And what if I'm not a USA citizens, they are watching me anyway. Anyway, if I were on the NSA's office, watching everyday comments on Hacker-News I'd already have targeted half it's crowd potentially dangerous to the security of the country, just for being so interested in national security matters. Those Geeks!!!

"Anyway, if I were on the NSA's office, watching everyday comments on Hacker-News ..."

Wait, wait. You're saying there's a way to get paid to read HN all day? Where do I sign?

> Where do I sign?

Follow the path to the dark side [1]. They have cookies.

[1]: https://www.nsa.gov/psp/applyonline/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM...

Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/1223/

And for watching porn...

Ah, Rule 34, by our own cstross: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_34_%28novel%29

If I understand the law correctly, only military people have any prohibition about touching, reading, distributing, etc classified data.

Normal citizens agreed to no such terms.

If I understand the law correctly, U.S. citizens cannot be assassinated by its own government without the benefit of due process.

You do state the law correctly, your confusion seems instead to be with regards to the phrase "due process."

It means literally what it says: everyone is entitled to "due" (i.e. warranted) process, not judicial process. What process is "due" in any given case? It is, on its face, a context-sensitve inquiry.

If you trace the due process clause back to its origins in Clause 39 of the Magna Carta, you'll see that it is not a guarantee of a trial in every case, but rather a protection against arbitrary action: "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land." The AUMF is, for better or worse, the law of the land.

People gave Eric Holder a lot of flak when he stated that the Constitution guarantees due process and not judicial process, but his comment was a totally uncontroversial statement of the law. I'm pretty sure Greenwald knows that too, since last time I checked NYU (where he got his JD) doesn't teach some bizarro version of Constitutional Law where down is up and due process always requires a trial.

Before mentioning "due process", the Fifth Amendment states:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger..."

The exclusion for "cases arising in the land or naval forces" apparently applies to members of the U.S. military, who can be tried under military law (like Bradley Manning was). [1]

Furthermore, the Sixth Amendment says:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

So I don't understand how the Constitution allows the federal government the right to execute a citizen without judicial process. Any references would be sincerely appreciated.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_...

> So I don't understand how the Constitution allows the federal government the right to execute a citizen without judicial process. Any references would be sincerely appreciated.

I think you'll be waiting a long time for rayiner to give you one.

Clearly it is the "time of war."

The "time of war" clause applies to soldiers serving in the U.S. armed forces, who are subject to military law. It doesn't apply to random U.S. citizens.

That won't dissuade him. We live in strange times where people practicing cognitive dissonance want to deny others their basic rights because "terr'rists wanna blow you up!"

Nope. Even in a time of war, you are entitled to your due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Judicial process is a subset of due process. You'll notice the comment I was responding to mentioned judicial process. If a US citizen takes up arms with an enemy whom the US is at war with, then the process which he is due does not extend past accurate sighting before the trigger is pulled.

Of course it's a tragedy if a citizen is killed in time of war if it turns out they were not actually engaged in combat alongside the enemy, but war is tragic in general.

And herein lies the beauty of the war on terror, drugs, internet piracy, etc. You (the gov'nt) don't have to define who the enemy are, what actually constitutes an act of combat, or how we know the war has come to an end.

Read the Patriot Act. Read the rules of engagement for taking out U.S. citizens. It would not take a stretch of Eric Holder's imagination to think that downloading the Wikileaks file constitutes an act of aggression against the U.S.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/04/someone-just-leaked-obamas...

Huh. I wasn't aware of the "in the Militia" bit. Is that the same militia that lets us all have guns according to the Second Amendment?

You may be right that my understanding of the due process clause is confused. It's been over a decade since I went to law school and I'm getting up in the years, so it wouldn't be completely surprising.

However, I think you miss the point of my response in context of the comment I was responding to. The point of my comment was that our government has taken a very fluid approach to the law to fit its needs versus American citizens/non-citizens. If one feels a certain comfort that the law will protect him/her in the course of some action that seems fully protected by the law today, you might be in for a rude awakening tomorrow.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/09/obama-assassin...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Hastings_(journalist)

Please inform the people in power about this.

That's because you don't understand the law correctly. Now show me the prohibition on classified material that applies to non military members.

Your right of way will not prevent you from being run over by a tank.

Apparently having used TOR makes you a person of interest. Not that difficult.

Really?

I'm positive it will stay alive on these (b/c peers can stay anonymous): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_%28file_sharing%29

"You could become involved in the distribution of classified data."

IANAL, but I believe the espionage act contains a mens rea requirement.

Mens rea is a state of intent, not knowledge.

Suppose, for example, that you discovered a locked storage box with 'property of Big Bank' on the outside. You're supposed to report found items to the police; instead you take it home. Someone sees you and the police turn up; it emerges the box contains a lot of money, and you are charged with theft. You argue at trial that no mens rea existed because you didn't know about the money; true, but the possibility that a locked box belonging to Big Bank would be full of cash was what motivated you to take it home. If, on the other hand, the both contained a brick, you could still be charged with attempt because your intent in picking up the box was impure, even if the contents were valueless.

In this case, Wikileaks 'insurance' documents have in the past contained classified information; they are meant to function as insurance because the contents would embarrass or injure someone if revealed; revelation would be contingent on Wikileaks' dissolution or disablement; and it's reasonable to suppose that only a government could bring that about. Thus, your decision to host the files, even without knowledge of their content, involves an awareness of the strong possibility that they do contain classified information. So whatever the contents actually turn out to be, you would be judged on your intent given the information available at the time.

Now you might also argue that there was some higher interest motivating your actions, eg the belief that all secrecy is evil and that nothing should be classified, ever. But such moral beliefs are normative, ie expressions of what you think the law should be; they have no bearing on what the law actually is, and it is the latter which is supposed to govern your actions. For comparison, I might hold a sincere belief that any insult to a person's honor justifies violent retaliation; but if I kill someone in defense of my honor, that won't spare my from charges of murder, because my private belief is not the law of the land, no matter how sincerely it is held.

In short, don't take deliberately engineered ignorance as equivalent to innocence.

You may find this law review article of interest: http://www.columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/... This discusses a narrower reading of mens rea than I have outlined above, but bear in mind the elevated likelihood of a public welfare argument in a case where national security turns out to be at stake. So I would be reluctant to rely on Flores-Figueroa as an escape hatch because that was a case in which the harm largely befell a single individual (the lawful possessor of the identifying information that F-F appropriated), as opposed to the general public whose collective security could be compromised by the release of classified information, personified in the form of the Untied States.

Well thank god for college kids.

only one way to find out!