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
@9DC3244Republican2yrs2Y
The president has control over the military but should be watched over by congress so that president cannot become power hungry
While it's true that checks and balances are vital to prevent absolute power, there are situations that require rapid response where the usual congressional approval process can't keep pace. For instance, in the case of Osama Bin Laden's capture, swift action was needed, which wouldn't have been possible with a slow bureaucratic process. What do you think could be a middle ground solution to ensure checks and balances, yet also facilitate quick decision making when necessary?
@9WBXHW811mos11MO
No, Congress should approve all military conflicts, and matters of national security should be prioritized and expedited
@8JMGP6B5yrs5Y
Yes, but only on a temporary basis.
@9TCXT4G1yr1Y
I think Congress should have a say, but sometimes, via the Necessary and Proper clause, it should be a case by case basis.
@9DPGJF42yrs2Y
No, congress should approve all military conflicts instead of a president who could possibly have dementia and forget the nuclear launch codes
@9BVD48RLibertarian2yrs2Y
Yes, but only if absolutely necessary, and congressional action should be taken after to determine if such an order was rational.
@8P9YFS35yrs5Y
@8DLMXT85yrs5Y
Depends on how dire the situation.
@B6N2XF64wks4W
Only in extreme cases where it is like a surprise attack or a terrorist attack that would potentially harm citizens.
@B6JDLD31mo1MO
We should collectively agree that attacking them would actually benefit us, not just attack on random
@B6JDKHL1mo1MO
Yes and no the president should be allowed to have more quicker acting power in such situations but giving such power could turn into a mass chaos if used incorrectly.
@B63DJKG2mos2MO
The military should only attack if they know for a fact that many people will get injured or killed, even without congressional approval.
@B5YQRG9Peace and Freedom3mos3MO
Yes, but only in case of emergency. If the Congress process would hinder our country and it's people to protect ourselves or allies, then immediate action should be necessary.
@B5GQTJV4mos4MO
No. Congress should be given a timely manner in which they should approve military conflicts to avoid the president overpowering (checks and balances)
@B576FNH5mos5MO
The president is already allowed to make time limited military operations without the approval of Congress and after that Congress can either vote or allow the president to continue or stop the president. I think that system can work fine if congress actually decides to end conflicts when they've been going on too long.
@B54RBLZ5mos5MO
If it the USMC, yes. As long as it is for brief amounts of time and not on a large scale operation. That is constitutional, but any other use would be unconstitutional.
I do believe we should do what it takes to prevent a terrorist attack, but why wouldn't Congress approve that? I think Congress should be in the loop especially when it comes to the military force
@B4ZM74VConstitution5mos5MO
Yes, but there needs to be a revision to the authorization where there must be evidence of terrorist acts against the U.S. or our allies before we can act. It shouldn't have to do with just Al-Qaeda, but any confirmed terrorist organization that is a known threat.
I think they should at least be a part of the conversation, I don't believe the President should be able to wake up one morning and decide he wants to go to War without those qualified and chosen being included in that decision.
@B4VRPSS5mos5MO
Yes, but there should be more rules to specify the use of that power rather than completely abolishing it
@B4TTL7W5mos5MO
yes given in states of emergancies we often dont have time to wait for congress, however more regulations should be implemented
@B4RYSWB5mos5MO
Yes, but only as a last resort, and then the president being rightfully judged if his actions of using it were necessary
Yes, but this must be passed as a law requiring specific qualifications & held under tight regulation for presidents to do so, to not throw checks and balances out of balance.
@B46NFVBWomen’s Equality6mos6MO
I think it should depend of the action and relationship with our country and the residing criminals country and what could happen from the outcome. I do believe military action should have taken place against him.
@B46B89R6mos6MO
I think that in some cases, Congress takes too long to act, and if it comes down to a split second decision to stop a terrorist attack, the president should have some law that allows them to act quicker. Unless of course, Congress can be faster.
@B423P4V6mos6MO
Yes, but with the 90 days that the president gets to declare any war without Congress approval and then he has to listen to Congress and their opinion
@B3CCFMZ7mos7MO
Yes, But only in case of extreme emergencies. for example, if there will be an imminent attack and quick action is required. after the threat is neutralized, power is given back to congress
@B34Y7KW7mos7MO
Congress should be approached as much as possible but if they are unable to meet than the president can decide.
@B2ZGNR47mos7MO
Yes, under emergency situations. For long-term engagement; the president should require congressional approval.
I feel like if people are in harm or danger from the group they can do something about it without asking congress but only if they are in immediate caution and need to defend themselves right then and there.
The Congress should have a part of it, but not fully. A healthy balance between who makes the decisions
@B24ZD629mos9MO
Unfortunately, he already has the power to do that through Executive Orders, and he is the Commander in Chief of the Military, so he can do those things.
