A Look Back at the 2022 Sheriff's Race--A Missing Boy Became a Pawn

The 2022 election in Monroe County wasn't just a political contest; it was the final act in a decade-long drama fueled by betrayal, legal loopholes, and the total erosion of professional loyalty.  

To understand why a 6-year-old child's recovery in early 2022 became a battlefield of optics, one must first look at the wreckage of the relationship between Sheriff Tommy Jones and the man who effectively created him, Randy White.

In 2014, Randy White was the insurgent who toppled the incumbent Bill Bivens.  At his side was Tommy Jones--a man White had plucked from a humble background and a low-level position to be his Chief Deputy.  White provided the ladder; Jones simply climbed it.  But when a lawsuit from the ousted Bivens triggered a POST Commission technicality regarding White's full-time experience, a ruling by Judge Don Ashe made the "people's winner" legally erased.

Randy White

In the vacuum that followed, the County Commission didn't call for a new election; they appointed the apprentice.  Tommy Jones was no longer the deputy; he was the King.  In a role-reversal deal worked out, White had now become Jones' chief deputy.

The moment Randy White cleared his legal "glitches" and signaled his intent to reclaim the office he felt was rightfully his, the "moral compass" didn't just spin--it broke. Jones fired White, the very man who had mentored him as second-in-command--this was a cold-blooded reality: Jones was using the authority White gave him to ensure White could never use it again.

2022: When a Miracle Child Became a Prop

By the time the search for young Alijah Kensinger gripped the county in January 13th and 14th 2022, the Jones-White rivalry had reached a fever pitch--Randy White was the EMS Director.  In a healthy jurisdiction, the safe recovery of a child is a moment of pure relief.  In Monroe County, it was a Public Relations arms race.

The Anatomy of the "Information Embargo"

In a high-profile missing child case, the "Golden Hour" of recovery is typically met with immediate public relief.  Keeping the news media--and by extension, the community--in the dark until next day "late morning" served a specific political agenda.

Controlled Narrative

By delaying the announcement, the Sheriff's Office ensured they were the only source for "good news."  This allowed them to stage the announcement at a time that maximized viewership and ensured the Sheriff was front and center for the cameras. The 'wait' made the law enforcement effort look more Herculean than it might have been if the "child found" notification had been made quickly and quietly.  Alijah was found soon after the search-

began, sitting under a tree, about a mile from home.  

In Tennessee, pretending an emergency is still active after it has been resolved is legally viewed as Intentionally Circulating a False Report, which is often penalized more harshly than simply making a false statement.

To continue spreading an alert for Alijah or any other child after the emergency has ended, you could face the following under Tennessee Code § 39-16-502: -- 

The "False Emergency" Charge (Class C Felony)

The law specifically targets those who "intentionally initiate or circulate a report of a... past, present, or impending... emergency, knowing that the report is false or baseless."

• The Penalty: This is a Class C Felony, punishable by 3 to 15 years in prison and fines up to $10,000.

• Why it applies: Even if an emergency did exist in the past, circulating it as an active event knowing it is over meets the "false or baseless" criteria.

Obstruction of Justice & Resource Diversion

If pretending the emergency still exists causes the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) or the TBI to take action (e.g., reopening a file, deploying deputies to a "sighting," or diverting 911 dispatchers):

• The Charge: You may also be charged with Interference with Government Operations.

• The Cost: In many jurisdictions, the court can order the defendant to pay restitution for the full cost of the man-hours and equipment (helicopters, K-9 units) wasted due to the false report.

When a leader uses a community's collective trauma as a "waiting game" for better PR, they aren't just lacking a moral compass--they are actively misusing their authority.  For the residents of Monroe County, finding out they were "bluffed" while a child was already safe is often the moment when political skepticism turns into genuine resentment.

Alijah appeared relatively clean, calm, and fresh while carried by Jones in the staged and dangerous trek on a busy state route.  If he had actually been lost in the woods in 30*F temperatures for 18 hours, medical reality suggests he would have been shivering, potentially hypothermic, and dirty.

EMS Director Randy White had announced they would carry Alijah to the waiting ambulance, the EMS order was ignored--instead he was carried like a trophy (notice the full-size truck) travelling at highway speed.

The Cost of Negligence

In emergency medicine, the "hand-off" and transport are high-risk moments. Ignoring a directive to carry a patient (likely to prevent further trauma or stabilize a critical condition) opens the door for:

• Civil Liability: If the patient's condition worsened due to the transport method, the "deliberate indifference" standard becomes much easier to prove in court.

