I wasn't saying that no lists of wanted persons was publicly available... just that no complete list of people a drone would kill on sight was available. Are yo

I wasn't saying that no lists of wanted persons was publicly available... just that no complete list of people a drone would kill on sight was available. Are you saying the people on this list would be killed on sight? (if so, thanks for the link) Or are you just saying that they are wanted? As for the laws of war, I think they were created for situations where the opponents could be easily identified. (Opponents wearing a uniform for example). Applying them to a situation where 'enemy' has a stochastic definition is a dubious thing. Of course it creates benefits, but it also creates a lot of problems. Killing people without due process, in the long run, creates an incredible amount of ill will. I think this, beyond rhetoric about justice, is the reason we have due process for criminal procedures -- the people who knew the innocent person you just killed get angry with you. Even if it was an accident. Note that this definition doesn't really effect two uniformed opponents on a battle field -- at least not in the same sense as "John was killed by a drone while driving to Texas for his vacation". The other good argument for providing due process is that without due process you give a huge weapon to your enemy... as it becomes easier to frame someone, and as that framing becomes more deadly, it becomes easier to convert people to your cause through blackmail. In summary: laws of war weren't handed down on a stone tablet, they codify a way of being that reduces the long term negative outcomes of war. When a new form of war is crated, you probably new new laws. The old ways of minimizing negative outcomes are probably obsolete.