National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 is a law of the United States of America for the financing of the U.S. armed forces. In addition to this, however, other provisions are included which met with civil rights activists in the U.S. to criticism and have experienced a negative media coverage in Europe.

First U.S. President Barack Obama announced a veto against the law. But when his desire to improve the original formulation was granted concerning the legal status of the American population, he explained, to waive its veto, but said at the signing on 31 December 2011 by a signing statements also that he only of opportunities provided him will use restrictive. Swiss TV formulated the facts on its website but drastic: President Obama had been forced by his opponents to sign a law, what he actually had to refuse.

Section 1021 of the Act authorizes the U.S. armed forces and ultimately the president as the commander in chief to let detain American citizens and foreign nationals on suspicion out. There is no time limit and no examination by a ( civilian ) court provided, however, Congress must be informed on a regular basis in accordance with section 1021 ( f) REQUIREMENT FOR BRIEFINGS OF CONGRESS. Nevertheless, so that the executive will transfer a fundamental function of the judiciary and thus the principle of separation of powers is weakened. Whether the Supreme Court of the United States will classify this one as a violation of the fourth and fifth Amendment to the Constitution, can not be predicted. Because the Supreme Court is not an abstract judicial review is possible, the examination of the legislation can only take place in the context of a concrete dispute.

The American Civil Liberties Union criticized the fact that any additional protection against unjustified detention can be significantly reduced, because it fixes the privileges of the President of the AUMF - law passed within a week after the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001. Critics see the danger that with the law, the (excessive ) power of the executive will continue to consolidate and amplified while it did not extend beyond the defender 's view, beyond the previously allowed and what is compatible with the rights of prisoners of war (jus in bello ).