The story of how planes without on-board pilots will gain entry into our crowded airspace, where birds are life threatening, possibly within the next three years, is one involving campaign contributions, jobs and fear. As we will see, safety appears not to be the top priority.

I became aware of the pro-drone legislation from a February 10, 2011, Syracuse Post Standard report that Sen. Charles Schumer (D-New York) was supporting an amendment to the pending Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill (S. 223) that would create test zones for the introduction of drones into general airspace.

Senator Schumer was interested in the pro-drone amendment because MQ-9 Reaper drones, killer drones that are flying over Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, are stationed at Hancock Air Base near Syracuse. However, FAA safety restrictions have limited drone flights out of Hancock.

“If Schumer’s legislative move succeeds this week,” said the Post Standard, “it would help ensure the future of 1,215 jobs at the (air) base in Mattydale (New York) and potentially lead to millions of dollars in radar research contracts for local defense companies.”

Bad Drones – Good Drones?

Drones have a grisly war history of misidentification. For example, on April 11, 2011, The Los Angeles Times carried a story of how a failure of US Air Force drone operators at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada to accurately identify the enemy led to the deaths in February 2010 of at least 15 non-combatant Afghani men, the wounding of 12 more and the deaths of a woman and three children.

“Technology can occasionally give you a false sense of security that you can see everything, that you can hear everything, that you know everything,” said Air Force Major Gen. James O. Poss, who oversaw the Air Force investigation, according to the Times. “I really do think we have learned from this.”

The newspaper said that survivors were compensated with $2,900 and families of the dead got $4,800.

Drones like the Reaper are also used for assassination, killing people without trial or conviction, a violation of international law, compounded by the problem of misidentification.

The Reaper can also be used strictly for surveillance and there are a variety of drones that can perform either killer or surveillance functions. Drones are also being produced for commercial uses, which include scanning land and oceans for agricultural, mining and fishing enterprises.

Given the deadly record of drones, I and others in New York State and elsewhere, moved to lobby Senator Schumer to end his support of the drone amendment.

Drone Envy

We knew we were starting very late. On February 15, we presented a letter (appearing at the end of this article) at Senator Schumer’s Peekskill, New York, office urging him to abandon the drone amendment. He did not respond and his staff did not provide any information to us until well after the FAA reauthorization bill, with the pro-drone language embodied in an omnibus amendment, cleared the Senate on February 17.

According to Open Secrets.org, Senator Schumer received $10,000 for his 2010 re-election campaign from Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin is one of at least 50 companies making drones of various sizes and types and it produces Hellfire missiles, used by drones and other aircraft. Lockheed employs 2,200 in Syracuse.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) also supported the drone amendment, saying in a press release: “This bill is about making southwest Ohio a critical part of this high-growth initiative. UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) could be used for a host of important purposes, from patrolling the border, to surveying Kandahar province, to combating drug smuggling and it’s critical that Wright-Patterson Air Force Base plays a key role in their development and testing. I’ve worked on a bipartisan basis – first with (former) Sen. (George) Voinovich and now with Sen. (Rob) Portman – to enable the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright Patterson and the Springfield National Guard to test unmanned aerial systems in Southwest Ohio.”

Among other Senate supporters of the drone amendment were Sens. Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota) and John Hoeven (R-North Dakota), whose state seeks to be a center of drone development and where the University of North Dakota claims to be the first in offering a four-year degree program for drone pilots “hoping to take the sticks in a field expected to swell to a $20 billion industry over the next decade.”

Senator Hoeven said on the Senate floor, in support of the amendment:

“We’re already flying UAVs in airspace all over the world. Now we need to open the skies for them at home to make our nation more secure, our communities safer and our economy more dynamic, creating jobs and opportunities in our country. If we don’t you can be sure other nations will.”

(Note: Open Secrets shows no major aerospace companies contributing to Senators Brown or Hoeven in 2010; Senator Conrad received $22,600 in 2010 from Carlyle Group, which owns ARINC, a company with drone business.)

With Senate approval of the FAA bill, our anti-drone lobbying shifted to the House of Representatives where the FAA reauthorization (H.R. 658) containing pro-drone amendments similar to those in the Senate was still under consideration. While the senate drone legislation did not set a deadline for drone entry into general US skyways; a House amendment, which was ultimately approved, sets a deadline of September 30, 2015, for integration of commercial drones.

Gliding on Zephyrs of Cash

I thought that it might be possible to strip the drone amendments from reauthorization bill with last-minute floor action by one or two House allies. However, as I watched the House action on the FAA bill on C-Span on March 31, it became clear that the Republican leadership was determined to win every amendment that it put forward and to crush amendments put forward by Democrats. None of the members of Congress we hoped would act, including Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-New York), Brian Higgins (D-New York) and John Tierney (D-Massachusetts), wished to make a comment, much less a fight, over the amendments and it may have been they felt is was not worth the effort.

Had there been more time for contacting Congressional aides and identifying drone supporters, it would also have been clear that there was strong aerospace industry activity in both houses of Congress for the drone amendments.

The drone amendments that ended up in the House bill came from Rep. John Mica (R-Florida), chair of the House transportation Committee, and Rep. Candice Miller (R-Michigan), a member of the transportation and homeland security committees and also a member of the Congressional Unmanned Systems (drone) Caucus, comprised of 43 members of the House.

Congressman Mica did not speak in any detail on the floor of the House about his drone amendment, referring to it only as being included in an omnibus amendment package. He introduced into the record a letter from the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, an industry group, saying: “Without a doubt, UAS (unmanned aerial systems) will have a tremendous impact on the aerospace industry and aid in driving economic development in many regions across the country. How quickly new job creation and economic benefits become a reality however depends on the progress and timeliness of UAS integration efforts.” The Mica amendment package was approved 251-168.

Congresswoman Miller’s remarks in support of her amendment, which was approved by a voice vote, focused on the use of drones for law enforcement and border security:

“My amendment is designed to help expedite and to improve the process by which FAA works with government agencies to incorporate unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs as they’re commonly called, into the National Airspace System. Currently, Mr. Chairman, law enforcement agencies across the country, from Customs and Border Protection to local police departments, et cetera, are ready to embrace the new technology and to start utilizing UAVs in the pursuit of enforcing the law and protecting our border as well.

“However, the FAA has been very hesitant to give authorization to these UAVs due to limited air space and restrictions that they have. I certainly can appreciate those concerns; but when we’re talking about Customs and Border Protection or the FBI, what have you, we are talking about missions of national security. And certainly there’s nothing more important than that. It was a very, very lengthy exercise to get the FAA to authorize the use of UAVs on the southern border. While they’re finally being utilized down there, we are certainly a long way from fully utilizing these technologies.”

After the pro-drone amendments passed the House, Rep. Howard P. “Buck” McKeon (R-California) chair of the Congressional drone caucus, released a statement saying that the House FAA bill “promotes the safe integration of unmanned systems into national airspace. Carefully integrating these systems by 2015 will improve our border defenses, public safety and emergency response systems.

“Although this bill is a step in the right direction, I have concerns with the FAA’s languid Certification of Authorization requirement for public unmanned systems.”

Congressman Mica received the following contributions for his 2010 re-election campaign from these companies involved with drones, according Open Secrets:

Boeing – $10,000
Honeywell – $10,000 (makes engines for the Reaper and Predator drones)
Lockheed Martin – $10,000
Raytheon – $10,000

And for Congresswoman Miller in her 2010 race:

Honeywell – $10,000
General Dynamics – $8,500
Ford – $10,000 (Ford engines are used in a Boeing drone, although as a Michigan representative if is likely she would get Ford money in any case)

Congressman McKeon received the following contributions among those for his 2010 campaign:

Lockheed Martin – $52,000
Northrop Grumman – $50,500
Boeing – $28,900

His combined contributions from “defense aerospace” and “defense electronics” were $232,900.

We were hoping that Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) might assist in opposing the drone amendments given his opposition to our wars, in spite of his membership on the drone caucus. But we found that his aide wanted to talk only about Hinchey’s opposition to the wars, not about drones. In 2010, the following contractors with interests in drones were among his major contributors:

Lockheed Martin – $10,000
Boeing – $10,000
Honeywell – $10,000
L-3 Communications – $9,500

All the biggest aerospace contractors have an interest of one kind or another in drone manufacture. The top Congressional aerospace campaign contributor in 2009-2010 was Boeing, $2.57 million, followed by Lockheed Martin, $2.4 million, according to Open Secrets.org [3].

A Department of Defense summary of the 2012 Obama military budget notes:

“The fiscal 2012 budget continues strong funding for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that enhance intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. The base budget includes $4.8 billion to develop and procure additional Global Hawk Class (RQ-4), Predator Class (MQ 1/9) and other less expensive, low-altitude systems.” [Emphasis added.]

Time magazine reported in 2008 that Barack Obama’s campaign “pocketed $870,165 from defense contractor sources, 34% more than the $647,313 in contributions McCain’s campaign received from the same sector.”

At this writing, the Senate and House versions of the FAA reauthorization bill, which cover a wide range of aviation concerns, will be submitted soon to a conference committee made up of members of both houses of Congress. A compromise bill will be presented to both houses for a vote and then sent to the White House for signature. The conference committee could meet as early as the week beginning April 18, if not before. Action should be completed at the latest by May 30, when the current FAA authorization expires.