@B24D5LP9mos9MO
It should be a decision made with utmost care and multiple people signing off on it if it needs to be done when there is no time to call congress together.
@9ZZ8NHR10mos10MO
Congress should know and lend an opinion but the president should be able to authorize force on his own.
@9ZWRSW810mos10MO
In some cases yes, because congress can be too slow, but other times the president could abuse this power and militarize whenever he wants. There needs to be a balance.
@9ZT8XB910mos10MO
I support the action in what he is already authorized to do. Marine corps yes, the rest of the military congress should approve.
@9ZSBJKXLibertarian10mos10MO
No, but the president should be able to activate an executive decision should the time ever come that the US. would need to fight back.
@9ZNFYMGIndependent10mos10MO
Military force should be able to move against terrorists quickly, but congress should still be able to swiftly "Veto" the president's mobilization order (or give it a go-head).
We must have multiple, strong leaders that can make a cohesive and correct decision. Not a politically ruled Congress, nor a biased president.
Depends, if it is a time crunch and the military is waiting on Congress to proceed then no, but if there is time, yes
@9ZDN6LW10mos10MO
The president is the commander in chief and has his military advisors. Those individuals should be responsible for making those decisions. Most of congress does not have a military background and are not the most qualified to be making those decisions.
Not if the president is Trump, I don’t trust that man with short-term decisions that have long-term consequences
@9XPYJRQ11mos11MO
Sometimes in an emergency, a single person needs to make the decision. In non emergencies, use the system
@9XP4FBY 11mos11MO
Yes, but only in emergency situations and this decision should need congress approval if it lasts longer than 30 days
@9XMX2LCRepublican11mos11MO
I think the president should be able to have that power, but I believe certain presidents could abuse it.
the president congress and senate should all be involved. no one person should make all the decisions
@9XL4ZHS11mos11MO
no, but having congress approve ALL military actions is a lengthy process and would be taking up to many resources. But I do believe the president should not be able to do any kind of military force against anyone without a type of 3rd party.
@9XJCSLQ11mos11MO
Any decision with major impact should have a collaboration. As much as I wish for zero terrorism and the will to prevent attacks, some individuals solo may make emotional irrational decisions and may create more turmoil.
@9XC9W2311mos11MO
Yes, but those choices should be reviewed by congress and if congress decides misdeed has occurred then a case study is released to the public.
@9X9KNV411mos11MO
I think it depends on the urgency. If there are attacks happening that directly affect the American people or a strong ally, then yes. Otherwise congress should be involved
Depends on time restrictions. Long term should have congressional approval. Decisions that need to be made short term should allow the president to bypass.
@9WXLR4M 11mos11MO
Yes, but only in cases of defense of the United States and her allies, or against active threats in the United States or her allies.
@9WNF24C11mos11MO
If Congress has already declared war on al-qaeda then the president should be able to authorize any force deemed necessary to stop the threat.
@9WKCTKL11mos11MO
1 person shouldn’t be able to authorize military force, but it also shouldn’t have to go through all of the bureaucratic nonsense that just wastes time, so congress also isn’t a good option
@9WHLWNR11mos11MO
I think its situational. If it happens to be an extremely urgent situation then congressional approval shouldn't be required but for anything else it should be.
@9W97ZYF11mos11MO
Yes, if there is clear evidence that they caused an attack, or if they were planning an attack against the USA.
@9W5R2VHConstitution11mos11MO
limited military strikes are able to be carried out in the best interest of america, but large scale conflict has to have congressional approval.
@9W4LW4PLibertarian11mos11MO
It depends on the situation and the urgency with which a response needs to be formed to prevent death.
@9VRN66F12mos12MO
If congress is made up of differing parties then yes. If it is the same party as the president then no.
@9VRKCB212mos12MO
only when it is a threat to US National Security on US soil and on US military bases overseas, but Congressional approval for offensive military strikes against Al-Qaeda
@9VPJRV512mos12MO
No, but congress should have a time limit restriction on their decision making before the president can act
@9VP29MR12mos12MO
Depends on the situation. There should be checks and balances within the government so that one part (i.e. President, Congress, The Branches, etc.) doesn't become too powerful.
@9VM6F9M12mos12MO
no, It needs to be the president with several others, so it isn't an abuse of power and so there is more logic involved
@9TY2N9Y12mos12MO
No we should all agree not one person should be able to go and order something people dont agree with.
@9TVHLZYIndependent1yr1Y
Yes, I agree with the current War Powers Resolution that requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with an additional 30-day with drawl period.
