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
@8PW6YFS5yrs5Y
Yes, only for extreme emergencies
@8GR99WN5yrs5Y
No, the president should not have that much power.
@B6RS65MWomen’s Equality3wks3W
it depends on the situation like if there is a real threat than yes but just using scar tactics than the congressmen and women should grant approval for military force
@B5PFF72Republican4mos4MO
Only in emergency situations where congressional approval would take too much time. All actions must then be approved by congress to continue.
@B4RKYWV5mos5MO
I think in cases of personal attacks or attacks of innocent civilians should be incentive to act without congressional approval. When it is happening within the country I feel the best we can do is keep people safe and advise them on a strategy to take care of the personal problems of their own country.
@B4MDW435mos5MO
No, Because we are all human with emotion so for the president to make a move on his own especially because it would effect our home and that is not good.
@B3TSRMF6mos6MO
I'm on the fence, because without consulting others the president would take faster action, but might not make the best decision
@B3G4HJT7mos7MO
I believe that terrorist groups should be completely exterminated, but not with sacrifices, the government should have a meeting with other countries and all of them just make so that terrorist groups are completely exterminated by any means.
@B37WJNF7mos7MO
The President is allowed to ensure the national security of the United States is ensured, however it cannot stretch longer then the already enshrined period of 30 days, after that congress must be involved for further deployments & actions.
@B2TZCSTIndependent8mos8MO
Only for cases where there is an immediate imminent threat or if leadership of the organization has been located
@B2B8HMZPeace and Freedom9mos9MO
I think it really depends on the situation if the plan to attack then we can just attack first so that we can just get them out the way
@B27KX4N9mos9MO
Yes, but only if America is under direct threat from a terrorist group. Otherwise congressional approval should be obtained.
@9ZZZGNP10mos10MO
Yes, the President should be able to authorize some military action, but extreme military action should be left to Congress.
@9ZLWYJZ10mos10MO
No, Congress should approve all military conflicts because one slip up could lead to mass destruction or war.
@9X5YF6V11mos11MO
Yes. Congressional approval is necessary when declaring war, but Al-Qaeda and most other terrorist organizations are not sovereign countries, and as such cannot truly be the target of such a declaration. However, loopholes should be closed for the president to take military action against other nations without a declaration of war.
@9X37DQN11mos11MO
I want there to be multiple people agreeing if it would happen but also WHO is agreeing on it, can we trust them?
@9WVKTQ4Libertarian11mos11MO
Yes, however only for smaller surgical style strike that require a quick response. All large scale military operations should go through Congress.
@9WT7ZT4Republican11mos11MO
If there was a direct demand for action but after a certain amount of time Congress should get involved.
@9W8ZZB8Independent11mos11MO
Only under certain circumstances if national security is at risk and there is no time to get approval
@9W4LDCNIndependent11mos11MO
Yes- Only if the citizens are being attacked on American soil . Much like today’s attacks on Americans in sanctuary cities. And gang activity caused by illegal aliens.
@9VX56C511mos11MO
Mike Murphy should have been able to make that discussion. Our informed military are the right people to give that power to.
@9VGRF6VIndependent12mos12MO
if the US is involved with a war or emergency then the president should be able to authorize without approval but otherwise no.
@9VC8TRZIndependent12mos12MO
If our country is in emergency already he should have the right to deal with the conflict quick. If the US is not in any war time or emergency the President shouldn't have that power.
@9TVMN6J1yr1Y
I don't think a president should be able to start a war, but for example with Osama bin laden I think it would be fair to allow troops in since congressional hearings take so long. a court case should be healed after to inssure that the urgancy was valid.
@9TPXQ9C1yr1Y
Only in the immediate aftermath of an offensive attack against the U.S. so that the President is not encumbered with trying to get Congress to agree before they can act. Once a reasonable defense has been established, all further decisions must be approved by Congress.
@9TMJRQJ1yr1Y
The president should be able to authorize military conflicts without Congressional approval to some extent/under certain circumstances.
@9TJFTMV1yr1Y
I think the President should be allowed to authorize military force, but it shouldn't be overused and shouldn't be used if it isn't that large of a threat.
yes and no because if the attack is current enough and they need to act imedietly people cannot wait for the government to aprove it
@9TBJT2GLibertarian1yr1Y
Yes, for emergencies, but requiring Congressional oversight within 60 days as mandated by the War Powers Act.
@9TB9XCR1yr1Y
no because if such a violent attack was posed against the United States the Congress could approve it within a short period of time such examples being December 8th 1941
@9T47CLS1yr1Y
Yes - though it’s a nuanced issue, definite loss of American civilian lives trumps possible misuse of military power by a president.
