After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks the U.S. Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force. The resolution authorizes the president to undertake war against al-Qaeda and its affiliates without Congressional approval. Since 2001 the law has been used to approve military conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Proponents argue that the law is necessary to give the President the powers to act quickly in order to prevent another terrorist attack on the U.S. Opponents argue that all U.S. military conflicts should have Congressional approval and this act has been used in military conflicts that have nothing to do with al-Qaeda.
Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Military Congressional Approval
Though it may be an unrealistic approach, their may come a time when a serious threat to national/world peace may arise and congress is simply to inept to deal with it. I would hope that a president would use serious and honorable judgement in dealing with such a situation, though past cases of this have shown the opposite.
@9S4Z2SQ1yr1Y
Yes, we should use whatever means necessary to prevent invasions and terrorism in the USA, however it should be used only for these cases and not for cases on aggressive actions only defensive
@9N9QFT91yr1Y
No, all military operations need to have consensus, but not at the cost of lost time to get approvals
@9GXKBT6Transhumanist2yrs2Y
Only if something happens that is so egregious that executive override power is appropriate, but Congress at that point would likely agree with the president anyway.
@9DRKPP92yrs2Y
It is all dependent on what it going on and how much force they are wanting to use, and if it would end up hurting innocent people
@936G9T33yrs3Y
Only for defensive purposes
@9CX23G92yrs2Y
Bring the details of said scenarios to congress to address alternatives to violence. Radicalism is a form of indoctrination into a specific view point. Rather than immediately trying to force an ideal upon a group of individuals, educating a populous usually is a more effective solution long term. That being said, if all else fails, have the people of that country fix their own problems with aid from the outside (i.e. the Russia vs Ukraine invasion)
@99ZNXDGTranshumanist2yrs2Y
Yes, but cannot act alone in making the decision
@96MCT6LLibertarian3yrs3Y
i don't really know much about it
@96LWB683yrs3Y
No, but a smaller amount of congress should be needed, or maybe congress should provide guidelines for certain scenarios to allow the president to do this.
Usally no but for imergant situations yes
@963Q2HNIndependent3yrs3Y
Yes, but only if the situation is dire and we are under immediate threat
@95Y9LYZ3yrs3Y
allow trusted people, congress members, and the president to equally decide on military authorization
@95S6L4D3yrs3Y
Yes, only if there is an attack on us, our allies, or the Holy Land
@95FPHBK3yrs3Y
Yes, but only when its near home.
@954PZYVLibertarian3yrs3Y
No, and pull out of all wars we are currently involved in
@94TTJPS3yrs3Y
No, congress should approve all military conflicts unless it is a sudden attack.
@94BN29W3yrs3Y
do you want Stalin? this is how you get Stalin.
@93XKFFR3yrs3Y
against all extreme terrorism
@93HYKDX3yrs3Y
Yes, but only if they feel threatened
@93BSH6P3yrs3Y
yes, but only if the try to attack us.
@938TMH33yrs3Y
Yes but only if the threat is clearly against the US and of an urgent matter
@937P3L8Transhumanist3yrs3Y
How about we just don’t have war. But if we are going to have war, make sure everyone has thought it out and agrees.
@925X3VSIndependent3yrs3Y
Yes, but we should have another checks and balance in place other than Congress, as they tend to get nothing done
@925F6QPTranshumanist3yrs3Y
@8ZY5NZH3yrs3Y
@8ZDYSY44yrs4Y
It really depends on the situation at hand. If it can be dealt with or not without military force.
@8Z5JYG24yrs4Y
Dependent on how urgent the situation is then yes
@8Z2KHSQ4yrs4Y
Yes but only if abasolutly nessecery
@8YY3M4H4yrs4Y
yes but only if there is a threat
@8YDC3BR4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if neccasary.
@8Y62R9J4yrs4Y
Yes, because Congress is too slow of a process for military action, and one of the traditional American values is such
Yes, but only if threatend
@8XLDQ834yrs4Y
I do not have enough knowledge to have a stance
@8XG7C864yrs4Y
only if they pose an immediate threat to the U.S.'s safety
@8XD35TX4yrs4Y
Even though it is against to have terrorist attacks, there should still be a congressional approval.
@8WZ6HR44yrs4Y
If we are in direct danger of an attack, yes
@8WX3V5X4yrs4Y
Yes but only if they are 100 percent certain that they are in danger
@8WQWHQ94yrs4Y
Yes, as long as war is already in place or police action.
@8WHTL3FTranshumanist4yrs4Y
I don't have enough information about this topic to have a view.
@8WH95JN4yrs4Y
yes if it gets stuck in congress and action is needed
@8W9QWQG4yrs4Y
only if it is an emergency defence or to protect troops/refugees overseas.
Yes and no. It depends how severe and legit the attack actaully is
@8W3FMSXIndependent4yrs4Y
Depending on what is happening in current time and if Al-Qaeda were to commit another attack then yes. The president should be allowed to authorize military force.
@8VPPX324yrs4Y
Yes, but only at the suggestion of top military officials
Yes as long as the need is immediate
@8VCTFGG4yrs4Y
The threat of Al Qaeda was a rouse used so the US war machine could enter Afghanistan. in a sense, yes, but i don't trust congress' intentions enough to deem them a neutral and viable judge of the presidents decision.
