Final answer:
The US Constitution does not explicitly address the use of drones but does uphold principles of due process and habeas corpus. While the government can detain enemy combatants, U.S. citizens are entitled to due process, and foreign terrorism suspects have habeas corpus rights.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question seeks to understand whether the US Constitution unequivocally supports the government's use of drones against its citizens suspected of terrorism. The Constitution, however, does not explicitly address the use of drones. What the Constitution does address are broader principles of due process and habeas corpus.
Despite instances such as in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, where the Supreme Court recognized the government's power to detain enemy combatants, it also affirmed the rights of U.S. citizens to due process. Therefore, the Constitution does support the right of a meaningful opportunity to contest detention before a neutral decision maker, regardless of the designation of enemy combatant.
In cases like Boumediene v. Bush, the Supreme Court extended habeas corpus rights to foreign terrorism suspects at Guantánamo Bay, illustrating that even in the context of combating terrorism, there are constitutional limits to government power. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's ruling in Ex parte Milligan confirmed that the civilian court system should not be bypassed in areas where it is operating, even during times of war.
It is important to note that while national security concerns have historically led to tensions between individual liberties and government actions, the Constitution provides a framework that seeks to balance these concerns, with court rulings establishing that even in matters of national security, certain fundamental rights cannot be wholly set aside.