War & law quiz for
presidential candidates
Braun, Edwards, Kerry,
Kucinich, Sharpton
split on legality of war
acts
Five
presidential candidates answering a questionnaire on war and law disagree on
whether they might initiate hostilities without congressional approval. They
vary also on the legality of preventive war, use of nuclear weapons,
termination of treaties, and the three wars since 1999.
While
recognizing Congress’s constitutional power to declare war, Senators John
Edwards (D-NC) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) believe that a president sometimes may
take military action on his own in the national interest. But former Senator
Carol Moseley Braun (D-Ill.) says the Constitution allows only Congress to decide
whether to initiate war. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and the Rev. Al Sharpton
would first have Congress declare war prior to hostilities.
Edwards
believes that a president may “deploy the military when it serves the best
interests of the country and our interests abroad....” And Kerry says in
national emergencies a president may act quickly to prevent loss of life or
defend national security interests. But Braun, Kucinich, and Sharpton want
Congress to make such decisions.
The San
Francisco-based Presidential Candidate Survey sent all of them identical
questions. It likewise queried President George W. Bush and Democrats Wesley
Clark, Howard Dean, Rep. Richard Gephardt, and Senator Joseph Lieberman -- none
of whom have replied.
Braun and
Kerry think a nation may lawfully strike first in case of an imminent military
threat. Edwards, while affirming the right of self defense, suggests that war
as a first resort of foreign policy may violate international law. Kucinich
says the United Nations Charter allows force only by a nation under armed
attack or as the Security Council authorizes. Sharpton believes that preventive
or preemptive war is unlawful.
Any
presidential use of nuclear weapons is considered illegal by Sharpton and Kucinich,
who says treaties ban them. The other three do not reject nuclear weapons use
under all circumstances. Of the five, only Kerry believes that a president has
the implicit constitutional authority to terminate a treaty on his own. The
Constitution does not address that issue.
Edwards and
Kerry, who both voted for Congress’s October 2002 resolution on the use of
armed force against Iraq, believe the war that began last March has been
lawful. But Braun says Congress let the president usurp its war power. Kucinich
and Sharpton consider the three latest wars illegal; the other three candidates
say the Afghan and Yugoslav actions have been legal.
The survey
is a joint project of the San Francisco
Examiner and the War and Law League with endorsement by various groups and
individuals, mostly academics. Questions were mailed in November with letters
from Prof. Peter G. Keane, law school dean at San Francisco’s Golden Gate
University, and six weeks were allowed for reply.
One
endorser, Saul H. Mendlovitz, professor emeritus of peace and world order
studies at Rutgers University law school in Newark, NJ, commented then, “Candidates
for the presidency of the United States have an obligation to the citizens to
give their views on these significant questions concerning security and the
rule of law.”
More detailed summaries follow, arranged alphabetically by
candidate. Then come the full texts of the replies. The texts will also be on http://www.sfexaminer.com/.
Ms. Braun pledges no war without Congress’s
OK
A country may legally head
off “a truly imminent military threat ... if based upon more than hyperbole and
unsubstantiated intelligence,” says Carol Moseley Braun, former Democratic
senator from Illinois and former ambassador to New Zealand.
However,
she promises, “As president, I will not wage war without congressional consent.” Given credible information about an imminent
threat against the U.S. or its allies, “I will present the evidence for
military action to Congress.” She observes that the framers of the Constitution
gave Congress the power to declare and fund wars and the president the power to
wage war after Congress declares it.
Now “Congress
funds wars it hasn’t declared, creating a Constitutional imbalance in favor of
the executive branch.” In Iraq particularly, “Congress allowed the president to
usurp its constitutional authority....” But she says the 1999 U.S.-NATO war in Yugoslavia
and the U.S. war in Afghanistan have been legal. (Congress did not vote for the
former. On Sept. 14, 2001, Congress voted to let the president fight anyone
that he determined aided the September 11 terrorism or harbored anyone who
did.)
In a
congressionally declared war, she says, a president may legally use nuclear
weapons but may not “begin a nuclear conflict by availing ‘first strike’
capabilities.”
