
Harvard rescinds Chelsea Manning’s visiting fellow invitation - happy-go-lucky
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/09/14/former-cia-directors-shun-harvard-after-the-school-invites-chelsea-manning-to-campus/
======
peteretep
I still don't quite understand why she's such a cause celebre. She was a dumb
kid who did dumb stuff for what she thought were noble reasons. The conditions
of her detainment seemed unduly harsh, but I don't see her as any kind of
thought leader. I've no particularly bad feelings towards her, I just don't
see what I'm meant to be celebrating about her either. Snowden, however, I
have huge respect for.

Can someone put me right?

~~~
themgt
Agreed. At the time I supported Manning's actions to a degree, although I
think it could have been done better (for which Assange shares the blame). But
10 minutes spent perusing her Twitter feed [1] leaves the impression of an
incredibly confused and narcissistic person with very little nuance, depth or
novelty in her thoughts. Say what you will about Snowden but it's hard to
argue he has more interesting things to contribute to an intellectual
conversation.

[1] [https://twitter.com/xychelsea](https://twitter.com/xychelsea)

~~~
mbrock
Do you think she's incredibly confused and narcissistic because she uses a lot
of emojis and sometimes posts selfies?

~~~
elefanten
I think she's naive and not very credible when she advocates things like:
-dismantling the CIA -dismantling the presidency -the notion that the CIA
dictates what Harvard teaches -no borders

And that's just from the last week or so. She doesn't strike me as someone
with very nuanced positions.

edit: case in point
[https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/903326954266517504](https://twitter.com/xychelsea/status/903326954266517504)

~~~
cup
\- Does the CIA provide a net positive or negative effect on the globe? \-
There are alternative political systems available \- I'd be surprised if the
CIA didn't exert influence over Harvard \- Borders are a modern development.

~~~
MrZongle2
_" \- Does the CIA provide a net positive or negative effect on the globe?"_

As the CIA is an _American_ intelligence organization, responsible for
_American_ interests, the correct question would be: "Does the CIA provide a
net positive or negative effect on American power and stability?"

Now, we can debate _that question_ all day long, but AFAIK the CIA has no
responsibility to "the globe".

~~~
maxerickson
I'm a US citizen that would prefer that US government entities have a net
positive impact on the globe.

I guess I'm not the only one.

~~~
MrZongle2
I don't think that's unreasonable, but as things stand today that's not what
the CIA (or any other US intelligence agency) is for. It's like wanting a
hammer to work as a screwdriver, even when the latter is appropriate.

------
bambax
> _... whose actions and ethos contradict the intelligence agency’s [CIA 's]
> most basic and sacred values_

What might those be? One has to wonder, given the history of the CIA.

And how does a government agency has "sacred values", or, indeed, values of
its own? A government agency is just that: a thing, a tool to serve the
government.

~~~
alexasmyths
No, not at all.

If you've ever served in a public position, you'd realize not only the general
kinds of values one must have in service, but the differing sets of values
people in different branches must have.

The level of integrity of most of these people is far beyond what you'll find
on the street, or even in 'high tech'. I've worked in 'public service' \- and
when entering in the private sector workforce, well, everyone seems really
quite self-interested and kind of greedy in comparison.

The CIA is not a 'tool of the government' \- they are there for American
citizens - and others quite frankly.

The 'whistle blower' who blew the whistle on Abu Garib prison was well
protected by the US Army/Gov, because he was actually a whistle-blower.

Manning, a lowly private, released gigabytes of information wherein he (well a
'he' then ...) didn't even know the contents thereof. Mounds and mounds of
sensitive information. This is 'treason' point blank. His only saving grace is
that he was at least earnest in his belief he was doing the right thing, i.e.
he wasn't selling secrets to the Russians or what not.

Ironically - most of the leaks did not reveal malfeasance by the US diplomatic
corps - just the opposite. The 'Arab Spring' was partly launched by this
exposition - as Arab citizens saw how ridiculously corrupt most of their
regimes were, as validated by the attempts by the US diplomats to try to bring
some sense to the region. Not a single 'scandal' was uncovered by the cables
at least (of course, the video of the attack helicopter was contentious).

She's served her time, she's out, which is fine and good - but she's still
convicted of some very bad crimes and serious breach of trust, and it's beyond
ripe that Harvard - or any organization - would honour this person in this
regard.

~~~
Synaesthesia
The population was not consulted prior to the war on Iraq, or afterwards,
neither is the CIA answerable to the people. It operates in secret, at the
behest of the government, it’s not a democratic or public institution.

The video attack was “contentious”? If it was Russians say, attacking American
Journalists in that manner you would not say it’s “contentious”.

During the Arab spring, the US government did what it usually does, support
the dictators right until the very end, even when it was clear their time was
up. Eg in Egypt. And when a ne military dictator comes in, (Sisi), the US
diplomatic and military support resumes like normal, no matter how terrible
his human rights record.

