Interesting article if you want to do some further reading: [url]http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/05/obama-administration-drone-strikes-war-crimes[/url] While I agree with the principle of avoiding the political and economic mire of conflict and not risking the lives of domestic troops to engage militants in the middle east, drone strikes have become far too indiscriminate to be without controversy - even ignoring the arbitrary distinctions that international conventions draw. There's no denying the effectiveness of military drones - a prominent Taliban leader has been reported to been taken out by a US drone last week, but the policy of "signature strikes", in which figures are targeted according to their behavioral patterns, and "double taps", where first responders and rescuers responding to an initial strike are struck demonstrate an abhorrent neglect for human life and fail to comprehensively distinguish militants from noncombatants. You may argue that drone strikes are a necessary evil, that terrorists don't comply by international law and neither should the US, but the most powerful nation in the world should certainly hold itself to higher standards than them. The targeting of innocents is a hallmark of terrorism, and while the US can claim their deaths to be 'collateral damage', is it really as cavalierly justifiable as that?