Drone strikes on American citizens without trial, could become a part of of life in The Land of The Free, at least according to President Obama's Attorney-General Eric Holder. Admittedly, the highest lawyer in the land does not claim the President to be actually planning to aim such drones on anyone living in the U.S., but, according to a recent article at CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/07/us/drones-five-things/index.html) he does claims that the administration has the right to aim just such weapons at unwarned Americans. At least in my opinion though, this idea is, at best, legally ambiguous, though I'm not surprised that a lawyer might miss that.
First of all, the fifth Amendment to The Constitution (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt for all quotes of the constitution) does state that no one will be deprived of "life, liberty of property without due process of law," and death-by-drone would seem to do all three. Certainly no courts are meeting to decide on such questions, even through the questionable means of a trial en absentia.
Of course, some supporters of these strikes define them as acts of defense. In so doing, however, they must also be claiming that the President had the power to wage war on the American people, and outside of being morally repugnant, this idea does have at least a few legal weak points.
First, the Constitution does at least seem to require the President to have Congressional approval to wage war, whether on his own citizen's or not, and no matter what you think of Congress, I certainly haven't heard of them declaring hostilities on their own voters.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the
principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject
relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to
Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in
Cases of Impeachment.
The War Powers Act of 1972 goes even further by stating even that the attack must be underway for the President to take such actions (http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/war_powers_resolution.shtml):
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
Frankly though, the simple fact of claiming that any citizen is waging war against the country may actually increase, rather than decrease, the number of legal hurdles facing any administration willing to practice such an informal means of execution. The Constitution has the following to say on an American citizen either waging war or aiding those who wage war against their country:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Interestingly, that same section then goes on to pose a special requirement on any relevant cases:
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the
same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Ipso facto, the government cannot make a case on the say-so of one informant, not even one getting water-boarded at Guantanamo, though that should read especially.
Personally, I of course want the government to have the greatest difficulty possible in killing me or anyone else. I've objected to the death sentence for being too unappealable since my high school days, and I can only find more reason to object to death without even that most fallible of things, a trial.