• Financial Impact: Monroe County has already faced significant financial hits. Multi-million dollar awards are often the result of juries finding that leadership failed to enforce basic safety standards or allowed a "culture of defiance" toward proper medical care.

The publicity stunt may have violated several federal laws -- also, the Sheriff's Dept prevented EMS from joining the post-incident debriefing.

"The Homeland Security Act" was amended in 2006 adding hr5852,   (5) which includes provisions for inter-agency inter-operabilty and cooperation to 'conduct extensive outreach to foster the development of interoperable emergency communications capabilities by State,  regional,  local governments,  and public-safety agencies.'

It also describes ways to (8)  'promote the development of best practices to facilitate the sharing of information for achieving,  maintaining,  and enhancing inter-agency cooperation capabilities for such response.'

Would an Optimus Robot Have Saved Pastor Isbill?... The Case for Automated Prison Oversight

74-year-old retired pastor Lester Isbill died after being restrained in a chair for over nine hours without water, food, or bathroom breaks, with a hood over his head. His autopsy was later amended to show death from heart disease complicated by dehydration and restraint, changing the manner of death to homicide.

The core failures here were fundamentally human judgment failures:

Compassion and recognition failure - Video reportedly shows a nurse laughing while in the cell and another employee making an obscene gesture toward the camera. The problem wasn't lack of monitoring - it was lack of humanity, protocol violations, and instructions for the restraint chair: State detainees shouldn't be left in it more than two hours. Staff were checking on him periodically but chose not to provide water, medical care, or release him.Discretionary judgment - He was arrested for disorderly conduct, a low-level misdemeanor for which people usually are released on their own recognizance within hours.

A robot would have:

• Documented the same deterioration

• Perhaps alerted supervisors more systematically

• But couldn't override human decisions, provide compassionate care, recognize a medical emergency requiring intervention, or exercise the discretion to say "this elderly, confused man with a pacemaker needs a hospital, not a jail cell."

The tragedy here wasn't insufficient monitoring - it was a systematic failure of human compassion, medical judgment, and accountability. Those require fixing through better training, oversight, accountability systems, and cultural change within corrections, not technological substitution.

A robot with proper medical sensors could have provided continuous vital sign monitoring - tracking his heart rate, blood pressure, body temperature, and hydration levels in real-time. Unlike periodic human checks, it could have generated automatic alerts when his condition deteriorated. He was restrained for over nine hours, and automated systems might have flagged the violation of the two-hour restraint chair protocol more insistently than human staff who chose to ignore it.

A robot might also have created an unambiguous, timestamped record of every interaction (or lack thereof) - making it harder to downplay or obscure what happened.

But the fundamental problem remains:

The staff knew what was happening. Video shows personnel in his cell, with one nurse reportedly laughing and another employee making an obscene gesture. They were aware he'd been restrained for hours without water or bathroom access. The issue wasn't a lack of information - it was the decision not to act on that information.

Even if a robot had sent alerts saying "detainee vital signs deteriorating," "nine hours in restraint chair exceeds protocol," or "severe dehydration risk" - those alerts still go to the same human staff who were already ignoring his condition. If people are willing to ignore an elderly man's obvious distress and medical needs, they can silence or override robotic alerts too.

This tragedy required either (1) someone with authority to intervene despite staff indifference, or (2) real-time external oversight with enforcement power. Technology alone can't create accountability when the humans in charge choose cruelty over care.

A robot wouldn't have:

• Laughed at a dying man

• Made obscene gestures at cameras

• Participated in the cruel mockery that characterized this case

• Brought personal biases, frustration, or callousness into the situation

That matters significantly because it speaks to something deeply broken in the culture of that facility - staff who had become so desensitized or actively cruel that they could mock someone suffering. A robot would have maintained professional neutrality and followed protocols without the deterioration of empathy that apparently occurred there.
In that sense, yes - robotic guards might prevent some forms of active cruelty and abuse. They wouldn't escalate situations out of anger, retaliate against difficult inmates, or engage in the kind of dehumanizing behavior captured on that video.

However, the trade-off is crucial:

While a robot wouldn't mock Pastor Isbill, it also wouldn't have the capacity that a good human guard would have - to recognize "this man is seriously ill and needs help NOW" and override standard procedures to get him emergency medical attention. It wouldn't exercise compassion or give him water even if not explicitly instructed to do so.
The real tragedy is that we're weighing "at least robots won't be actively cruel" against "but humans could show mercy." The solution shouldn't be choosing between cruelty and indifference - it should be accountability systems that ensure guards act with basic human decency.

