David Morris

How to realize the OWS vision

Five changes that would help this grassroots movement transform the nation

  • more
    • All Share Services

How to realize the OWS visionMaggie Babb, 16, a junior at Loring Nicollet Alternative School, participates in an Occupy Minnesota demonstration held at Hennepin County Government Plaza, Friday, Oct. 7, 2011, in Minneapolis.(Credit: AP/Genevieve Ross))
This article originally appeared on MinnPost

Jim Hightower likes to tell the story of the moving company in Austin whose slogan is, “If we can get it loose, we can get it moving.” The tens of thousands of people occupying sites around the country, including Minneapolis, may be prying us loose from cynicism and despair.

The next step is to move the country.

Grassroots-driven fundamental change is not without precedent. We can look to the Arab spring. #Occupy Wall Street was self-consciously inspired by the occupation by Egyptians of Tahrir Square. But we can also look to our own history. At the end of the 19th century a political movement arose to confront many of the same concerns that torment us today: concentrated wealth, corporate power, the influence of money on democracy. The populist uprising led to the passage of state and national laws (e.g. antitrust legislation, minimum-wage and maximum-hour statutes) and several constitutional amendments. In 1913 the 16th Amendment allowed an income tax; the 17th Amendment, ratified the same year, required the direct election of senators; the 19th Amendment, ratified in 1920, gave women the right to vote.

What fundamental changes would honor the vision of #Occupy?  I offer five suggestions: two constitutional amendments and three laws.

1. Ratify an amendment: Corporations are not persons

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, gave blacks the constitutional right of citizenship: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In 1886, in a case that had nothing to do with corporate personhood, the court clerk wrote a headnote to the case that contained these fateful sentences, “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.”

Some 65 years later Justice William O. Douglas observed that “the Santa Clara case becomes one of the most momentous of all our decisions. Corporations were now armed with constitutional prerogatives.” They made the most of these new prerogatives. The 14th Amendment, written to protect largely defenseless ex-slaves, was used mostly to protect powerful corporations. Of the 150 cases based on the 14th amendment heard by the Supreme Court between 1886 and 1896, 15 involved blacks while 135 involved business entities.

In the next 20 years, relying on the 1886 “precedent,” the Supreme Court steadily expanded the number of constitutional rights accorded to this new type of person:  in 1893 the 5th Amendment  right of due process;  in 1906 the 4th Amendment protection against search and seizure; in 1908 the 6th Amendment right to a trial by jury. By the 1940s Justice Felix Frankfurter declared, “Artificial or not, corporations have won more rights under law than people have — rights which government has protected with armed force.”

In early 2010 the Supreme Court gave corporations the right, as persons, to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

A wonderful sign at the Occupy Wall Street protest reads, “I won’t believe corporations are people until Texas executes one.”

We need a constitutional amendment consisting of four words: Corporations are not persons.

2. Ratify an amendment: Money is not speech

In 1976 the Supreme Court ruled that money is speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Today members of Congress spend 25-40 percent of their time begging for money. Political scientist Thomas Ferguson observes, “Public opinion has only a weak and inconstant influence on policy. The political system is largely investor-driven, and runs on enormous quantities of money.”

When states or the federal government have tried to make elections fairer the Supreme Court says no. Vermont passed a law to cap campaign expenditures for state offices. The Court struck it down.

Congress tried to stop billionaire candidates from spending an unlimited amount of their own money on their own campaigns. The Supreme Court struck down the law. Speaking for a 5-4 majority, Justice Samuel Alito told Congress that trying to “level electoral opportunities for candidates of different personal wealth” is not “a legitimate government objective.”

Jamie Raskin, a Maryland state senator and law professor at American university, points out that if members of the Fortune 100 spent only l percent of their profits on elections to protect and foster their interests, the total comes to $6 billion, more money than was spent for and on behalf of all congressional and presidential candidates in 2008.

We need a constitutional amendment consisting of four words: Money is not speech.

3. Tax financial transactions

Economist Dean Baker suggests that a modest tax (0.25 percent) could easily raise more than $100 billion a year. “A small increase in trading costs would be a very manageable burden for those who are using financial markets to support productive economic activity. However, it would impose serious costs on those who see the financial markets as a casino in which they place their bets by the day, hour or minute.”

Billionaire Warren Buffett has commented on the unfairness of having a lower tax rate than his secretary. That is so because most of his income derives from dividends and capital gains, which are taxed at half the rate as income from work.

