[fjorder]

Let me rephrase the question in way that is probably more likely to be thought about by a second-term president:

"Given that you obviously feel you can kill foreign citizens in their own countries along with an "acceptable" number of innocents without fear of reprisal, do you feel you can do the same in your own country where you have complete authority?"

While I feel many of Obama's policies are laudable, I think his wanton disregard for international law is reprehensible and ultimately doing more harm than good. Extraterritorial strikes are based on the classic notion of attrition warfare. i.e. If you kill enough of the enemy eventually there won't be any left. This strategy failed in Vietnam, failed in Iraq, and is in the final stages of failing in Afghanistan. What should make Pakistan any different? If it weren't for the Taliban's own atrocities (e.g. The shooting of Malala Yousufzai), anti-American sentiment and pro-Taliban support would be at an all time high due to outrage over the regular violation of Pakistan's sovereignty by drone attacks.

These strikes also set a very ugly precedent. As private use of UAV's begins to take off, it's going to become increasingly hard to prevent foreign interests from using them on U.S. soil. e.g. How will police be able to distinguish a tacocopter in San Francisco from a UAV packing a charge of explosives for an assassination? If foreign countries have the capability of killing U.S. citizens on U.S. soil who are inconvenient to their interests, what legitimate protest could the U.S. possibly raise against the practice at this point?