Your kind reply to my concerns about NDAA 2012 made several points underscoring the fact that this legislation "does not change current law with regard to U.S. citizen's rights". Certainly that appears to be the case.

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 IBT concerns expressed above

Also I wish to comment on several stated beliefs contained in your reply:

1. "I believe an act of terror against the United States is an act of war, and I believe those who commit such acts of terror should be treated as enemy combatants not as common criminals."

And who makes the basic determinations? I have seen Julian Assange called a terrorist by influential commentators on national TV yet many consider him an accomplished journalist of great service to this nation. And certainly the Nixon administration tragically would have considered national treasure Daniel Ellsberg a terrorist.

2. "When enemy combatants who wish to harm United States citizens are captured, the rights of these detainees are restricted to basic human rights. All detainees held by the United States are treated with dignity and respect, despite the heinous crimes they have been accused of committing against our nation."

I believe that State Department spokesman PJ Crowley resigned this year over the military's 'counterproductive and stupid' treatment of Bradley Manning—who incidentally not likely even intended harm for the US. And remember Abu Ghraib?

3. "I will continue to support a detention policy that protects the United States, as well as the rights of our law abiding citizens."

The written Constitution, the Posse Comitatus Act, and pre-9/11 case law would continue to be entirely adequate without NDAA and SOPA.