I'm not sure if these folks understand the definition of the word 'sedition' or not but they should at least look up the legal consequences of being convicted of treason. It is one thing to joke about wishing harm to a government, but once you step outside the established process for instituting change legally in the government to one where you seek to force change you will find that the 'rules of engagement' with respect to the Government's response have changed in favor of the Government.
Many of those new rules have specific exemptions carved out so that the folks in charge no longer are bound by protecting your 'rights' as specified by the Constitution.
From the form [1] the Justice department fills out with respect to people it is trying for treason, reasons to ask for the death penalty include:
Grave risk to national security -- In the commission of the offense, the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of substantial danger to national security.
And we have the Pentagon recently saying that by policy a 'cyber attack' will be considered an act of war.
Grave risk of death -- In the commission of the offense, the defendant knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.
And since the military depends on its network systems to prosecute warfare they will argue an attack on these systems puts warfighters (their word for soldiers) into grave risk of death.
There are even this 'bonus' modifiers for treason like:
Obstruction of justice. The victim was killed in an effort by the defendant to obstruct justice, tamper with a witness or juror, or in retaliation for cooperating with authorities.
Where they will argue that if some punks DDoS DoD contractor's computers in retaliation, it might result in disrupting the computers that fly the predators over a battlefield for example.
However, I suspect it's a hoax. Nobody would be so stupid as to set them selves up for the kind of response this would get if it was for 'real.'
[1] http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit...