Muslims For Kucinich

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