Isn't it contradictory to maintain that a non-US citizen outside the country does not have rights under the US Constitution, but can be subject to US law?

The issue at hand is how you define "subject to US law." It's unclear so far what kind of boundaries you can put around that because in the general case, this is discussing what the US Government can prevent you from doing.

So for example if a Chinese citizen is arrested in Beijing by the Chinese Police for protesting in Tienanmen square, nobody would seriously claim that the US Constitution protects their speech. - So that covers the case where there is no protection from the US Constitution because the US doesn't have jurisdiction there.

How about an example where a Bolivian Citizen starts a clinic in Bolivia and then shares all of their patient's data with anyone who wants it within the borders of Bolivia. That is a clear breach of HIPAA rules but again because the US does not have jurisdiction, then nobody would seriously claim that the US has anything to say about this situation.

Lastly, assume the case where a Norwegian Citizen sitting in Oslo accesses bank accounts of US citizens and transfers money to his account that is in Switzerland without their consent. What crimes is this person committing and who has jurisdiction to enforce them?

That is unclear, but I think it comes down to how reciprocal non-US countries are when it comes to what laws should be enforced by one country and the citizens of another.

> The issue at hand is how you define "subject to US law."

I would say it's more about whether you're willing to apply it consistently or not.

There's a strong Constitutional construction argument that argues the Constitution applies to all people regardless of citizenship if the government intends to put legal binding upon them and we are not in a state of war.

But I believe the US executive branch has not ascribed to that legal philosophy since at least George W. Bush's presidency.

I think that's a good argument, but I'm not a lawyer, I just know that the Rules Of Engagement for military members extended the spirit of the constitution, to how we were supposed to interact with the local population in Iraq.

In Assange's case though I don't see how the First Amendment will help here, as the charge is "Conspiracy to commit Computer Intrusion." I don't think the district court is making a case about whether Assange has the right to publish data freely.

Agreed, many of the rights described were once considered the "natural" rights of man, not granted, and I thought the language clearly demonstrated that main concern was with restricting the power of government from denying those rights.

Not everybody believes in rights that are not granted, so I think the view that these rights only applied to citizens was always around, but yes, 9/11 did provide added motivation to deny rights to non-citizens.