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
@9LF5SCS1yr1Y
the president should not have unilateral power to wage war without international support in the UN general assembly, and all international laws must be honored
@8MTS4N75yrs5Y
Yes in extreme situations
@9DQ9NL52yrs2Y
No invasions of enormous military budget will stop terrorists from hijacking an airplane! Fund domestic security a bit more.
@9C7LGFRIndependent2yrs2Y
Only in an extreme situation.
@8P2VQ4V5yrs5Y
If there is a serious threat
@B73LM9Y1wk1W
When it is extreme terrorism like 9/11 then yes, but otherwise no there should be some kind of approval system.
@B6YSFF62wks2W
I think he should have the authority to authorize military force against AL-Qaeda with Congressional Approval as a safety measure.
@B6WCKXW2wks2W
It would depend if it’s a matter of national security. I don’t think the president should generally have the power to authorize military force. It would have to be an absolutely catastrophic outcome for me to agree.
@B6H6PFJ1mo1MO
No, using the military against al qaeda is just an excuse to extend us imperialism further into the middle east
@B5ZKV65Independent 3mos3MO
Emergency use of force is sometimes necessary, but it must come with time limits, strict definitions, and reauthorization requirements. Congress should never hand out permanent war powers. Every use of force must have a clear expiration, and future presidents must seek renewed approval. This is basic checks and balances not open-ended permission to kill forever.
@B5YC6Z53mos3MO
Depend, we have rules that allows a president to do that, but will need review from congress, okay with it if the review by congress validated it
@B5Y825BIndependent3mos3MO
This is a tough balance between quick action and checks on power. On one hand, the President may need to act swiftly to protect the country from groups like Al-Qaeda. On the other hand, the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war to prevent misuse of military force. I think the President should have some ability to respond quickly in emergencies but must work with Congress for longer or broader military actions. This ensures both security and accountability.
@B55ZHD95mos5MO
The president should have some control over the military but the people who are in the military should be able to choose if they want to go with what the president said or not.
@B4KFQJN5mos5MO
Yes, but only if it is a threatening attack on American soil, example being if a very large terrorist attack such as a mass bombing, but the government should know that it was the terrorist group or not, because if we didn't, we could start an accidental war.
@B4FZR756mos6MO
If they pose as an immediate threat yes, but if Congress can approve it within 48 hours, then go forth with that.
@B48XNDP6mos6MO
Yes the president should use that power if it is in time of war like a terrorist attack but No if a conflict and there is time to get congressional approval
@B3LB92CRepublican7mos7MO
To an extent, the president can use his military powers without congressional approval but needs congress to approve greater military conflicts
@B38S2XX7mos7MO
I feel that the President should only be able to when under emergent threat of another terrorist attack but not whenever and however they'd like.
@B35HKRF7mos7MO
If Congress can act immediately and be trustworthy of not leaking anything, then I agree to discuss with them.
The president should be able to make their own decision if it's in the country's best interests, but military intervention in general should have multiple opinions and numerous hands in the matter to assure it's the right move.
@B29VL259mos9MO
No, one individual should not have the power to do anything without the consent of the other branches.
@B22VFSX 10mos10MO
Depends, Only if a state of emergency is declared. If so the president can use emergency powers to do so.
@9ZXWCGF10mos10MO
It depends on the situation. If it is a case of dire and urgent need, there should be exceptions made when the president can act quickly. Otherwise, Congressional approval should be made.
@9ZXMKVQ10mos10MO
No, the president isn't allowed to do anything without congressional approval. But if Congress gives permission, then yes.
@9ZKNZRN10mos10MO
There should be a more complex system which makes these military decisions, without the hassle of passing things through Congress.
@9YJV4Q211mos11MO
I believe that, for this act to stay in place, it would need to be limited to only al-Qaeda related military conflicts.
@9YJRS5511mos11MO
depends because if their not doing anything then we should leave them alone because that can cause another conflict
@9Y7HQGY11mos11MO
We should use what means necessary we have to prevent a terrorist attack. However it should be only against terrorist groups. Not used against others
@9XZDY4TIndependent11mos11MO
Yes, but only if action needs to be taken swiftly and definitively, and there is no time for a congressional meeting
@9XWX6V411mos11MO
No, the president is our main person, but one person cant have too much power. They left Britain to get away from a monarchy not create one.
@9XWJRW2Peace and Freedom11mos11MO
I feel that the president can task a smaller force, but can’t use the entire army without Congressional approval.
@9XVTRJT11mos11MO
If there is an imminent threat, then the President has authority to act, any sustained action should be approved by Congress.
@9XTCHCRIndependent11mos11MO
there should be atleast a small cabinet agreement, not one person can do that without consulting the rest of the branches
@9XT3HM611mos11MO
Yes and no, we need to use whatever means necessary to prevent a terrorist attack but Congress needs a say in sometimes
@9XQCYWQ11mos11MO
Should be regulations about national emergencies and when congress will and won't be involved in decision making
@9XQ6FKY11mos11MO
No, Congress should approve all military conflicts but voting mechanisms and rules should be updated.
@9XNL5NS11mos11MO
I can talk for military issues, I do not know! Military and politicians should know better about this question.
@9XMXJXB11mos11MO
i think the president should have some power, and we shouldn’t need all of congress to agree. giving one person that much power can be bad
@9XGKGSSPeace and Freedom11mos11MO
The President should be able to authorize some small attacks but for major operations it should need the approval of Congress.
There should be a separate military department that includes members of congress that is empowered to authorize such force in conjunction with the President.
@9X3KRZ611mos11MO
no, ridding of al-qaeda should be taken in a different approach for the innocent citizens in the listed countries
It depends on whether or not there is a clear and immenent threat that cannot wait for congress to act.
@9W5YBNQ11mos11MO
In the case that the terrorist, whether Al-Qaeda or otherwise, is threatening our democracy, or close allies, then he or she as president should be able to take authority over the situation.
@9W5QZMD11mos11MO
It depends on what is most important at the moment. If we have time to congress to agree, then we should. But if we do not have time, we should do whatever we can to stop Al-Qaeda
@9W3CJY511mos11MO
No, because then a ruler would have way too much power over the people and it could become dangerous.
@9VXX48X11mos11MO
Congress should approve all military actions however, there should be some instances where the president would not need approval of Congress
@9VNJB7Z12mos12MO
No, it will make members of Congress feel left out and unfair starting a conflict with multiple perspectives.
@9VL5FJ612mos12MO
If the threat is immediate and there is no time for congressional approval then yes, If there is time and already existing defenses in place that provide that time and safety then congressional approval is a must if additional actions are to take place.
@9VC7XRN12mos12MO
i think so if it’s a big big emergency and there’s another terrorist attack but other than that we cannot be terrorists to another country so then congress will have to approve some i dony KNOW HELP
@9VBJQZR12mos12MO
I mean like, I like the approval of the president and congress but at the same time, sometimes risks should just be taken
@9VB4K2CRepublican12mos12MO
In middle about this one because sometimes congress is wrong about their decisions I believe they should go off cia and fbi intelligence to decide and then the president can decide with influence of congress
@9V4SLX212mos12MO
I think they should get approval but also some proof of whether Al-Qaeda did it or not. If they have valid proof then I say they take action immediately since the acts committed on 9/11 were clear signs of war and hatred toward the U.S.
@9TSK4KG1yr1Y
I think the president should be able to but we still need checks and balances and this is probably one of them
@9TDDKXC1yr1Y
Yes, but not unconditionally, there must be very specific requirements outlined for an emergency situation in which they would be able to do that.
@9T9PT931yr1Y
do what is necessary to stop terrorist attacks while still protecting the rights of people and the people
@9SXLLTV1yr1Y
Yes, but with preset time limit to attain congressional approval for continued use of military force in a conflict.
@9SGVYM31yr1Y
Congress shouldn’t have the final say, but congress and POTUS should get together and figure out the best solution for the country, a calculated decision to move forward for retaliation and safety.
@9S267V91yr1Y
The Constitution is clear on this, the power to initiate war lies with Congress. But the need for swift preventative or even responsive action that could save lives could be undermined by a lengthy and partisan deliberative process. There should be a special constitutional construct that allows for an immediate initiative that cannot be political in nature.
@9RW5BL61yr1Y
Yes, but legislation should define and limit when exigent circumstances justify the executive using military force without a declaration of war, and it should limit the scope and length of time
Yes, but only in extreme circumstances. For the most part, Congress should also be involved in the decision.
@9RF2XHH1yr1Y
The United States should not be involved in middle eastern affairs unless there is a threat on American soil
@9R4TCT51yr1Y
Yes, the president should be able to use military force, but should not be allowed to initiate full-scale war without congressional approval.
@9R4R3N81yr1Y
Yes, but only if there is a confirmed attack planned and there is not enough time to obtain congressional approval.
@9R38JCS1yr1Y
Yes, but only if it is truly an emergent circumstance. Otherwise it must need congressional approval
@9QYL33R1yr1Y
Yes but make it more difficult to do so. Like so that congress has to approve it before hand and if not, it will be a pain to get it done
@9QFQQKN1yr1Y
It depends on what and when the attacks are. If a president has reckless plans that wouldn't make sense, then it should be thoroughly investigated by professionals. Or if it is not a good time to attack, details should also be reviewed by professionals.
