Umm...what?

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, or be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.--Amendment V, U.S. Constitution

Simple.  Clear.  Concise.  You don't kill U.S. citizens without the due process of law, including a trial in front of a grand jury. 

In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses  “an imminent threat of violent attack.”--EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans

Something seems to be...wrong, here.  And, yet again, King Putt's administration proves that it cannot comprehend the written English language. 

Or, maybe, Mr. Holder just subscribes to Orwell's doublethink and Derrida's ideas that words mean the opposite of what they say.

And they wonder why we don't trust them.