​Online Bullying Raises Questions Beyond Social Media

The recent change in the forensic ruling in the death of Lester Isbill—from natural causes to homicide has drawn renewed attention to how criminal cases are evaluated and prosecuted. In that context, public statements by a husband-and-wife social media team claiming they have current District Attorney, Steve Hatchett, “on speed-dial” have raised additional questions.

There is no allegation that these claims are accurate or that any improper conduct has occurred.  However, when individuals publicly brag/assert personal access to a sitting prosecutor while one being the subject of a felony criminal complaint as recently as 2013, a time when current DA Hatchett was the 'Chief Deputy DA' during the scandal filled tenure of former DA Steve Bebb--it can prompt broader concerns about the role that perceived influence may play in criminal prosecutions...Did the current DA drop the prosecution in 2013, essentially giving a them 'slap in the hand' and they are now showing how eternally (grateful and connected) they are to the DA?

Maintaining public confidence in the justice system requires not only fair outcomes, but assurance that prosecutorial decisions are insulated from real or perceived external pressure.

Given the heightened public interest following the revised forensic ruling, these statements may warrant closer examination to assess their accuracy and any implications for public confidence in the justice system.  

Before you Judge Sheriff Jones, "Remember what Sheriff Bivens and DA Bebb Got Away With"

 

Fake Lawyer Scandal--Their Actions Described as: "egregious, illegal, and abhorrent" 

This scandal involved one of the most egregious violations of constitutional rights in Monroe County’s recent history. Here are the key facts:

While current controversies deserve scrutiny, the public should remember that the Bivens administration oversaw one of the most egregious and intentional violations of constitutional rights in Tennessee legal history - a deliberate scheme that multiple officials knew about and allowed to continue.”

This demonstrates that Monroe County’s law enforcement accountability issues span multiple administrations and are deeply rooted in a culture of protecting officers from consequences - making it clear that Sheriff Tommy Jones doesn’t have a monopoly on misconduct, but rather inherited a long-standing problem.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Posing as fake attorneys wasn’t just about rogue detectives - it was part of a systemic failure that included:

∙ Sheriff Bivens being warned to stop the scheme but allowing it to continue.
∙ DA Bebb refusing to prosecute the detectives despite constitutional violations.
∙ Both officials facing no criminal consequences.
∙ Bebb strategically resigning to protect his pension when legislative removal seemed likely.

Doug E Fresh Brannon

In 2008, Monroe County Sheriff’s Detectives James Patrick Henry and Doug Brannon, working under Sheriff Bill Bivens, engaged in an elaborate scheme to frame John Edward Dawson Jr. for the 2006 murder of Troy Green:
∙ Detective Henry created two fictitious attorneys named “Paul Harris” and “Neil Fink” and worked with jailhouse informant Todd Sweet to convince Dawson these fake lawyers were representing him.

∙ Henry sent fake legal mail to Dawson in jail, treated as privileged attorney correspondence, to communicate without oversight.
∙ Sweet helped persuade Dawson to stop talking to his real public defender (Jeanne Wiggins) in favor of the fake attorneys, while detectives planted a recorder in Sweet’s shoe.
∙ Detective Brannon met with Dawson without identifying himself as law enforcement or reading Miranda rights, pretending to be associated with the fake law firm.
∙ Henry coerced witness Monte Cox to lie, offering to help Cox’s imprisoned friend if Cox would falsely say he bought a gun from Dawson.

Sheriff Bivens’ Knowledge and Inaction:

According to court records, both TBI agent Barry Brakebill and District Attorney Steve Bebb called Sheriff Bivens

I'm done with politics

in late 2008 and told him to stop the scheme involving Sweet, but Bivens allowed it to continue.  During testimony, Sheriff Bivens admitted he was vaguely aware of Henry’s plot and didn’t see “a problem with it,” though he added “if it’s illegal, of course, I don’t want to do it.” Bivens testified he had not conducted an internal affairs investigation into Henry’s conduct..

The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals issued a devastating ruling:

“That Detective Henry would illegally pose as an attorney and arrange the circumstances of the defendant’s case to make it appear as though he had successfully undertaken legal representation of the defendant is abhorrent. That the detective would specifically instruct the defendant not to communicate the relationship to his appointed counsel… renders completely reprehensible the state action in this case.”

