Naureen Shah of Amnesty International explained that Amnesty International cannot oppose all drone strikes in an
illegal war, because Amnesty International has never opposed a war,
because doing so would make it look biased, and A.I. wants to appear to
be an unbiased enforcer of the law.
However, now the U.N. special rapporteur finds that drones are making
war the norm rather than the exception. That’s a serious shifting of
the ground, and might be good reason to reconsider the ongoing
feasibility of a human rights group avoiding the existence of laws
Shah also argued against banning weaponized drones on the grounds
that they could be used legally. That is, there could be a legal war
(ignoring Kellogg-Briand) and during that legal war a drone could
legally kill people in accordance with someone’s interpretation of
necessity, discrimination, proportionality, intention, and so forth.
From the comments