awards and fora to speak.  What possible reason could the Rhodes Trust have for joining that group?

In its announcement of Manning's keynote address at a Rhodes Forum, she was describe as a "technologist and former US intelligence analyst who significantly contributed to discussions on government transparency and the ethical implications of artificial intelligence."  The announcement goes well beyond falsehood to cruel parody.  Should we invite Yahyah Sinwar to Rhodes House in a couple of years to speak as "a former executive of the Gaza government who significantly contributed to moving the Middle East Peace process forward?"

None of us with national security backgrounds has any problem with discussion and debates on the important issues of the balance between information classification and transparency.  However inviting convicted felons who do not know the difference between their own hangups and important national security imperatives betrays gross misunderstanding of the issues involved, as well as truckling to fashionable and uninformed liberal views.  Neither is worthy of Rhodes House.

Dennis

May 30, Kiss to Blair

Dear Dennis,

Thank you for reaching out to express your concerns.

We invited Chelsea Manning to speak at the Rhodes Trust Tech in Society Forum to discuss the future and ethics of AI and cybersecurity.   (She has spoken at major global tech gatherings on these topics in recent years.)  Our aim is to put forward a diverse range of voices to discuss and debate these important issues, and ultimately to empower participants to explore, debate, and forge pathways toward a future where technology enhances societal well-being and global sustainability. 

We know that our audience will have diverse perspectives on the topic and on the speakers, as has been the case with other Rhodes fora and speakers.  As a community committed to the power of the “unlikeminded,” we seek to foster free and open dialogue and respectful debate. 

I hope this provides some useful context. 

All the best,

Elizabeth

May 30, Blair to Kiss

Dear Elizabeth - 

Thank you for your response, but I find it hard to accept your explanation.

There are plenty of experts on the ethics of AI and cybersecurity who are not transgender convicted felons who have aided  the enemies of the United States and its allies..  Chelsea Manning attracts audiences because of her well (self-) publicized classified information leaks and change of gender.  That is why you invited her, and not a more qualified less political speaker,  on the ostensible issues of the forum.

I would take more seriously your advocacy of the "unlikeminded" if you included more intellectual diversity in your selections.  The overwhelming majority of those who appear at Rhodes House events are like-minded liberals, adding to the echo chamber that Rhodes House has become.   

Sincerely,

Dennis