I'm going to need a shower after this but Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, and warrantless mass surveillance were still a thing under Obama, no? Still, not even comparable to what we're witnessing now.
Except they're cheaper to run and don't physically risk a pilot.
It probably would have been more accurate to say something like "mass extra-judicial assasination/execution of individuals opaquely labelled as 'militants,' including US citizens, in foreign jurisdictions" instead of "drone strikes," but the latter is shorter and I thought would be understood as implying the former.
Because they'd more than likely target those same individuals with less precise weapons if not for the given alternative.
I don't think this is a fruitful debate but I doubt risk & cost are as much a determining factor as you'd like.