Ms. Braun
(formerly Moseley-Braun) says only Congress may end a treaty, not a president.
Edwards intends to serve U.S. interests and heed law
Senator
John R. Edwards (Dem.-NC) believes that it is a president’s obligation as
commander-in-chief to do whatever is necessary to provide for the nation’s
defense, “But we must always recognize the larger framework of international
law when we make decisions about defending ourselves.”
Edwards
takes issue with the notion of military force as a first resort and the
expansion of the concept of self-defense to a doctrine of “preemption,” denying
that it makes Americans more secure.
He tells
the Presidential Candidate Survey that “the United States must be the world’s
leader against the proliferation of nuclear weapons.” However, he does not rule
out a role for such weapons in U.S. defense.
Edwards
does not agree with the theory that a president may terminate a treaty on his
own. Once a treaty is signed and
approved by the Senate, the U.S. is bound by it, he contends.
Although,
if elected, he would “work closely with Congress on all questions relating to
military force,” he believes that a president as commander-in-chief of the
armed forces “has the authority to deploy the military when it serves the best
interests of the country and our interests abroad.”
The North
Carolina senator upholds the legality of the Yugoslav, Afghan, and Iraq wars.
Kerry affirms lawfulness of presidential power
Senator
John F. Kerry (Dem.-Mass.) asserts presidential authority “in accordance with
U.S. law.” He says a president has the right to take preemptive military action
in the face of an imminent threat, to use nuclear weapons, and to terminate a
treaty,
However, he
scores what he calls the Bush doctrine of preemptive war. He fears that
developing new, smaller nuclear weapons called “mini-nukes and “bunker-busters”
would make the U.S. less secure by thwarting its longstanding aim of
nonproliferation, maybe setting off a new nuclear arms race. And he regards
abandoning the Anti-Ballistic Missile Limitation Treaty and the Kyoto climate
accord as mistakes.
Kerry says
a president should generally consult and report to Congress -- with full and
accurate information -- when sending armed forces into combat, and he
recognizes Congress’s power to declare war. But he believes that the president
needs to act quickly without consulting Congress in a national emergency or the
like “to prevent the loss of life or significant damage to U.S. national
security interests.”
He affirms
the legality of the latest three U.S. wars. All received his support, though he
would have preferred more of a coalition behind the Iraq war. He would give the
United Nations authority over the processes of Iraq’s reconstruction and
governance and the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis.
Kucinich assails war actions
Rep. Dennis
J. Kucinich (Dem.-Ohio) believes that the policy of preventive war violates the
United Nations Charter and that several U.S. treaties “render the use of
nuclear weapons criminal acts.” He would involve the Senate in any decision to
terminate a treaty, and he would not start any foreign military action without
a Congressional declaration of war.
“I am
deeply disturbed by the recent concentration of war powers in the executive
branch,” Kucinich writes. He pledges to “work to restore our systems of checks
and balances” and would “insulate the intelligence community from political
influence.” He would use a “Department of Peace to avoid crises....”
He
considers the Iraq war unlawful because Congress did not declare war, the
United Nations Security Council did not authorize war, and the U.S. was not
under armed attack. UN
mechanisms can deal with situations like Iraq, he says.
(The representative voted against letting the president decide whether to
attack Iraq. On Oct. 10-11 the House said “yea” 296-133, the Senate 77-23.) He
wants the U.S. to seek a UN resolution for an exit strategy.
Kucinich
holds that the Afghan war has not been conducted according to international
law, inasmuch as civilians have been bombed. (But he voted for the war
resolution of Sept. 14, 2001, which Congress adopted with only one dissenting
vote.) He says also that the U.S. and
NATO bombings of Serbia in 1999 violated the UN and
NATO charters and the Constitution.
Sharpton:
no undeclared or preventive war, no nukes
Without any
equivocation or elaboration, the Rev. Alfred C. (Al) Sharpton, Democrat of New
York City, has answered “no” or “yes” to all eight questions offering those
options in the questionnaire from the Presidential Candidate Survey.
