Over the past few weeks, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) have been gaining significant media attention.

There have been millions of online signining petitions and tens of thousands of letters and calls to representatives.

The technology industry has also stepped in—the blackout of many popular websites such as Wikipedia and Tumblr was a testament to the fact that strong opposition exists from corporations as well as the general population.

The day after the blackout, it looked as if the majority of Congress has changed their opinion from support to opposition.

Many would deem this as a success, that civil liberties were protected. To believe so and return to our daily lives would be a grave mistake.

I would like to draw your attention to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

Every year, another version of the NDAA is passed to allocate funds for domestic and international military spending.

This year, a specific piece of legislation was attached to this bill that greatly extends the U.S. military's ability to combat threats.

Forbes magazine provides a detailed description of this act, denouncing its allocation of "truly frightening powers" to the military and government.

Under this legislation, the military would be given the ability to indefinitely detain, interrogate, or assassinate anyone suspected of terrorist involvement.

These procedures would be mandatory for foreign nationals, but optional for American citizens. Following the section declaring it "optional" for Americans, a passage says it may be carried out as deemed fit.

The public understands that a strong fear still lingers in many people.

Perhaps you know someone who passed away or became ill after the Sept. 11 attacks. Since then, the word "terrorist" is usually equated with a radical Muslim individual determined to destroy America. Statistics, however, provide a completely different picture.

The FBI's official website contains a record of all terrorist attacks carried out between 1980 and 2005. Only 6 percent of these attacks were carried out by Islamic extremists.

It must then be understood that although Muslims are a target within this NDAA legislation, many other groups will be targeted as well. Those who associate with a non-violent far left organization could possibly put themselves at risk.

According to the FBI data compiled on loonwatch.com, extreme left-wing groups carried out 24 percent of the terrorist attacks. In this case, it must also be stated that a great proportion of these attacks were done by the same few organizations.

This is an association often made in investigations of terrorism, as evidence by NYPD surveillance of Muslims through phone tapping and infiltration of Islamic student organizations.

If such associations are made, individuals who are in no way guilty of terrorist activity may be subjected to the procedures dictated in the NDAA.

And yes, Occupy Wall Street involvement may categorize one as being involved in a far left organization, as the advertisement for it was put out by AdBusters, and picked up by Anonymous, which is an anarchist group that is categorized by the U.S. government as terrorist because of cyber-attacks.

Members of this group do not actually meet in person, and people can adopt the method of Anonymous. The usual result is the targeting of youth involved in social activism with no intentions of violence.

To this point, there are two main concerns in regard to how NDAA was passed. The legislative procedures were attached to a military spending bill.

This tactic is how many types of controversial pieces of legislation are passed that would otherwise be shot down if proposed separately.

Permission for hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," was given through what is known as the Halliburton loophole—a piece of legislation ironically attached to the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The second issue is the fact that this legislation received very limited media coverage. Forbes posted its article on Jan. 2, two days after President Obama signed this bill into law despite "serious reservations."

During the large debate period in November, most forms of mainstream media largely turned a blind eye to the bill. There will be many unfortunate consequences that could result from this legislation.