Peace Action of New York State Candidate Questionnaire
1.) In its 2002 Nuclear Posture Review, the Bush administration called for the creation of a new generation of offensive nuclear weapons, including a Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), or "bunker buster," and so-called "mini-nukes" through an Advanced Concepts program. Critics of these programs expressed concerns about their impact on international non-proliferation efforts because developing new weapons sends a strong signal to the rest of the world that the U.S. has no plans to abide by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
In 2004 and 2005, bipartisan Congressional leadership eliminated funding for research on these new weapons, forcing the Bush administration to abandon its drive for RNEP and Advanced Concepts. However, a new program, the Reliable Replacement Warhead, also presents similar concerns. In FY2006, Congress appropriated $24.7 million for this program, and for FY2007 the Bush administration has requested $27.7 million. What is your position on new nuclear weapons and the Reliable Replacement Warhead?
I oppose the Reliable Replacement Warhead.
Please Explain: I have been a lifelong advocate of nuclear disarmament. I believe that the US should take unilateral steps to slash its nuclear weapons arsenal. Any increased funding for nuclear weapons heads in the wrong direction. The US remains the greatest nuclear threat on the planet. It frequently uses its nuclear weapons as blackmail, as when President Bush recently said every option including nuclear weapons was on the table for dealing with Iran.
2.) As part of its drive to build a new generation of nuclear weapons, the Bush administration has also attempted to reduce the required preparation time to conduct an underground nuclear test to no more than 18 months. To allow for the possibility of future testing, the Bush administration refuses to send the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty back to the Senate for ratification. What is your position on the resumption of explosive nuclear weapons testing?
I oppose the resumption of nuclear testing.
Please Explain: Nuclear testing is itself using nuclear weapons to send an aggressive signal to other countries. We don't need better nuclear weapons. We need to work toward dismantling them worldwide.
3.) At approximately $10 billion per year, missile defense is America's single largest weapons expenditure, yet it has not been operationally tested and offers no protection against terrorism. Though the Pentagon deployed a ground-based system in the fall of the 2004, the Pentagon's top weapons inspector has expressed doubts about the system, and the CIA has found that deployment of missile defense would trigger "an unsettling series of political and military ripple effects." What is your position on national missile defense?
I oppose national missile defense.
Please Explain: Here is part of a news release I issued in June calling for the elimination of funding for national missile defense:
"Howie Hawkins, the Green Party nominee for US Senate, called today for the US Senate to eliminate funding for nuclear missile defense programs when it takes up the FY07 Defense Authorization bill next week. Hawkins' opponent, Hillary Clinton, is a long time advocate of funding for nuclear missile defense program, often breaking ranks with other Senate Democrats to vote in favor of speeding up the program."
"The Star Wars nuclear missile defense system, first conceived of during the Reagan administration, is a boondoggle for military contractors that escalates the nuclear arms race. It is a bad idea that won't work and doesn't respond to any credible threat to this country. The best defense against nuclear war is nuclear disarmament. As the world's principal nuclear threat, the US needs to unilaterally begin to slash the size of its nuclear arsenal," noted Hawkins.
"Hawkins noted that the program does nothing to address the problem of nuclear terrorism, including the smuggling of nuclear weapons into the US. The deployment of a missile defense system is prohibited under the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the cornerstone of worldwide efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear war. On June 13, 2002, President GW Bush ended U.S. participation in the treaty, saying that it obstructed development of a missile defense program."
4.) After September 11, President Bush removed virtually all restrictions on U.S. military aid and weapons sales to human rights-abusing governments. Recipients include Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Indonesia and others, and all have "poor" human rights records according to the U.S. State Department.
A particular area of concern is U.S. military training to countries that use child soldiers. In its annual human rights report, the State Department identified 15 countries where government or government-linked forces use child soldiers in violation of international standards. Yet, since 2001, the U.S. has continued supplying military assistance (either arms, training or both) to eleven of those fifteen. These actions weaken global efforts to end the use of child soldiers and reward human rights violating countries with access to highly coveted U.S. weapons and services. Would you work to prohibit U.S. arms sales and military training to governments that the State Department deems human rights abusers?
