Keep in mind the legal / law stuff is only about quite arbitrary rules once set and newly interpreted. It is NOT about what's right or wrong, or about what should be done and what shouldn't.

Policymakers need to make up their minds about the assassination and accompanied negligent mass homicides and then they need to define what's not legal.
Likewise, the citizens should make up their mind as well, as they're the source for the policymaking's legitimacy through elections. They need to hold the politicians' feet to the fire if they come to the conclusion that they don't want assassinations and negligent mass homicide be done in their name.


This is only in the second order about effectiveness of the tactics and techniques employed. First, it's about ethics. The ends don't justify the means - that is as far as I know a consensus in Western civilisation.
In case you disagree about the means and ends thing: Get ready for getting killed by your government in order to salvage your organs for several life-saving organ transplantations.

______
You probably noted that my vocabulary differs from the official ones.
targeted killing = assassination
collateral damage = negligent homicide

Face it; that's what it is. The whitewashed terminology is meant to deceive and manipulate.
I understand the art of manipulating and deceiving through focus group-tested and optimised language is quite sophisticated in the U.S. (don't export it, please). One should be able to see through such manipulation, though.