How could we, John Q. Public, know?
In a nation where so many can't name a single Supreme Court Justice or pick the Vice President out of a lineup or name their own Congressmen and women or pick out Syria on a World Map.....are you expecting those same folks to aggressively question our Government when they say "yeah, we killed a guy, he was a terrorist, trust us, he was in :insert arab country here:, and was planning attacks! But we got him! Go us!"
Put in the simplest of terms, we (the general public) have no choice but to accept the deceased citizens guilt as it's a de facto fait accompli. He's dead. We killed him. Our Govt. says he was X.
How exactly would you expect anyone to counter that, given that the predictable answer form the Government is "sorry, that intel is a secret".
Let me be clear, I make no claims of guilt or innocence of those citizens thus far killed, both the procliamed terrorists or their (also citizen) family members killed with them in some cases.
I'm saying that Governmental power to kill citizens abroad as long as they claim their "enemy combatants", without even a trial in absentia to provide proof of guilt to the public, is the worst merger of criminal and war policy. It effectively takes a potential criminal act (i.e. planning attacks or planning enemy propaganda) and treats it as an immediate danger of millitary attack (war policy, shoot first, ask question later).
Some would question if permitting the State to have it's cake, and kill it with drones too, is perhaps a poor path for us to take, not for those thus far killed, but for the precedence it sets for the future.