The recent threat of SOPA and PIPA — congressional efforts to stop copyright infringement committed by foreign web sites ­— released world-wide backlash as outraged citizens questioned the government’s attempt to disrupt free expression on the Internet by regulating the most recognized civil liberty of all time.

The Internet has undoubtedly become the leading resource for information.

Information flooded search engines and inboxes on Jan. 18 as countless public figures weighed in against Congress and encouraged others to do the same.

Although the boycott earlier this year did not abolish the infamous Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) or its partner, Protect Intellectual Property/Internet Protocol Act (PIPA), it sent a clear messsage to Washington.

The people will not stand still as their government slowly whittles away their civil liberties.

To oversimplify, with SOPA and PIPA, the consequence of posting undesired contents on a website would result, at worst, in the blockage of that entire site.

For most cases, it is unlikely that a consumer would be detained for an indefinite period due to posts on Wikipedia or the sort.

However, another bill has surfaced and has received far less attention but its implications are more significant than SOPA and PIPA combined.

Coded with the language of the Department of Defense, this bill alludes to indefinite detention of U.S. citizens, legal residents and anyone else who threatens national security.

The act approves the arrest for “belligerent acts” while it remains indistinct on the extent of that meaning.

Its name is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

The staggering 500 plus page bill states that it exists to ” authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2012, and for other purposes”( emphasis added).

The vague nature of the term “other purposes” highlights potential inconsistencies that the bill — mainly Sections 1021 and 1022 — may have with the United States Constitution.

Section 1021 addresses indefinite detention without trial, a clear breach of the Constitution. Subsection (c) states, ” Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.”

And also, “Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country or any other foreign entity.”

Phrases such as “the end of hostilities,” fail to present a plan of action and time frame that potential detainees can adhere to.

It is critical that the law ties these very loose ends and provides a clearer sense of intentions with its suspects — especially when dealing with American citizens and lawful permanent residents.

In an official White House statement, President Obama said, “I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens.

Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation.

My Administration will interpret Section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war and all other applicable law.”

However Section 1022 continues to say, “[T]he Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person…who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.”

Although it has expanded to protect citizens and lawful residents, Section 1022 creates more uncertainty.

According to the president, Section 1022 was specifically signed into law because it allows the executive branch expansive authority to determine how to best implement it.

The president has the capability to waive any military custody requirement if deemed necessary.

Obama insinuated in his White House address that the legal meaning of these two clauses remains unclear, although his team is working tirelessly to ensure this law is interpreted in a way that sustains the safety of all Americans.

Still, the potential abuse that the executive branch could carry out is undeniable.

The impending conflict between security and liberty is not a new concept.

In fact, one of our Founding Fathers, Patrick Henry, chose death if it meant forsaking liberty.

It may be easy to assume that the Founding Fathers had no way of foreseeing the threat of the new millennium, but it was they who authored the Constitution to protect the American lives that the NDAA threatens.

The limits they placed on the Executive Branch were not coincidental but a strategic move to ensure the president does not potentially abuse the rights of his citizens.

Nonetheless, the people of this nation will once again have to decide how much liberty we are willing to forsake to gain security.

Ayen is a junior majoring in journalism.