DRONES: A QUESTION OF MORALITY

How can Obama follow the law if there is no law to follow while trying to defend America and democracy around the world? To defend us is his job by Constitutional authority but does not spell out how he is to do it; war is implied but that is the limit of it. However, he is bound in his duties by morality.  

In an almost perverse way, drone strikes are only immoral if they are illegal. They are much like carrying out state death penalties. It is immoral to kill except in self-defense. If states take the attitude, they have the right to protect their citizens from bad people by killing and there are laws saying they can do this, then it is moral. The antithesis is that it is clearly immoral to execute someone if the law says the State cannot do it. Regardless, many people, ignoring the self-defense argument, declare that to take a human life under any circumstances it immoral. Then like death penalties, drone strikes are immoral to these people. The idea that we do not have to execute an imprisoned person is obvious because the self-defense argument falls apart (it then becomes and economic issue—a life for a dollar is never moral). The lack of a law to guide the president dealing with the capture or kill question that we can agree on as a Nation leaves the drone strike in limbo.  Instead of criticizing Obama, why not criticize congress, for not making such a law.