~~~
alexasmyths
The US Congress, elected by the people, voted for the war.

The CIA, FBI etc. act on behest of the people, in terms dictated by elected
officials with _oversight_. It would be absurd to suggest that an espionage
apparatus would be 'democratically elected' or 'transparent'.

As far as the 'video' \- it was the unfortunate death of a few extremely
irresponsible journalists, who ventured deep into a war-zone, directly into a
firefight - with and armed escort - without coordination with US elements. It
was utterly stupid of them, frankly. Their deaths were tragic - but could have
been 100% avoided by some basic adherence to common sense on their part. I
don't think the military, after reviewing the video - might even change any
protocols on the part of their combatants. I think the only changes they could
make would be stronger in their conviction to forbid or warn journalists away
from combat zones without protection or at least communication.

I'm sympathetic to Manning because I think she felt what she was doing was
'right' \- but it wasn't. And 99% of the time people in the CIA etc. are
trying to do their jobs well, and for most of them it's a moral cause, they
have a sense of duty.

And of course I'm not saying they don't do bad things, or that the 'secrecy'
of their activities might result in some bad news. I wouldn't absolve them
entirely - just that they are generally a force for good.

~~~
throwaway7312
> The CIA, FBI etc. act on behest of the people

Ah, I guess that explains it.

As an American, I've wondered for years why we armed, trained, funded, and
provided cover for bin Laden and other mujahideen, al'Qaeda, ISIS, and spent
trillions destabiizing the Middle East to bring death, terror, and stone age
fundamentalist Islam back to the picture.

Now it makes sense. It's because it's what the American people want.

~~~
alexasmyths
Your premise that the US is trying to 'destabilize' the Middle East is not
correct.

The US - and even China want _stability_ over all else.

Consider the longest-standing geostrategic pact in the M/E - that between
Saudi Arabia and the US. This agreement way way predates any kind of support
for Israel.

The US keeps the 'House of Saud' in power under the terms that A) there is
stability and B) the US has access to the Oil at market prices. The Saudis are
free to sell their Oil to whomever they chose, as long as it's competitive.
The point being - the Soviets would not roll in and sit on them.

Do you know who the #1 recipient of direct foreign aid is from the USA? Egypt.

Yes - A Muslim country has been, since the 1970's the #1 area of investment
for the US.

Why? To keep them from fighting Israel (and to keep the Suez open) The
Israel/Egypt conflict is kind of 'in the past' but it is _the_ #1 flashpoint
in the M/E - even bigger than the Persian/Arab divide.

The US de-facto controls the Suez - and Panama canal - and guess what? They
allow _anyone_ \- even 'enemy combat vessels' to flow freely through them. The
US, were it truly an Imperial power, could easily not only control the flow,
and generate taxes (and tax competitors more than their own) - they could
easily forbid Russian, Chinese and Iranian vessels from using those transit
points. Same for the Gulf. The US could instantly control who passes and who
does not, if they wanted to. But - by and large - they act as police, making
sure every vessel can flow freely. (By and large...)

When a small group of young educated people in Afghanistan decided that
'Communism' (Soviet style) was the 'way forward' in Afghanistan in the 1970s,
ad Soviet Communism was ravaging through the world in the cold war, the small
group of Afghani communists tried to take over Afghanistan. Of course, the
population of Afghanistan didn't want that - and forced them out. The young
Communists, not to be dissuaded by the 'stupid plebes' \- decided to invite in
the actual Soviets. The Russian/Soviets came in and ravaged Afghanistan,
burning villages, mass killing etc. - causing a carnage of a war. It was
reasonable in this scenario for the US to provide small amounts of material
support to the Afghanis fighting the Soviets. The Soviets were rocked, the
Empire crashed. What was a relatively peaceful Afghanistan for maybe 50 years
- so safe it was on the 'hipster travellers circuit of the 1960's - was now a
post-war Somalian zone, and the thugs took over - granted they were not
'ideological terrorists'. Of course, they gave protection and comfort to the
'ideological types' (ie. Al Queda), which necessitated intervention after
9/11.

The s __*-show in Afghanistan is a part of the after-effects of Soviet
Imperialism, and though Afghanistan would still be medieval otherwise, it
would be more like the other 'stans' \- and not a complete disaster.

The 'cause' of the Iranian government is the spread of their form of Islamic
Jihad, and the destruction of the US. They are not 'just some country' \-
their motivation is existential - and of course this is a problem.

