Every Republican was running on a "repair our tattered Constitution" platform; the problem is they meant it exclusively in reference to healthcare, which the Court has decided is Constitutional. One other question is why hasn't the family of one of these victims sued in federal court over these violations? There is no court in the US who could decide that lack of due process is Constitutional, given that due process is explicitly guaranteed (as opposed to implicit guarantees that one can argue about interpretations) to each of us--citizens and non-citizens. The only defense the administration could have in that case is to say that these people have no standing to sue for this or that reason ("enemy combatants", for example). At least we would have to have a debate about it. But as far as I know we aren't at war with Pakistan or Yemen, so how in the hell can we authorize strikes there? On a side note drones scare the fuck out of me for two main reasons. First, it takes the human element out of killing, which is one of the few things that keeps us from prosecuting wars often. If there is no need to put boots on the ground, why not start a war with every Tom, Dick and Harry that doesn't offer us the best financial concessions to set up factories or exploit resources? Second, its way too easy to apply that technology to "homeland defense". Just wait until the police get to have their own unmanned vehicles. That will be the day that the US truly dies as a democracy.
I am almost indifferent to the foreign policy side of the constitutional problems, they pale in comparison to indefinite detention of you or me without due process, NSA letters that you aren't allowed to even discuss with your attorney, VIPER teams setting up paper check roadblocks inside the U.S. I don't really have a problem with drone strikes against terrorist targets either. Letting the C.I.A. get away with torture is pretty disturbing.
I don't give a shit about the life of a terrorist. But, look at the NSA, as you point out. It was a baby step for them to go from tapping suspected terrorists to tapping US citizens on US soil. I don't think its a huge leap from killing US citizens (or others) in a non-war zone with no warrant and no trial, to applying that domestically. Let's imagine that here, say in Texas, where the death penalty is liberally applied. Maybe some hypothetical governor of Texas could decide that he's reasonably sure that John Smith raped and killed that poor little kid in Amarillo, and his advisers have intelligence to that effect. Therefore, he decides that instead of capture that the whole community would be better off if they just went ahead and took out his house (as I'm writing this its occurring to me that this is exactly what happened with the Branch Davidians, except sub Gov for Atty General). Now imagine that with drones. Sounds far fetched, but if you give them an inch...
There is another reason that drones scare the shit out of me, we like to pretend that these technologies are unique to the US, but they're not. Eventually, many other nations will have analogous programs and when you continuously poke someone in the eye, don't be surprised when the reciprocate. I'm sure we have the best "drone defenses" there are but still, I'd rather not have to use them. Our citizenry would raise their arms in shocked disbelief if another nation used drones to bomb military targets in the US and subsequently killed civilians. As if it would be the first time such a thing ever occurred. I agree about removing the human aspect, it's a game changer and allows for easier rationalizations for killing.
Like what would happen if someone else got control of drones flying over US airspace? http://gizmodo.com/5904255/iran-claims-they-have-decrypted-u... http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/how-college-st...