No.
> Why not at least go that route, vs blatantly killing citizens?
Because it doesn't exist, and if it did exist it would almost certainly be a contested judicial process which would bring in the same problem as criminal prosecution of enemy combatants that happen to be US citizens but are physically located in territory not practically subject to US or cooperative jurisdiction.
Edited for grammar
Additionally, technically there are two other requirements before committing treason causes a loss of citizenship, just as with all the other potentially expatriating acts: the treason must be committed voluntarily and with the intent to relinquish citizenship, as judged on a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e. more likely than not). This is a court proceeding and the claimed loss of citizenship can be challenged, though of course those requirements are more likely to be satisfied in treason cases than in some of the other potentially expatriating acts.
None of this is consistent with a unilateral military strike.
It's much easier to kill you and then say that you and your estate have no standing to challenge the official story to see if you were on a list because only people who know they are in the list can see if they're on the list.
If you read the applicable provision of law—8 USC Sec. 1481(a)(7)—you have to not only commit an act of treason, but do so “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality” in order to lose citizenship.
As long as you still want to be an American, albeit a traitorous one, you don't lose your citizenship just for being a traitor.
(And, it also requires conviction of the treason by a court martial or competent court, so if the government wants to give effect to this, it literally not only have to get a hold of the person, try and convict them of treason, and then prove additionally the intent to relinquish citizenship. At which point the last bit is quite likely to be moot.)
Even if an individual appears to be obviously guilty, shouldn't some form of process be followed in all cases to prevent wrongful convictions and/or executions?
That only would seem to follow if the argument was that we couldn't get him by a drone strike, which obviously is not the argument, as drone strikes don't really do a good job of hauling people before a court.
If the question is politics: we're nearing 100k Yemeni civilians dead, they won't say no, and won't have the choice anyway.
Air superiority, or even air supremacy, doesn't make putting feet on the ground safe.
If you don't want that tradeoff, then don't say an oath that requires you to put your life on the line defending the constitution.
No, taking unnecessary risks to do things that aren't legally required for enemies in war is kind of the opposite of the point of being a soldier.
> If you don't want that tradeoff, then don't say an oath that requires you to put your life on the line defending the constitution
The Constitution doesn't require the government to take any special restraint in war when someone fighting on the other side is a US citizen.
There may be a good argument that the law ought to given the realities of modern war, sure. And that's a debate we should have.
Working for a designated terrorist organization to commit terrorism is a crime in the United States, because terrorism is a crime.
So, even if he absolutely did commit treason, he is a citizen unless the prosecution both occurs and achieves all of that. Citizens deserve due process, period, since government conclusions and criminal charges can both be wrong, and loss of life is a very severe thing to make a mistake about.
If you CAN legally murder your citizens then a lot of things cease to matter because you are no longer governed by the rule of law in the first place.
If that's treason, then I suppose a future leftist Castro-esque president should be free to drone-murder hate speech mongers like Rush Limbaugh and many in the Fox News commentary department.
America likes to talk about respecting democracy and the rule of law, but the way it acts is nowhere near that.
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
So a) terrorists aren't levying war, because they're not part of a state, and b) good luck ever fulfilling the 2 witness or confession requirement.
Being part of a state is not required to levy war.
This is true under the “magic words” understanding of the power to declare war; but that more limited authorizations than those that simply and expressly “declare war” are nevertheless exercises of the Constitutional power to declare war and create a legal state of war is, however, well-established law, see, Bas v. Tingy, 4 U.S. 37 (1800).
Why would they be?
> Is it just not cool to do anymore or something?
Mostly. It's not like you can give someone a super-death penalty, and when progressive criminalization has made it so that everything that qualifies as treason is also covered by other crimes that carry similar sentences but don't require two witnesses to the same over act or a confession on top of the standard criminal “beyond a reasonable doubt” burden of proof, why would a prosecutor ever bother with treason charges except as a political stunt?