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
@9HVMZL22yrs2Y
Yes, but only to a point and there still must be congressional oversight and there needs to be a timeline in which Congress must approve prolonging the use of military against Al-Qaeda.
@9HGFV3PRepublican2yrs2Y
As long as terrorist groups have been agreed upon to be terrorists by the majority of the people, then the president should be able to have the power to prevent terrorist attacks through the acts of removing already existing terrorists.
@9H3V3XN2yrs2Y
Policing of a terrorist group should be none of our business unless they are an immediate threat to uss
@9GF8FCBRepublican2yrs2Y
I think he should if america is under imminent danger and then be subject to criminal review by Congress afterwards to ensure that its wasnt an act of tyranny.
@9FHHZ842yrs2Y
No, because he's literally making a decision that affects every citizen's life and our representatives should be part of the discussion on our behalf.
@9F8LKVT2yrs2Y
They both need to have a say.
@9DXJ5LN2yrs2Y
Yes, but only to decrease deployment times.
@9DTJ66WRepublican2yrs2Y
Yes and no depends on current events.
@9D8979K2yrs2Y
Executive branch can deploy military force, but requires authorization from Congress within 30 days.
@9CDQSWX2yrs2Y
Yes, but congress should be able to vote on whether to continue or end military force.
@96LWLBW3yrs3Y
Not with current president!!!
@96BNPLB3yrs3Y
Depends on the scope of the operation, for small scale stuff yes, for larger scale stuff absolutely not.
@963W3HB3yrs3Y
No, the current two 90 day period is enough.
@963589N3yrs3Y
Yes I could be brought before congress but it doesn't have to be approved if they cant agree.
@95X3VSJRepublican3yrs3Y
Only if the country in in extreme danger
@95FRJRM3yrs3Y
yes, if action is needed right now. otherwise, no.
@95DKG9H3yrs3Y
For a certain amount of time, yes. Getting something like that through congress to respond to an emergency will take too much time, and action would need to be taken immediately.
@95DHKD83yrs3Y
Congress should approve all military conflicts, but if the military actions need to be quickly then the president can have the power to not have congress approve the actions.
@94BNGSH3yrs3Y
I think we should be using military force but I do believe in our system so we have to vote for people that will fight
@93VBZ2Y3yrs3Y
Only in 100% dire times or shot decision time.
@93LP7LX3yrs3Y
only when there is an eminent threat and time is an issue
@92M3VS83yrs3Y
Yes, as long as Congress has deemed them as a terrorist/terrorist group, and as long as it is within a certain nation's borders.
@92JYKQB3yrs3Y
Not in it's present form. Another slippery slope. Tyrannical governments can easily abuse this power.
@8ZZ9RGG3yrs3Y
yes, only if there is to be swift action. Otherwise, we wouldn't want to upset the balance of power in our branches of government.
@8ZZ76B83yrs3Y
The president should have input on what to do by military officials
@8ZPL3BGRepublican4yrs4Y
Depends on the President and what his actions will be
@8ZMBXVBRepublican4yrs4Y
I think the president has a duty to protect the country, but when it is no longer defence and more offense, congress can step in and discuss if things should continue.
@8Z9CP7T4yrs4Y
No, they should both come to an agreement not giving one more powerful than the other.
@8Z5TNQSRepublican4yrs4Y
In some certain situations yes.
@8Z2GL8KRepublican4yrs4Y
only if congress is not authorizing it for political reasons rather than reason.
@8YZCXN74yrs4Y
Depends on The situation.
@8YZ9LMH4yrs4Y
Yes, but the Congress should know about it.
@8YY229VRepublican4yrs4Y
Yes, but only in dire situations where the U.S. is at immediate risk.
@8YW5JQD4yrs4Y
As, the Commander in Chief of the Military and to fulfill his Oath of office to protect the country against all enemies foreign and domestic. The president should not need congresses approval to launch an attack against a foreign terrorist the president has never needed to have the approval of congress to launch an attack. The only thing that congress has the authority to do is make laws and declare war.
@8YSR6694yrs4Y
I believe in checks and balances
@8YSQQPSRepublican4yrs4Y
Yes, but he should be required to prove in a congressional hearing held at a later time that his actions were justified.
@8YFHJ964yrs4Y
Yes, but within reason. Only 25% of the current active-duty soldiers, sailors and pilots may be deployed without Congressional approval.
@8YDP7DH4yrs4Y
Against a terrorist organization like this, yes. But the President should only deploy sailors, soldiers and pilots, not entire armies and nuclear weapons without congressional approval.
@8XZPPL44yrs4Y
No unless in extreme danger of a attack or war.
@8XDBY8D4yrs4Y
The President should authorize military force only when it is absolutely necessary.
@8XBVKW54yrs4Y
If a terrorist organization poses a significant threat and is responsible for an attack on US Soil we should be able to retaliate without congress approval.
@8WQL88S4yrs4Y
Only if there is a serious threat against the U.S.
@8WHPGBR4yrs4Y
Depends on what he has done
@8WGYJM9Republican4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if we are under attack or as a last resort.
@8WDYM5PRepublican4yrs4Y
he should be able to do a emergency power thing
@8WCZL4C4yrs4Y
Yes, but there should be oversight.