Yes, I will work to prohibit arms sales and military training to governments that the State Department deems human rights abusers.
Please Explain: I would go much further than this. I would stop virtually all arms exports, including to allied countries, starting with Israel. Arms exports are as much corporate welfare for military contractors as elements of US plans for "full-spectrum dominance," as Pentagaon planners term it, in global military strength.
5.) The ostensible purpose of the preemptive invasion of Iraq was to protect Americans by advancing the goals of the global fight against terrorism. Using this benchmark, the war in Iraq has been a colossal failure.
An assessment by the International Institute for Strategic Studies notes that the occupation has "galvanized" al-Qaeda and become a "potent global recruitment pretext" for the group, whose ranks have swelled to 18,000 militants. Consequently, foreign policy experts argue that the U.S.-led occupation directly contributes to the growing strength of the insurgency. For these reasons alone, an end to the occupation would be a powerful step forward for American national security and the future of Iraq. As Republican Congressman Walter Jones (NC-3) states, "We are now an army of occupation and (our troops) will be the object of the wrath of the insurgency." What is your position on a time-lined withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, beginning in 2006?
I support an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.
Please Explain: I support an immediate withdrawal of American troops from the US because US troops are target of the resistance. One does not ask the rapist to help the victim with counseling; why would one possibly rely on the military aggressor to restore order. If the Iraqi people want a peacekeeping force to help, they can request one but it should not include US troops.
6.) The perception that the United States may have long-term ambitions in Iraq creates resentment among the general population of Iraq and aids the insurgency in recruiting supporters. By unequivocally stating that the United States does not seek a permanent military presence in Iraq, our government would send a clear signal to the Iraqi people that we fully support their efforts to establish democracy and exercise sovereignty. What is your position on the presence of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq?
I oppose the presence of permanent U.S. bases in Iraq.
Please Explain: I oppose the bipartisan consensus of the two major parties to use our military force to dominate the rest of the planet. The neoconservatives within the Bush administration, starting with Vice-President Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, used the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to implement their existing plan to invade Iraq to secure its oil fields and to establish permanent military bases there. The majority of Democrats in the House and Senate, including Senator Clinton, supported the initial invasion and every supplemental appropriation to fund the occupation. The Green Party has opposed this crime against humanity from day one.
7.) Documents received through an ACLU lawsuit have shown that Peace Action has been spied on by the FBI. The FBI has used federal "Joint Terrorism Task Force" money to spy on the first amendment activities of Peace Action and many other peaceful, non-violent organizations including Greenpeace and the ACLU. The FBI's surveillance of domestic peace groups, and new information about domestic Pentagon and NSA surveillance make clear that the administration's efforts to stop terrorism are running amok and focusing, illegally, on the wrong targets. These administration efforts to strip away civil liberties make us less safe by diverting money from tracking the real terrorists. If elected, would you support efforts to stop the administration's illegal and sometimes warrant-less surveillance of citizens and domestic organizations?
Yes, if elected I will support efforts to stop the administration's illegal and sometimes warrant-less surveillance of citizens and domestic organizations.
Please Explain: On 9/11/2001, I joined the Green Party in warning that the criminal attacks of that day would be used as a pretext to curtail civil liberties in America. Unlike my opponent, Hillary Clinton, I opposed the enactment of the Patriot Act. I oppose the Bush administration's illegal surveillance. I have cited it as a reason for the impeachment of Bush, which, unfortunately, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told the Democratic Caucus last spring is "off the table."
