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
@9VW7B4B11mos11MO
They should only be able to authorize military force without Congressional approval in a true emergency.
@8LMRBPJ5yrs5Y
i dont have an opinion on this
@9D74KY62yrs2Y
Yes, for short periods to get congress together to come to a decision in the National Interest. (Presidential Powers Act)
@9D5GTHFLibertarian2yrs2Y
No, congress and a vote should approve any military involvement.
@9D543VB2yrs2Y
Yes, but needs the Vice president to agree
@8YJRZBK4yrs4Y
yes but with certain regulations
@8NTYMZF5yrs5Y
@8H2GJPH5yrs5Y
I feel like it depends on the circumstances
@B6Y5JC92wks2W
It depends on the president, generally one person should not have that much power, but if the president is wise in his decision he might be able to stop in time something before it happens where if its taken to congress it could take too long.
@B6TFKPL3wks3W
If AL-Qaeda does another terrorist attack or the U.S. is in a dire situation the President should most definitely be able to authorize the military without Congressional approval.
@B6RJDZ43wks3W
The USMC answers directly to the president and not to Congress so there are other ways to get around using Congress
@B6P2TXLRepublican 4wks4W
Yes and no, I think if the threat is a immediet problem then the president should not need congressional approval, but if there is time then the president need approval from congress
@B6NTGXV4wks4W
If a designated terrorist organization strikes first, the president should be allowed to authorize the military
@B6JPWFQ1mo1MO
Yes for targeted, short-term strikes, but any prolonged military action should require Congressional approval to ensure proper oversight and accountability.
@B6C7JBY2mos2MO
No, intervention in the Middle East and continued support of Israel only fuels anti-American sentiments.
@B63WKDT2mos2MO
It all depends on the specific circumstances, but the President is the commander in chief of the armed services, so I think if the President lays out an actual stated goal that benefits America it's allowed.
@B62LWQ6Independent2mos2MO
Yes, but only if there is undeniable evidence that they will commit a terrorist attack within 30 days
@B5ZXG523mos3MO
Yes, if it is an immediate response but if it is not a quick action then it should get congressional approval
Yes but there needs to be limits to that power. That can lead to unchecked power for the president, which is not good.
@B5DVXB3Independent 4mos4MO
The president should follow the constitution. May send troops, but Senate must approve within a time frame or the troops come back.
@B5BYYNS5mos5MO
Yes, but only if the President works with the government of the country they would send the military to.
@B52V4RT5mos5MO
generally I think Congress should have to approve but if it is an emergency and urgent then I think there are exceptions
@B4X5ZHG5mos5MO
They should confer with Congress, but be granted to override the congress vote at least once when dealing with terrorism groups.
No, no single person, including the president of the United States, should authorize military force ever.
Yes, we need the ability to act swiftly in these situations but there should also be some oversight.
@B484NZC6mos6MO
yes mobilisation and deployment needs to be able to happen quickly but congress must be made aware of any actions and have some power to cancel the action
@B44JJ9Z6mos6MO
If we are attacked, the president should have authority, but if we are not, then congress must authorize any act of aggression.
@B3SK7HF7mos7MO
the president is able to do that yes, but he can't do it for a long time without congresses approval
@B3S6YDH7mos7MO
Yes, but only in dire situations, and congress should have a system to override this if they deem the president's actions non-beneficial to the country.
@B3H3XVG7mos7MO
No, but instead of congressional approval he should ge approval from the highest ranking military officials.
@B3GXP6Z7mos7MO
Depends. If it's a must-need, then sure, but hopefully,y every declaration of war should be thought through.
@B36RFGT7mos7MO
If the force is required the president can call the congress to the capital. Also Congress passed an act allowing the President all power and military rights against Al-Qaeda.
@B3538T37mos7MO
All congress members are lobbied by AIPAC and the DeepState so even if the president sent it to congress they would vote however best helps the lobbying groups
@B2WJYCMIndependent7mos7MO
Yes, in important instances where time is of the essence and secrecy is important and vital, the President can move forward in an attack as long as it does not break any international rules.
@B2QTJTH8mos8MO
I believe that Congress should approve millitary force in most cases, but the president has access to certain details about our international affairs that the rest of the government may not. Due to this, the president should have the ability to authorize military force without congressional approval only in the times when it is most pressing and necessary.
@B2NRDX48mos8MO
Yes, but only for a few days or only a few soldiers. They can't deploy the whole military without congressional approval because then they are just circumventing the government.
@B2L9RKT8mos8MO
Yes, with the aide of a special committee in Congress advising and ultimately being the ones signing off on the presidents actions.