@9SYRFBT1yr1Y
Yes, but should get congress approval before going into military conflicts for advice and standpoints.
@9SSBS5M1yr1Y
In the case of danger to Americans, yes, but then it needs Congressional approval for longer conflicts
@9RTPJJM1yr1Y
Yes, but only if the foreign state where the strike would take place is coordinated with (ideally) or at least unharmed and the pro vastly outweigh the cons.
@9RS824K1yr1Y
Any large scale deployment of troops composing a division or more should require congressional approval, smaller scale interventions, especially covert ones should remain an executive matter
@9RR8WF6Independent1yr1Y
Yes, as needed in urgent circumstances for a limited time period, after which Congressional approval to continue should be required.
@9RR76C21yr1Y
The president should have the ability to quickly respond to threats but must be able to justify those threats to congress within a specific time frame, especially if it involves the use of US military.
@9RNT6Q71yr1Y
Current law allows for protective action including FAST and other actions. Those are more than enough but need more oversite after the fact.
@9RGLG6N1yr1Y
I believe a President should be able to authorize immediate military force against any terrorist organization IN RESPONSE TO A RECENT ATTACK, but should otherwise require authorization by Congress.
@9RFMT4Y1yr1Y
Congress should authorize force against named known bad actors. This is different than declaration of war against a sovereign nation.
@9QQVGLV1yr1Y
Yes, in situations where there’s imminent danger. But there should be limits on the types, amounts, and duration of force that can be ordered without congressional authorization.
No, the President should focus more on eliminating the systemic issues that led to Al-Qaeda, which America is largely responsible for
@9PDRTXZ1yr1Y
No, stop meddling in other countries and offer economic assistance to prevent conditions that contribute to membership in terrorist organizations.
@9NW3ZYS1yr1Y
I believe that this is situational, and I agree that Congress approval could take too long, but full power to the president is also unfavorable. Maybe if there were a few designated people to approve rather than all of congress that would be better.
@9N6ZRYNRepublican1yr1Y
I think it is a good idea for most presidents, but sometimes for some presidents, they should not be able to.
@9N5WBYD1yr1Y
Yes in extraordinary instances like after terrorist attacks, however on the whole military conflicts should require congressional approval
@9M9NLWSRepublican1yr1Y
It really depends on the president or officials of congress at the time for something like this to be a actual question
@9M8VNHW1yr1Y
we should need congressional approval but we should do everything we can do stop another terrorist attack
@9LV96Y81yr1Y
They should be able to authorize some military force, but full-scale military force should require congressional approval
@9LQ8L4M1yr1Y
In certian instances the President has to make a quick decision about what to do and cannot wait for congresses approval.
No, if the president authorizes military force, then there should be a group that also has to authorize use of military.
No, Congress should vote on military conflicts unless there is an urgent, verifiable, immediate threat on our homeland then the President can authorize a military response in self-defense. Stick with our Constitution on this!
@9L29N6V2yrs2Y
No, However in case of emergencies the president should be able to act in what better keeps the country safe. But it seems more logical to have more voices and opinions on where and what are military is doing in "war like" situations.
@9KVF4HF2yrs2Y
It depends on the severity of the offense against the United States or if it is a preventative measure.
@9KTFYFL2yrs2Y
they should have a meeting and talk it out, weigh the pros and cons because you dont want to make rash decisions
@9K9DDYCRepublican2yrs2Y
No, but Congress should have a set amount of time to meet and decide on the issue before the power goes to either another branch or the President
@9JSM76M2yrs2Y
It depends on the severity, if it was a deliberate attack then yes. But if they didn't do anything then no
@9JRFY7WRepublican2yrs2Y
Yes but only in very extreme situations with extremely thought out and specific guidelines about what falls under the category of "extreme situations"
@9JPNYPP2yrs2Y
If it is a time-sensitive matter that can be handled quickly and discretely to immensely reduce the danger, then yes
@9JNZQRQ2yrs2Y
I think it is too broad of a statement. Unless there is very strong or undeniable proof of a potential attack, it should be left to both congress and the President on an expedited process.
@9JK7FRR2yrs2Y
The president should only have the ability to order military strikes in either direct retaliation or pre-emptively preventing unnecessary death.
@9JDPQGT2yrs2Y
Depending on the extremities, the President's choice could ultimately be the benefactor or destroyer to that President's country based upon the circumstances.