The court found that the “egregious actions of the law enforcement officers in this case substantially and profoundly interfered with [Dawson’s] right to counsel under the federal and state constitutions.”

This connects directly to the Dawson case because it shows why Bebb never prosecuted Detectives Henry and Brannon for impersonating attorneys. When asked why he didn’t prosecute them, Bebb testified that “the reason I didn’t prosecute them was because the motive that they did that with was to solve a murder. It was not for their personal gain, and they lost their jobs” - which turned out to be false, as Brannon remained employed and Henry continued working part-time.

As a former Criminal Court judge who campaigned as “a friend to law enforcement,” Bebb had shown an unwillingness to charge police officers for behavior that would land civilians in jail--had the Legislature successfully removed Bebb from office, it would have impacted his pension. By resigning just two months early while citing health reasons, Bebb was able to:

1. Avoid the formal removal process
2. Retain full retirement benefits
3. Claim a medical justification rather than admitting to the misconduct

Det Patrick Henry

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Brian Kelsey opened an investigation in March 2013, noting that “the only remedy available to the Legislature was removal from office” . A state House panel called for Bebb’s resignation after the investigations.

The Strategic Resignation:
On June 6, 2014, Steve Bebb announced he would retire two months before the end of his term, citing heart trouble and bypass surgery . However, Senate Judiciary Chairman Kelsey wrote that Tennessee should expect more outcomes “along the lines of Steve Bebb’s: a two-month-early retirement with full benefits” , making it clear this was seen as a strategic move to avoid removal.

Starting in August 2012, the Chattanooga Times Free Press ran a series of investigative reports alleging that under Bebb, the prosecutor’s office botched important cases through ineptness or misconduct, misused taxpayer money, and played favorites in criminal prosecutions . The allegations included:

∙ Threatening prosecution for coercive purposes, personal use of office vehicles and funds, and failure to prosecute law enforcement officers.
∙ Specifically regarding the Dawson fake attorney case, Bebb refused to prosecute Detectives Henry and Brannon despite the egregious constitutional violations.
∙ Using criminal prosecution to coerce outcomes in civil cases, including threatening a husband with wiretapping charges unless he agreed to give his wife joint custody in their divorce lawsuit.

Todd Sweet

John Edward Dawson Jr. spent four years in the Monroe County Jail before the murder charges were dismissed. When questioned in two court hearings about suborning a witness and posing as an attorney, Henry pleaded his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer .
This demonstrates a pattern of misconduct that extended from the detectives through the sheriff’s office to the district attorney’s office - with no one held criminally accountable despite constitutional violations that the appellate court called “reprehensible” and “unconscionable.“​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

DA Steve Bebb told the Times Free Press that he had specifically told the sheriff’s office not to let anyone talk to Todd Sweet, whom he described as “one of the best con men who ever lived,” saying “I was as shocked as anybody when I learned what they had done” .
However, Monroe County Sheriff Bill Bivens testified in court in 2010 that he didn’t remember receiving such a phone call and said he never investigated the detectives’ behavior or disciplined them.

The Full Scope of the Fake Attorney Scheme

How the Con Worked:
Detective Patrick Henry faked stationery from the bogus legal firm of “Harris and Fink” and wrote to inmate Todd Sweet in the persona of an attorney . They created fake letters from the purported attorney “Paul Harris” for cellmate Todd Sweet to show Dawson, including one letter stating that “Harris” had arranged for Dawson’s impounded truck to be released to his wife.
Detective Henry sent a total of six letters to Dawson purporting to be from fictitious attorneys Paul Harris and Neil Fink - five were addressed to Todd Sweet and one directly to Dawson, but all were intended for Dawson. Dawson’s actual lawyer was never informed of these communications.

The In-Person Deception:

In January 2009, Detective Brannon had an in-person meeting with Dawson at the Monroe County Jail in a visitor’s booth, at the behest of Detective Henry . Brannon pretended to be an associate of the fake firm and met with Dawson in the jail . Detective Brannon did not advise Dawson of his Miranda rights or disclose his affiliation with the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office before speaking with him, and Dawson’s lawyer was not informed of the meeting.
Henry released Dawson’s truck to his wife after the meeting to reinforce his belief in the fictitious attorneys, and Henry and Brannon told Dawson not to cooperate with his lawyer and to ask his lawyer to postpone his cases as many times as possible.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OP-ED 2

When Police Pretend to Be Lawyers, the Constitution Is Already in Crisis

Americans expect law enforcement to uphold the Constitution—not impersonate attorneys to sabotage it. Yet in Monroe County, Tennessee, that is exactly what happened.

