constitutionally, the rights for cyber command-type operations are reserved to the states or the people. so if you want to hack a known bad site, you would be required to comply with state law, but the interesting thing would arise from this: if it wasn't the federal govt's job to do this cyber-protectionism (which the constitution clearly states is not the role of the federal govt) then who would prosecute someone for hacking a known bad site?
imagine this scenario:
i hack a terrorist message board and bring it down permanently
someone from the terrorist organization hires a lawyer and presses charges against me in my home state
i choose to have a jury at my trial
now rather than it being a federal responsibility to say "he hacked something he will go to jail regardless of motivation or the facts" my fate lies in the hands of a jury of peers, who after examining my motives (it was a terrorist group, not protected by the first amendment) and the harm done (terrorists become unable to pass information at the same level of ease) they can choose whether i was breaking law or taking it into my own hands.
in order for the system i am speaking of to function successfully, a fundamental change in what the role of government IS would be necessary. if we want to be strung along and victim to the DMCA provisions, then we dont have to do a damn thing. if we want real change and freedom we are required to take back the inalienable rights that the DMCA has alienated.
when the govt is looking out for us we all lose, i know plenty of people who could for less money do more than what the vague answers of general lord imply that can be done.