@B2L8R5Y8mos8MO
I believe in emergency situations yes, but only if it directly impacts the United States or it's military. If not, they should have to go through congress.
@B2KW5BL8mos8MO
If it's an actual war, then no, Congress needs to give the go ahead. But quick military engagements like special ops I think is fine if done only by the President. We should look to the Constitution and history to get our answer.
If we feel this is ag ret threat about to happen, then the president can act but other than that, congressional approval
@B2J3ZS5Independent8mos8MO
No, even congress is incapable of making that decision as they are all far too old and senile to be in office in the first place. In reality we should clean house and get fresher younger minds to provide a better outlook to the future of our country
@B243GHH9mos9MO
If It Becomes Necessary Then Yes If This Isn't An ongoing thing than why waste the time and materials
@9ZRWQVH10mos10MO
Congress should approve most military conflicts, but the president has a responsibility to act if he or she has it on good authority that congress is acting on their own interest, rather than an interest to the people.
@9ZRTSRF10mos10MO
Depends on the type of military action, most are no, but a few specific situations (like getting Bin Laden) are warranted
@9ZP49MW10mos10MO
when it is most needed the president shoullb be allowed to make a decsion on his own with good judgment
@9ZLD5DC10mos10MO
Only in the face of absolute emergency should the president make a Congressional decision without congress, and presidents who ignore Congress' rulings elsewise should be punished
@9ZKZJN210mos10MO
No, it is a very important issue but Congress needs to deem in necessary for all military conflicts.
@9ZFFPS910mos10MO
No this goes against the constitution, the president can follow their allowed amount of days of deployment but that is it.
@9Z9R4P911mos11MO
Yes, but only if there is a concern that requires immediate military action that would pose a threat to the country if delayed by congressional processes.
@9Z95NYH11mos11MO
No, unless we have to because all wars are evil and we shouldnt attack until theres no other options.
@9YK3KPN11mos11MO
Yes, but there should be limitations. I believe that Congress should still have to have a vote on the president's decision, but that it should be a top priority.
@9YJMH5L11mos11MO
The president must need approval for most military enforcement and deployments, but when America's very way of living is threatened in the moment, then it should not be necessary
@9YH3ZZJ11mos11MO
He can use military to attack but after 1 month of attack Congress needs to approve or there must be a withdrawal.
@9YFY9FG11mos11MO
Politics get in the way of everything military. Cut politics out, and things become more straightforward.
@9YDJLRM11mos11MO
No, Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations should be treated like nation-states and given the same consideration as opponents.
@9YBY29K11mos11MO
Swift military action may be required, but congress must also be notified within a reasonable time frame.
@9YBJNWG11mos11MO
Yes, I do believe that the President should be able to authorize military force against Al-Qaeda without Congressional approval, however, I do think that the President should ask Congress either way, just for advice.
@9Y37T98Independent11mos11MO
Yes, but only in circumstances that involve immediate danger and with a transparent debrief system after each course of action is taken.
@9Y27G5P11mos11MO
No, but there must exist an emergency voting process the president can invoke if the decision is time sensitive
@9XW755D11mos11MO
The President already can. After the term of Executive power, then Congress should retain the power.
@9XTP3FY11mos11MO
Yes but there should be certain criteria that has to be met to enforce actions without Congress approval.
@9XQCDRM11mos11MO
Yes, because it shouldn't be up to congress, when most of them are morons that happened to get voted in by bigger morons. That doesn't make them qualified at all to make those decisions. There should be a committee of qualified individuals to decide, collectively
@9XJM7Q8Libertarian11mos11MO
Yes, but you still have to use common sense. Some presidents have trigger finger with drone strikes.
@9XJLB5R11mos11MO
I think there needs to be three other people the president can quickly ask, if two say yes and one says no then no, but if the country is in immediate danger then I think it is fine.
@9XJKKZM11mos11MO
I believe that in situations such as a terrorist attack, the president should be allowed but congress should have to approve other situations
@9XHVMKG11mos11MO
No, Al-Qaeda was openly funded and developed by the CIA, we should not be randomly killing them after creating them. They also don't interfere with American lives, their third world nation is not our problem.
@9XGXV4T11mos11MO
Depends on the severity of the situation where wasting time could become problematic. However, if this is not the case and the President authorized military force without permission, then the President should be punished.
@9XDL7DW11mos11MO
If they become aware of a potential threat they should be able to get some "boots on the ground" but not in an aggressive way that our enemies could use against us, but rather as a deterring presence that could be activated if needed.