In one of the most disturbing law-enforcement scandals in recent Tennessee history, sheriff’s detectives fabricated lawyers, sent fake legal mail, secretly recorded a jailed suspect, and coerced witnesses—all to manufacture a murder case. Their actions were later described as “egregious, illegal, and abhorrent.” What makes this case nationally significant is not just what happened, but how many people in power knew—and did nothing.

This was not a rogue incident. It was a system working as designed.

In 2008, Monroe County Sheriff’s Detectives James Patrick Henry and Doug Brannon targeted John Edward Dawson Jr. in a 2006 murder investigation. Henry invented two fictional attorneys and sent Dawson fake legal correspondence that jail staff treated as privileged. A jailhouse informant persuaded Dawson to abandon his real public defender. Conversations were secretly recorded. Brannon met with Dawson while concealing his identity as law enforcement and without issuing Miranda warnings. A witness was pressured to lie in exchange for favors.

Each step violated bedrock constitutional protections that have been settled law for decades.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel once formal proceedings have begun, and law enforcement may not deliberately elicit statements from a defendant in the absence of counsel (Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964); United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264 (1980)). The Supreme Court has been explicit that the government may not use informants or deception to circumvent that right (Maine v. Moulton, 474 U.S. 159 (1985)).

Impersonating an attorney is not a gray area—it strikes at the core of the adversarial system. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that interference with the attorney-client relationship undermines the fairness of the entire proceeding (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963); Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977)). Meanwhile, questioning a suspect while concealing law enforcement status and failing to issue Miranda warnings violates the Fifth Amendment’s protection against compelled self-incrimination (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)).

None of this law was unclear in 2008.

And yet the scheme continued.

Sheriff Bill Bivens was warned and allowed it to proceed. The district attorney at the time declined to prosecute despite overwhelming evidence of constitutional violations. No criminal charges were brought. When legislative removal became a real threat, the prosecutor resigned—preserving his pension. Accountability never arrived.

This is why Monroe County matters to the rest of the country.

Across the United States, public debate often centers on whether misconduct is the work of a few “bad apples.” But the Fake Lawyer scandal exposes a more uncomfortable truth: constitutional violations persist when institutions are structured to protect themselves rather than the public.

When officers can impersonate lawyers without consequence, the problem is not merely unethical policing—it is a justice system that has abandoned its own rules. When prosecutors refuse to act, constitutional rights become theoretical rather than enforceable. When leaders face no repercussions, misconduct becomes institutional precedent.

Today, Monroe County faces renewed scrutiny over law enforcement practices. That scrutiny is warranted—but it should not be selective or a historical. The culture that allows abuse does not begin or end with one sheriff or one election cycle. It survives through silence, resignation, and institutional self-preservation.

Chickens Come to Roost

The Constitution does not enforce itself. It relies on people in power to defend it—especially when doing so is uncomfortable or politically costly. Monroe County’s Fake Lawyer scandal is a warning of what happens when they don’t.

If impersonating an attorney, fabricating evidence, and sabotaging the right to counsel can go unpunished in one American county, it can happen anywhere.

That is why this story is not local.
It is national.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Video shows a first person narrative of Marvin Young: his family was cheated out of their rightful inheritance--when shown the forged will, DA Bebb agreed there was no way the signature on the will was genuine--but chose to do nothing about it--some of the people mentioned are RIP--they will answer to God for their alleged fraudulent scheme.

Sheriff's Office Issues an Update on Latest Scam Alert

 The Sheriff’s Office Issues a Scam Alert — and Accidentally Performs One

If the sheriff’s office keeps this up, it may want to trademark its new brand identity: “Confusion, but Official.”

Their latest scam alert — ostensibly intended to help residents — reads like the opening scene of a comedy sketch in which law enforcement accidentally scams itself. The message warns that scammers are spoofing the sheriff’s office phone number. Good to know. But then comes the punchline: “DO NOT call the Sheriff’s Office Number.”

Right. Because when someone impersonates your agency, the first rule of safety is apparently don’t contact the agency they’re impersonating.

Instead, residents are instructed to call some obscure detective-division number, buried under nine automated prompts, as if navigating a bureaucratic fun-house during an actual scam attempt is exactly what people need in a moment of panic. Nothing says “we’ve got your back” like a choose-your-own-adventure phone tree.

It would almost be impressive if it weren’t so predictable.