Observations

1. Safety

It is obvious that many in Congress have embraced drones of all kinds for money, for themselves and their constituents, willfully ignoring what drones are doing in war or the real dangers they will bring with them into the skies over the US.

In March 2010, Congressman Tierney held drone hearings and heard testimony that addressed ways in which the US use of killer drones has violated international law.

Ideally, Congress would by now have banned the use of drones for assassination and limited their battlefield use to situations in which troops on the ground can make visual identification of enemy forces. This is presuming that the US is involved in wars that do not violate international law, unlike the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As for use of drones over the United States, at this writing, the FAA restricts drone flights to specific zones where they can be carefully segregated from general air traffic. As suggested above, the military, some law enforcement officials and drone manufacturers have been pushing the FAA to move fast to allow drones to fly much more freely. The FAA has resisted quick introduction for safety reasons, as indicated in the following testimony by Henry Krakowski, chief operating officer of the FAA air traffic organization before Senate Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Aviation Operations in September 2010:

“As the most complex airspace in the world, the NAS (National Airspace System) encompasses an average of over 100,000 aviation operations per day, including commercial air traffic, cargo operations, business jets, etc. Additionally, there are over 238,000 general aviation aircraft that represent a wide range of sophistication and capabilities that may enter the system at any time. There are over 500 air traffic control facilities, more than 12,000 air navigation facilities and over 19,000 airports, not to mention the thousands of other communications, surveillance, weather reporting and other aviation support facilities. With this volume of traffic and high degree of complexity, the FAA maintains an extremely safe airspace through diligent oversight and the strong commitment to our safety mission …

“While UASs (unmanned aerial systems) offer a promising new technology, the limited safety and operational data available to date does not support the expedited or full integration in the NAS. Because current available data is insufficient to allow unfettered integration of UASs into the NAS – where the public travels every day – the FAA must continue to move forward deliberately and cautiously, in accordance with our safety mandate.”

At the same time that Congress is pushing the FAA to allow drones to fly everywhere, the House version of the FAA bill would roll back the agency’s budget to 2008 levels, allocating $57.8 billion for a four-year period.The larger issue is whether drone technology can ever be perfected to the point where pilots on the ground are going to be able to look out for danger in the same way pilots in the air can. As Air Force General Poss said in the quote at the beginning of this article, technology can lead to unwarranted confidence. It seems certain that if Congress, the military, law enforcement agencies and the aerospace industry get their way, we will be having drone hits on passenger aircraft just as we are having bird hits now.

In addition, there is no restriction in the FAA reauthorization against drones flying in US airspace carrying weapons, raising the specter of accidental firings at other aircraft and at people and objects on the ground and of mid-air explosions from accidental hits on other aircraft. The Pentagon is also planning drone aircraft that can carry nuclear weapons.

2. Who Will Watch the Watchers?

Drones also present a real threat to personal privacy and safety. Drones are envisioned as eyes in the sky for police departments as well as for border patrols. Although members of Congress touted drones for surveillance, nothing in the FAA legislation discusses when surveillance can be undertaken or any restrictions on use of material gathered in drone surveillance.

This becomes of even greater concern in view of the problems of drone misidentification, demonstrated in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

There is also the possibility, not addressed in the FAA reauthorization, of police arming their drones to fight crime, which raises the fundamental issues of misidentification, due process and collateral damage, among others.

This article is obviously being written at a very late date. How could we have known sooner about the pro-drone amendments and their implications?

3. Citizen Surveillance

At this point, there is no anti-war legislative action office in Washington, DC, that is devoted solely to: (1) providing continuing information to grassroots organizers on weapons and war funding; and (2) building grassroots response organizations in Congressional districts.

Matt Southworth of the Friends Committee on National Legislation was helpful in identifying some Congressional aides who might wish to help address the drone amendments, but he was stretched thin and had only limited time to make calls, much less visits. Ideally grassroots anti-war groups would have the benefit of one or two people in Washington who would follow weapons and war funding legislation, such as the drone amendments, and provide early warning to local anti-war organizers.

A model for this would be Bread for the World, which develops grassroots organizations to lobby Congress on hunger and food policy issues.

This points also to the need for local educational groups that work to inform the public not only on current wars but on business/job alternatives to the military contracting work being done by plants in their areas.

What we need immediately is legislation banning the use of US drones for assassination and banning drones from US general aviation skyways.

* * * *

Senator Charles Schumer February 15, 2011
One Park Place, Suite 100
Peekskill, New York 10566

Dear Senator Schumer:

On February 10, 2011 you issued a press release saying that you want to amend the Federal Aviation Administration law so that air space will be expanded around Syracuse for testing of “cutting edge military drones.” You said this will “unleash millions of investment into the region and create jobs.”

For the reasons outlined in the attached flyer, we the undersigned urge you to reverse course and work to end all drone testing, training and operation in New York State, including drone operations at Fort Drum in Watertown NY.

We want to emphasize here that the atrocities and assassinations being committed by the United States using drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Yemen are unconscionable. The idea that you would use job creation as a reason for encouraging the development and use of these weapons is morally unacceptable.

Every single minute, $300,000 goes into our wars. Because of this spending, the United States cannot meet the educational and employment needs of its citizens. For you to tout job creation from weapons building under these circumstances is astounding.

We would like to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss these concerns. Please respond to the WESPAC Foundation at (914) 449-6514 or wespacfoundation@gmail.com [4]

Sincerely,

Harriet Ackerman, Hastings on Hudson
Wayne Alt, Buffalo
John Amidon, Albany
Sondra Armer, Croton on Hudson
Kevin Ascher, Mount Kisco
Frank Brodhead, Hastings on Hudson
Brooklyn for Peace
Elaine Brower, World Can’t Wait, Military Families Speak Out, New York City
Russell Brown, Veterans for Peace, Buffalo
Frank Carbone, Newburgh
Joe Catron, Brooklyn
Ben Chitty, Co-cordinator Tappan Zee Brigade, Veterans for Peace Chapt. 61, Yonkers
Martha Conte, White Plains
Andrew Courtney, Croton on Hudson
Pamela Daly, Hartsdale
Don DeBar, Ossining
Sandra Dolman, Peekskill
Gayle Dunkelberger, Katonah
Roger Drew, Greenburgh
Marilyn Ellie, Cortlandt
Gail L. Evans
Sarah Flounders, International Action Center, New York City
Kathryn Joy Fuller, Syracuse
Carol Gable, Gaithersburg, MD (formerly of Mamaroneck)
Felice Gelman, Tarrytown
Mirene Ghossen, New Rochelle
Jack Gilroy, Endwell
Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, Stoney Point
Dr. Arthur Grant, Chappaqua
Teresa Gutierrez, May 1st Coalition for Worker and Immigrant Rights, New York City
Dennis Hanratty, New Rochelle
Mary Herbst, Grand Island
Judith A. and George E. Homanich, Buffalo
Joan Indusi, Ossining
Dottie Ji, Central Jersey Coalition Against Endless War
Agnes Johnson, Bronx
Mary Johnson, Mt. Kisco
Lorraine and Sam Katen, Mamaroneck
Kathy Kelly, Co-coordinator, Voices for Creative Nonviolence, Chicago, IL
Nada Khader, White Plains
Ed Kinane, Syracuse
Charlotte Koons, Women Opposed to the Nuclear Threat, Northport
Cecelia Lavan, New Rochelle
Maxine Lawrence, Ossining
Leila Luvka, Somers
Jeff Mackler, Administrative Committee, United National AntiWar Committee
Kwame Madden, Peekskill
Ann Marwick, Yorktown Heights
Kathryn Mang-Haag, Kenmore
Larry McGovern, Dobbs Ferry
Nick Mottern, Hastings on Hudson
Dan M. Nalven, Ossining
Valerie Niederhoffer, Buffalo
Ardeshir and Ellie Ommani, Co-Founders, American-Iranian Friendship Committee, Armonk
Pepi Powell, Peekskill
Peg Rapp, Washington Heights Counter-recruitment, New York City
Ken Roberts, Yonkers
Joanne Robinson, Yonkers
Enrico Rodrigues, White Plains
Victoria Ross, Buffalo
Meredith Ryan, Mount Vernon
Lisa Savage, Brunswick, ME
Pat Sorbini, Buffalo
David Swanson, author of War is a Lie, Co-founder WarIsACrime.org, Washington, DC
Syracuse Peace Council
United National AntiWar Committee
Roland Van Deusen, Clayton
Rose Viviano, Syracuse
Bennett Weiss, Newburgh

In this visit we decided to take a new approach.

Instead of simply standing up during a break in the service with our banner that gives statistics on the wars and asks for action, one of us would raise a hand during the announcements portion of the service and say simply: “We have come say something about our wars, should we do this now or possibly at the coffee hour after church?”

Gayle suggested this to see if we would have more success if we were not seen as being disruptive of the service.

Grace Church has a history of supporting low-income people in White Plains in a variety of ways and being socially concerned. So we entered the church on this grey, rainy morning with a cautious eagerness to see how our new plan would work.

The interior of the Gothic stone church has cream-colored stucco walls with dark walnut colored roof beams and ornate, stained glass windows.

We sat next to a window that was dedicated to Stewart Kent who was born August 28, 1896 and who, the window said, “died in the service of his country” on December 21, 1918.