@9TMB8M41yr1Y
It depends, if its a small scale operation like taking out leadership, that’s completely different than a war
@9TG936JProgressive1yr1Y
In a case where the president has to act fast they should make a decision but it should be looked over with a time limit
@9TG4CWY1yr1Y
No, only when targeting known Terrorist leaders and cells who are a real threat to the United States
@9T2TBKB1yr1Y
Yes and no because if something were to happen in the U.S. the military is gonna have to go fight regardless and normal people have weapons but not ones as good as the military has.
@9SZ45QL1yr1Y
No. If the president was convincing enough to become the president, they should be able to convince those people, or to hear the other sides and opinions and rethink as a group.
@9SYZQQK1yr1Y
if it poses an immediate threat then the president should decide but if it is more long term congress should decide.
@9STCYZ81yr1Y
Yes, but only if a direct attack against the US, it's allies or Embassies, otherwise would need congressional approval.
@9SR87341yr1Y
I believe that that we need to act quick against terrorists, but I think that is too much power for the president. Maybe make it the Supreme Court and the president.
@9S6NXJT1yr1Y
I think it should be decided upon through congress and President either approves or denies it but us not the one who initiates it.
@9S3KRZD1yr1Y
Yes, but only if its in retaliation to undeniable evidence of a terroristic attack that has occurred against the country.
@9S3D2JQ1yr1Y
That depends on the situation If the country is in danger then we need to be protected but the American citizens need to keep our freedoms as well
@9RZ9WCC1yr1Y
Yes, in extreme cases with documented evidience to support need. Any president with the 45th president’s mentality, thirst for revenge, proving he is a ‘tough guy’ and sharing classified secretes to those without clearance, these elements are real and we Americans must now realize that not all elected presidents have the best interest of our country or the world at heart & mind! There should be a check system in place to prevent unreasonable use by a POTUS.
@9RMKNXQRepublican1yr1Y
The president can authorize force but only Congress can declare war. Giving the president to act against terrorist organizations and violence quickly is needed, but not if it is done in a way that declares war without approval or asking for approval after the fact.
@9RGF83HLibertarian1yr1Y
There should be a congressional committee that can advise the president so quick decisions can be made but with a level of checks and balances and thoughtful discussion.
@calvin_wright1821yr1Y
needs to be taken on a case by case basis. If it's an urgent problem, yes. if there are signs that an attack might be coming, consult Congress first.
@9R38V5G1yr1Y
I think it should be situational and have limits, but if an attack is imminent they should be able to act.
@9R33MYH1yr1Y
Yes, but after so many days, the President must ask Congress for an authorization to continue military force. Only Congress can declare and authorize war.
@9QYNZC91yr1Y
Yes, but only with limited power to respond. Congressional approval should be require for full assault.
@9QX6DZ9Libertarian1yr1Y
I don’t think congress needs to approve military response against Al quads or any other terroirs organization. I think the president should have a smaller team of military experts that he consults with for approval.
@LehiMello 1yr1Y
yes,we need to protect the innocent people but we also need to protect the innocent people of the countries our military will go to
@9NYVNVQIndependent1yr1Y
No, but congress needs to work together in a timely manner to actually serve the country appropriately.
@9NXW9RJ 1yr1Y
Use of military force against terrorism or any enemies without Congressional approval should be based upon the circumstances. If it is an invasion or an imminent threat, Congressional approval should not be necessary.
@9NN9DN61yr1Y
Yes, only if there is a threat to the country or our allies, and will take to long to go through those jokers in congress.
@9MJB82J1yr1Y
The president should be allowed to use military action for a certain amount of time before Congress steps in. I think that is already the law anyway. This is too broad of a question.
@9MBT73K1yr1Y
I think it is a situational thing. I think if the situation is immediate then yes he should be able to.
@9M9F7R91yr1Y
In certain circumstances yes, because you can't really on Congress to always do what's right, the 2 party system is garbage.
Yes and no, it should always depend on the situation that would need that approval and the Congress could provide an opinion input that could help the President decide on a plan that would work best.
@9M5KRJ3Independent1yr1Y
Yes, but more restrictions and clarifications on how and when the President is able to authorize military force
@9LT2D67Constitution1yr1Y
I think MOST of the time it should be cleared with the congress, however in times of emergency it should be a quick made decision without necessarily clearing with the congress
@9LJ32CN1yr1Y
I think they should all come to an agreement, and both parties should be aware of what decisions they wanna take
@9KYGJ5B2yrs2Y
The president should not be able to decide by themselves, but have an elected committee to help with these decisions.
@9KV55TT2yrs2Y
Sometimes. Congress should be given a time limit to approve or deny military action and if they do not respond within that time period, the president should be allowed to act.
@9KNWX98Independent2yrs2Y
Yes, but only in the case of defensive measures, we should not attack on the offensive unless approval of congress, but defensive measures are within the rights of the president.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
