National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012

[3] In a signing statement, President Obama described the Act as addressing national security programs, Department of Defense health care costs, counter-terrorism within the United States and abroad, and military modernization.

[9] The Act contains controversial language allowing the indefinite military detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, including U.S. citizens arrested on American soil.

[12][13] The detention provisions of the Act have received critical attention from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, and media sources which are concerned about the scope of the President's authority.

[20] Further year-long work undertaken by the Senate Committee and contained in a report on counterfeit parts in the Department of Defense supply chain released on 12 May 2012 showed that counterfeit electronic parts of Chinese origin had been found in the Air Force's C-130J and C-27J cargo planes, in assemblies used in the Navy's SH-60B helicopter, and in the Navy's P-8A surveillance plane, among 1800 cases identified.

Lawful resident aliens may or may not be required to be detained by the Armed Forces, "on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States".

[26][27] During debate on the senate floor, Levin stated that "Administration officials reviewed the draft language for this provision and recommended additional changes.

[28] A Presidential Policy Directive entitled "Requirements of the National Defense Authorization Act"[29][30] regarding the procedures for implementing §1022 of the NDAA was issued on February 28, 2012, by the White House.

Judge Kathrine B. Forrest wrote in Hedges v. Obama: "That directive provides specific guidance as to the 'Scope of Procedures and Standard for Covered Persons Determinations.'

[40] After a Senate–House compromise text explicitly ruled out any limitation of the President's authorities, but also removed the requirement of military detention for terrorism suspects arrested in the United States, the White House issued a statement saying that it would not veto the bill.

[48] Internationally, the UK-based newspaper The Guardian has described the legislation as allowing indefinite detention "without trial [of] American terrorism suspects arrested on U.S. soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay;"[49] Al Jazeera has written that the Act "gives the U.S. military the option to detain U.S. citizens suspected of participating or aiding in terrorist activities without a trial, indefinitely".

[50] The official Russian international radio broadcasting service Voice of Russia has been highly critical of the legislation, writing that under its authority "the U.S. military will have the power to detain Americans suspected of involvement in terrorism without charge or trial and imprison them for an indefinite period of time"; it has furthermore written that "the most radical analysts are comparing the new law to the edicts of the 'Third Reich' or 'Muslim tyrannies'".

The states of Rhode Island and Michigan, the Colorado counties of Wade, El Paso, and Fremont, as well as the municipalities of Northampton, MA.

[54] The Bill of Rights Defense Committee has launched a national campaign to mobilize individuals at the grassroots level to pass local and state resolutions voicing opposition to the NDAA.

[55] Attorneys Carl J. Mayer and Bruce I. Afran filed a complaint January 13, 2012, in the Southern U.S. District Court in New York City on the behalf of Chris Hedges against Barack Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to challenge the legality of the Authorization for Use of Military Force as embedded in the latest version of the National Defense Authorization Act, signed by the president December 31.

[56] Lt. Col. Barry Wingard, a military attorney representing prisoners at Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp, noted that under the NDAA "an American citizen can be detained forever without trial, while the allegations against you go uncontested because you have no right to see them".

[57] On December 31, 2011, and after signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 into law, President Obama issued a statement on it addressing "certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of terrorism suspects".

Referring to the applicability of civilian versus military detention, the statement argued that "the only responsible way to combat the threat al-Qa'ida poses is to remain relentlessly practical, guided by the factual and legal complexities of each case and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each system.

[58] On February 22, 2012, the Administration represented by Jeh Charles Johnson, General Counsel of the U.S. Department of Defense defined the term "associated forces".

Under those principles, the term "substantially support" cannot give rise to any reasonable fear that it will be applied to the types of independent journalism or advocacy at issue here.

... the "substantial support" prong addresses actions like "plan[ning] to take up arms against the United States" on behalf of al-Qaeda and "facilitat[ing] the travel of unnamed others to do the same."

(Footnote at page 1 in[64]Mother Jones wrote that the Act "is the first concrete gesture Congress has made towards turning the homeland into the battlefield", arguing that "codifying indefinite detention on American soil is a very dangerous step".

The magazine has nevertheless contested claims by The Guardian and the New York Times that the Act "allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on U.S. soil who could then be shipped to Guantánamo Bay", writing that "they're simply wrong ...

[65] Legal commentator Joanne Mariner has noted in Verdict that the scope of existing detention power under the AUMF is "subject to vociferous debate and continuing litigation".

[66] In the years that followed the September 11 attacks, the AUMF was interpreted to allow the indefinite detention of both citizens and non-citizens arrested far from any traditional battlefield, including in the United States.

[67][68] The American Civil Liberties Union has stated that "While President Obama issued a signing statement saying he had 'serious reservations' about the provisions, the statement only applies to how his administration would use the authorities granted by the NDAA", and, despite claims to the contrary, "The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision ... [without] temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield".

The Feinstein-Lee Amendment that would have explicitly barred the military from holding American citizens and permanent residents in indefinite detention without trial as terrorism suspects was dropped on December 18, 2012, during the merging of the House and Senate versions of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act.

[71][72][73] A lawsuit was filed January 13, 2012, against the Obama Administration and Members of the U.S. Congress by a group including former New York Times reporter Christopher Hedges challenging the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.

[60] In May 2012, a federal court in New York issued a preliminary injunction which temporarily blocked the indefinite detention powers of NDAA Section 1021(b)(2) on the grounds of unconstitutionality.

[75] The following day arguments from both sides were heard by U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest during a hearing to determine whether to make her preliminary injunction permanent or not.

[92][93][94][95] Officials within the Iranian government have threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, an important passageway for Middle East oil exports, should the United States press forward with the new sanctions as planned.