Should the President be able to authorize military force against Al-Qaeda without Congressional approval?

Yes, but only if you can prove it

Only when faced with a clear and present danger and time does not reasonably allow for approval.

Yes, but only with support from his generals.

Yes, but only with support from the generals.

that's if only the president is allowed his 48 hours of war time for an a attack

if there is a good enough reason to engage in conflict then to begin the conflict sooner is to also end the conflict sooner.

No, terrorism is just an excuse for America to push Imperialistic agendas.

Yes, but only with guidance from his generals.

Military force use should require congressional approval, unless their is an immediate crisis that requires immediate action. This should be subject to review by a third party after the fact.

Yes to respond to prevent another attack but then get congressional approval to continue operations

Yes, but with limited ability to deploy certain military units

Yes, to respond to prevent another attack but then get congressional approval to continue operations

I think the president should only do it in a state of emergency like invasion forces detected going striate for the us or nukes or other type of missiles heads towards the us.

In bewteen

Yes, with the advice from the generals.

the war power act in 1973 allows the president of the u.s deploy the marine core without congress approval

Only during an imminent threat and only after going over it with the military.

congress should approve military conflict at the request of the people becuase you would not want a government making decisions on your behalf

hold my beer ill do it myself

I think it genuinely depends on what kind of situation we are in, if it something big that’s needs to be decided quick then no I don’t think the president should have to go through the congress

Congress was not elected to make military decisions. The president should keep the power and make decisions based on the situation If there is no time for a group discussion. Keeping us safe is most important

No, except in extreme circumstances where the U.S.'s national security is at risk. Also, congress must review all possible outcomes of his decision or plan.

In accordance with existing authority for short-term conflicts. No more Vietnam/Iraq/Afghanistan style conflicts that extend years and decades without congressional oversight.

Imagine if your actions had global consequences; would you prefer to make decisions alone or seek counsel?

Yes, but they will be held responsible if war crimes are committed.

How would you feel if a loved one was sent to a military conflict without your country's legislative body's approval?

What are the dangers in giving one person the power to decide when a nation goes to war?

Can quick response to emerging threats justify bypassing a system of checks and balances?

How do you think decisions about going to war should be balanced between urgency and democratic process?

In what ways could the power to authorize military force without oversight impact global perception of your country?

How might unchecked military decisions affect the lives of civilians in the targeted regions?

What concerns might you have if the definition of 'affiliated groups' to a known enemy became too broad?

Should the precedent of a past event determine how future conflicts are approached in terms of authorization?

How can a nation ensure that there is a balance between national security and preserving democratic principles?

Yes, but with support from the generals.

Yes, only when we need to make an urgent and quick decision before we might possibly suffer an attack.

Authorize, yes; order, no.

yes, but only for small group actions

i believe it should be a public vote on top of congress and the presidents opinion

End foreign wars

Yes, but only with support from the top generals.

The generals should make the decisions. What is best

No. Abolish foreign policy.

Yes, but only if neccessary.

Only when the threat is there

No, let the checks and balances work.

For defensive actions or responses, yes. Offensive or direct autonomous action should be approved by Congress.

Only in times for emergencies that are 100% necessary where the president must act quickly, but congress should still have the power in voting

yes, but only in extream situations and with the possiblility that there would be punshment afterwards

Yes, but only when there is substantial evidence of a terrorist attack plan against the United States or our allies. Emergency situations need immediate response and does not permit time for Congress to approve. Well-planned strategic attack should be approved by Congress.

only if it is a truly dangerous situation

Yes depending in the situation, the president is the commander in chief and he should be able to deploy the military but it should be limited to prevent unnecessary conflicts as well as congressional approval would be a better option to continue operations.

.

360 no scope Oga booga booga >:)

Yes depending in the situation, the president is the commander in chief and he should be able to deploy the military but it should be limited to prevent unnecessary conflicts; congressional approval would be a better option to continue operations.

.

No, but have a non-partisan committee that drops everything in order to push through authorization quickly and effectively

Yes, but only in times for emergencies that are 100% necessary where the president must act quickly, and Congress should still have the power in voting

Only if it’s really nessasary

Yes depending on the situation, but only for emergencies that are necessary or if the country is in immediate danger, then the President must act quickly. Congress must approve military entanglements and they must review all of the possible outcomes of his/her decision or plan.

Only during a immenent threat.

This is irrelevant. It no longer matters

If there is no other options

Yes, but only to prevent an imminent attack.

congress should approve it eventually

Yes, whatever the law requires now. I believe it is 90 days.

Yes, but only to defend ourselves

yes, but only in order to aid extraction of threatened US citizens or military persons

I think if we consider ourselves to be in a state of emergency then we could authorize military force.

Not unless an attack on America or American property

yes, but it depends on what the military force would be used for the power is separated equal for a reason

It depends on the situation. If if it is an immediate threat, then the President should have the right to act without Congressional approval. Any other time he or she needs approval from Congress.

Only in cases of imminent threat.

if I was to say yes it would mean we need are president to be as skilled as a general in the military.

Yes, under certain conditions

The President should not be able to authorize military force without Congressional approval, unless it is related to a terrorist attack

Yes, but the President must inform Congress and all cabinet members prior to authorization.

Yes, but require the President to notify Congress prior to military authorization.

Yes, but Congressional approval should be required to maintain military presence.

Yes, the president has control over the militia.

If the president thinks that there is a serious threat to our country, he should not have to wait for Congress approval

I support the War Powers Act of 1973

I say it doesn't really matter but I guess you can say the president can do so.

It is stated in the constitution that the president must notify Congress within 30 days anyway.

This question is too vague.

Depending on the situation, yes, but must have enough evidence before doing so.

In an emergency situation, like a terrorist attack, then yes.

Yes to prevent another terrorist attack but get Congressional approval within in a month

Yes, but the threat needing authorization of military force should be verified to be a potential terroristic threat

Yes, but not in a situation of war

Yes, if there is an immediate threat to the nation, otherwise no.

Yes, but only in dire or extreme cases that need immediate response.

Yes and no I feel like congress would approve anyway but we shouldn't allow the president to feel like because he can against them that he can do it wherever.

I don't a stance on this issue.

Only in certain situations, but for the most part he should have Congressional approval

yes and no it mainly depends on the provoked action and the severity of this action

Only in times of crisis, otherwise, he must have congressional approval

Yes but only if there is a direct threat to the United States, and only for a limited amount of time.

Only if there is a direct and immediate threat

Depends upon situation.

Yes, but only if they are actually a huge threat and are planning a terrorist attack.