World War I ended on November 11, 1918, but it appears that Kent may have died in an English hospital right after the war’s end judging from the New York Times clipping attached below, found through the wonders of Google.

At the rear of the church is a balcony stretching the width of the building and holding a large, beautiful looking and sounding pipe organ and choir loft. Across the front of the balcony is the inscription: “A new commandment I give to you, love one another.” – John 13:34

The church filled rapidly for the 10:30 service. The congregation totaled about 70, evenly divided among black and white parishioners, unique among the churches we have visited.

The service this Sunday was what is sometimes referred to as “high church”, a more elaborate service involving the use of a large number of candles and tapers, incense and flowing garb for the priest and altar attendants.

After the reading a scripture and singing Psalm 99 and hymns, the pastor, the Reverend Richard A. Kunz, gave a sermon in which he said that Jesus had taken three of his disciples to a mountaintop where it was revealed to them that he was the son of God. This gave the disciples an understanding that their destiny was to be with God and “This gives us the promise of our ultimate destination and goal…we will be glorified with Christ one day.”

He illustrated his point with the story of a young man in the congregation he had served in Pittsburgh who had suffered brain damage at birth but was a contributing member of the church community.

At a musical program at the church the young man was asked by his mother to dance before the audience to show the beauty of his movements, and Reverend Kunz said, he moved with an extraordinary “grace and power and dignity and joy” in the way that he would be “in the fullness of God’s kingdom. We saw that just for that instant.”

The sermon was followed by the baptism of Aadi Kumar, and then there was a break in the service called “The Peace” when the congregation exchanges greetings and hugs.

At this point, Gayle approached Reverend Kunz and told him that we would like to speak and asked whether would it be best to do so at the announcements period or at coffee hour. He said coffee hour would be best.

After the peace came an announcement period, and Gayle rose to say that we had come to the church to talk about the wars and we would be at the coffee hour. She spoke softly so as to be as unobtrusive as possible, and it is not clear how many heard her.

(At this point Debbie picks up the narrative because Nick could not stay for the coffee hour.)

As the pastor suggested we went to the coffee hour after the service. A friend of mine, a member of Grace Episcopal Church, greeted us. I was explaining to her our purpose – to challenge Christian churches to speak out against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – when a member of the church’s governing board came up to me. He said that we could contact the pastor to have an information and discussion session after a service. He suggested that talking to the pastor before coming to the church today would have been more appropriate.

This church does a lot of good things for the community by sponsoring a shelter and a soup kitchen among other things. Thus, I was surprised that members of the congregation did not approach us to talk about our banner or ask our purpose in being there.

I approached several groups of people, explained to them our purpose, gave them a flier (see below), encouraged them to contact our congressperson Nina Lowey, asked them to contact the leadership of their church specifically asking them to speak out publicly against the wars, and encouraged them to make a public statement against the wars as a matter of faith and conscience because, I believe, Jesus does not want us to use violence to achieve peace.

A few people responded in a positive manner when I said that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to bring us freedom from the fear of terrorism. However, many people did not respond. I was unable to know if they disagreed with me or did not care that these wars continue with no sign of ending and no sign of success. Many of our troops and innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilians are dying or being disabled; yet so many are silent and I am puzzled as to why. I looked forward to the informational session suggested by the parishioner to learn their views.

Gayle followed up on the suggestion, calling Reverend Kunz several times, leaving word on the church answering machine, and also emailing. Now, more than a month after she took these initiatives, we have gotten no response.

It is important to note that the signatures were gathered within just a 48-hour period, from people in Albany, Buffalo, Binghamton and Syracuse and smaller up-state towns, as well as Westchester County, an indication of wide-spread rejection of drone testing and training in New York and drone warfare in general. (The letter, with signatures, is attached.)

A letter to Senator Schumer

As he shows, there is a long history of war profiteering in the United States and an equally long history of public disgust for it. One of the most quoted expressions of this disgust came from President Franklin D. Roosevelt in World War II: “I don’t want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster.”

Given the disparity between your annual income and that of individuals in the US military, do you see an ethical problem with accepting your current level of pay compared to military income while our current wars are underway, and would you explain your reasoning? Would you object to being called a war profiteer, and if so why?

Do you believe it is a conflict of interest for ITT to lobby for continued war funding when ITT stands to be a direct beneficiary of that funding, and would you explain your thinking on this?

An ITT press spokesperson said that ITT provides information on Loranger’s compensation on the company web site, which contains the 2010 Proxy statement, and that there would be no other comment.
 
2. Residence
 
Loranger and his wife Betsy have a large, brick, Tudor home on 1.4 acres in Greenwich, Connecticut, purchased for $4 million in 2004, the same year he came to head ITT from his position as executive vice president and chief operating officer at Texton Inc., also a major military contractor.
 
Loranger home in Greenwich, Connecticut. (Photo: Nick Mottern)
 
The house is in a secluded neighborhood comprised of large, elegant, beautifully maintained and landscaped homes bordering the Long Island Sound. The atmosphere is one of extreme gentility, separation and quiet. Loranger’s street, though apparently a public way, has a gate at one end blocking through traffic. The speed bumps in the neighborhood are gently graded, painted white and marked by simple, square, white posts, painted with blue, Times-Roman-style lettering announcing: “Bump.” Stop signs are in white with the same blue lettering.
 
3. The Military Work of ITT
 
ITT, according to its web site, derives 58 percent of its income, over $6.3 billion in 2009, from its military contracts. The company produces a variety of military electronic gear, such as jammers for signals used to set off land mines, communications equipment, night vision equipment and munitions release mechanisms for aircraft, including bomb releases for 1,000 lb. bombs carried by Predator drones.
 
Source: ITT web site.
 
It is important to note that the number of reported drone assassination attacks has increased significantly under Barack Obama. For example, the BBC said on July 22, 2010, that the number of drone attacks in Pakistan’s tribal areas “have more than tripled under the Obama Administration,” from 25 between January 2008 and January 2009 to “at least 87 such attacks between January 20, 2009 and June 2010.” The attacks can be made using bombs or missiles, for which ITT also produces launch tubes. The drone attacks have led to extensive civilian casualties and are subject of examination by the UN and others to determine whether and how they may violate international laws of war.
 
ITT also handles military facility maintenance, and in August 2010, it announced receiving two contracts for managing military facilities in Afghanistan and training Afghanis to take over this work. If all the contract options are exercised over a five-year period, ITT will receive the full contract amount totaling $800 million.
 
Praise for Loranger
 
In 2007, ITT pleaded guilty and paid a $100 million penalty for violating arms export prohibitions for transferring night vision technology to China, Singapore and Britain. The transfer occurred before Loranger came to ITT in 2004, and The New York Times reported that Loranger was praised by the federal prosecutor in the case, Robert Brownlee, because Loranger “quickly changed course” in ITT’s handling of the case. Mr. Brownlee was also quoted saying that Loranger’s “cooperation and strong leadership may have saved ITT from permanent ruin.”
 
Million Dollar General
 
ITT’s military production and sales are the responsibility of Army Lt. Gen. (retired) David F. Melcher, senior vice president and resident, defense and information solutions. Melcher, a West Point graduate, who was paid $1.6 million in 2009, joined ITT in August 2008 after 32 years in the Army. His last military assignment was deputy for budget for the Army, its senior financial manager, according to a December 2008 ITT press release announcing his elevation to head ITT’s defense work. The release went on to say:

“Dave’s depth of understanding of our biggest customer, the U.S. Department of Defense, his knowledge of the workings of Capitol Hill and his strategic awareness of how the defense space is evolving will be invaluable assets as he takes on his new assignment,” said Steve Loranger, chairman, president and chief executive officer ITT.

Water for Guns?
 
Anticipating reduced military spending, Barron’s reported in March 2010 that ITT has apparently begun trying to expand the nonmilitary part of its business in pumps and water-related products and in commercial applications of military gear such as air control, space-based weather forecasting and satellite imaging. Barron’s said: “Loranger is trying to parlay defense technologies into commercial applications, to tap into what he calls ‘a wonderful macroeconomic trend related to resources scarcity, environmental sustainability and aging infrastructure.’” Loranger’s writings about this “trend” have appeared in The Huffington Post, and he spoke on infrastructure at a Milken Institute conference in April 2010. If he increases his commercial business, Barron’s said, ITT stock shares might rise more dramatically than the fairly healthy increase of 35 percent over 2009.
 
A more detailed description of ITT’s military and commercial products appears on its web site www.itt.com.
 
4. Personal Political Contributions
 
According to CampainMoney.com, Loranger, a Navy pilot from 1975 to 1982, and his wife each contributed $2,300 to the 2008 presidential campaign of John McCain, who was also a Navy pilot and a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War. Senator McCain is the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and also serves on the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, both committees that have oversight of agencies doing business with ITT. In addition, Loranger contributed $2,112 in 2008 to the ITT Political Action Committee.
 
5. Personal Participation in Lobbying Organizations
 
Aerospace Industry Association (AIA)
 
Loranger’s political reach is extended by his membership on the executive committee of the Aerospace Industrial Association (AIA), a major Washington, DC, military contractor lobbying organization that boasts on its web site of a corporate membership of “an all time high of 120.”
 
