This would apply to Guantanamo but not to the drone strikes.
The difference is that we are alleging crimes against the Guantannamo detainees, but not against drone targets. The drone targets are regarded as military targets, so the international conventions on warfare and the treatment of POWs applies.
The Constitutional fuss about Guantanamo was because: 1) one of the first detainees that filed suit was actually an American; 2) it was arguably U.S. soil. The Constitutional issues with Guantanamo were resolved: the Court said that Americans clearly had habeas rights and that by virtue of being U.S. soil, non-Americans in Guantanamo also had certain rights. As a result, all the U.S. citizens were quickly transferred to the civilian court system, and the courts started hearing habeas petitions from other detainees.
The drone strikes are not on U.S. soil, and only in one case do they involve a U.S. citizen (Al Awlaki). The Constitution is therefore inapplicable. Now, the strikes may be a violation of international conventions on war, but they're not a violation of the Constitution.
In a constitutional sense, how could drone victims possibly be military targets when the US has not declared war? You're trying to play by the rules that suit you and ignore the ones that don't.
It doesn't matter whether they're military targets or not. What matters is that they're not Americans and not on American soil and thus have no rights under the U.S. Constitution.
That's absurd, since the constitution has provisions that plainly describe what the US government is and isn't allowed to do with regard to foreign nations. For example, the US constitution clearly states that the US government is forbidden to carry out prolonged military operations in other nations without a congressionally approved declaration of war. This means that under the US constitution, any person in the world at least has the right not to be bombed at the whim of the US executive branch with absolutely no review.
First, the Constitution doesn't really say that, at least not with the gloss you're giving it. Second, you're confused about who holds the right and what the right protects. The fact that Congress has the right to declare war does not mean you have the right not to be bombed on a presidential whim. The right protects the separation of powers within the U.S. government, not the lives of foreigners. It's Congress who holds the right as against the President, not foreigners.
"The fact that Congress has the right to declare war does not mean you have the right not to be bombed on a presidential whim. The right protects the separation of powers within the U.S. government, not the lives of foreigners. It's Congress who holds the right as against the President, not foreigners."
Now you're just playing semantic games. Who owns the 'right' in this case--non-US citizens to not be bombed or congress to prevent their bombing--is completely subjective. The fact is that prolonged military operations without congressional approval are constitutionally forbidden. So whether the right is explicit or de facto, it does it exist. You seem to want to interpret every aspect of the constitution with rabid ethnocentrism, but most of the actual authors of the document had a much broader perspective on humanity.
One could argue that the possibility of binding international treaties is a feature of the US Constitution, and that non-Americans not on American soil may hold some rights thereby.
The Geneva convention is often discussed in connection with US extraterritorial military operations.
The difference is that we are alleging crimes against the Guantannamo detainees, but not against drone targets. The drone targets are regarded as military targets, so the international conventions on warfare and the treatment of POWs applies.