In 2007 the 400 Americans with the highest income — nearly $345 million — were taxed at less than half the ordinary tax rate of 35 percent because most of their income was derived from investments. If we were to require that all their income be taxed at the 1999 tax rate of 39.6 percent, this alone would generate an additional $300 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.

4. Tax all income as ordinary income

Billionaire Warren Buffett has commented on the unfairness of having a lower tax rate than his secretary. That is so because most of his income derives from dividends and capital gains, which are taxed at half the rate as income from work.

In 2007 the 400 Americans with the highest income — nearly $345 million — were taxed at less than half the ordinary tax rate of 35 percent because most of their income was derived from investments. If we were to require that all their income be taxed at the 1999 tax rate of 39.6 percent, this alone would generate an additional $300 billion in revenue over the next 10 years.

5. Declare a moratorium on foreclosures

Foreclosures hurt individuals, neighborhoods and the economy. Dumping millions of homes on the market depresses the overall value of all real estate, increases unemployment and disrupts lives and neighborhoods.

The most effective way to stop the tidal wave of foreclosures is through permanent, sustainable loan modifications that reduce homeowners’ mortgage principal and interest rates to market value.

In a 2010 report, National Peoples Action proposed one strategy. “11 million homeowners are $766 billion under water with their mortgages. Paid off over 30 years this means $73 billion a year [is] needed to reset all underwater homeowners’ principals and interest rates. … (That) would [require] about half of the $143 billion the top six banks alone are getting ready to pay in 2010 in bonuses and compensation.”

The hidden cost of war

What the Pentagon isn't telling you about friendly fire.

  • more
    • All Share Services

The battle for An Nasiriyah, Iraq, in March 2003, best known for the digitally recorded rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch nine days later, was supposed to be the Pentagon’s shining first moment of the new and controversial war. And yet, underneath the gripping Lynch rescue saga lies one of the great tragedies of the war: Nasiriyah was also the site of the deadliest outbreak of friendly fire since Vietnam. The long-awaited investigation of the incident, finally released last week by U.S. Central Command, singles out only a misoriented Marine forward air controller for the tragedy, but this simplistic explanation is one that many in the ranks find suspect.

Minus Jessica Lynch, the battle of An Nasiriyah isn’t the type of story that Americans as a whole like to hear. Beneath the seductive mythology of Yankee know-how lies a murky, little-probed reality: On the modern battlefield, friendly fire is so pervasive that the greatest threat to American servicemen is often their own comrades. For reasons that have never fully been explained, the United States has never developed technologies to aid pilots and other trigger pullers in distinguishing our friends from our foes. Sometimes it seems as if our war machine can do everything but stop.

The chaos of An Nasiriyah was typical. The Marines of Charlie Company had been cut off from their comrades early in the battle, fighting for their lives behind enemy lines for two hours before the vaunted American air armada finally showed up. They had already taken five wounded and lost a mechanized vehicle by the time they heard the friendly jet’s fire echoing against the buildings. It was an Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt, a gangly airplane expressly designed to kill tanks. Its huge 30 mm cannon shot slugs the size of milk jugs, and the Marines hoped that as it flew low it would kill the scores of fedayeen who were swarming around them.

Then the Thunderbolt pressed its attack, and it became clear that it was the Marines, not the fedayeen, that the pilot was aiming at.

“Abort air! Abort air!” one of Charlie’s officers screamed into the black handset of his radio, while others fired red flares into the air, but the Thunderbolt made seven more gun runs that day. Eyewitnesses say the American jet killed 10 U.S. Marines — although because of the disparate fire from friendlies, fedayeen and the Thunderbolt, it was impossible to tell with any semblance of clinical certainty who had shot whom.

Taken in context, the incident at Nasiriyah seems to fit into a larger pattern of overwhelming American power and technology, intersecting with a pervasive fog of war. Whereas in all of America’s previous wars, the fratricide rate hovered between 2 and 12 percent of the total casualties suffered, in Operation Desert Storm this figure jumped to 24 percent. Further, some Gulf War veterans contend that the 24 percent figure is too low and point to instances where commanders urged their troops to keep a lid on accusations of friendly fire for fear of the crisis of confidence that it might engender in the ranks. In one way, friendly fire is like rape on college campuses: It is frequently underreported.

Comparing Nasiriyah to the Gulf War’s deadliest engagement, the battle for Khafji, one sees a familiar script emerging: American and Iraqi forces clash unexpectedly, and in the ensuing chaos, the Iraqis are defeated but with an unnecessary loss of American lives via fratricide. All 11 U.S. Marines who lost their lives at Khafji in 1991 did so by friendly fire, seven of them notably by an Air Force A-10.

