The whole point of this is that currently, there is no due process. That is, an American citizen should at least be charged with treason, PUBLICLY, and not simply wiped out by Obama at his video game console.
If we want to develop some other process, that’s fine. But it’s got to be public, open, done in advance, and not at the whim of one person or a tiny group of people. (I’m only talking about the case of the killing of American citizens, btw.)
Ironically, Bambi & Co. don’t let the military fight; killing on the battlefield is practically forbidden, and defending yourself, if you’re a soldier, is a major no-no.
Furthermore, because of these misguided policies, some of these terrorists had been caught by the military earlier. They should have been killed or permanently locked up then, but they were treated as common criminals and turned over to their countries. They were then released by their countries and returned immediately to attack us. So Bambi is doing this to clean up the mess he has made of our battlefield policy, and probably to get rid of a few jihadis that may be a problem to his favorite, official jihadis.
But when it comes down to American citizens, we need a public process, not just one nutty individual’s decree.
No, it's not fine. The 5th Amendment says the following:
Amendment V
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 shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The phrase "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" means that the first part applies:
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 dangerThe underlined is the due process of law (actually the 6th also applies, but at the step after "presentment or indictment" -- the Grand jury could, for any reason it deems, refuse to indict/present). The italicized means that there is an exception to requiring presentment/indictment, and that is the legitimate battlefield (which I would contend these targeted drone-attacks are not, but that is tangential).
The 6th clearly states that in all criminal prosecutions there are rights that the defendant has: jury-trial, ability to call witnesses, defense-attorney, etc. By creating anti-terrorism laws congress moved things from the battlefield to being matters of criminal law and therefore the 6th must apply.
This is not to say that terrorists should be coddled, it is to say that (a) the Constitution must be followed, and (b) the Congress is blithely unaware of the consequences of its actions [some term this lack of foresight, or even a moment's introspection --which is resultant of the "Oh-my-god-we-have-to-do-something-anything-now! mentality"-- the Law of Unintended Consequences].