Maybe I'm being dense...
The outrage about killing/assassinating/murdering/droning Americans seems to be expressed in terms of deliberate decisions by Obama to target those he doesn't-like/views-as-enemies/has-determined-are-people-covered-by-the-AUMF. The remedy often proposed has usually involved judicial oversight ("due process of law").
It seems to me that if an American was killed in an operation but wasn't known to be there or wasn't the target, then judicial oversight wouldn't cover it anyway. The remedy can't address that problem. If I'm wrong, please enlighten me.
If your point is that it's counter-productive to drone people, I think that's an argument that can be had. But that's not a legal argument, it seems to me.
But I don't see how all of the outrage and the proposed remedies apply when someone is killed accidentally in an operation.
IOW, I was responding to Box's apparent claim that the 16-year-old was targeted by Obama. He wasn't. I think the distinction does matter, legally, because the remedy must be via a change in the law (it seems to me). Congress can fix this by changing the law - I'm glad you agree on that.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