8.) Part of the United States' foreign policy is to promote human rights around the world. The horrible abuses documented in photographs from the U.S.-run Abu-Ghraib prison in Iraq have unleashed a fierce debate in Washington over how we can prevent such cruelty, which is illegal under U.S. law and an affront to our own policy on human rights. In 2005, under the leadership of John McCain, Congress passed a measure to prohibit U.S. officials from using torture during interrogations. Many Americans believe that Congress needs to go further to prevent such abuses by setting up an independent bipartisan commission to examine what events and policies led to these heinous acts of cruelty. Did you or would you have voted for the 2005 McCain amendment to prohibit torture and would you support an independent bipartisan commission to investigate previous abuses?
I would have amended the 2005 McCain amendment to make sure it prohibited torture.
I am open to an independent bipartisan commission to investigate previous abuses. But who appoints the commissioners? I think we may get a better investigation from committed congressional committees on the model of the Church and Pike committees of the 1970s.
Please Explain: I joined with the national Green Party in calling for Congress to ban the use of torture in interrogations. The Greens noted at the time Greens noted that the agreement reached by Mr. Bush and Sen. John McCain purportedly outlawing torture allowed a significant loophole (see "Tortured Logic: McCain-Bush deal has a big loophole" by James Ridgeway with Michael Roston, The Village Voice, December 19, 2005). McCain's anti-torture statute states that detainees "in the custody or under the physical control of the United States Government" will not be subject to inhumane treatment. But physical control is a standard in federal law that is much more lax. It refers to locations where the United States has complete and total jurisdiction.
Congress itself should investigate the decades old practice of the US of torture under both Democratic and Republican administrations, including the use of death squads in many third world countries and the teaching of torture techniques at the School of Americas.
9.) As the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan drag on, the Pentagon is aggressively collecting personal data on millions of youth and students to help military recruiters target young people for enlistment. The federal legislation of the No Child Left Behind Act's military recruiting provision (S. 9528) forces public high schools to give recruiters students' contact information unless they specifically "opt-out" (a right most students don't even realize they have). In response, H.R. 551, the Student Privacy Protection Act of 2005 amends the military recruitment provisions of No Child Left Behind by prohibiting military recruiters from contacting students unless these minors and their parents specifically "opt-in" and consent to sharing their contact information and receiving such communications. Additionally, Pentagon contractors are now obtaining private data on young people's race, ethnicity, income, extracurricular interests, academic record, family background, spending habits and more to store in a national military recruitment database, which violates the federal Privacy Act, costs taxpayers more than $350 million and gravely undermines young people's civil liberties. Youth aged 16-25 are largely not aware that this personal information is being mined and shared by Pentagon contractors and, unlike the No Child Left Behind Act, they have no way to "opt-out" of their information being stored in this database. If elected, would you support H.R. 551? Would you support efforts to stop the Pentagon's consolidated military recruitment database?
I support H.R. 551, though would strengthen. I support efforts to stop the Pentagon's consolidated military recruitment database.
Please Explain: The Greens have been active nationwide in organizing opposition to military recruitment, including through the No Child Left Behind Act. The Greens have been successful in convincing some school districts in NY that they implement an "opt-in" approach under the existing law. Young people from low-income and minority communities need employment opportunities other than signing up for the military. Peace groups should have equal access to students as military recruiters.
10.) In 2007, $460 billion of the Fiscal Year 2007 budget request will go to the Pentagon. This is 53% of the discretionary spending, which does not even include the money the Bush administration will ask for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Three years into the Iraq War, the Bush administration is still paying for these wars through "emergency supplementals," which are separate from the budget and do not factor into deficit calculations. To pay for these bloated Pentagon programs, the administration and Congress cut funding for programs that address human needs, such as federal student loans, Medicare and Medicaid. Congresswomen Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and Barbara Lee (D-CA) have introduced the Common Sense Budget Act, H.R. 4898. This bill identifies $60 billion in unnecessary Pentagon spending which would be transferred to programs in children's health care, school reconstruction, job training, energy independence, homeland security, medical research, global hunger and deficit reduction. Do you support the Common Sense Budget Act?
I support the Common Sense Budget Act. But would cut $300 billion, not just $60 billion.