@8V37JCR4yrs4Y
Yes, But only in the situation that they force us to.
@8TYR5TPIndependent4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if it's a emergency and there's no time to wait for congresses approval.
@8TXQFW8Transhumanist4yrs4Y
I know nothing about this one
@8TTTB2Q4yrs4Y
No unless there is a actual attack in progress
@8TT2QLD4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if congress is failing to protect it's citizens
@8TB29YJ4yrs4Y
Only if they start a threat on us
@8SRR8V44yrs4Y
It depends on the what is happening and what the Al-Qaeda does.
@8SHYRHHLibertarian4yrs4Y
Yes to an extent I don't think it should be just one person's decision because judgment can be clouded but a whole committee will cause more problems I think it needs to be reviewed and approved by one democratic congressman and one republican congressman not an entire committee
@8SHRLQB4yrs4Y
Yes, but be held fully accountable for the end results. And only in the face of an emergency.
@8SGJ8H54yrs4Y
Yes, Congress should make the call for Military conflicts. but in a world that is looking for "World Peace" the UN should be put into affective action.
@8SG6Y7N4yrs4Y
If there's a know threat yes but I think they all need to discuss it.
@8SF32XR4yrs4Y
Yes, but it should not be so easily accessible without specific and direct public knowledge beforehand and should be used more as a deterrent than an act of force on a whim.
@8S87VRM4yrs4Y
I think they should be able to authorize military force against Al-Qaeda but I think that they should tell Congress about it and give them a chance to refuse it within a certain amount of time that the President sends military force.
@hopepup4yrs4Y
Yes, only in very specific cases
@8RWQ3TNIndependent4yrs4Y
It should be allowed only if there is immediate threat that can be legally backed up, otherwise it should go through Congress.
@8R995H4Transhumanist5yrs5Y
yes, but only if there is imminent danger or threat
@8R2NT5XTranshumanist5yrs5Y
Yes but only in cases of emergency and threat of safety to the US and it's citizens otherwise general crusades need to be approved through congress. As Intel is received it must be judged what is proper action.
@8QMYTZ9Independent5yrs5Y
Yes, but congress should approve it within a period of 3 months.
@8Q63SVWTranshumanist5yrs5Y
I think that Congress should have a say in authorizing military force.
@8Q62PQDTranshumanist5yrs5Y
He should require congressional approval when it is not an emergency.
@8Q5MFQZTranshumanist5yrs5Y
Under limited circumstances and for limited durations only
@8PY7CNQ5yrs5Y
Yes, but in a limited way such as an extreme emergency power. Or limited authorization of force such as a 90 day period that can be stopped without congressional approval in the 90 day period.
@8PQ5FLS5yrs5Y
Yes, but only if there is sufficient evidence and purpose for the attack
@8PL7NBZProgressive5yrs5Y
Yes, but only if we have sufficient evidence of them planning something
@8PCLY3D5yrs5Y
the only time necessary is if we were under attack for some reason and he needed to react to make a fast decision
@8PCJMDS5yrs5Y
Yes, but only in the instance that there is no time for Congress to debate about it, it would have to be an immediate decision.
@8PBS3YV5yrs5Y
Only when completely justified
@8P743KS5yrs5Y
No, not with out providing substantial evidence of their claim to wage war.
@8P38MHW5yrs5Y
There should be a discussion on the matter before engaging, but the decision can be overruled by the executive branch.
@8MNLLLF5yrs5Y
No, but any organization or group threatening the country should be dealt with accordingly
@8MLTBC8Transhumanist5yrs5Y
yes but only if there is evidence that they plan on attacking our country
i think it depends on the situation
@8KNPGXZIndependent5yrs5Y
Yes and No. We want to act quickly but we also don't want to be too rash. If it does come up in congress it has to be like an emergency meeting, make a decision now type of deal
@AMY195yrs5Y
There still needs to be a discussion. The president can act, but not irrationally.
No, congress should always need to approve the use of military force to prevent the president from having too much power
@8HBWMMSTranshumanist5yrs5Y
Yes, but only in limited capabilities
@8H44Z495yrs5Y
It should be a country wide vote to go to war
@8GZDXLP5yrs5Y
I don’t think one person should have power.
@8GYBYN5Transhumanist5yrs5Y
If there is an immediate threat to the nation, but the outcome should stand trial by people.
@8GDL6ZQ5yrs5Y
Yes, but only in cases where there is imminent threats to the US
@8G264J85yrs5Y
No, unless Congress can not make a reasonable decision on the matter.
@8F5DPFY5yrs5Y
If it is an imminent threat then yes.
@8DKK8MX5yrs5Y
Yes as long as you account for civilian casualties
@8DBR43Y5yrs5Y
Depending on the urgency of action
@8CDW8K25yrs5Y
Only if it seems to be targeting Al- Qaeda, as long as no innocents will be harmed.
@9BPMTWD2yrs2Y
yes, but only if it is the last option
@9BPLBHH2yrs2Y
Yes, but only if it is absolutely necessary for national security, and the President can prove it to be as such.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