@9X8Q3QD11mos11MO
I feel as through we shouldn't get too heavily involved in the Israel-Hamas situation, the most we should do is help refugees and provide supplies. if we bring our own soldiers into war and they get shot/killed, then we'll start WW3.
@9X4GYS511mos11MO
We literally have 3 branches of the government so they all have to agree. Presidents going rogue is exactly what america is supposed to prevent.
@9WRRW4L11mos11MO
Yes, but the president should be monitored by a third party to ensure the military is only used against Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
@9WPSGKH11mos11MO
No, but if they or any other enemy are a true threat to America, then the president should be allowed to authorize military force without Congressional approval
@9WPKBCL11mos11MO
no because that's the base of the country checks and balances if they were to do that the entire economical system could come to a downfall
@9WK2928Independent11mos11MO
I think it's important for the president and Congress to work together on important issues--war is a very important issue that impacts a lot of people.
@9WGZZJJRepublican11mos11MO
Because I feel like whoever is in the Presidental spot should have some sense of common sense enough to make a smart decision for the nation..
@9W9SR4811mos11MO
You need a counter-balance. I do not know if that is congress considering they cannot seem to be bi-partisian.
@9W93X7LRepublican11mos11MO
if someones poses a direct threat to the U.S. then I think anyone with the power to act should get involved
@9W76PP611mos11MO
I think it should be a collective agreement instead of just one person. But, again, I'm not too well-educated on this topic.
@9W679BT11mos11MO
The president should be able to make small military decisions without congressional approval if it for the betterment of either the U.S. or the nation in which conflict is happening in
@9W5ZVDD11mos11MO
While I do not support Al-Qaeda, I also believe that the system of checks and balances is important to maintain. Allowing the president the sole power in this area may set a dangerous precedent for future situations. For this reason, I believe Congress should have to approve military conflicts.
@9W387LW11mos11MO
While there should 100% be protection from terrorism and such, information regarding it should also be taken into consideration. What do we know about the terrorists? Do they have a pattern? Do they know they're suspected? Do we know if they have a backup plan or are we PREPARED for any plausible situation escalation.
@9VXY2KJ11mos11MO
I believe that the congress should have a say in every decision that involves major military actions, but I also believe that the president must make quick decisions and can not wait on congress to vote. The president should be held to his decisions and whatever consequences that result from his actions.
@9VTYJD712mos12MO
It depends on whether the president is mentally capable of making those decisions or if the situation is a pressing matter
@9VTTYZQ12mos12MO
Only If it is to completely wipe out the enemy, and re-establish their country with a better form of government.
@9VTQFPC12mos12MO
Depending on the situation the president if it gets to the point its putting America in extreme danger it should be up to the president but if its not really a danger it should have congressional approval.
@9VTB54212mos12MO
No, but the authority should be moved to a smaller group than congress who can make the decision sooner.
@9VQ9CPQ12mos12MO
Yes, but the president must have certain requirements to be able to authorize military force without Congressional approval, such as past military service records.
@Raven_Moon12mos12MO
while Al-Qaeda is a huge problem we should get congressional approval as well making sure everyone is on the same page
@9VNG9V812mos12MO
Yes, but it should be limited to our allies or enemies. If an ally is under attack by an enemy, we can quickly respond. If an enemy is being attacked by an ally, we can still quickly respond and help.
@9VKPXD512mos12MO
The president should at least consult with congress and hear out their stance on any such measures, he must take into account their desired approach and then decide for himself the outcome.
@9V8Z4XL12mos12MO
If a mobilization of a MEU or global response force of Airborne troops in the event of a terrorist attack or strike against U.S. people or assets.
@9V8MGSZ12mos12MO
If a president can override the voices of the many at will; then that is a dictatorship, not a democracy. So no.
@9V8L97412mos12MO
Depends on what president in office. Not all presidents have the ability to make those kind of calls.
@9V84NNSRepublican12mos12MO
if the threat is against the usa personally then yes but if its not against us then we should focus on our own country
@9V65H8V12mos12MO
This government is a joke..how many are in the pocket of Al Queda...I think there should be a panel for our protection but let's clean house and start with new representatives that actually give a rats *** about the US and its people
@9V47DZG12mos12MO
Yes in extreme situations that require an immediate decision, but for most situations, especially those that are less time-sensitive, the approval of congress should be required
@9TXF6QFPeace and Freedom12mos12MO
There should be checks and balances amongst high ranking military personnel along with congressional oversight
@9TVFD2G1yr1Y
If a terrorist organization has committed a terrorist act against the United States, then the President should be able to authorize military action.
@9TSTQBPIndependent1yr1Y
I think the president should not be allowed but the Congress could also prevent the president from protecting our country.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