Loranger’s AIA colleagues on the executive committee include the heads of the Boeing Company, Northrup Grumman Corporation, United Technologies, General Dynamics Corporation, Locheed Martin Corporation, L-3 Communications and Raytheon Company.
 
In May 2010, Loranger attended the AIA’s 65th annual board of governors and membership meeting held at Colonial Williamburg, which, according to the AIA web site, attracted “230 CEOs, senior company representatives, speakers and staff.”
 
The AIA members heard talks by, and had an opportunity to meet with, among others, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy, Director of the Defense Department’s Defense Advanced Research Program Dr. Regina Dugan and Marine Corps Gen. James N. (Mad Dog) Mattis. At that time General Mattis was head of the Joint Forces Command; in August 2010, he replaced Gen. David Petraeus as commander of the United States Central Command when General Petraeus took over responsibility for the Afghanistan war.
 
In her presentation, Under Secretary Flournoy “called the trend lines in the defense budget ‘unsustainable,’” according to the AIA web site, “and said that [Defense] Secretary [Robert] Gates’ recent calls to reduce overhead and inefficiencies will ultimately allow for increased investments in programs.”
 
(One of Secretary Gates’ cost-cutting proposals, announced August 9, 2010, is to eliminate the Joint Forces Command that was headed by General Mattis.)
 
It is worth noting that, according to the AIA, General Mattis, who worked on the Army-Marine counterinsurgency manual with General Petraeus, talked to the group about the need to relax arms export controls. The Obama administration is moving to reduce the number of controls on arms exports, the McClatchy newspapers reported July 29, 2010, in an effort to enable the US to enlarge its current 30 percent market share. The US is the world’s largest arms exporter with sales of $6.8 billion in 2009; Russia is No. 2 at $4.5 billion.
 
In September 2010, Loranger will participate in the Annual AIA “March to the Hill,” a lobbying expedition for which Loranger will be a featured speaker. The event will include a “Wings of Liberty” reception at which Congressman Norm Dicks (D-Washington) will receive AIA’s Wings of Liberty Award. Congressman Dicks is the chair of the House Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee, which approves funding for military purchases. The award is made, the AIA web site says, “to Congressional leaders who have made significant contributions to bolster the aerospace industry.”
 
Lobbying for More War
 
The AIA lobbied for Congressional passage of the emergency $59 billion supplemental funding that included $33 billion for expanding the Afghanistan War, warning in a July 12, 2010, press statement that unless the war funding was approved “very quickly … the resulting disruptions to industrial supply lines will cause delays in critical equipment delivery, increased costs and could lead to lost jobs in the private sector.”
 
Upon approval of the money, AIA issued a press statement on July 28 saying the group was “very pleased” because the funding “prevents serious repercussions to our warfighters from unnecessary cuts, delays or reprogramming from other contracts.”
 
The Business Roundtable
 
Loranger is a member of The Business Roundtable, described by a Washington Post reporter as “President Obama’s closest ally in the business community.”
 
The Post reported on June 23, 2010, that Ivan G. Seidenberg, chair of the Roundtable and president and CEO of Verizon, had complained that Democrats “are pursuing tax increases, policy changes and regulatory actions that together threaten to dampen economic growth.” Nevertheless, the article continued, Mr. Seidenberg said, “he has visited the White House more times in the past year than ‘the previous 16.’”
 
Other military contractors represented on the Roundtable include: The Boeing Company, Bechtel Group Inc., General Electric Company, Textron Inc. and United Technologies Corporation.
 
On March 12, 2009, Loranger was listed by the White House as being among 65 Business Roundtable members who would meet that day with President Obama.
 
For his 2008 campaign, President Obama received $1.03 million from what Open Secrets categorized as the “defense” industry, compared to $701,400 to John McCain contributed by that industry. These totals represent contributions from military industry political action committees and individuals working for military contractors.
 
The Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation
 
Loranger is a member of the board of directors of the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation, which, along with Medal of Honor recipients, includes the heads of The Boeing Company, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon Company, General Dynamics Corporation and TriWest Healthcare Alliance, which handles health care insurance for the US military.
 
The stated purpose of the foundation is to “reach out to the American citizens, particularly to its youth, to promote awareness of what the Medal of Honor represents and how ordinary Americans through courage, sacrifice, selfless service and patriotism can challenge fate and change the course of history.”
 
It may be that Loranger and his fellow board members from the corporate world have genuine feelings for those who have received the Medal of Honor and the values it represents. At the same time, it is clear that the foundation offers the military contractors the opportunity to associate themselves with the “courage, sacrifice, selfless service and patriotism” of military service and gain from whatever positive feelings for their corporations and themselves that may be stimulated among the public by their support of the foundation.
 
5. ITT Corporation Lobbying
 
(All dollar amounts are from Open Secrets.org.)
 
In the years 2008 through 2010 (to date), ITT has spent $7.526 million to influence Congress, a sum comprised of its spending on its own and other paid lobbyists and in contributions to Congressional candidates from the ITT Political Action Committee (PAC).
 
A portion of this spending would necessarily advance ITT interests outside its military work, but given the company’s concerns about declining military spending, it would probably be safe to say that the emphasis has been on “defense” issues. Certainly, this is the case in reviewing its support for Congressional candidates, discussed at the close of this section.
 
Paid Lobbyists
 
ITT Corporation - ITT has its own lobbying staff of three to four people, and spent the following in this work:
 
2010 (to date) – $830,000.
2009 – $1,540,000.
2008 – $2,100,000.
 
J.A. Green & Co. – Total ITT spending with J.A. Green & Co. 2008 – 2010 (to date) $320,000. Total lobbying income for this firm in 2010 to date is $650,000.
 
Jeff Green, president of this firm, is a former counsel for the House Armed Services Committee and a lieutenant colonel in the Air Force Reserve, who specializes in “defense” lobbying and consulting. He was also legislative director for the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), the agency that oversaw the occupation of Iraq, in its Office of Legislative Affairs where, the firm’s web site says, he worked with “senior CPA, Department of Defense, Department of State, Office of Management and Budget and White House officials.”
 
The Green firm’s military-related clients in addition to ITT, include the International Peace Operations Association, also called The Association of the Stability Operations Industry. This is a trade group for corporations providing mercenary forces, sometimes called “private contractors,” tens of thousands of whom are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. These clients include: Armor Group, Dyncorp International, Olive Group and Triple Canopy.
 
Other military contractors represented by Green include: Oshkosh Corporation (maker of armored vehicles), Airborne Systems and ADCOR Industries.
 
Denny Miller Associates – Total ITT spending with Denny Miller Associates 2008-2010(to date) – $260,000. Total lobbying income for this firm in 2010 (to date) is $2.75 million.
 
Denny Miller, president of his firm, gained his Capitol Hill experience, according to the firm’s web site, working for the late Sen. Henry Jackson, assisting him in his post as ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, as chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, senior member of the Intelligence and Governmental Affairs Committees.
 
Miller clients include the following military contractors: the Boeing Company, General Dynamics, General Electric, Motorola, Oshkosh Corporation, Raytheon Co. and SAIC Inc.
 
PMA Group – Total ITT spending with PMA Group in the years 2006 – 2009 – $1.45 million. (ITT spending for this lobbyist for the years 2006-2007 is not included in the overall lobbying total cited above for 2008-2010.)
 
The PMA Group, which was shut down in March 2009, was operated by Paul Magliocchetti, a former senior staffer working on the House Appropriations Committee Defense Subcommittee for the then chair, the late Congressman John Murtha (D-Pennsylvania). Magliocchetti was arrested by the FBI on August 5, 2010, charged with using PMA funds to make illegal campaign contributions and making false statements to a federal agency.
 
The FBI press release on the arrest says that Magliocchetti “orchestrated a scheme to make hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal cond

Predator drones at General Atomics, a defense contractor, in Poway, California. (Photo: Jim Wilson / The New York Times)

David Wildman, executive secretary for Human Rights and Racial Justice for the Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church, suggests that a defense divestment campaign might first focus on companies responsible for making killer drones, such as the Reaper, now being used in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Yemen.

Money Musical Chairs

ITT is affected by an increasingly uncertain climate for military contractors, sketched out in specific detail on January 6, 2011, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced the details of plans to cut Pentagon spending by $78 billion over the next five years, a move initially signaled as early as August 2010. While the cut represents only a fraction of the Pentagon budget, projected at $553 billion for 2012, individual contractors still stand to suffer significant losses in its wake.

In addition, $100 billion will be cut from specific defense programs over five years. The money will be “reinvested” in other military projects, such as building more Reaper attack drones, “a long-range nuclear-capable penetrating bomber” that can be flown as a drone or by pilots and additional drones for the Army and Navy. More money will also go to the Army, Gates said, “to provide improved suicide prevention and substance abuse counseling for soldiers.”

The rejuggling of $100 billion will mark both the end of many existing military contracts and the beginning of new contracts; it indicates a time of shifting fortunes within the war industry.

Of particular concern to military contractors as the reductions play out is the Obama administration’s policy decision to reduce the amount of outsourcing, or privatization, of government work, such as maintenance of military equipment. On January 20, 2001, Aerospace Industries Association (AIA) vice president Richard Sylvester told Bloomberg News, “The outsourcing rules are just one of the battles that Defense contractors, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrup Grumman are fighting that may affect their profits.” AIA is a major lobbyist for military contractors and has lobbied for continuation of funding of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

Sylvester also told Bloomberg that Pentagon cost-saving measures “could affect contractors’ profit margins if they are prohibited from passing on to the government some costs that are now allowed.”

