Precisely.
The bar should be set higher to order the death of a US citizen.
US citizenship is special, it should be difficult to obtain, and it should be difficult to revoke.
So, we agree that Obama has the power to order a strike against a non-citizen who is a terrorist. You maintain, however, that he does not have the power to order a strike against a citizen who is also a terrorist.
I’m assuming you make this distinction based upon the fifth amendment.
The fifth amendment states: “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 offense 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.”
Since the fifth amendment uses the term “person” and not ‘citizen’, it would appear the status of citizenship is not relevent. The fifth amendment protects the rights of all persons regardless of their citizenship.
How can the actions of a non-citizen make that person subject to a drone strike, when a citizen who performs the exact same acts be protected from the same drone strike? How is that consistent with the entire concept of ‘due process’?