Sharpton
does not believe that what has been called preventive war or preemptive war is
lawful or that a president can lawfully use nuclear weapons. Nor does he
believe that a president has the constitutional authority to terminate or
withdraw from a treaty on his own.
If he
became president, he indicates, he would not initiate any war or foreign
military action against a country without first having Congress declare war
against that country. Further, he would leave it to Congress to decide whether
or not a war or foreign military action was warranted.
He does not
think any of the three latest U.S. wars has been legal. They are the war in
Iraq that began in March 2003, the war in Afghanistan that began in October
2001, and the bombing war against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in which
NATO participated.
* * * * *
Text of candidates’ answers to questions of war and law
Below
are the questions on war and law and the unabridged texts of the answers of the
five presidential candidates who responded, listed alphabetically by candidate.
At the end comes a list of those associated with the Presidential Candidate
Survey.
Each
question from 1 through 8 offered the option of answering “YES,” “NO,” “OTHER
OPINION,” or “NO COMMENT,” but candidates were invited to explain any
opinions.
The ninth was an essay-type question in two parts.
Answers by Carol Moseley Braun
1. Do
you believe that what has been called preventive war or preemptive war is
lawful?
OTHER
OPINION
Although preemptive and preventive
war differ in nature, the ability of a country to defend itself against a truly
imminent military threat is legal, if based upon more than hyperbolic and
unsubstantiated intelligence.
2. Do you believe that a president can lawfully
use nuclear weapons?
OTHER
OPINION
In a war
declared by Congress, a president may use nuclear weapons, but cannot begin a
nuclear conflict by availing “first strike” capabilities.
3. Do
you believe that a president has the constitutional authority to terminate or
withdraw from a treaty on his own?
NO
Only
Congress has the power to terminate treaties they have ratified.
4. As
president, would you initiate any war or foreign military action against a
country without first having Congress declare war against that country?
OTHER
OPINION
Constitutionally,
Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the ability to declare war because Congress
directly represents the people. As President, I will not wage war without
Congressional consent.
5. As president, would you leave it to Congress
to decide whether or not a war or foreign military action against a country was
warranted?
OTHER
OPINION
If presented with credible
information regarding an imminent threat against the United States and/or its
allies, as President I will present the evidence for military action to
Congress.
6. Do
you believe that the war in Iraq that began in March 2003 has been lawful?
OTHER
OPINION
In the
unconsidered rush to war, Congress allowed the President to usurp its
Constitutional authority over declaring war.
7. Do
you believe that the war in Afghanistan that began in October 2001 has been
lawful?
YES
8. Do
you believe that the U.S.-NATO war in Yugoslavia in 1999 was lawful?
YES
9. (A)
What problems, if any, do you see in the way the Constitution’s war powers are
being exercised?
The
Constitution was written to balance the power of the executive with the powers
of the judiciary and the legislature. The framers of the Constitution, in their
wisdom, gave Congress the duty to declare and fund wars, and the President the
authority to wage wars, once declared. In the current paradigm, Congress funds
wars it hasn’t declared, creating a Constitutional imbalance in favor of the
executive branch. This creates an atmosphere ripe for the abuse of executive
authority, as seen in the misadventure in Iraq and the undermining of our
domestic civil liberties through the enforcement of the USA PATRIOT Act.
(B)
How would you remedy them?
To remedy this problem, as President, I will
respect Constitutional safeguards with regard to the checks and balances upon
federal and executive authority.
Chicago, Ill., Dec. 28, 2003
________________________________________________
Answers
by John Edwards
1. Do you believe that what has been called
preventive war or preemptive war is lawful?
We have a right to self-defense. But we
must always recognize the larger framework of international law when we make
decisions about defending ourselves. Instead, some in the Bush administration
seem to believe that military force can and should be used as first resort to
meet our foreign policy goals. By elevating the basic concept of self-defense
into a so-called “preemption doctrine,” the Bush Administration has hurt our
credibility in the eyes of the world, and has not made Americans more secure.
2. Do you believe that a president can lawfully use nuclear weapons?
I believe that the United States must be
the world’s leader against the proliferation of nuclear weapons. I also believe
that it is the President’s obligation as Commander-in-Chief to do whatever is
necessary to provide for the nation’s defense.