The 30-30 Rule

Steven Loranger, chairman, president and CEO of ITT, said in a June 2009 interview for BigThink.com:

I think the best business advice I ever received came to me from Dan Burnham, who was my boss, was the group president at Allied Signal, and later rose to be the chairman of Raytheon…. Dan told me, many, many years ago, that one way to stay ahead is anticipate as a leader. And he always said, no matter what action you take, take 30 percent more action, 30 percent sooner than you think you need to. So Dan called it the 30-30 rule…. And I follow that advice.

ITT’s Announced Subdivision to Finish by Close of 2011

The first of the three new companies will retain the name ITT and will focus on the aspect of the current business that involves, among other things, the manufacture of pumps, electronic interconnections and controls for industries, including oil and gas, as well as suspension and braking components for trains and automobiles. The revenue from this unit is expected to rise to $2.8 billion in 2011. The second company, not yet named, will focus on water and wastewater treatment, pumps and water distribution. Revenue in this sector is expected to reach $3.6 billion in 2011. The third company, also still unnamed, will handle what is now ITT’s military contracting business. ITT projects sales for this unit will decline, from a high of $6.1 billion in 2009 down to $5.8 billion in 2011.

Comments by Loranger and stock analysts suggest that the split was prompted partly by the desire to jettison ITT’s military business because it is a drag on ITT’s stock price. During an ITT quarterly review conference call on October 12, 2010 transcribed by SeekingAlpha.com, JP Morgan Chase analyst C. Stephen Tusa said:

It’s been a relatively frustrating year from a stock performance perspective [for ITT], and obviously, the elephant in the room is the defense business. I think a lot of people out there continue to believe that this business is just facing massive secular headwinds over the next couple of years, and you see it in all defense multiples. And sure enough all the defense companies this quarter like General Dynamics missing its revenue guidance, but the margins are better than expected…. I’m just wondering at what point you get frustrated with the [Wall] street view that just seems like no matter how much you explain the diversity and growth potential of this defense business it just doesn’t seem to me that you’re going to be able to get out of this [stock price] rut over the next year or so. So I’m just curious as to what level of frustration you guys have over there in the board room?

Loranger gamely defended his defense business, saying that the Pentagon intends to maintain funding for “the intelligence piece of control, communications, surveillance and electronic capability, which as you know is the bulk of where we play … so the market segment where we’re playing, we think, is actually going to be slightly positive.”

Denise Ramos, ITT’s chief financial officer, also disclosed on the call that ITT is facing the problem of other military contractors protesting the loss of Pentagon contracts to ITT: “We’re seeing an increase in protest activities from incumbents, especially for those large, multi-year contracts. These protests may delay the recognition of orders in revenue and complicate our ability to forecast outcomes,” said Ramos.

“And lastly,” said Ramos, “we believe that customers [the military] may reduce funding levels and frequencies in response to current budgetary pressures.”

The October 2010 conference call did not prepare stock analysts, however, for the January 2011 announcement that ITT would opt to subdivide.

From War to Water

On the January 12 conference call announcing the split-up, transcribed by Thomson Reuters, several stock analysts offered surprised praise. “Brilliant move in my opinion,” said Jeff Sprague of Vertical Research Partners. Gautam Khanna of Cowen Group echoed Sprague: “Congratulations. Sounds like a very smart strategic move.”

Among the analysts on the call, it was Tusa who asked most directly what sped ITT’s decision to subdivide, particularly since, less than a year earlier, the company’s management was discussing the addition of another business “leg” to the company:

It just seems like quite a flip in a six-month period, even shorter than the year that’s been talked about on this conference call. I’m not sure what other additional color you can give around the timing, and I’m sorry to nitpick around the timing. It’s just, that’s a relatively short time period to go to, kind of to the nuclear option here.

“These conversations about strategy are ongoing,” answered Loranger, who added that, “I think it’s all soaked in that we expect the defense segment to be somewhat muted or slow for some time.” He also noted that sovereign solvency, debt and credit issues in the US and Europe were concerns for ITT’s commercial business, but it was not clear whether he meant for all units or for the commercial portion of the defense unit only.

ITT declined to make Loranger available for an interview. Several of ITT’s board members did not return Truthout’s calls for comment, while others declined to comment when they were reached.

Loranger has chosen to be the executive chairman of the new water company that will be created in the split-up. In a 2010 article published on The Huffington Post, the executive wrote, “Simply put, the world is running out of water … less than 1 percent of the world’s water is safe to drink.”

Perhaps Loranger also felt social pressure to get out of the war business.

On October 23, 2010, 45 protesters marched through Loranger’s hometown of Greenwich, Connecticut, and into his neighborhood and labeled him a war profiteer. They called on him to stop ITT’s manufacture of bomb release mechanisms for Reaper drones and to work to end the current wars. The protesters carried a replica of a drone and placards calling for Loranger to “Use Your Power for Peace and Not War.” The next day’s Greenwich Time newspaper noted the rally on its front page and carried an article entitled, “Peaceniks Target Greenwich Neighborhood of ‘War Profiteer.’”

ITT shareholders will receive stock in all three new companies when the subdivision is complete.

ITT stock rose 16.5 percent, reaching $61.50, on the day ITT’s planned split was announced, marking its highest share price since September 2008. It has since dropped back several dollars.

The “Fiduciary Responsibility” Trap

Although ITT’s decision to subdivide is a sign of slow or no growth for major war contractors, it does not necessarily indicate that investment fund managers are likely to agree to calls to drop stocks in companies profiting from the current wars. Indeed, many investment managers appear reluctant to sell stocks based on social concerns because they believe that this kind of investment decision can jeopardize income and therefore violate what is commonly termed their “fiduciary responsibility.”

For example, said a June 2010 US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on how investment managers have responded to laws requiring divestment in firms doing business in Sudan:

Our survey results demonstrate that state [investment] fund managers, when expressing concerns about fiduciary responsibility, focused on the impact that divestment might have on a fund’s returns and administrative costs. Respondents who divested and those who did not frequently cited fiduciary responsibility as a concern. Specifically, 17 out of 25 fund managers [or 59 percent] who had divested or frozen their Sudan-related assets, or planned to do so, said they were concerned to a moderate or large extent that “it would be difficult to divest while ensuring that fiduciary trust requirements were not breached and my office/state was not vulnerable to lawsuits.”

But the report went on to say that, “Although fiduciary responsibility was the primary concern for state fund managers in considering divestment, only a few managers responded that they took advantage of applicable state laws or policy provisions” that would allow them to opt out of divestment.

It would be hard to imagine that the fund managers were immune to video reports of atrocities in Sudan or the widespread public outrage these reports generated.

The report found that, “Since 2006, state treasurers and public pension fund managers have divested or frozen about $3.5 billion in assets primarily related to Sudan in response to their states’ laws and policies.”

Can’t Hear You

States’ and private investment fund managers’ ultimate acceptance of investment sanctions against the government of Sudan may be a result not only of the public outcry over Sudan, but also of the growing movement toward what is termed “socially responsible investing (SRI).” The 2010 Report on Socially Responsible Investing Trends in the United States, prepared by the Social Investment Forum (SIF) Foundation, finds that: “At the start of 2010, professionally managed assets following SRI strategies stood at $3.07 trillion, a rise of more than 380 percent, from $639 billion in 1995 [the first year of forum reporting]…. Over the same period, the broader universe of assets under professional management increased only 260 percent from $7 trillion to $25.2 trillion.”

The SIF Foundation report found concerns about Sudan affected $446 billion in assets being handled by money managers such as mutual funds, private equity and hedge funds. The next-largest asset category subject to social concerns in investing decisions was tobacco, at $295 billion, followed by alcohol, at $161 billion. Environmental and military concerns were tied for fourth and fifth place, at $101 billion.

Let Truthout send our best stories to your inbox every day, for free.

The report showed the same pattern in college and university endowment funds:

Colleges and universities have provided very broad support to the movement for divestment from the Sudan, with nearly $219 billion in assets affected, and educational institutions continue to avoid investing nearly $147 billion in tobacco-related companies…. Human rights issues explicitly affect less than $14 billion in endowment assets (excluding Sudan), and criteria related to defense or weapons affect only $6 billion.

The report found that, in large part due to Sudan divestment legislation, public employee pension and retirement funds and other publicly controlled funds had assets of nearly $1.1 trillion withheld from Sudan investment. The second-largest banned category for public funds was “terrorism,” banning investment in countries identified as state sponsors of terrorism and affecting assets worth about $600 billion; this category was followed by investments related to concerns surrounding: Iran, affecting $445 billion; the environment, affecting $416 billion; and human rights, affecting $415 billion.

Concern about investment in war is apparently not a significant worry to public fund managers, as the report found. “Other values-based … issues, such as restrictions related to gambling, defense and weapons, alcohol or pornography affect far fewer public plans and a much lower percentage of institutional assets,” it found.

Fifty-two percent of the managers of public funds responding to SIF’s survey cited regulations or legislative mandates as the primary reason that they incorporated concerns about companies’ environmental, social or governance practices (or ESG) into their investment decisions.

