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...