I don't understand this comparison. Yamamoto was at the time of his death an instrumental component of one of the largest military threats the US ever faced. Cukurs was decades out of the military when he was assassinated. Yamamoto was killed to degrade the combat effectiveness of a combatant army. Cukurs was killed purely for revenge.
I agree, in that I think the available evidence suggests that some of the killings have been reasonable in the context of military operations, and others have been haphazard, negligent, or poorly justified.
Of course, that's the way of all wars. Drone killings are alien to us and thus easy to fret about, but far worse things happen when you put troops on the ground. Scared teenagers have done far worse in good faith efforts to take down well-conceived targets than drones are likely ever to do.
You'd hope that people would take away the right lesson from this; not "US citizenship is a sacred talisman of safety in war zones", but that we shouldn't be declaring idiotic wars against enemies that almost by definition can't be "defeated".
I don't think we really disagree on anything in this case then. I have no particular issue if Americans happen to be killed by Americans in normal circumstances.
Killings outside of what could reasonably be considered a warzone continues to concerns me, American or otherwise (though American particularly, if I am honest).
