These Aren't the Drones You're Looking for...

Previously, I mentioned concerns I have with regard to drone strikes used as targeted assassinations against U.S. Citizens and foreign nationals abroad.  Mr. Obama has apparently mentioned these concerns in a Google+ chat he had with certain constituents last year.  Unfortunately, I did not see that chat, and have been unable to locate a complete transcript, so I am using news reports to determine what was said.

According to Yahoo! News, the president said that "it is not sufficient that citizens just take my word for it that we are doing the right thing."  He stated that there have not been strikes against a U.S. Citizen on U.S. soil, and that he has to "work with Congress ... so people understand what's going on, what the constraints are, (and) what the legal parameters are.”

This is a somewhat comforting assertion, but only in so far as it is followed through.  Even during the "Cold War,"  it was, at least officially, against U.S. policy to target political adversaries for assassination.  (Whether certain administrations actually followed this policy, including Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan, is up for dispute,) But it seems, since 9/11, the U.S. has followed a policy that entails targeting of individuals who are citizens of countries with which we are not at war, for assassination, many times using the rather blunt instrument of unmanned drone strikes.

Regardless of what some would have us believe, this is not analogous to bombing of command structures of enemies during war time.  First off, no declaration of war has been made against any political entity.  Secondly, we have no reason to suspect, because we are not given any evidence, that any of these individuals pose an existential threat to our nation, or to the lives of its citizens. 

The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads that :""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... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." 

The first thing to notice in this language is that the term "person" is used, not "citizen."  One of the primary rules of statutory construction requires that we look at the plain meaning of the language used; especially when other words could have been substituted instead.  The 5th Amendment does not simply protect U.S. Citizens on U.S. soil.  By plain reading it applies to all "persons." 

Capital crimes are those that are eligible for the death penalty, which is essentially what we are discussing.  With the exception of members of the military in wartime, the government can not hold any person to answer for a capital crime without first getting an indictment against that person from a grand jury.  For those unfamiliar with grand jury process, generally, the prosecution presents its evidence to the grand jury, and the defendant need not be present, and in fact, while able to testify, generally is not able to fight the prosecution's case at this point.  The point of the Grand Jury is to determine if the government has sufficient evidence with which to charge the individual with the crime alleged. 

So, my question to the president would be, have all those targeted by the drone strikes been indicted for crimes they have been alleged to commit?  If not, what provision of U.S. law allows for the execution of these individuals, and what are the crimes for which they are being held to answer?

Note this does not even get into the questions of national sovereignty of other nations, or the likelihood of collateral damage against innocents with the use of such weapons.