Because for many residents, this isn’t a one-off flub — it’s the sheriff’s office doing what it has perfected: turning every public communication into a reminder of its own credibility problem.

Let’s be honest: public trust didn’t just slip; it took a swan dive sometime around the 2022 missing-child alert fiasco, which lingered so long people wondered if the sheriff was using it as a screensaver. Then came the Lester Isbill homicide investigation — a case some residents still talk about with the same tone people reserve for unsolved mysteries and malfunctioning vending machines.

And who could forget the quick-trigger firing of Deputy Josh Woods after an off-duty DUI? A bold stance on discipline — if you ignore the fact that other personnel with far more serious controversies somehow landed on the magical cushion known as paid leave. The kind of selective response that really teaches the public one thing: consistency is… optional.

So now, when the sheriff’s office releases a “scam alert” that feels like a riddle wrapped in a puzzle wrapped in an automated menu system, the community reaction isn’t shock. It’s more like, “Ah yes, back to regular programming.”

The department seems determined to reassure residents that it is, in fact, not being impersonated — by doing a flawless impersonation of an agency that has no idea what it’s doing. These situations, viewed through the eyes of the community, paint a picture of an agency struggling to maintain its own legitimacy while simultaneously expecting residents to trust its guidance without hesitation.

Instead of offering clarity, they’ve delivered another baffling message that leaves residents shaking their heads and wondering who, exactly, is steering the ship. The sheriff’s office wants the public to be vigilant about scammers — fair enough. But maybe it’s time the agency showed the same vigilance toward its own communication failures.
Until then, every new alert they issue will continue to raise the same uncomfortable question:

Is this supposed to reassure us… or remind us how badly this office has lost the community’s trust?

Instead of providing clarity, the sheriff’s office has delivered yet another performance piece reminding everyone why trust continues to evaporate like mist on a hot sidewalk. The question practically writes itself:

How long can an agency keep asking for public confidence while demonstrating, over and over, that it can’t communicate a simple message without creating a new mess?

Former CIA Analyst Shares Tactics that Could be Used by 2026 Sheriff Candidates

 

In theory, many of the persuasion, influence, and social-manipulation “tricks” described by Andrew Bustamante (a former operative of CIA) could be used — and indeed might have been used — in local elections such as county sheriff races (or other local political contests). 

Bustamante says the CIA trains on influencing and persuasion: “the same level of persuasion … influence … charisma and dynamic creative thinking drives us” in manipulation or motivation. One specific technique he describes is a conversational method: ask two questions, then a validating statement, then repeat — a structured approach to build rapport quickly, make people feel understood, open up, trust you, and self-disclose more.  He frames manipulation and motivation as tools — neutral in themselves — that can be used for “helpful outcomes” or “harmful” ones depending on intent.  He also talks about influencing what people think — controlling information, shaping what’s believable, limiting alternatives, creating an environment where people think they have freely chosen, while their choices have been guided.

Influence and persuasion tactics could be used in campaign events, door-knocking, debates, social media interactions, or community meetings: shaping emotions, creating rapport, projecting trustworthiness and likability — intangible but powerful factors in elections.  Information-control or messaging strategies (framing issues, limiting which alternatives voters focus on, steering conversation, influencing perceived “choices”) — tactics often discussed in intelligence/persuasion literature — might play a role in how issues, opponents, or candidate image are presented to the public.

 

Palmer Luckey makes ethical argument for using AI in War

A group of defense tech startups that includes Anduril, along with traditional defense companies, is developing autonomous AI weapons and tools for use in conflicts around the world, worrying some who say the technology is not ready for such high-stakes environments.

"When it comes to life and death decision-making, I think that it is too morally fraught an area, it is too critical of an area, to not apply the best technology available to you, regardless of what it is," Luckey told journalist Shannon Bream on "Fox News Sunday."

"Whether it's AI or quantum, or anything else. If you're talking about killing people, you need to be minimizing the amount of collateral damage. You need to be as certain as you can in anything that you do."

Luckey added that it's important to be "as effective as possible."

"So, to me, there's no moral high ground in using inferior technology, even if it allows you to say things like, 'We never let a robot decide who lives and who dies,'" Luckey said.

Anduril Industries, founded in 2017, is a defense tech company focused on developing autonomous systems. The company's mission is to modernize the US military through various technologies, including surveillance devices, air vehicles, and autonomous weapons. Lattice, Anduril's AI software platform, powers its tech.

Mark Zuckerberg and Palmer Luckey have ended their long time feud and are now working together in many projects.