It should not matter how.

1) US citizens have no special due process rights. The due process rights in the Constitution apply to all people within US jurisdiction regardless of their citizenship. So being up in arms solely because a US citizen was attacked is wrong - legally they're due the same due process as any other human being.

2) The Constitution doesn't apply outside US jurisdiction. If we invaded Yemen and captured the target, they would be under US jurisdiction and have due process rights - US troops capturing them puts them under US jurisdiction regardless of their citizenship. But if it's a missile launched from an aircraft into Yemen, they are not under US jurisdiction. They are under Yemeni jurisdiction and legally it's up to Yemen to protect them. Yes, I fully realize that Yemen has no ability nor desire to do so.

You're free to feel that it's the wrong thing to do. But it's still legal.

The United States government is not a wholly unchained beast outside the physical borders of the country. It is always bound by the limits of the Constitution, no matter where it happens to be operating.

US jurisdiction is not US geographic boundaries. As I explicitly mentioned, US troops capturing a target brings that target under US jurisdiction, wherever they are. In addition, US troops are always under US jurisdiction wherever they are located. On the other hand, their targets are not under US jurisdiction.


If this was correct, US soldiers would have to give due process rights to enemy troops in war - they're people, and have the same due process rights under the Constitution as US citizens.

In addition, if your theory was correct, we would have to rescue any US citizens arrested by France - they have no equivalent to the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination. By your theory, the US government would have to intervene to protect those rights.

But neither of those examples are true.