The 'great anarchist/leftist myth' propagated through the last little while is
this idea of 'Shock and Awe' i.e Western forces using 'shock' to destabilize
and then takeover. It's a myth. Yes - the fall of the Soviet Union caused a
flush of dirty money and take-overs, but it was not even classically Western
powers that one out, it was others.

'Chaos' is bad for business.

The 'capitalist' instinct of the US is far far stronger than anything else -
and what the US 'wants' is to be able to put a 'Starbucks' on every corner of
every street of the Middle East, and to get them all buying iPhones, and
buying ads on Facebook and Google, and you can't do that in war zones.

------
OwlsParliament
She served her time and was released. Attacking her for being a felon is
insulting and childish.

You can disagree with why she leaked all you like, but this honestly comes
across as petty politics.

~~~
mmjaa
This attempt to repress her rights of speech and participation in open culture
is, clearly, an attempt to compel people to not even question the reasons for
why she leaked sensitive information.

Another slide down the slippery slope of American-style totalitarianism.

------
redthrowaway
Leave aside everything she did wrt Wikileaks. That's a can of worms that need
not be opened here.

What has she done since? Has she done _anything_ to warrant a Harvard
fellowship? As far as I can tell, her greatest contribution to humanity has
been a novel use of emojis on twitter.

~~~
mmjaa
I would say that what she's done is stand up to the criminal government
currently using its mighty powers to repress millions of individuals around
the world.

She stood up to this power, suffered personally for it, and survived. That is
a _very_ strong message, and its one that needs to be heard - not just by the
privileged students of Harvard, but the world at large.

She's a hero, because she thwarted elite power brokers' ability to rule, un-
hindered by public opinion. If this is not a valuable asset to future
generations of public, needing education, I don't know what it is - but of
course it should come as no surprise that the power elite do not want younger
generations to respect her sacrifice.

It is clearly not going to be good for the military-industrial complex if
more, younger people, start questioning the lies they are told about why their
nation state is at war, exporting wholesale destruction to the world.

~~~
Caveman_Coder
So...she stood up to the Obama/Trump "criminal government." Got it, and I
agree completely.

> "It is clearly not going to be good for the military-industrial complex if
> more, younger people, start questioning the lies they are told about why
> their nation state is at war, exporting wholesale destruction to the world."

I agree completely. Also, we shouldn't let up on our "questioning" simply
because someone from our club is president.

~~~
mmjaa
I would argue it was Bush/Obama/Trump .. I mean, the 'collateral damage' video
wouldn't have been so harmful to the so-called integrity of national security,
if in fact Bush hadn't pushed the USA into such a heinous, destructive, evil
war .. in the first place.

We should also not make the mistake of personalising the criminal government
around the single figurehead. Sure, Trump hate is in fashion, as was Obama
hate and Bush hate, but its a much, much bigger problem than can just be
represented by a figurehead. Those figureheads are there to direct our hatred
from the real targets behind the scenes: the generals and CEO's currently
driving Americas' military-industrial complex into endless conquering follies.

------
eksu
I get it if you are a fan of Manning because you believe in the work Wikileaks
does, but I don’t understand why institutions and individuals that have been
largely critical of Wikileaks during the 2016 election cycle also characterize
Manning as a hero (not referring to Harvard but mostly the media). Perhaps we
need more / different Transgender role models.

~~~
harry8
Transgender has precisely nothing to do with why reasonable people admire or
condemn Manning. The admiration or condemnation is for the actions, not the
personality.

~~~
alexasmyths
I agree that it _should not_ be part of the equation - but in our present
media landscape, it absolutely is.

Her being transgender will ultimately have a lot to do with public perception.

There is quite a big movement right now to promote the rights of transgendered
people, it's like the late 1980's for gay people - wherein stereotypes were
being fought against, and issues brought into public discussion.

In the era of 'social justice media' \- these bits of identity are all part of
the presentation.

Some will regard the 'transgender' as even a deeper transgression of 'norms
and values' and to others it might engender deeper sympathies - nevertheless,
it definitely adds a dynamic to the story.

~~~
Caveman_Coder
> "There is quite a big movement right now to promote the rights of
> transgendered people, it's like the late 1980's for gay people - wherein
> stereotypes were being fought against, and issues brought into public
> discussion."

I don't think the "big movement" is really all that big (.3 percent in the
US). If you said they were extremely vocal and loud, then I'd agree, but to
say they are a big movement is an exaggeration.

> "Some will regard the 'transgender' as even a deeper transgression of 'norms
> and values' and to others it might engender deeper sympathies -
> nevertheless, it definitely adds a dynamic to the story."

I think you're right on this point, some people will care about her gender
situation, others, like myself will think that its a bit gross. In any case,
it should be separate from what she did and the content of what she leaked.

