Should the President be able to authorize military force against Al-Qaeda without Congressional approval?

Only when there is a threat

I have know idea what this means

Depends on imminence of threat

I have absolutely no idea

no, we have a system of checks and balances for a reason.

I don't what this means.

I think if the situation was an extreme case then there could be an emergency law put in place, however for most uses of military force, Congress should approve all conflicts.

In response to immediate action (ie, a terror attack), yes. In terms of any sort of non-immediate event, no.

For foreign military force, congressional approval is required, but on our land, he should have the authority.

Yes, but only in small operations that would protect citizens, and would not in any way cause a larger conflict

The president can authorize military force against Al-Qaeda so long as he informs congress shortly after the attack.

While I believe it is important and necessary for congress to be apart of the decisions regarding military involvement, I also believe that in certain scenarios the president should be allowed to make that call on his own, if there is overwhelming evidence to show Al-Qaeda is going to attack either our country or an allied country.

While I understand the need to act swiftly, especially in times of war, the permission has been taken way too far. Congress should approve all military starts at the very least and there should be check-in's or rules where, if you are to do something drastic or damaging that could be controversial, there needs to be congressional approval. In other words, while I understand that the contexts of some events may not allow for congressional approval in time, majority of issues should simply have the time in between for congressional approval of the response.

There may be bias against Al-Qaeda depending on the person, however, we should try our hardest to be sensible if there's a need be to prevent another attack.

No, I don't trust certain presidents not to abuse that power and endanger us but if it was truly defensive then, Yes, if in immediate danger.

Congress should approve a limited set of actions that the president is allowed to take on their own.

it all depends on what they're doing if they have a planned attack and we know about it yes but if theyre doing nothing we shouldn't just storm in

Yes, but only for a short period of time. After a period of time, Congress can vote to confirm further action or not.

No, military conflicts are inhumane by nature and no one should pursue acts of violence toward any country or group

If they committed a terrorist attack and there was an act of that then yes otherwise congress should have to approve

This has nothing to do with "Al-Quada". It has to do with who is determined to be a threat at any given time.

Only if conditions are met. We shouldn't just rush in every time something little happens. If it is a threat to our nation then that would be a good time to let the president jump in without any Congress approval

There needs to be a in the middle of this, sometimes these decisions need to be made right away other times it isn't needed right away.

Only if the circumstance calls for a immediate action to either prevent or counter against the group

No, unless it is truly needed, and there is no time to have second judgement. This probably happens very rarely though.

Depends on the scale of the conflict. Congress approves war, executive branch has always approved strikes or defense. Congress cannot react in time to adequately defend us, but they can absolutely approve long term conflicts such as a near peer fight.

There must be a legitimate reason to, we shouldn't just start attacking them even if they have it coming. We went into Afghanistan and Iraq, look how that went.

I believe that more people, including Congress should be involved with choices like this one as there needs to be a wider stand on agreements that could cause or resolve important conflict such as this. If not, then the result could be drastic and negatively effect majority of the people.

Yes, but only in situations where the need to act is truly urgent (ex. a terrorist attack occurs and another is threatens to happen).

The situation would have to be very serious to allow this type of power and reasons would have to be established before this is possible

Presidents should be allowed to authorize military force in a state of emergency or similar emergency to help ally’s with the clear transparent evidence from CIA and agreement of his cabinet

If it is for Al-Qaeda or any terrorist group, then yes. On the other hand, abusing the bill should not be allowed.

It depends on the situation. It would be ill advised to flat out go at them, but if they seem to be up to something than i think we should take action immediately.

I disagree with war, but we should do whatever we should do to not get into another terrorist attack

yes the president already has the ability to deploy military assets for a short period of time but not without congressional approval

If it is a circumstance where there's no a lot of time for Congress to approve it then yes the president should be able to act accordingly to defend the US (Not attack Al Qaeda first)

I believe that there are certain circumstances where the president should be able to make the quick decision to send an attack against Al Qaeda. However, I think there are also times when it should be brought to Congress because the decision could have dire consequences that would outweigh the good that comes from it.

No, congress should have a say on if its a good reason. Like if they do it just because, then no. But if 9/11 happened again, yeah.

although al-qaeda is a very dangerous group, the president needs to come up with a well thought out plan, have reasonable suspicion and prevent as many losses in our country.

