Your kind reply to my concerns about NDAA 2012 made several points underscoring the fact that this legislation "provides no new authority to detain U.S. citizens without trial" and mentions other steps which are being taken to ensure American rights. Certainly the intent seems sincere.

Nevertheless what concerns thinking Americans is well stated in the closing paragraphs of an International Business Times article posted this date at their web site. The piece addresses both NDAA and SOPA:

"The question, in short, everyone is asking is if these proposed laws come into effect, who decides on the parameters? What constitutes piracy? What constitutes terrorism? What constituted support of terrorism? The problem is that both proposed laws provide lawmakers and authorities with unhealthy amounts of power to make those decisions, potentially leaving American citizens at the mercy of military authorities. Does 'anti-government' also mean 'anti-American'? If so, then there are tough times ahead for America and Americans."

We all know that attorneys argue points of law for livelihood and that Republicans and Democrats argue points of new legislation for political advantage, nonetheless legislation typically is interpreted by the judiciary apart from military law. Both NDAA and SOPA contain enough ambiguity to validate and underscore all of the IBT concerns expressed above---and more.

And consider who might make the basic determinations. I have seen Julian Assange called a terrorist by influential commentators on national TV while others consider him an accomplished journalist once performing great service to this nation. Undoubtedly the Nixon administration tragically would have considered national treasure Daniel Ellsberg a terrorist.

Many of us believe that the written Constitution, the Posse Comitatus Act, and pre-9/11 case law would continue to be entirely adequate without NDAA and SOPA. Our nation has already lost too much liberty in the so-called 'war on terrorism'.

Outside government circles the language of the law seems sorely lacking. The ACLU and Amnesty International both have expressed grave concerns---and these are organizations that freedom-loving legislators should always hear. In any case we need fewer military mindsets inside government and probably we need fewer laws --- not more.