Talk:Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Hood College/PSCI 305: American Foreign Policy (Spring 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.

Untitled[edit]

I would suggest changing the sentence, " A federal law that "prohibits military personnel from enforcing the law within the United States" is an inadequate policy for addressing the Global War on Terrorism" because it's more of an opinion rather than a fact, and opinions aren't supposed to be incorporated into the articles on Wikipedia. Gntroutman (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this article was well done for adding to the stub and could just use more explanation in the section regarding "The Necessity for Authorized Use of Military Forces within the United States". Perhaps expressing less opinion in that section and instead provide what effects "the federal law" that had been passed has resulted in. Pat.oleary18 (talk)

I think this article is well written. The added information is both relevant and organized. The only suggestion I can offer is to possibly add short summaries to the U.S. Military intervention timeline. Brkachursky (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was very well constructed. I liked the amount of information and how it covered all aspects of the topic, and I also thought the sources used in the article were good. The only thing I could suggest is perhaps expanding the 'effect on the judicial system' heading by adding more info on the two supreme court cases and more about the effects. Drewhartman15 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]