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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, with limitations and requirements.

No, incorporate a better communication system. No one should have that much power.

Yes, but only when there is an imminent danger that puts our national security at risk

Only if there's an imminent threat or if congress is dragging its feet.

In times or imminent threat of terrorism the President or congress should be able to act without the other groups support if they have solid evidence.

Yes, but only to defend ourselves

No, because even though we must use whatever ("LEGAL") means necessary to prevent another terrorist attack, Congress should approve all military conflicts.

Yes, with support from his generals.

Authorize, yes; order, no.

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

Congress already has the authority to regulate military force via war powers. The President should have the authority over our military to push for immediate action but only in defensive or retaliatory action, but the president shouldn't be allowed to simply start wars due to their own impulsive ideas.

Yes, but there should be an educated group of individuals that can offer guidance

No, and seek peaceful diplomacy instead of military force

yes, but only for small group actions

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

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

Yes, but only if you can prove it

Yes, but with support from the generals.

No, the President should not be able to authorize military force against AL-Qaeda without Congressional approval because they can't declare war/attack without consideration by the Congress which would make the President has more power than the Legislature branch.

Yes, but only with support from his generals.

This question is too vague.

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

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.

Yes, but only with support from the generals.

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

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

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

No, I think it's important for everyone to know and to make sure the President is being rational as long as Congress moves quickly.

No, the United States government uses terrorism as n excuse to push for Imperialism.

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

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

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

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.

The President should have the authority to act as needed in the present time ,but will have is actions reviewed accordingly by the respective authorities

Yes, but only when intelligence confirms that an imminent terrorist attack requires an emergency response

Yes, but only when intelligence confirms that an imminent terrorist attack requires an urgent emergency response

Yes, but only when intelligence confirms that an imminent terrorist attack requires an urgent emergency response.

Yes, but such authorization should only be utilized when intelligence confirms that an imminent terrorist attack requires an emergency response.

Yes, but such authorization should only be utilized when intelligence confirms that an imminent terrorist attack requires an immediate emergency response.