I think yes and no I think that they shouldn't do it without approval because it may lead to more problems ,but I think yes because they really may need to attack back if the attacks are constant then approval shouldn't be needed because it may take a bit for them to all agree which in that time another attack could happen.

We should use military force in a considerable amount. We wouldn't want to overdo it, yet we don't want to stop using it at all.

Unless America is directly attacked we should stay out of it. one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter

We should be able to respond to a threat without going through all of those procedures, if they attack us. So we should attack in retaliation without the congresses aproval.

Yes, but not to invade a country. (Small-scale "in-and-out" operations like the one that killed Osama bin Laden are okay if they are aimed at high-priority targets, like Osama was.)

No, but the President should have the power to authorize preliminary military action in extreme situations, such as in response to a terrorist attack on US soil.

There should be some sort of checks&balances on the president in this situation. However Congress may take too long, therefore there should be another option; even a committee that includes both the legislative and judicial branch (just a smaller amount of people that know their job is to QUICKLY approve or disapprove)

only if Al-Qaeda is an immediate threat to the integrity of the United States (if there is to be a known attack, or if an attack has occurred, and there is reasonable suspicion, backed by evidence, that another attack will happen

Yes, if there is no time to vote. But if there is time to vote, then it must be approved by congress

America has cause most issues that have occurred in the Middle East. If they promise to no harm the citizens and they do not do it with out the consent of the people

With cases such as Al-Qaeda, where the targeted group is an immediate and direct threat to the sanctity of the United states, the President should have the ability to authorize military force. with groups that do not pose a direct risk, it should be up to Congress. there are also nuances involved, such as the mental faculties of the president, and whether they are mentally/physically fit enough to make those decisions.

I don’t believe that the president has the capacity to decide what to do considering the immense harm American imperialism has caused the rest of the world.

Yes, but with limitations on what the President can do and for how long without Congressional approval.

The president should need to pass various psychological and emotional mental health screens to ensure stable mind and moral compass for good life choices.

depends on the situation, if there's a alarming situation the commander and chief should have the authorization to use lethal force to protect American citizens

The President should be able to act on any intelligence that suggests a credible terrorism threat on U.S. soil without congressional approval, but that shouldn't mean a full scale invasion of another country.

they should not take drastic measures so if the military is seen more around a area Congress is gonna find out

Only in cases where we have credible, properly vetted intelligence. Decisive action is important but we can't have rash or bad decision making guiding our hand.

No, unless there is a significant or emergent threat to the U.S or its citizen. Both at home or abroad.

No, unless it is abundantly clear that a terrorist threat is imminent. We need to let checks and balances function as intended.

I think that the government needs to moderate the military force because if we get a president who is going crazy we need to moderate it.

No, but we should create a quicker process in order to make time-sensitive decisions when it comes to national security

Yes, but only in an emergency instance and then they must explain why to congress and the American people.

It is certain that another opinion needs to be taken into account, but in a do or die situation the Congressional approval process may be too long. Therefore, a quick decision couldn't be made and mayh endanger the country.

It depends on the circumstances if war had begun military forces would be needed urgently so there wouldnt be time for approvals or disagreements

Yes but only in dire emergences where instant action is needed. Should get congressional approval within a certain timeline or they have to stop.

yes, if it is part of the checks and balances system. If the order is disrupted, it could give the president too much power.

Regardless of whether or not the President should - history suggests they would, and face no real consequences.

No, Congress is too slow to come to agreements but there should be some kind of check/balance in place such as the approval of joint chiefs.

An executive order against Al Quaeda should only be executed if American lives are in danger. Otherwise, it needs to requite approval from congress to make sure the executive branch does not gain too much power.

There should be definable standards that put safeguards in place as to when the President can react unilaterally. The Congress is there to provide checks and balances. Should the Congress not be able to come to a consensus within a timely manner a documented policy should be in place to allow the President to react without Congress.

Yes, if there is consensus between the President and their advisors beyond a reasonable doubt that there is not enough time to get congressional approval

Yes but later Congress should approve it and if it doesn't then there may be a penalty on the government