@9J8CKD32yrs2Y
It should go through congress unless there is clear proof of an attack happening and a dire need to protect ourselves. If it comes to that the president should act or at least have another system of votes or approvals if congress has no common sense to protect their own citizen that way some other group can help with those decisions such as the public.
@9HRRYDN2yrs2Y
Yes, but only within U.S. borders. Military conflict outside U.S. borders must be approved by Congress.
@9HNBBZ62yrs2Y
The Senate has to approve war declarations, but the President can already take unilateral action for imminent threats.
@9HJXJ9L2yrs2Y
hard to say without all the facts, but if the military lays out all the facts and requires action taken in a time sensitive manner. I might approve if congress is as corrupt as ever.
@9H53TJXLibertarian2yrs2Y
The president is able to mobilize troops without congressional approval for up to 60 days under the constitution. After those 60 days continued action must come under congressional mandate.
@9H4XJZXLibertarian2yrs2Y
Keep the framework of the War Powers Act with the President able to defend against short term threats, but require Congressional approval for long term conflicts.
@9H44T3W 2yrs2Y
no but congress should have a short time limit (such as 3 days) for voting to go with or against what the president chooses to do and only if the president has undeniable evidence for why they are using military force and it will be a majority vote whether everyone in congress votes or not.
@9GVLJMXConstitution2yrs2Y
Only in certain situations like a public announcement against the U.S. or right after a terrorist attack.
@9GF7M752yrs2Y
I believe in a state of emergency where it is clear that if the process were to go through Congress it would take too long, however it should be a partnership between the President and Congress
well he is able to do that already he just has to give a progress report kinda thing to congress after like a week.
@9GBGFR3Independent2yrs2Y
In this case, no. We shouldn't rush into something without considering the long term consequences of how this could affect us. However, past a certain point, action should be taken.
@9FZN52R2yrs2Y
Yes, if the president is of a sound mind that can place the many puzzle pieces and form an educated and rational decision
@9FWM5QS2yrs2Y
As long as we leave them alone their won't be another terrorist attack. If there is then yes I would say use military force. The United States doesn't need to be the world police.
@9FBPW9Z2yrs2Y
Yes but no they should look over because they can accuse “people that look like them”
@9F83NS42yrs2Y
It depends on the circumstance but they should have to get approval from a board of people
@9DB3BTZ2yrs2Y
Kind of. The president is expected to act decisively, but I think they should only be able to authorize military force without oversight if there is an immediate threat within the US or a nato member country.
@9D94JVC2yrs2Y
The president should not authorize military force without the vote of the people. And those that vote yes are immediately conscripted no matter the health conditions except for age , whether or not the vote passes through or no.
@9D4FJDN2yrs2Y
I think that Congressional approval is necessary in some senses, especially because it could raise more social and political conflict with other countries. I don't think that Congress has to approve all of military conflicts but rather the ones who pose a threat to our country or our military in any way.
@9BP7TPL2yrs2Y
Unless there is an imminent threat that needs immediate action, all military conflicts should be approved by Congress and put to a vote by the people, especially active service members.
@9BNKKSZ2yrs2Y
@96V7GCQ3yrs3Y
Not with the president that we have right now.
@96KDTYX3yrs3Y
Yes, but only under necessary circumstances
@96H9KM93yrs3Y
We shouldn't need permission to wage a war on terror, we should however have permission if it involves a heavily populated area.
@96GXKYS3yrs3Y
No, some additional body should approve any major military action
@96GN8VDRepublican3yrs3Y
This situation is a bad scenario becuase thepresident coud have bad intentions, but theres also been times where it was needed and congress wouldnt aprove
@96BQDJP3yrs3Y
No, but there should be a Congressional fast track.
@968YZ6P3yrs3Y
they should not be able too.
@968HQ47Republican3yrs3Y
it depends on whos in office and if their will to help the country
@962SKDF3yrs3Y
No, and the US military should be abolished
@9622QQBIndependent3yrs3Y
Yes but congress has the true power and can over rule the president
@95YC6G73yrs3Y
I think it should be someone whos in the actual fight like a general or an admiral
@95STG6S3yrs3Y
only if they have undeniable proof of terrorism by that person
@95PXQ4C3yrs3Y
It hunk it depends on the circumstances but I’m most scenarios I think that all military conflicts should be approved by congress
@95M39BJ3yrs3Y
Not all military force but enough for certain decisions, and for larger mobilizations let’s not make it slow
@95HRJXJ3yrs3Y
again, attacking al-qaeda would set off more terrorist group thus setting off more and more
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