Please Explain: I have long advocated that the military budget should be cut by at least half to fund a domestic peace dividend – and that was before the tremendous increases post-9/11. The military budget should be limited to what is needed to defend America. The US spends as much on the military as the rest of the world combined. Most of the rest of that spending is by US allies, including the UK, France, Germany, and Israel. US military spending is causing major problems for the US economy and taxpayers. The US military should not be used to further the interest American multinational corporations or military contracts. The US military budget funds an offensive global occupation force, not defensive force protecting American soil.
Recent Pentagon studies have identified global warming and peak oil as the greatest security threats to the US. I support creating a $300 billion a year Clean Energy Transition fund to support investments worldwide in renewable energy and energy conservations. Such an approach demilitarizes our response by making friends instead of enemies around the world by bringing renewable energy technologies instead of oil wars and foreign military occupations to other countries.
11.) The United States, as a signer of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has promised to work to reduce its nuclear stockpile. Currently, the United States has thousands of usable nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Many argue that maintaining a stockpile of even 3,500 does more harm to our national security than it deters. Other nations are threatened by our capabilities and are emboldened to begin and grow their own nuclear weapons programs. How many nuclear weapons do you think the United States needs?
None. We need to ban all nuclear weapons. No one wins a nuclear war.
12.) U.S. intelligence estimates put Iran's ability to make a nuclear bomb at least five to ten years from now. On February 4, 2006, the International Atomic Energy Agency referred Iran to the United Nations Security Council. The Bush administration is pushing for a tough stance in the international community with regard to Iran's domestic uranium enrichment program. Once the Security Council takes up Iran's portfolio, the Bush administration is expected to push for punitive measures such as sanctions or even targeted military air strikes. Iran has already said it will retaliate, possibly militarily, to any punitive measures taken by the Security Council or any nation acting unilaterally. Iran has several such options that would seriously harm the United States. These include: disrupting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, sabotaging harbor facilities and oil platforms in the Persian Gulf and providing several kinds of military support to the Iraqi insurgency. Do
you support or oppose military action against Iran?
I oppose military action against Iran.
Please explain: It was the CIA in 1953 that engineered the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran, initiating a disastrous half-century US policy of supporting reactionary monarchists and Islamic fundamentalists against secular nationalist pro-democracy movements throughout the Middle East. Then, as now, the prime motivation of the United States was the control of oil as the means of global domination. War with Iran should not be an option. As deceptive, immoral, and costly as the illegal invasion of Iraq has been, an attack Iran could unleash a far more devastating wave of destruction and waste of human lives. Diplomacy is what our nation must use - not bombs and invasions.
We need to stop invading other countries because we covet their oil supplies. We need to understand that democracy means allowing people to make decisions for themselves, not installing compliant rulers that serve as junior partners to US military and corporate elites.
Oil, not the potential for the development of nuclear weapons, is the prime motivation for the pending US attack on Iran. After the misleading statements about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, we need to be wary of US government claims about Iran's nuclear capacity. Most international experts believe Iran is five to ten years away from having nuclear weapons capability. Let us not forget that the Bush administration recently agreed to further expand the nuclear weapons capability of India because the US wants them as an ally in the coming showdown with China that the US made clear it is planning in two key policy documents released this year: the White House National Security Strategy and the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review.
13.) If offered, would you accept an endorsement from the Peace Action?
Yes, I would accept an endorsement from Peace Action.
14.) If offered, would you accept a contribution from the Peace Action PAC?
Yes, I would accept a contribution from the Peace Action PAC.
Prepared By:
Howie Hawkins | Date: August 26,2006
Campaign Manager: Sally Kim | Contact 518-364-2968
Committee Name: Hawkins for Senate 2006 | District: New York State
Campaign Mailing Address: P.O. Box 562
Syracuse NY 13205
Email: hhawkins@igc.org
Phone: 315-425-1019 | Fax: 315-474-7055
Website: www.hawkinsforsenate.org
Candidate Name: Howie Hawkins
Candidate Signature: //Howie Hawkins
|
