I don't know anything about how they target their victim, but I am assuming the have very little time between seeing the victim and deciding to execute him/her/them. So I suspect an algorithm makes the call.
You can legitimately criticize a lot about the program, but it's not understaffed. At some level the military likes to retain "person in the loop" on things where automation is technically more appropriate, as it's a way to train people for other roles later -- i.e. pilots who eventually become USAF top brass.
My problem is with the over-use of drones in operations where we'd otherwise not get involved (Yemen, etc.). Drones themselves probably centralize decision making with more senior people, and the cost of not taking a shot is just having to wait for the next one, so unless it's a shot in support of a unit already on the ground, theoretically drones will make the military more restrained in the shots it takes. If there are friendly forces on the ground nearby, you end up with things like the "Reuters Journalist/Collateral Murder" situation -- a lower level of evidence to support a military decision than you'd ideally have.
Perhaps there is some philosophy at work that is just foreign to me?
Even the basis of this article strains credulity--the authors editorialize that any reliance on signals intel is bad. Assuming that drones are a useful military tool, wouldn't we want maximum information to improve targeting, leading to reductions in collateral damage?
There's no question much of the US response to 9/11 has been bad -- internationally (wars...) and domestically (perpetual state of war, civil liberties losses, etc.).
Articulating which changes, particularly technological, are good and bad individually is a lot harder. And it seems to be harder for people the closer they are to the situation emotionally.
Politicians have made a habit of abstracting themselves from the reality of the military and at the same time exploiting every angle of it for political gain.
But the sheer complexity and capability of the US military is dumbfounding.
Because in ways of bravery and valiancy the world hasn't seen much, if anything at all after WWII.
Mostly "oh, how brave we are, suffering a few casualties when fighting some goat herder enemies with 1/100 our capacity".