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.
Show more types:
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Political party:
@4Y7KR3B4yrs4Y
Only during a immenent threat.
@8R2RMP34yrs4Y
Yes, but the President must inform Congress and all cabinet members prior to authorization.
@8R2RMP34yrs4Y
Yes, but require the President to notify Congress prior to military authorization.
@8R2RMP34yrs4Y
Yes, but Congressional approval should be required to maintain military presence.
@92MDVFR3yrs3Y
This question is too vague.
@85Q8YH74yrs4Y
Yes, but only if the country is in immediate danger. Ideally actions meeting specific criteria have been approved by the congress in advance.
@8D5J4RR4yrs4Y
As long as it is a strike and not a full blown war
@8GL4FPQ4yrs4Y
Yes, the President should be able to authorize any military force without congressional approval
@8R6BDQ64yrs4Y
Yes, but the President will require Congressional approval for moving troops into new countries.
@8Z4TXWG3yrs3Y
The president should have to have congress made aware of any plans before they become a reality and are announced to the public but be able to pass them if congress doesn't respond in a certain time frame.
Join in on more popular conversations.