3. Do you believe that a president has the
constitutional authority to terminate or withdraw
from a treaty on his own?
I believe that when the President signs a
treaty and Congress ratifies it, the United States is bound by its terms.
4. As
president, would you initiate any war or foreign military action against a
country without first having Congress declare war against that country?
Congress
clearly has a constitutional role in declaring war, and as President I will
work closely with Congress on all questions relating to military force.
Maintaining Congressional support for our military actions abroad is absolutely
vital. But I also believe that as Commander-in-Chief, the President has the
authority to deploy the military when it serves the best interests of the
country and our interests abroad – as President Clinton did in Bosnia, Kosovo,
and against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and as I believe we must do to fight
terrorists who are planning to attack the United States.
5. As president, would you leave it to Congress to decide whether
or not a war or foreign military action
against a country was warranted?
No.
6. Do you believe that the war in Iraq that
began in March 2003 has been lawful?
Yes.
7. Do you believe that the war in Afghanistan
that began in October 2001 has been lawful?
Yes.
8. Do you believe that the U.S.-NATO war in
Yugoslavia in 1999 was lawful?
Yes.
9. (A) What problems, if any, do you see
in the way the Constitution’s war powers are
being exercised? (B) How would you
remedy them?
[No
answer.]
Raleigh, NC, Dec. 22, 2003
____________________________________________
Answers by John F. Kerry
1. Do
you believe that what has been called preventive war or preemptive war is
lawful?
Yes—American
presidents have always had a right of pre-emption to address imminent threats.
I support the right of pre-emption in the face of an imminent threat. But the
Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war is a dangerous departure from the time-tested
principles of American foreign policy that have kept us safe.
2. Do
you believe that a president can lawfully use nuclear weapons?
Yes—The
President must retain the option of using nuclear weapons. It is important,
however, that U.S. policy never make nuclear weapons-use more likely or the
possession of nuclear weapons more desirable. I have grave concerns, however,
that the Bush administration policies have done just that.
I am
opposed to the Bush administration’s attempts to develop new nuclear weapons,
and I have denounced an Administration-backed proposal to fund research into a
new generation of nuclear weapons known as “mini-nukes” and “bunker-busters.”
Developing these smaller and more usable nuclear weapons will make America less
secure by setting back our country's longstanding efforts to lead an
international non-proliferation regime. It could set off a dangerous new
nuclear arms race, while seriously undermining our ability to work with the
international community to address nuclear proliferation threats in places like
North Korea and Iran.
In
announcing my candidacy, I said, “Now is the time for bold leadership that
makes the world safer from nuclear dangers, not more eager for new weapons. I
don’t want a world with more useable nuclear bombs. I don’t want America to
turn its back on half a century of effort by every President to reduce the nuclear
threat. I’m running to put America where we rightfully belong -- leading the
way to a new international accord on nuclear proliferation to make the world
itself safer for human survival.”
3. Do you believe that a president has the
constitutional authority to terminate or withdraw from a treaty on his own?
Yes—While
the Constitution does not expressly confer on the President authority to
terminate or suspend international treaties, the authority is implied in his
office. Under U.S. law, the President has the power to suspend or terminate an
agreement in accordance with its terms; to make the determination justifying
U.S. termination or suspension because of supervening events, and to proceed to
terminate or suspend an agreement on behalf of the United States; or to elect
not to suspend or terminate. That said, George Bush made an egregious error in
abandoning the Kyoto Accord, and in abrogating the ABM treaty.
4. As
president, would you initiate any war or foreign military action against a country
without first having Congress declare war against that country?
Other
Opinion—The President must act in accordance with U.S. law. In general, the
President should consult with, and report to, Congress when U. S. armed forces
are used in combat situations. In instances of national emergency and similar
circumstances, the President must reserve the right to act quickly without
consulting Congress or receiving express Congressional approval to prevent the
loss of life or significant damage to U.S. national security interests.
5. As
president, would you leave it to Congress to decide whether or not a war or
foreign military action against a country was warranted?
