Questions for Congressional Candidates Concerning Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and the “War on Terror”:
Response by Betsy Markey,
Candidate to Represent Colorado’s Fourth Congressional District
1. What actions (if any) do you support taking to withdraw U.S. troops and military contractors from Afghanistan?
I must stress the difference between our involvement in Afghanistan and our involvement in Iraq. Afghanistan was the home base of the people who attacked us on 9/11 and we need to keep them from coming back regaining a haven in that country. We need to support the Afghan government against the resurgence of the Taliban. We need to support our allies in N.A.T.O. who are deployed in that country. I want the bulk of U.S. troops to be withdrawn as soon as the democratic Afghan government can provide its own security, and I want contractors to leave much sooner than that.
2. What actions (if any) do you support taking to withdraw U.S. troops and military contractors from Iraq?
I am in favor of withdrawing U.S. combat troops and contractors from Iraq as soon as possible. All Americans would like to see a free and democratic Iraq, but we might have to settle for an Iraq that is violent for some time to come as factions sort themselves out. Surely, Americans should not be placed in harms way in the middle of a civil war. Perhaps we can disengage the way the British have done, and let the locals take over security, province by province. We can base forces in nearby Kuwait, which is contiguous to Iraq, forces which can enter the country to meet a resurgence of Al-Quaida if that becomes necessary. Contractors such as Blackwater should be sent home immediately. Security for our embassy staff and American civilians should not be privatized by handing that task to entities that are not held to be responsible for their deeds.
3. Do you support or oppose the establishment of permanent U.S. military bases
in Afghanistan or Iraq? Please explain your answer.
We have permanent bases around the world, since we are a global world power. Therefore, American bases in these countries would not be out of the ordinary.
The important fact to keep in mind is that we must have the consent of foreign governments before we base any troops anywhere. We do have a national interest in disrupting Al-Quaida strongholds and in helping to maintain stability in a region which supplies so much the oil that we have become dependent upon. We need to look beyond the present to the time when we will have sufficient alternative sources of energy. Meanwhile, American bases should be discreetly maintained for possible emergency situations involving our national interests.
4. Under what circumstances (if any) would you support a military attack against Iran? Please explain your answer.
I regard war as the very last possible step for the American government to take in any situation. I believe that Congress must give its approval before any attack can be sanctioned, except in a case of immediate danger to this country when a President has to act quickly. I believe in thoroughly exhausting all diplomatic steps and international agencies and controls before using military means. I believe that if Iran attacked any other country with nuclear weapons or invaded Iraq with its army, a cause for war could exist.
Until then, I would give full support to reliance upon diplomacy and international efforts to assure peace with 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.
No, I do not believe in pre-emptive war. Look at the mess that our pre-emptive strike on Iraq has caused. The policy of pre-emptive war was used by countless dictators to foment wars of aggression. For example, Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 after falsely citing Poland for aggressive actions against Germany. Calls for a pre-emptive war should be resisted. For example, until the recent intelligence reports came to light, a substantial group of neoconservatives were calling for a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Now we know that this would have been a terrible step that would have further tarnished our reputation in the world and made matters much worse for us in the region.
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?
There must be legal safeguards in play to protect American citizens from improper eavesdropping by the government. Yet we live in a day and age of instant electronic communications and the threat of terrorism. Therefore we have to have a speeded up judicial process to provide warrants swiftly so that intelligence agencies can be free to do their necessary work, which is to protect us by providing information about potentially dangerous situations.
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?
Yes, I do. Habeas Corpus is a basic American right that is vital to a government by laws rather than a government by the whims of men and women in power. Lengthy detention without the right of appearing before a judge with counsel present is a denial of one of the freedoms that made our nation famous as a bastion of liberty. The current administration has twisted its interpretations of the law to suit itself for a long time, aided and abetted by weak leaders of the Justice Department who have functioned as administrative tools. There are many judicial and international authorities who define what torture is, and none of them will go along with the President's arbitrary definitions. Waterboarding is a classic example of how the President and his minions have sanctioned torture.