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.
If we are unexpectedly under attack we shouldn`t be required to "ask" if its ok to fight back
I don’t know what that is.
@9T9TS9CTranshumanist2 days
Yes, so long as there is no time for a Congress meeting
If we are attacked, we should be allowed to defend immediately. Otherwise it should go through congress expeditiously.
@9T9PPD8Transhumanist2 days
no, Congress should think about the situation before ruling. unless in extreme casses
@9T9KN2GRepublican2 days
Yes and no, if an attack happens to us then it shouldn’t need to go through Congress
no violence is never the answer they should try and resolve it a civil way if that doesnt work than go ahead
Yes, only under the idea that we have probable cause to do so.
Depends on the president and there reasoning
conflicted, no one person should hold the power, but giving congress would most likely lead to waiting to long for a response.
Depends on the sitution, but more time then not congress should approve
When instances allow
Depends on what is going on with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. If something needs done right away then yes
Depends upon scope and duration. A one time security raid may be necessary, but long term actions without congressional approval is wrong
I think he should be allowed - but there needs to be accountability. If a president uses it incorrectly - then what are the consequences? Once upon a time didn’t we have a thing called checks and balances?
Yes, but only if he needs to act quickly in a situation, or if it is a no brainier to do so.
The president already has this power
Only if they pose a direct threat to our national security
Yes, if there not trump.
Yes, only if Congress takes too long
yes but only is they do something first.
Only id its an emergency.
Yes, but only for limited durations in response to an emergency situation.
If congress cannot come up with a solution fast enough the president should have leeway to apply military force
It honestly just depends on what is going on and what needs to happen.
It depends on the opportunities there are and if it is an urgent situation that cannot wait for Congress to vote.
If the evidence is overwhelming, then absolutely.
Yes but only for emergencies. If they have time to get approved by congress then they should do that instead.
i am not educated enough on this topic to make an answer
No, unless it is incredibly needed and isn't just for a dumb reason, like 'I choked on my food and I'm in danger!'
it depends on who our president is
No, nothing has happened in a while If something happens then yes
I have no idea what this means, even including the explanation so this is my answer.
Yes, but only for the first few weeks while congress sets up a vote.
Yes, as long as afterwards Congress can sign off that it was a good idea. If Congress rules no the President shall face the consequences.
Yes, but only with the impute from the military.
Yes, but the President should have to supply a strategy to Congress so they can review the rules of engagement
No, They should make a decision together
if we have enough proof to set everything up
Depending on the circumstances, then yes. Only under extreme and dire situations.
yes, but his plans should always be checked so we don´t have an abuse of power situation
yes, but there should be restrictions
Yes but I think only in an immediate threat.
I think within reason! If Congress is just disagreeing because they don’t like the president... that’s where things get hazy
Yes, but with restrictions against what they can do against terrorist groups without Congress' approval.
Maybe in an emergency, but it should truly only ever be an emergency situation, and the power to make such a decision should not be abused
im unaware of what this question means
In certain emergent situation that must be dealt with immediately.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
