Now, implementation wise you are correct in that things could be worse. However in the "We are the government and we can do this" sense...ditch.
(It must be said that the nice thing about the large-scale implementation problem is that the US population would rise up against that, but that is small comfort for the victims in the "small enough that 'Joe Average' doesn't care about it" death-list.)
And if they weren't?
It feels like this is one of those polarizing issues where each side is too scared to admit advantages of a different point of view in case they lose some ground. Everyone takes an extreme view for/against, the debate doesn't address the finer points of reality, and no one changes their mind or comes to more reasonable compromises.
The problem with this is that it requires us to trust our intelligence agencies, but they have shown themselves to be duplicitous, quite willing to lie to congress under oath, and unworthy of trust. Even by their own admission they have not been taking these actions when they have extreme certainty - people are killed who are "not specifically targeted".
There is no way to make assassination without trial by the executive transparent and accountable - that's why we have a court system and independent judiciary, and a whole host of laws protecting the accused. Subverting that entire legal system is very dangerous and we shouldn't allow it, because if we do, there is no legal impediment to stop laws used for terrorists being turned against others who oppose the state.
I don't know if it is common for u.s. army to kill people without targeting them but if it is the case they should better learn how to aim.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jul/03/afghanistan.luk...
By the time you're firing missiles at a restaurant, you have accepted that as long as your target is killed, some innocents will die with them. Any civilians, waiters, passers by etc who are caught in the blast are clearly just the cost of doing business. The attacks don't happen in a war zone or under cover of war, except the eternal and ill-specified 'war on terror'. If you want to argue that is not specifically targeting innocent people I'd respond that they are indiscriminately targeting innocent people in the hope of hitting their targets, which is worse.
It's remarkable to me that people still try to defend these attacks - if missiles were used on targets in a town on the US, killing several bystanders, there would be outrage, and rightly so. For the civilians on the ground, it is equivalent to suicide bombers taking out a crowd, some of whom are off-duty troops - the two acts have very similar consequences.
Nothing fucking happens, just look at the data of how many innocent people including children drone strikes have taken. Why doesn't this have any weight in anything? Oh, I know, all the flashlight is always just pointed at any nutter in your country that managed to get a 3 to 5 bodycount or wathever and spin the shit out of this mess as to justify what you do. No wonder there's people plotting against you.