Sample Solution

    I am persuaded by William E. Moschella's legal arguments in the letter that the President should be able to take this action. In his letter, Moschella argues that the President has inherent Constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief and granted statutory

I am persuaded by William E. Moschella's legal arguments in the letter that the President should be able to take this action. In his letter, Moschella argues that the President has inherent Constitutional authority as Commander-in-Chief and granted statutory powers under the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to use necessary and appropriate force against Al Qaeda organizations. Furthermore, he cites specific cases of prior presidential use of military force without congressional approval in order to support his argument that such actions are permissible and constitutional. The nature of Al Qaeda cuts for Presidential action, in my opinion. As a terrorist organization which is not bound by any international laws or treaties, Al Qaeda represents an imminent threat to national security and cannot be negotiated with through diplomatic channels. Therefore, it is necessary for the government to take proactive steps using all available means—including military force—to ensure public safety from attacks originating from Al Qaeda cells around the world. From a biblical standpoint, there may be some ethical quandaries involved with taking preemptive action against non-state actors (Exodus 20:13). However, given its aim of protecting citizens from unlawful threats and harm (Romans 13:1-7), I believe that this action is justified as long as it adheres strictly to just war principles such as proportionality and discrimination between combatants and noncombatants (Deuteronomy 20:10-14).