Other
Opinion—The President must act in accordance with U.S. law. The President is
commander of the armed forces of the United States and must take action as such
to defend U.S. national interests. At the same time, Congress has the power to
declare war and the President should respect this distinction.
6. Do
you believe that the war in Iraq that began in March 2003 has been lawful?
Yes—While
the President took those steps required of him, I have been and remain
concerned about the way in which he went to war; I would have preferred that he
do so with a real coalition – though I would not have made this a precondition
of action. Now, in the interest of our security and Iraq’s stability, the
President should swiftly move to transfer sovereignty to Iraqis, and should
obtain a UN Security Council resolution to put this process – and the broader
process of reconstruction and governance in Iraq -- under UN authority.
7. Do
you believe that the war in Afghanistan that began in October 2001 has been
lawful?
Yes—I
supported the war in Afghanistan following the September 11th attacks against
the United States. It was a necessary action undertaken with broad
international support. We must continue to support the reconstruction of
Afghanistan, and now that we have finally agreed to allowing international
forces outside Kabul, we need to assist in actually getting the NATO forces out
there. We also require more international forces, and we need to put them where
they are needed. This is vital to preventing the reemergence of the Taliban,
and creating the security for projects that create the needed infrastructure
for building an Afghan economy – a key step in combating the production of
opium and resettling refugees.
8. Do
you believe that the U.S.-NATO war in Yugoslavia in 1999 was lawful?
Yes—I
supported President Clinton's actions and those of the NATO alliance in taking
action to halt Serbian aggression and to prevent atrocities in Kosovo. I believe
the legal proceedings against the perpetrators of crimes in the Balkans are an
important post-conflict process.
9.
(A) What problems, if any, do you see in the way the Constitution’s war powers
are being exercised? (B) How would you remedy them?
The Congress and the president have unique,
important roles to play in the exercise of war powers. The strength of our
system of government lies, in part, in the granting of these roles to two
distinct bodies—the legislature and the chief executive. As commander-in-chief,
I will always act to protect the United States of America. In doing so, I will
always adhere to the laws and traditions of this nation. Responsibility,
however, for the checks-and-balances of our system rests ultimately with both
the President and Congress—both must play their roles. The President must
always provide full and accurate information when consulting with Congress or
seeking Congressional authorization for use of force.
Washington, DC, Dec. 23, 2003
_____________________________________________
Answers by Dennis J. Kucinich
1. Do you believe that what has been called
preventive war or preemptive war is lawful?
No. The
Bush Administration’s policy of preventative war violates Chapter VII of the
United Nations Charter, which allows the use of force under only two
conditions: (1) in self-defense when a nation is under “armed attack” and (2)
as specifically authorized by the U.N. Security Council as a last resort to
maintain international peace and security. Certainly neither condition held in
the case of Iraq, as has been widely acknowledged—not just by U.N. Secretary
General Kofi Annan but by Richard Perle, one of the war’s foremost supporters
and member of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board.
Furthermore, according to the U.S. Constitution “all Treaties made, or
which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the
supreme Law of the Land.” Hence, because the U.S. is a signatory to the U.N.
Charter, and because the Charter forbids preventative war, preventative war
also violates the supreme law of the United States.
The
doctrine of preventative war is an extremely dangerous one; it could be used by
China to justify an invasion of Taiwan or by any number of other countries to
justify plain aggression. The U.S. should be leading the international
community in rejection of preventative war, not championing it. I will move us
away from the arrogant “go it alone” foreign policy of the Bush Administration,
and work with the rest of the world to strengthen institutions of international
law.
2. Do you believe that a president can lawfully
use nuclear weapons?
No. Article
VI of the Constitution clearly obligates all U.S. government officials to abide
by all treaties “made under the authority of the United States.” The United
States is a contracting party to several treaties that effectively render the
use of nuclear weapons criminal acts. In 1996, the World Court of the United
Nations issued an Advisory Opinion condemning the use of nuclear weapons. The
Court maintained that “states must never make civilians the object of attack
and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing
between civilian and military targets.” Further, the use of nuclear weapons
would violate principles of international law that forbid military tactics that
cause serious environmental harm. The United States has a moral, as well as
legal, obligation to lead the way to a world free of nuclear weapons. This can
be accomplished without negatively impacting the military preeminence of the
United States. There is no conceivable international crisis for which nuclear
weapons are a viable solution. I will work for total nuclear disarmament.
