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].
We have legitimate battlefield engagements, but Obama is not using them. He has handicapped our military and they can’t even kill the enemy in self-defense without ending up on trial themselves.
Having Obama go around and personally pick out targets rather than have them defeated in military engagements is not a good thing, but when the targets are Americans, no matter how treasonous, it’s much worse. Americans who have turned into treasonous enemies need to be publicly declared and subject to some process in which they have the right to defend themselves. This happens even in the case of courts martial (referred to in the 5th Amendment), where there may be a different standard of evidence, but basically there is still a public airing of the charges and identification of the defendant. Even if an American citizen is charged in absentia, this is a public declaration and makes the whole thing aboveboard and in accordance with our Constitution. It’s not a secret proceeding based on the unilateral decision of somebody at the top.
This new policy, by the way, also permits other people in the executive branch to pick out targets, including American citizens.
Happy with that? I’m not.