@8WCF2K34yrs4Y
i feel that if we are in an on going war there should not be a debate about a military action taking place
@Skaro9Constitution4yrs4Y
Yes. Depending on the compentency level of the current President. (Biden, NO. Trump, Yes)
@8VZMN4V4yrs4Y
Yes, only for the required 30 days. The Constitution provides the President authorization to harbor troops for 30 days, after that he/she needs Congressional approval.
@8VNH6FQ4yrs4Y
No, our president shouldn't be allowed to do anything. He is incapable of making big decisions like that. As we have seen Al-Qaeda now have billions in military weapons because of our President.
@8VMCG9K4yrs4Y
i think if the situation is bad enough and indangering people in america then yes
@8VHPKDS4yrs4Y
yes and he already has the right to do so as long as he reports it to congress within 30 days that it happened.
@8VG356G4yrs4Y
yes just not with sertain presidents like the demented one in office right now
@8VF9DQ4Republican4yrs4Y
Yes, they are not a formal military following military laws and therefore shouldn't need congressional approval.
@8V89HVT4yrs4Y
We should stay out of international affairs
@8TYVXQ9Constitution4yrs4Y
Yes, but only if there is a clear, present, and immediate danger to the US, it's citizens, or it's allies
@8TX62FTLibertarian4yrs4Y
Yes but only Special Forces when time is of the essence
@8TVHLZBIndependent4yrs4Y
Yes but in select specific situations.
@8TT3ZN7Republican4yrs4Y
I think they should have permission to attack whenever they NEED to
@8TQ4JTW4yrs4Y
No, and war crimes should be an impeachable offense
@8T8MP95Republican4yrs4Y
Depends on type of military force
@8T2YDNZ4yrs4Y
Yes, only after consulting with Military leaders
The President should only be able to bypass Congress in such regards in the case of clear and present danger to American citizenry, personnel, or property.
@8SQ3VMDRepublican4yrs4Y
yes, but most the time no
@8SJ2GK34yrs4Y
@8SC8X3Z4yrs4Y
dumb question, The president can already approve force through the Marines only but the decision for war is strictly held by Congress.
@8S8NLV74yrs4Y
Only if it is proved that an AlQaeda is attack is imminent
@8S6M4YH4yrs4Y
Yes, but his military scope should be limited.
@8S5JPPM4yrs4Y
If we have to before time runs out before an attack
@8S36JL84yrs4Y
No, the president should not start any military or armed conflict without congressional approval
@8RZ3KBY4yrs4Y
Yes but only with time sensitive missions.
@8RXJPY7Republican4yrs4Y
yes, but if the president has a history of making poor military decisions, no
@8RRK6XB4yrs4Y
Yes, if there's definite information that it is a threat.
@8RNLPS4Republican5yrs5Y
No, unless in response to an attack
@8RJGQ5PRepublican5yrs5Y
No but the president should still tell congress and see there reaction and there thoughts
@8R7NQH9Republican5yrs5Y
yes but very limited action
@8R74YG55yrs5Y
US funded Al-Qaeda, we are lied to and told to hate them
@8R2YZJM5yrs5Y
Yes, and we should take over to have more power
Only in very specific cirumstances where American and/or foreign civilian lives are in danger.
@lanhar73895yrs5Y
If it is an urgent threat.
@8F3X4B6Constitution5yrs5Y
Depends on severity and recency of situation
@9CGTSX4Republican2yrs2Y
Yes, but this needs to be amended for only terrorist attacks and not to be used as a blanket authority to rubber stamp military conflicts without congressional authorization.
@9CCJFTX2yrs2Y
Yes, only if the situation is a dire emergency.
@9B3FKPC2yrs2Y
Yes, but only if it presents clear and present danger to the United States
@99W6W2B2yrs2Y
i think that its a good checks and balances to prevent the president from declaring war whenever, however it can stand in the way of a swift military counter to the terrorists.
@99MQNR53yrs3Y
It depends on the severity of the issue, if there is a hostage situation or something extreme and congress is on recess, then the president should be allowed to enact their powers.
@99D7YR8Republican3yrs3Y
This depends on the current threat level and international climate.
@98ZY6PM3yrs3Y
No, there are 3 branches of government for a reason.
@98WF9FS3yrs3Y
No, because the government knew 9/11 would happen beforehand. The entire conflict is artificial.
@98TQSX33yrs3Y
Yes, so long as the situation is considered urgent and Congress is refusing to take action
@98G82JD3yrs3Y
But only In a life-or-death situation or a situation where it is the only solution to a Mega problem facing our nation if there is even a far fetched solution that may work try that 1st before defying the Constitution
@97ZLZGTConstitution3yrs3Y
No, unless we are directly attacked by another country/group
@936W3GYRepublican3yrs3Y
Yes, but only with the congresses knowledge
@8XNRRLT4yrs4Y
Yes, If there is an immediate threat or an urgent situation arises
@8SZF2QVRepublican4yrs4Y
It very much depends on what they did do the United States. If say another 9/11 happened and Congress didn’t want to retaliate then the president should be able to do so.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