@9PXX59L1yr1Y
I think whatever is necessary to be done should be done, although I would think about and wonder why congress wouldn't approve, maybe the risk outweighs the benifet depending on what it is.
@9P7PPSW1yr1Y
I wish we had a competent congress or president. Unfortunately, we have neither. The subhuman terrorists should be terminated like roaches with a can of Raid but I have no faith in our federal government to get such a simple, necessary task done.
@9NSK93SLibertarian1yr1Y
Yes, but only for a rapid response that is not prolonged and not without advising congressional leaders before taking action.
@9NGPLMK1yr1Y
No, all military conflicts should be approved by Congress unless there is proof of it being a large threat to civilians.
@9NC3NJD1yr1Y
Depends. The president needs flexibility to act in a timely way to counter threats but anything that could create a war needs oversight
@9MSSV271yr1Y
Only for the first thirty days than Congress has to authorize continued assault against Al-Qaeda if they have made a terrorist attack that affected America or its citizens
@9MNTBRB1yr1Y
Only in response to emergencies, with congressional review within a short time after the initial act.
@9MGY83T1yr1Y
If we were attacked yes. If a conflict is erupting or on going and we are backing up our allys yes we should have congress approval.
@9M6PL9H 1yr1Y
I think it is very important to take on terrorists and make sure there is not another attack. There should be a good amount of research and planning to this. Forces like FBI and CIA and other police should share info with one another and take action.
@9M3ZCG31yr1Y
I feel like I'd learn more towards yes, we don't need more terrorist attacks in our country even if 9/11 was one of our first.
@9LSXPQH1yr1Y
I believe that unless Al-Qaeda does something, that's when the President should be allowed to authorize military force.
@9LMWH6P1yr1Y
Yes, but only for a limited amount of time. The end of this time is the deadline for Congress to approve or reject additional military force.
@9LMS8TH1yr1Y
Yes, but only after 3/4 of Congress agrees with it and it is absolutely necessary. We do not want another war.
@9L5YMV2 1yr1Y
Yes, he is the commander in chief. But, to an extent. I don't believe that under any random incident can the president authorize military force. But if actions are taken against Americans, in a way the president deems will harm the safety or security of Americans, then he should be able to authorize military force.
@9L5NK9YLibertarian1yr1Y
Depends on the exact circumstance. Congress should be the approving authority most of the time, but in immediate life/death circumstances where congress has no time to act, president should maintain so autonomy.
It is against the Constitution for the president to take military action without congressional approval
@9KM3K6W2yrs2Y
Congress cant have full power over making military decisions, but at the same time, neither sould the preisedent.
@9K2SM6S2yrs2Y
President has the executive authority. However, without approval from Congress his mission will not be funded.
The president should have power to authorize military forces against terrorists, however for other kinds of war the president should have to have Congressional approval.
Yes, if we have to act quickly in order to protect our citizens. (From terrorist attacks, for example.) But other than that, no, the Congress should approve all military conflicts.
@9JM2PKZ2yrs2Y
as long as its not cause of their beliefs then yes only if its because they have proof to attack and not to beliefs
@9JM2P5F2yrs2Y
I think it should go through congress but the president should be able to override them if necessary
@9JGYS4W2yrs2Y
If the terrorists are a very big thret than yes, the president should take measures into his own hands.
@9J7VW832yrs2Y
We need to stop getting involved with other countries’ business, we need to stay in our own lane unless we are provoked.
@9HYRMHY2yrs2Y
Yes, we must do anything powerful enough to stop another terrorist attack, but I feel there should be situations where we know when to ask for approval and when to ask without.
@9H78LT32yrs2Y
Congress should acknowledge that Al-Qaeda is a creation of the CIA, just as Hamas is a creation of Mossad, both used for false flag ops.
@9H4HNFZ2yrs2Y
no because that gives the president too much power and the president might use that power later and become to powerful and advantage of it.
@9H2QLZ82yrs2Y
Yes, but the president should be aware of the situation and only be allowed to authorize military force in the most extreme situations.
@9GWTSPYLibertarian2yrs2Y
Yes, I don’t like having only one man solely with the capability of deploying US military force. But I don’t have enough faith in congress to be able to make a quick effective decision with out letting political bureaucrats delay the process.
@9GRCMYW2yrs2Y
This is outdated and we already lost the was but if it still was a thing than yes the military should attack without order only if they are in very bad spot.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