Meg Voorhes, research director for the Social Investment Forum, said that the overwhelming interest in divesting from Sudan as compared to interest in divestment from weapons manufacturing, “has to do with demand” – that is, demand by investors to disengage from Sudan. The fund managers, she said, “maybe aren’t hearing that demand” in relation to weapons stocks.

Eighty-five percent of managers of private funds who responded to the survey said their primary reason for incorporating ESG into their investment decisions was “client demand.”

Voorhes said that religious institutions have been the earliest investors to divest weapons stocks.

The SIF report notes that, “Religious investors from Jewish, Christian and Islamic faiths and many indigenous cultures have long married ethical values and financial decisions, giving careful consideration to the way economic actions affected others around them and shunning investments that violated their traditions’ core beliefs.”

The report found that tobacco was the leading investment concern for the surveyed fund managers working for faith-based institutions, affecting $38 billion in assets. Defense and weapons bans came in second, affecting more than $30.5 billion in assets.

“Moral Decision”

The Presbyterian Church USA, or PC(USA), adopted a military-related divestment policy in 1982 and has set criteria that ban it from investing in 14 military-related businesses.

Bill Somplatsky-Jarman, the PC(USA) associate for mission responsibility through investment, said that his church is not a historic “peace church” in that, “We believe in some form of military presence.” However, he said, the amount of money going to the US military remains a key issue. The proscription of five of the largest military contractors – Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrup Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon – will continue, according to the church divestment statement, “until such time as the United States is no longer among the top ten nations ranked according to per capita military expenditures.”

Another group of military contractors are banned by the PC(USA) because they depend on the Pentagon for more than 50 percent of their sales over three years. ITT is not included in this list because its military sales had not exceeded 50 percent of its revenue for three years, but the military-related spin-off of its new subdivided company will be.

Somplatsky-Jarman said that the church’s investment fund managers have found that they can observe the investment restrictions and still make money for the church.

He said that the PC(USA) has had “some conversations” with ITT, asking that the firm divulge the names of countries to whom it sells weapons because of the church’s concerns about human rights and foreign military sales. He said that ITT did not want to provide the information although they were working on improving the language of their human rights policy.

Somplatsky-Jarman said that the church had not raised the issue of providing weapons for the Afghan war with ITT, but that this may be included in future discussions about supplying weapons in “conflict zones” where they could be used to perpetrate human rights violations.

Somplatsky-Jarman noted that other religious bodies set an even lower percentage allowance for military business when formulating investment restrictions. Among these institutions is the United Methodist Church.

The United Methodist Church’s General Board of Pension and Health Benefits maintains a “Failed/Ineligible Investment List” that bans investment in 97 US companies because of their military work and/or production of firearms. Twenty-five foreign firms are so banned.

The church will not hold a company’s stock if more than 10 percent of its income is generated by sales to the military or from firearms.

Wildman said that divestment in war-related stocks for his church “is seen as a moral decision and not a financial decision.” He said the church’s investment managers have agreed that “over the long haul,” divestment in military contractors has had “negligible impact on return.”

Wildman said the church may rethink its 10-percent filter in consideration of companies such as Hewlett-Packard, which makes parts essential for certain weapons systems, but whose military sales are less than 10 percent of the company’s total revenue. If a company used slave labor in “only” nine percent of its business, Wildman asked, would there not still be reason for concern? “A Boeing plane without computer parts won’t be so deadly,” he said.

In 2010, DefenseSystems.com listed Hewlett-Packard as the 13th largest Pentagon contractor, with military sales of $1.589 billion in 2009. Its net revenue for fiscal year 2009 was over $114 billion.

Wildman also recalled that land mines generated divestment enthusiasm. Now, he suggested, drone manufacture might be a divestment target that would be a “strategic entry point” to open the way for broader divestment of war stocks.

Externalizing the Downside

Drones, Wildman said, are “externalizing any of the downside to war,” including the fact that Reaper drone pilots remain out of harm’s way from bases in the United States while they conduct attacks of Afghans and Pakistanis. According to the Air Force, the drones are flown by pilots at Creech Air Force Base (AFB) in Nevada and Holloman AFB in New Mexico.

The drones reduce risks not only for combat pilots but also for ground troops, who may be spared entering some combat areas because drones are used for attack.

A Reaper drone costs $13.4 million, compared to an F-15E Strike Eagle at $31 million, according to the US Air Force. The Reaper can be armed with Hellfire missiles and laser-guided, 500-pound bombs.

The drone attacks appear to affect mostly civilians in countries where the US is fighting resistance movements.

David Kilcullen and Andrew McDonald Exum, both noted US specialists in “counterinsurgency,” wrote in a May 2009 New York Times op-ed that it appeared possible that for every “militant” killed in drone strikes in Pakistan, 50 civilians died, “a hit rate of 2 percent – hardly ‘precision.’”

They noted that the US has disputed these kinds of figures, but they pointed out that “every one of these dead noncombatants represents an alienated family, a new desire for revenge, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased.”

They called for a moratorium on drone strikes in Pakistan, but, in September 2010, The New York Times reported that:

the CIA has launched 20 attacks with armed drone aircraft thus far in September, the most ever during a single month, and more than twice the number in a typical month. This expanded air campaign comes as top officials are racing to stem the rise of American casualties before the Obama administration’s comprehensive review of Afghanistan strategy set for December.

Almost Human

Civilian deaths result in part from the drone’s use of Hellfire missiles and bombs that can and do kill indiscriminately whether they are fired from drones or from manned aircraft. But civilians also suffer from apparent limitations in a drone’s ability to identify who is being targeted. There seems to be no substitute for human eyes and human judgment on the ground.

For example, as reported by Robert Reid in a May 29, 2010 Huffington Post article, US military investigators “found that ‘inaccurate and unprofessional’ reporting by US operators of a Predator drone was responsible for a missile strike that killed 23 Afghan civilians in February [2010].” The Predator is a cousin of the Reaper that uses similar radar and sensing equipment.

The deaths occurred when a crew flying a Predator from Creech AFB spotted a convoy of three vehicles moving along a road near where US and Afghan troops were following resistance fighters. The drone crew called for a helicopter attack on the vehicles.

“After the first salvo,” Reid writes, “the helicopter crews stopped firing because they saw brightly colored clothing in the convoy – a strong indication that women were present. A video shot from the drone saw women and children present.”

According to the Huffington report, US spokesperson Rear Adm. Gregory Smith said the only people the drone operators could see in the convoy before ordering the helicopter attack were in the back of a pickup truck, and that the operators should have reported the possibility of civilians in the two cars in the convoy. “They did not report the ambiguity of what they were seeing,” Smith said. “They weren’t clearly seeing a heavily armed threat.”

The investigation report noted that commanders did not report “ample evidence” of civilian casualties for almost 12 hours after the killings while waiting for confirmation of what had happened. Four US officers received reprimands.

The report is also stunning in its implications when one considers that, as noted by Mary Ellen O’Connell in an article for The American Society of International Law, “Current drone computer programs merely advise human operators on the decision to launch an attack. In the future, drone computers may be programmed to launch attacks on the basis of pre-set parameters without the need for a human being to make the real time decision.”

Technology’s limitations are an obvious concern with regard to the routine use of drones to assassinate people identified as enemies not only without charging them or taking them to court, but also without identifying them on a face-to-face basis. Drones make this type of killing much easier and more common than it would be if it had to be carried out by humans on the ground – not to mention that these types of assassinations are illegal in the first place.

In addition, by removing humans from direct involvement in combat, technology shields not only the soldiers themselves from the risk of physical harm, but also shields their political and military commanders from the possibility that if soldiers were carrying out and witnessing this type of violence firsthand, it might make them less willing to fight and kill.

In his 2009 book “Wired for War,” P.W. Singer draws a picture of the future robotic war could hold:

The public back home will be further distanced from the human cost of war, perhaps making such wars easier to start, but maybe also harder to end, even in democracies. In turn, the very technology itself might lead to new social, economic, even religious conflicts and maybe even create new sparks of war among those left behind or so fearful as to lash out in anger and confusion.

 

Finally, these wars will feature new questions about what is legal and ethical, including even how to control our own weapons. The resulting dilemmas and debates will not only be intense, but will challenge many of the codes that have long shaped and regulated the very practice of war.

 

In short, the systems and stories captured in this book are just the start of a process that will be of historic importance to the story of humanity itself.

Reaper Makers

There are now at least a dozen different types of drones that are either in or nearing use in combat and that are used for surveillance and/or as weapons platforms. The most widely used killer drone is the Reaper, manufactured by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GA-ASI), based in San Diego, California. GA-ASI is a privately held company; however, essential components for Reapers are made by the following publicly traded companies, some of which have their own drone projects:

Reaper Drone Component Makers

• Boeing: Intelligence workstation and mission planning system; laser guidance for bombs
• ITT Corporation: Sensors; bomb and missile release systems
• Honeywell: Turboprop engine
• L-3 Communications: Sensors; satellite communications link; tactical date link
• Lockheed Martin: Hellfire missiles; Paveway laser-guided bombs
• Microsoft: Software for detection of humans and human-made objects
• Northrup Grumman: All-weather surveillance radar
• Raytheon: Targeting system that can be connected to Hellfire missiles; AIM-92 Stinger missiles

Sources: Air Force Technology.com, Bloomberg Press, Wikipedia and “Wired for War”

Seize the Money

We are living in a time when many feel powerless and hopeless in trying to end our wars and reverse the military contractors’ collective rise in power, which is a key factor driving the wars.

