>the drones are executing people in countries the US is not at war with. Because we are not fighting a state. We are cooperating with these countries not figh

>the drones are executing people in countries the US is not at war with. Because we are not fighting a state. We are cooperating with these countries not fighting them. They don't have the resources (or the resources are unreliable) to treat these things as law enforcement problems. And I'd personally draw the line at a clear and credible threat. If they demonstrate they have the will and have, or are actively trying to obtain, the means to attack. For example, if someone speaks about killing people then amasses a bunch of explosives, it is time to act. If someone seems to be acting in a command capacity to people that have the means and will, as previously described, it is time to act. On the other hand, if someone happens to be in contact with someone in that first group but does not seem to be aiding them (passing commands, gathering materials etc.) then that person should not be targeted. If we could go to these countries and tell them "Listen, we have intelligence telling us that this person is training people and sending them into this country to kill people. Could you go grab them for questioning and maybe gather some evidence and put them on trial?" and if they would act on that, that'd be great. I'd be all for that. But that seems like wishful thinking more than anything.