3. Do
you believe that a president has the constitutional authority to terminate or
withdraw from a treaty on his own?
No. Article VI of the
Constitution clearly states that “all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the authority of the United States, shall be the Supreme law of the land,”
and further that “all executive and judicial officers, both of the United
States and several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support
this Constitution.” Once a treaty is ratified by the Senate, it becomes United
States law. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution states that the President
“shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It is therefore clear
that the President is bound to abide by the terms of any treaties ratified by
the Senate. As it is the constitutionally designated role of the Senate to
ratify treaties, I believe that the Senate must also have a critical role in
deciding whether a particular agreement is no longer in the best interests of
the American people.
4. As
president, would you initiate any war or foreign military action against a
country without first having
Congress declare war against that country?
No. Article I, Section
8 of the Constitution clearly states that “the Congress shall have power to
declare War.” It was the intent of the Founders that war powers should be under
the command of the people through their representatives, rather than in the
hands of a single executive. As it is the sworn duty of the President to
preserve and uphold the Constitution, there is no room for the President to
take the United States military into war without the prior approval of
Congress.
5. As president,
would you leave it to Congress to decide whether or not a war or foreign
military action against a country was warranted?
Yes. While
I would offer leadership and recommendations and use the resources of the
Department of Peace to avoid crises that can result in war, as clearly stated
in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, the power to declare
war belongs to Congress. The presidential oath of office is a solemn promise to
defend and uphold the Constitution.
6. Do you believe that the war in Iraq that
began in March 2003 has been lawful?
No. There was no
declaration from the U.S. Congress. There was no U.N. Security Council
authorization, nor was the U.S. under armed attack (see answer to question #1,
above).
Moreover,
according to Human Rights Watch, some of our conduct of the war—particularly
certain uses of cluster bombs—has violated the Geneva Convention. And our
privatization of Iraqi government-owned industries is illegal under the Hague
Regulations of 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention.
There was
no basis for a war in Iraq. It was wrong to go in, and it’s wrong to stay in.
The United Nations provides appropriate mechanisms for dealing with situations
like Iraq. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq
underscores the effectiveness of the UNSCOM and UNMOVIC inspection regimes.
Furthermore, Iraq was not connected to the tragedies of 9/11. We should not be
sacrificing the lives of our brave men and women for the profits of
Halliburton, Bechtel, and other corporate interests. This disastrous mission
must be ended before any more lives are lost. It is urgent for the United
States to go to the U.N. with a new resolution that contains the basis of an
exit strategy.
7. Do you believe that the war in Afghanistan
that began in October 2001 has been lawful?
No, it has
not been conducted lawfully. We have bombed civilian targets, in violation of
international law. We in Congress did not authorize the bombing of civilians in
Afghanistan. Nor did we ask that the blood of innocent people, who perished on
September 11 be avenged with the blood of innocent villagers in Afghanistan. We
did not authorize the administration to wage war anytime, anywhere, anyhow it
pleases. September 11 was a criminal act, not an act of war. War is something
that occurs between states, and terrorists have no permanent home. Al Quaeda
has terrorist cells in more than 70 nations. In the past six months, terror
attacks have increased dramatically throughout the world. It is clear that the
Bush administration policy of “invade and occupy” is not only illegal, but also
a total failure in reducing terrorist activity. To combat terrorism, the United
States needs the cooperation of the world community. In capturing terrorists
and disrupting terror cells, the cooperation of foreign authorities is of much
greater value than large scale military interventions.
8. Do you believe that the US-NATO war in
Yugoslavia in 1999 was lawful?
No. The
U.S. and NATO, in the name of a humanitarian cause, decided to undertake the
bombing of Serbia and thereby violate the U.N. Charter, the NATO Charter, the
Congressional intent in approving the North Atlantic Treaty, the U.S.
