Why deal with a comedian’s argument? Because this is what passes for political analysis to millions (literally, the YouTube clip has almost 3,000,000 views) of Americans. This is how they form their opinion.
Here’s the actual law: Drone strikes against al-Qaeda and al-Qaeda-associated targets are authorized by act of Congress and fully comply with military law — which doesn’t require public disclosure of targeting criteria or the identification of immediate threats. After all, disclosure of precise targeting criteria merely gives the enemy a roadmap for avoiding danger. Instead a strike is lawful when it meets the three-fold test of necessity (is the attack necessary to accomplish a military objective?), distinction (does the attacker make an effort to distinguish between military and civilian targets), and proportionality (is the proper amount of force used to accomplish the military objective without excessive loss of innocent life). Our drone war not only meets this test, it represents the most humane and precise aerial bombardment in the history of air warfare.
By loitering above targets and using high-resolution optics, drones can take the time to identify targets and wait for the proper time to strike. By using smaller, precision-guided weapons, they avoid the mass blast effects of JDAMs or most forms of artillery strike (Doubt me? Watch the difference between a hellfire missile – carried by drones — and a JDAM carried by our aircraft.) Critically, this kind of sustained loitering combined with the use of lower-blast, precision weapons is not actually required by law. We go above and beyond the law to identify our targets and minimize the loss of civilian life. And our reward for that is mockery.