Is NDAA 2012's infinate detention law unethical?

The recent approval of the United State's National Defense Authorization Act has drawn a lot of attention from internet media sources lately as a controversial and probably unconstitutional law. My question is, given the reasons cited by the bill compared to the possible effects on the status quo, is this bill ethical in nature?

In short, I don't believe this bill is ethical in any sense of the term based on 4 premises
1. The NDAA threatens the people's right to habeus corpus
2. The NDAA has the potential to be applied in a fascist and totalitarian way
3. These applications of the NDAA would deprive people of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
4. Denying people their aspirations to be free and happy is wrong

One section in the NDAA says that people will be allowed to be imprisoned, indefinitely without a trial on mere suspicion of a belligerent act, association with terrorist groups (including groups such as Occupy Wall St.) In fact, the list of things that makes you a suspected terrorist in the eyes of the government is quite expansive and includes activities that normal Americans might do every day without having any anti-authoritarian thoughts whatsoever. This combined with the Patriot Act which was extended by President Obama when he came into office for another four years  makes it so that virtually every American could be spied on and deemed to be "suspicious" by the government, and carted off to prison without a trial.

This bill continues to prove itself as unethical because it gives the government far too much power to control the people. If they were able to imprison people who they saw as a threat to the establishment, for merely questioning their government as any true patriot should then this turns America into a totalitarian state.

This bill is pure evil. It goes against everything that America stood for and everything that our soldiers have died to protect (Making it unethical on a whole other level). But because it could deny the American people their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it must be unethical because to deny any one of these is just simply wrong.

Is the use of Illicit drugs immoral? Pt. 2

      Although it would appear that drug use can't be considered immoral on the grounds that it isn't healthy since other things people do that could be proven to have similar adverse health effects, are usually morally irrelevant, such as eating fast food or smoking cigarettes; still there are other issues surrounding drug use and it's moral implications.


      Drug use in itself usually results in little overall negative moral consequences depending on the responsibility of the user, for example, many people smoke marijuana on occasion and cause little damage to themselves or others by doing so. Other people would prefer to have a beer and watch the game, and still other people use drugs for legitimate medical reasons like pain management, anxiety, or depression. However drug abuse typically carries with it other, not necessarily direct consequences but associated ones that could carry morally implicating results. For example, someone who is addicted to, or abuses drugs might have trouble making morally sound decisions, or be put in a place where they can't make such a decision. For example, someone who is addicted to drugs might decide to ignore their family, choosing intoxication over a relationship with their relatives. This is surely an immoral decision, and even though it's not a direct result of drug use it was caused by the user's dependance on them. Other examples of immoral acts that could result from drug abuse could include theft to support their habit, lying to friends and family about their whereabouts and activities, or neglecting general responsibilities.

     In conclusion, it is my resolution that drug use itself is morally neutral, it is indirect consequences of drug abuse that carry morally corrosive attributes.