Do you support targeting suspected terrorists outside of official theaters of conflict?
- Mike Honda. Issues: Middle East. "The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological weapons, in states that sponsor terrorism heightens security risks in the U.S. and abroad. Honda continues to support Israel in its fight to protect itself and to assist the United States in its continuing war on terrorism. In addition, Mike will supports continued sanctions against Iraq, Iran, and other countries as long as they continue to be responsible for terror on domestic and foreign soil. However, these sanctions should only continue if they demonstrate the intended effect and do not harm to populous of a nation." (www.mikehonda.org)
- Mike Honda. Letter to Chairman McKeon. 10 May 2011. "Among the many troubling aspects of the Detainee Security Act are provisions that expand the war against terrorist organizations on a global basis. The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) of 2001 was widely thought to provide authorization for the war in Afghanistan to root out al Qaeda, the Taliban, and others responsible for the 9/11 attacks. That war has dragged on for almost ten years, and after the demise of Osama Bin Laden, as the United States prepares for withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Detainee Security Act purports to expand the 'armed conflict' against the Taliban, al Qaeda, and "associated forces" without limit. By declaring a global war against nameless individuals, organizations, and nations "associated" with the Taliban and al Qaeda, as well as those playing a supporting role in their efforts, the Detainee Security Act would appear to grant the President near unfettered authority to initiate military action around the world without further congressional approval. Such authority must not be ceded to the President without careful deliberation from Congress." (votesmart.org)
- Mike Honda. Project Vote Smart: 2008 California Congressional Political Courage Test. Selected "No" for: "e) Do you support pre-emptive military strikes against countries deemed to be a threat to United States national security?"
- Mike Honda. Project Vote Smart: 2004 California Congressional Political Courage Test. Selected "No" for: "f) Do you support a policy of pre-emptive strikes against countries deemed to be a threat to national security?"
- Mike Honda. Letter to President Obama. 12 June 2012. "We are concerned that the use of such "signature" strikes could raise the risk of killing innocent civilians or individuals who may have no relationship to attacks on the United States. Our drone campaign already have virtually no transparency, accountability or oversight. We are further concerned about the legal grounds for such strikes under the 2011 Authorization for the Use of Military Force.The implications of the use of drones for our national security are profound. They are faceless ambassadors that cause civilian deaths, and are frequently the only direct contact with Americans that the targeted communities have. They can generate powerful and enduring anti-American sentiment. As members of Congress, we are deeply concerned about the full impact of drone strikes. Please explain the process by which "signature" strikes are authorized and executed; mechanisms used by the CIA and JSOC to ensure that such killings are legal; the nature of the follow-up that is conducted when civilians are killed or injured; and the mechanisms that ensure civilian casualty numbers are collected, tracked and analyzed." (votesmart.org)
- Mike Honda. Issues: Homeland Security. "As a nation, it is vital to protect America's from threats at home and abroad. Democrats are working to make sure that the federal government does more to support our police officers, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel, by providing training and equipment needed to keep America safe and secure. We must also work to improve security at airports, seaports, rail tunnels, terminals, transit facilities, and other vulnerable targets by taking a comprehensive, unified approach in protecting our nation." (honda.house.gov)
- Mike Honda. Project Vote Smart: 2012 California Congressional Political Courage Test. Selected "NO ANSWER" for: "Do you support targeting suspected terrorists outside of official theaters of conflict?" National Security other or expanded principles: "In regards to the first question, I believe it depends on what the definitions of "targeting suspected terrorists," "official theaters," and "conflict" are and how they are determined, and whether they comply with the laws in place."
In regards to the first question, I believe it depends on what the definitions of "targeting suspected terrorists," "official theaters," and "conflict" are and how they are determined, and whether they comply with the laws in place.
In regards to the second question, I believe it would be irresponsible to make a definitive statement on the use of military force based on hypotheticals. I am supportive of exhausting all diplomatic options before using force.