Constitution, and the War Powers Act. The U.N. Security Council was the proper
forum for debating such offensive action. NATO’s “humanitarian” bombing only
served to compound violence in the region. The only thing that can keep NATO
from being a global vigilante is international law. NATO clearly violated that
law in Yugoslavia.
9.
(A) What problems, if any, do you see in the way the Constitution’s war powers
are being exercised? (B) How would you remedy them?
I am deeply
disturbed by the recent concentration of war powers in the executive branch.
The Constitution states, in no uncertain terms, that the power to declare war
belongs to Congress. The Framers intended that the decision to go to war should
not be made by a single individual, but rather the collective judgment of the
people’s representatives. However, the Bush administration has chosen to not
uphold these constitutional principles. This administration wants the power to
engage in acts of war without being held accountable by Congress or any
standard of international law. Unfortunately, Congress has been all too willing
to grant broad new powers to the executive, most notably in the forms of the
Iraq resolution and the “PATRIOT Act.” As President, I will work to restore our
system of checks and balances. It is critical to insulate the intelligence
community from political influence so that our intelligence community cannot be
hijacked to serve narrow ideological interests.
Cleveland, Ohio, Dec. 15, 2003
________________________________________
Answers
by Al Sharpton
1. Do you believe that what has been called
preventive war or preemptive war is lawful?
NO.
2. Do you believe that a president can lawfully use
nuclear weapons?
NO.
3. Do you believe that a president has the
constitutional authority to terminate or withdraw
from a treaty on his own?
NO.
4. As
president, would you initiate any war or foreign military action against a country
without first having Congress declare war against that country?
NO.
5. As president, would you leave it to
Congress to decide whether or not a war or foreign military action against a
country was warranted?
YES.
6. Do
you believe that the war in Iraq that began in March 2003 has been lawful?
NO.
7. Do
you believe that the war in Afghanistan that began in October 2001 has been
lawful?
NO.
8. Do
you believe that the U.S.-NATO war in Yugoslavia in 1999 was lawful?
NO.
9.
(A) What problems, if any, do you see in the way the Constitution’s war powers
are being exercised?
[No
answer.]
New York, NY, Jan. 3, 2004
* * * * *
More on the Presidential Candidate Survey
We list those associated with the
Presidential Candidate Survey on war and law.
Letters to the candidates were from Peter G. Keane, dean and professor,
School of Law, Golden Gate University, San Francisco. Other endorsers were as
follows:
(Groups:) American Friends Service
Committee, Central Region, Des Moines, Iowa, and Pacific Mountain Region, San
Francisco; Fellowship of Reconciliation, Nyack, NY; Gray Panthers, Washington,
DC. (Individuals:) George Bisharat,
professor of law, Hastings College of the Law, University of California, San
Francisco; Walter C. Clemens, Jr., professor of political science, Boston
University; Mary Day Kent, executive director, Women’s International League for
Peace and Freedom, U.S. Section, Philadelphia; Saul H. Mendlovitz, Dag
Hammarskjold professor of peace and world order studies, emeritus, Rutgers
University School of Law, Newark, NJ, founding director of World Order Models
Project and chairman of international steering committee of Global Action to Prevent
War; Jordan J. Paust, professor of law and director, International Law
Institute, University of Houston Law Center; Manfred Steger, professor of
politics and government, Illinois State University, and chairman of New
Political Science Section, American American Political
Science Association;
Burns H. Weston, Bessie Dutton Murray distinguished professor of law, emeritus, and director, Center for Human
Rights, College of Law, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA; and Marshall
Windmiller, professor of international relations, emeritus, San Francisco State
University.
The survey has been conducted by the
War and Law League (WALL), P.O. Box
42-7237, San Francisco, CA 94142, in conjunction with the San Francisco Examiner. The
questionnaire and methods were developed by WALL’s Public Information Committee
(Jeannette Hassberg, Paul W. Lovinger, Edward B. Rippy, Dolores Rodriguez, Harry A. Scott, and James B. Smith) with
suggestions by The Examiner, some of
the above endorsers, and others. The above material,
including the
top article and the five ensuing summaries, was prepared by WALL on Jan. 5,
2004.