For many Marines, the Air Force A-10 has become the symbol of all that is wrong with the modern American fighting machine. To them, it seems that whenever A-10s show up, their buddies start dying. Critics of the A-10 point to ill-trained pilots who aren’t proficient in distinguishing friendly fighting vehicles from enemy ones and who don’t train alongside their Marine counterparts nearly enough. Lt. Col. Jim Braden, a Marine attack helicopter squadron commander who helped orchestrate the latter stages of the Nasiriyah battle, personally ordered two A-10 pilots to abort a rushed airstrike there. Braden says, “A lot of Air Force pilots I’ve worked with just seem to be looking for an excuse to pull the trigger and aren’t really concerned about where friendlies are located. Their attitude is ‘Just give me a GPS grid coordinate and let me do my thing.’” And while he concedes that, on the whole, Air Force pilots are a committed, professional bunch, he argues that their perception of ground-support tactics varies widely from that of chest-thumping Marine pilots who pride themselves on their nap of the earth modus operandi.

The A-10 controversy has also had ramifications on the larger American-led coalition in Iraq. In January 2003 — two months before the battle for Nasiriyah — British Army Lt. Col. Andrew Larpent, whose unit suffered nine dead and 12 wounded when an U.S. Air Force A-10 mistook them for enemy troops in 1991, called on the British military to implement a system to protect British troops from American fighter pilots before sending them into battle in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Asked to characterize the nature of problem, Larpent responded, “It is a lack of care by U.S. pilots who should take more care.”

On March 29, 2004, more than a year after the battle of Nasiriyah, U.S. Central Command released its investigation of the alleged friendly-fire incident. The inquiry board, overseen by an Air Force brigadier general, blames the deaths on a poorly oriented Marine forward air controller who was located behind Charlie Company’s position. The board pointed out that the A-10 pilots had been repeatedly “cleared hot” by the controller to engage what were thought to be Iraqi fedayeen. The investigation goes on to say that laboratory tests determined that no Marines were killed and that only one Marine was wounded by the Air Force jets, contentions that fly in the face of virtually every eyewitness account of the battle.

Another Marine forward air controller operating in the Nasiriyah area at the time of the incident argues that although the Marine blamed for authorizing the A-10 strikes was clearly in the wrong, the pilots still had a responsibility to visually confirm their targets before squeezing the trigger: “They made eight passes before finally breaking off their attack. They knew there were friendlies nearby. The pilots never confirmed what it was that they were shooting at.” This officer, who controlled 42 airstrikes in the opening stages of the war, further asserted that given the atmospheric conditions — it was daytime and there was no ground haze — and the very low flight of the A-10s, the pilots had acted recklessly.

In response to those charges, a Central Command spokesman said that because of the reported threat of Iraqi ground fire, the A-10s had been loitering above Nasiriyah at high altitude and had descended into visual range only when they were cleared by the Marine forward air controller. According to Air Force regulations, pilots are not obligated to visually confirm their targets before engaging.

Other former military officers have criticized the Central Command report for failing to tackle possible technological solutions to the friendly-fire problem. In an article in the Houston Chronicle, Ralph Hayles, a former Apache attack helicopter pilot, said the investigation’s findings missed the bigger picture. “Blaming a forward air controller on the ground doesn’t address the problem of having no way for combat aircraft to identify who they are targeting on the ground,” said Hayles, who mistakenly fired on U.S. troops during Operation Desert Storm, killing two. After the 1991 war, the Pentagon promised that it would make anti-fratricide technologies a high priority. Nevertheless, after spending $180 million over the course of the next decade, no anti-fratricide system was ever fielded.

For the survivors, friendly fire remains a difficult issue to process emotionally. One widow of a Marine killed by friendly fire during the Gulf War told this writer that she often feels like a second-class citizen among other surviving families, as if her loss were somehow less real and devastating than those whose loved ones had died at the hands of the enemy. Their deaths are treated by many as an embarrassment, a grim asterisk, something not easily fathomed and thus to be looked past. Fratricide occupies a strange place in the horrific panoply of war because it not only snuffs out the precious flicker of life but also creates a villain where before there was a comrade. War reduces us all with its grim report on the human condition: soldier, civilian observer, correspondent, all must cope with war’s soul-crushing revelations, fratricide being but one element of the plague. Nevertheless, friendly fire remains, in a sense, the perfect metaphor for the evil of war as a whole: We are, in essence, killing ourselves.

Continue Reading Close