ITT’s decision to dump its “defense” business is an indicator that military contractors are not all-powerful. Indeed, they depend to a considerable degree on private investment, not just taxpayer money. This means that people who want to end the wars can “do something” by acting, as individuals and as members of any and all institutions that make investments, to defund the war-making business.

The SIF Foundation report shows that educational institutions and public employee pension funds and other public investment funds appear to have very limited interest at the moment in divesting their military stocks. This reality is a challenge for students, school alumni, faculty and municipal and state employees who want to end the wars and turn the US away from war-making and military intervention. At the same time, those involved in religious institutions can push for war divestment by their congregations and national bodies.

Religious institutions such as PC(USA) and the United Methodist Church have proven that disengaging from investment in weapons does not damage financial health; there are many other businesses that can provide the returns they need and allow the churches to obey their consciences.

The message suggested by church investment guidelines, particularly those of the Methodists, is that military contracting stocks are not “just another stock.” They are unique in offering individuals and institutions an opportunity to profit from war, and, therefore, carry a heavy moral burden. Some people have decided this moral burden is too great to bear, regardless of the economic consequences.

A commitment to defense divestment offers a solution that might begin to enable us to stop our wars.

This report is a huge thank you to those who worked on the project, those who went to Greenwich and for those of you who were there in spirit.

Possibly, less guns and tanks
But pacifists cannot give thanks
‘Cause Loranger and ITT
Make unmanned drones for you and me.

Every drone costs thirteen mil
A “safer way” they say, to kill!
Americans, not in harm’s way
But Pakistanis, every day.

Unmanned drones in Pakistan
Terrify each woman, child and man
Controlled from half a world away
They stalk people at work and play.

Thirteen million dollars, wow!
We could use that dough right now
For teachers here and nurses there
And to have green jobs everywhere.

Military personnel
Make Pakistan a living hell
From bases in the U.S.A.
But suffer more P.T.S.D.

Let’s keep them safe, not only from
IEDs and bombs and guns
But also from the cruel nightmare
Of post traumatic stress despair.

Attachment B

“Bad Neighborhood” – by Bennett Weiss

Last night I walked through a bad neighborhood
Nameless, faceless people everywhere
Up to no good.
Behind tall hedges, iron gates
And stone walls
Growls a one-eyed bulldog
With the lowest of growls
Last night I walked through a bad neighborhood
Behind that one-eyed bulldog
In a castle on a hill
Lives an insurance executive
Who don’t care who he kills
Forty Thousand die each year
Cause they can’t afford his scam
While he fishes off a yacht he named
“I DON’T GIVE A DAMN”
Last night I walked through a bad neighborhood
Next door’s a bank robber
Who just happens to own the bank
He don’t even know how much money he got
And he don’t know who to thank
May the foreclosed lives
Lookin for hope and a home
Or the waitress paying 30%
On an overdue credit card loan
Last night I walked through a bad neighborhood
A blond girl on a moonlit path
Rides a golden palimino
That her father bought with money he scimmed
Running some kind ofcasino
He’s got a mantle full of trophies
From grateful charities
Cause he threw some crumbs
To the pigeons and the bums
Who walk on bloody knees
Last night I walked through a bad neighborhood
They put a raven in every treetop
Croakin the same damn song
They let the butterfly
In the gutter die
Cause he won’t sing along
Last night I walked through a bad neighborhood
On the hilltops
In the fanciest of them homes
Lives the man who sells poison gas,
Machine guns and bombs
He’s got a swimmin pool in his backyard
Where his children splash and play
So he doesn’t have to hear the screaming
Of the children
O so far away
Last night I walked through a bad neighborhood
The cops are on the payroll
Congressmen, judges too
The preacher knows what not say
Even the ghost are scared to say boo
Greenwhich Coonecticut?
Scarsdale? Bronxville?
Ain’t quite sure where i was
But the stench is with me still
Last night I walked through a bad neighborhood.

Attachment C

“English Translation of FARS News Agency Report” – by Ellie Ommani

On October 23, 2010, in Greenwich, Connecticut, one of the richest cities on the East Coast of the United States, over 50 anti-war activists from surrounding counties and cities – Westchester, White Plains, Stamford, Peekskill gathered for a march and rally to protest at the home of Mr. Steven R. Loranger, Chairman, President and CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of ITT Corporation, one of the top ten U.S. military contractors who are making vast profits from the production and sale of the terrifying drones that drop lethal bombs and missiles on the people of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Yemen.The peace activists carried signs and placards that read: “Stop the War, Stop the Drones”, “Mr. Loranger, drones kill women and children” “Should we invest in war?” “Money 4 Homes, Stop the War” and “War IS Terrorism!” among other anti-war messages. Leaflets given to downtown shoppers and passer-bys documented the huge war costs to Federal tax-payers since 2001:

 

The most visible icon was a home-made replica of the drone reaper, hand constructed by the main organizer of the March, Mr. Nick Mottern, who is a carpenter and ex-soldier, and a vocal opponent of U.S. wars. Stanley Heller, Chairperson of the Middle East Crisis Committee of CT said: “The drone strikes overwhelmingly kill Afghan civilians. This is a violation of international law. ITT executives should immediately stop making parts for the drones.”

Veterans of the Vietnam, Iraq and even Second World War were visible and vocal in their condemnation of the U.S. foreign policy of occupation and killing in regions around the world.

Organizations supporting this action were: WESPAC Foundation, NoWar Westchester, Code Pink, World Can’t Wait, Veterans for Peace, Peace Action, Orange County (NY) Democratic Alliance, Peace Action Greenwich/Stamford, Middle East Crisis Committee (CT), Concerned Families of Westchester, Women in Black Westchester, and the American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC).

Attachment D

“Greenwich Time Coverage”

Attachment E

“Press Release”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 15, 2010
Contact: Nick Mottern (914) 806-6179 nickmottern@earthlink.net

WAR PROFITEER MARCH TO BE HELD OCT. 23 IN GREENWICH CT
FOCUSING ON STEVEN R. LORANGER, HEAD OF ITT CORP.

A War Profiteer March will be held in Greenwich CT on Saturday Oct. 23, starting at 12:30 pm at the US Post Office at Greenwich Avenue and Arch Streets, passing through the downtown and then to the home of Steven R. Loranger, Chairman, President and CEO of ITT Corp. ITT is one of the top ten US military contractors and maker of bomb and missile release systems for drones of the type being used in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The 11 New York and Connecticut peace groups organizing the march will point out that Mr. Loranger, who was paid $14 million in 2009, has lobbied, through the Aerospace Industries Association, for continued funding for the wars in Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iraq. They will call on him to begin lobbying to halt these wars and for ITT to stop making drone weapons systems.

The marchers will also point out that since 2001, federal tax payers in New York and Connecticut have provided a total of $126 billion for the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars with $880 million of that coming from Greenwich, $1 billion from Stamford and $7 billion from Westchester County NY.

“We will be taking our message to the home of Mr. Loranger,” said Nick Mottern, an organizer of the march, “to emphasize that war is coming daily to the homes of Afghanis, Pakistanis and Iraqis, that Mr. Loranger’s style of living is related to profiting from these wars and that he and his military contractor colleagues have powerful voices in war decisions, perhaps equal to those of members of Congress, if not greater.”

Stanley Heller, Chairperson of the Middle East Crisis Committee (CT) said: “The drone strikes overwhelmingly kill Afghan civilians. This is a violation of international law. ITT executives should immediately stop making parts for drones.”

The marchers will note that ITT spent $2.5 million lobbying Congress in 2009 and 2010, to date, and it has distributed $223,000 to House and Senate candidates in the 2010 elections.

The march is endorsed by: WESPAC Foundation, NoWarWeschester, Code Pink Westchester, World Can’t Wait, Peace Action New York, Peace Action Greenwich/Stamford, Middle East Crisis Committee (CT), Concerned Families of Westchester, Rockland Coalition for Peace and Justice, Orange County (NY) Democratic Alliance and Women in Black Westchester.

The march will be held rain or shine.

Attachment F

“Flyer”

Your Neighbor *** Drone Profiteer

ITT Corp. makes weapons release systems for Reaper drones like this that are killings hundreds of Afghani and Pakistani civilians. Greenwich resident Steven R. Loranger, ITT’s Chairman, President and CEO, was paid $14 million in 2009. He lobbied Congress this year (through the Aerospace Industries Association) to continue funding the illegal Afghan and Iraq wars. ITT spent $2.5 million lobbying Congress in 2009 and 2010.

