Questions for Congressional Candidates Concerning Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and the “War on Terror”:

Response by Mark Udall,

Candidate for Colorado’s Open U.S. Senate Seat

 

1.       What actions (if any) do you support taking to withdraw U.S. troops and military contractors from Afghanistan?

 

Mark Udall has not submitted a response to this question.

 

 

2.       What actions (if any) do you support taking to withdraw U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq?

 

Mark Udall has not submitted a response to this question.

 

 

3.       Do you support or oppose the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases

in Afghanistan or Iraq? Please explain your answer.

 

Mark Udall has not submitted a response to this question.

 

 

4.       Under what circumstances (if any) would you support a military attack against Iran? Please explain your answer.

 

This summer, I introduced H.R. 3119, companion legislation to a bill introduced in the Senate by Senator Jim Webb, S. 759. My bill now has over two dozen cosponsors. It would prevent the Bush Administration from launching war in Iran without prior Congressional authorization.

 

I believe that Congress, which has the constitutional responsibility to declare war, must play a more significant role in authorizing the use of our armed forces in what could become a full-scale war between the U.S. and Iran. My purpose in introducing this legislation was to reassert Congress's constitutional responsibility and to remind the Bush Administration of the important role that Congress plays when it comes to matters of war and peace. This is especially important given the new assessment of the intelligence community that Iran has ceased its covert nuclear weapons program. Of course, Iran's refusal to cease uranium enrichment - which could be a key component of any nuclear weapons program - remains a serious concern. But these recent developments point to an even greater need for Congressional input and action before any military action is taken against Iran.

 

The legislation would establish a binding legal limit on the ability of the president to expend funds to commence military action against Iran in the absence of explicit prior Congressional authorization. It would make exemptions for specific small-scale efforts, giving the president the flexibility to allow U.S. forces to conduct intelligence gathering and to directly respond to attacks or possible attacks from Iran.

 

The reports we read about the mood in the White House shifting toward military action against Iran may or may not be accurate. Regardless, my bill takes an important step in responding to those reports by reasserting the basic principle that Congress must consent before the president can take such action.

 

H.R. 3119 is intended to do one thing: to restore the balance between the executive and legislative branches with regard to authorizing large-scale military activities. It is a balance that needs restoring, and it is a balance that should be monitored closely as some in the Administration continue to discuss military options against Iran.

 

 

5.       In September of 2002 and again in March of 2006, the Bush Administration asserted that the United States has a right to "act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense."  Do you agree or disagree with this doctrine of "pre-emptive war"?  Please explain your answer.

 

Mark Udall has not submitted a response to this question.

 

 

6.       In December of 2005, the New York Times revealed that the Bush Administration had authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and residents without obtaining search warrants, as then required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.  Do you think it is permissible to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and residents without obtaining individual search warrants? Why or why not?

 

President Bush has asked Congress to include such a provision [shielding telecommunications companies from lawsuits related to their cooperation with federal authorities as part of the Bush Administration's program to intercept suspected terrorist phone traffic] in legislation to extend the law that temporarily authorized some electronic surveillance to obtain important intelligence information. On November 15, 2007, the House of Representatives passed a bill (H.R. 3773) to extend this surveillance authority through 2009. It does not include a provision providing immunity to telecommunications companies. I voted for the House bill.

 

On February 12th, just before the expiration of the temporary law, the Senate passed a bill including the telecommunications company lawsuit shield the president sought. To provide time to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions, the House considered a bill extending the temporary law for another 21 days. I voted for it, but no Republicans did so, and it was defeated. The temporary law then expired, and I expect the House will consider the subject again. I continue to think the burden is on supporters of a lawsuit shield to make clear why it would be appropriate.

 

 

7.       In September of 2006, Congress approved the Military Commissions Act, which was signed into law by President Bush the following month.  The Military Commissions Act denies habeas corpus to foreigners picked up by U.S. forces in the "war on terror".  It also allows the President to define what acts do and do not constitute torture.  Do you support repealing or revising the Military Commissions Act? Why or why not?

 

For centuries, the procedure of "habeas corpus" was used to test the legality of a person's detention or confinement. In 2004, the Supreme Court held that foreign nationals held at the naval station at Guantanamo Bay were entitled to use it in federal court to challenge their detention. In response, the Bush Administration asked Congress to change the law. In 2006, Congress passed and the President signed the Military Commissions Act, intended to revoke federal courts' ability to hear habeas corpus petitions by all aliens in U.S. custody as enemy combatants, including lawful enemy combatants, regardless of the place of custody. It says no civilian court can hear such a case.

 

I opposed this restriction on habeas corpus, and I voted against the Military Commissions Act. The Supreme Court has said it will consider whether it is constitutional. But in the meantime, I have joined in sponsoring legislation to revise it and to restore the availability of habeas corpus for detainees.