In addition to the Afghanis, Pakistanis, Iraqis and Americans killed and wounded, here is the war cost to Federal tax-payers since 2001 in:

Call ITT Corp at (914) 641-2000 and urge Loranger to:

For more information: www.freewestpoint.com; www.aclu.org; www.wired.com; (CT based www.TheStruggle.org 203-934-2761 and Ayumi Temlock ayumipear@yahoo.com) ]]> http://www.freewestpoint.com/715/report-on-the-oct-23-greenwich-war-profiteer-march/feed 2 http://www.freewestpoint.com/206/speak-truth-to-power-by-carla-rae-johnson?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=speak-truth-to-power-by-carla-rae-johnson http://www.freewestpoint.com/206/speak-truth-to-power-by-carla-rae-johnson#comments Sat, 28 Aug 2010 03:11:17 +0000 admin http://www.freewestpoint.com/?p=206 Continue reading →]]>  
Dear Cadet,
 
I respect and honor your commitment to service and your love of our country. I earnestly hope that your life is long and productive. I worry when your life is at risk. I am deeply concerned about the possibility that you might be injured in the line of duty.

My most sincere hope is that your service, your sacrifices, and your loyalty to this country are held as sacred by those who command and by those in power who make the decisions that impact your life and limb. I fondly hope that the “causes” your country sends you to fight for are worthy, just, and respectful of all human life. Unfortunately, history has seldom, if ever, documented a truly “just” war or a political/military “cause” that meets these standards. I hope you will continue to think and reason for yourself, even though you have been trained to obey the commands of those above you. I earnestly hope that if and when a day comes when you know that an order or a war is wrong, unjust, or without respect for human life, you will have the extreme courage and integrity to refuse to carry out that order or to fight that war. I hope, too, that if you have children they will grow up to admire you as a thoughtful, compassionate human being strong and courageous enough to “speak truth to power.”
 
Respectfully,
Carla Rae Johnson, Artist and Educator
 

]]> http://www.freewestpoint.com/206/speak-truth-to-power-by-carla-rae-johnson/feed 0 http://www.freewestpoint.com/185/follow-your-heart-by-sandra-dolman?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=follow-your-heart-by-sandra-dolman http://www.freewestpoint.com/185/follow-your-heart-by-sandra-dolman#comments Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:30:37 +0000 admin http://www.freewestpoint.com/?p=185 Continue reading →]]>  
When one becomes of age, 18, one has the right to choose their dream. Of course from the beginning you were told what to do, when and where to do it…all in the direction or mold someone has transfigured for you (in some instances).

I’ve seen faces that once seemed alive and energetic now they look expressionless and forlorn. What happened to all your dreams and your aspirations (realistic or not)? Did you want them to do an ‘about face’ and then ‘to the rear march?’ Should or do you not want to experience life’s dos, don’ts and mishaps before you surrender to a cause that is of abysmal proportions ending in memories of mental and physical destruction?
 
You’ve listened to many people, parents, recruiters, politicians, peers, etc., they know of your talents and dreams but they can’t feel them and hold them as intensely as you. (I hope you weren’t listening to Charles Rangel, because he now has the same expression…how did I get myself into this).
 
Follow your heart…when you hear the adage “go west young man/woman,” …it doesn’t mean West Point.
 

]]> http://www.freewestpoint.com/185/follow-your-heart-by-sandra-dolman/feed 0 http://www.freewestpoint.com/130/questions-for-west-point-and-us-2?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=questions-for-west-point-and-us-2 http://www.freewestpoint.com/130/questions-for-west-point-and-us-2#comments Mon, 12 Jul 2010 00:21:04 +0000 admin http://www.freewestpoint.com/?p=130 Continue reading →]]>  
On the occasion of Independence Day I want to report on going to West Point last Monday, June 28, 2010 with six colleagues to raise questions for incoming cadets about the legality and purpose of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

West Point is arguably the most famous and admired US military school. It is also a shrine to soldiers who have died in the United States’ wars. Politicians routinely go there to bathe and sanctify themselves, and their arguments, whatever their virtue, with the blood of soldiers.
 
West Point’s motto expressed on its website is “Duty, Honor, Country”, and like all units of the military, it is also about following orders.

But what if the United States’ civilian and military leadership are collectively psychotic, delusional, and criminal in pursuing a war, or wars, as is the case with Iraq and Afghanistan?
 
What if the delusional goal of a specific war, or wars, is not freedom, independence or protection but forcing people in other nations to adopt corporately-controlled governments like that of the United States, where the public interest is given lip service but corporate expansion and high profitability are paramount?
 
George Andrzejewski, Martha Conte, Gayle Dunkelberger, Nora Freeman, Kwame Madden, Bennett Weiss and I arrived at West Point at 6 am on the 28th while the nearly full moon was fading out of the hazy, light blue sky.
 
We came at that hour to be on time to greet nearly 1,400 cadet candidates and their families who would begin arriving at 6:30 am for Reception Day, or R-Day, the day that the cadet candidates are sworn into the Army and when they enter Cadet Basic Training, known as “Beast Barracks.” As the R-Day schedule below indicates, it is a day in which the Army intends to win the loyalty and total support of the cadets’ parents as it immerses their children in military culture and seeks to transform them into Army officers.
 

 
We first set up a series of signs on the sidewalk along West Point Highway in downtown Highland Falls, leading into Thayer Gate, West Point’s main entrance. The signs said, in the fashion of Burma Shave signs:
 
Questions for Cadets:

- Do Our Wars Violate International Law & Nuremberg?

- Do You Want to Fight to Help Energy & Mineral Companies?

- See www. FreeWestPoint.com (a new website directed at cadets and instructors.)
 

 
George Andrzejewski, one of those welcoming cadets and their families to West Point, June 28, 2010. Photo by Gayle Dunkelberger
When the signs were in place, Kwame and I drove to West Point’s Stony Lonesome Gate, north of Highland Falls, and positioned ourselves with a banner on a grassy triangle where the two entrance roads to the gate join. Cars entering from 9W north and south could easily read the banner, which said:
 
Questions for Cadets:
- Do Our Wars Violate International Law?
- Do You Want to Fight for Energy Companies?
- See www. FreeWestPoint.com
 
Kwami and I found that the predominant response to the banner, by cadets and parents, was studied avoidance, eyes front, no expression. In one car, the man who was driving, and the young man in the front passenger seat, looked straight ahead, but woman sitting in back read the banner then turned to talk to the men in the front seat.
 
There were times when I thought we and our message were invisible until a driver, a man or a woman, lifted a middle finger to us or showed a thumb down. One woman, driving a small SUV with others on board, gave us the most vigorous thumb down I have ever witnessed in my years of protesting the current wars. On two occasions we got a wave of approval.
 
The cadet candidates, overwhelmingly white and male, looked extremely solemn as they passed, although several grinned at us in defiance, and two young men laughed at us.
 
My colleagues at the Thayer Gate experienced similar responses.
 
One of the most satisfying moments at the Stony Gate came when three large tour buses filled with what appeared to be cadets or cadet candidates were forced to slow down by traffic entering the gate, thus making it easier to read the banner. One of the buses stopped for about two minutes next to us, and all in the bus had a chance to study the banner.
 
Two khaki green Stryker, light armored vehicles were also caught in this traffic jam, and the soldiers driving and riding on them read the banner.
 
In the course of our picketing, one soldier flashed us the peace sign. Another who said he had been in Afghanistan, when asked what he thought of the mission, said: “I just do what I’m told.”
 

 
The journey begins for a busload of cadet candidates during Reception Day on June 28.
 
More than 1,380 new cadets parted way from Family and friends at the Holleder Center as they started the daylong inprocessing at West Point. Photo by Mike Strasser/West Point Public Affairs. (Caption by West Point Public Affairs.)
 
By 10 am we had picked up our signs, and we gathered to discuss the day. We felt that if our questions would prompt even one cadet to ask our questions about the wars or to decline to participate in them, our time was well spent.
 

]]> http://www.freewestpoint.com/130/questions-for-west-point-and-us-2/feed 1 http://www.freewestpoint.com/62/observations-from-within?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=observations-from-within http://www.freewestpoint.com/62/observations-from-within#comments Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:47:49 +0000 admin http://www.freewestpoint.com/62/observations-from-within Continue reading →]]>  
There is a cartoon on the home page of this website. It depicts two army enlistees with four greedy looking oil fat cat types riding on their backs. I objected to using this cartoon as I thought it was demeaning to soldiers and not a good way to engage a dialogue.

A discussion about my objection ensued with a friend. Here is the gist of the exchange:
 
Friend: The cartoon is intended to demean only the oil industry which uses enlistees as cannon fodder while they get free labor and extremely lucrative no bid oil contracts.
 
Me: That’s undeniable, it’s all already happened, but do you think the enlistees in the cartoon are meant to be chumps?
 
Friend: No, not at all, I think it is a succinct way of saying that soldiers are seeing the light about the way they have sacrificed for the oil companies who have never had their interests or even the interests of our country anywhere on their agenda.
 
Me: Hmmmm.
 
I went to google and found a youtube video. Thanks youtube. This one is entitled “Danzinger Cartoons” Jeff Danzinger talks for 4:19 minutes about his intent in his cartoons! So right there he said ” I depict ordinary soldiers making observations about the army, not about politics, but about the army.”
 
I’m glad to have an opportunity to blog about that conversation and Danzinger’s intent. I applaud encouraging soldiers to continue to make observations of their own from inside themselves about what happens around them.
 
Basic training pushes for a soldier not to think for themselves but only to follow orders.
 
International law and Nuremberg states clearly that soldiers must question the morality of what he or she actually does.
 

]]> http://www.freewestpoint.com/62/observations-from-within/feed 5