It’s impossible to know what would’ve happened had a manned aircraft — not a drone — been in the air.

But it’s quite possible the U.S. would have never bombed the wedding party had it not had drones in the first place. There’s simply less risk inherent in bombing targets in Yemen with machines. If so, this means the U.S. has effectively off-loaded some of its risk onto civilians, and it’s done so largely in secret.

The strike in Pakistan — and its mistaken deaths — is another example.

“This is case that just comes to the surface because of two high-profile people getting killed a drone strike, and the U.S. has to account for it and atone for it,” Roff said. “But it still doesn’t get around the fact that the United States is carrying out its war in a very questionable way.”

But does the Obama disclosing the strike signal a shift toward more transparency in how America wages war? Roff thinks it could, but notes that it’s only a possibility.

“This is a precedent-type moment,” she added. “What might change is that if there are any other future strikes that may involve hostages or clearly non-combatant people in the area, then the United States may get into a position where it has to publicly atone or open up its documents about why it still undertook that particular strike.”

Roff noted that this is a big if. The CIA will always keep secrets, for understandable reasons. And the U.S. isn’t likely to stop using drones to target Al Qaeda members.

“No, it’s not going to stop doing that,” she said. “What it may do, is that [the U.S.] may limit its use in some instances that it may not have in others, and it may come under more scrutiny if it does not — because it has now set a precedent that in instances like this, it may declassify information on a strike.”

But remember, the U.S. didn’t kill one American citizen in the January attacks. It killed three Americans — one of them innocent and by accident. The CIA also killed Al Qaeda members and U.S. citizens Farouq and Gadahn.

For a moment, leave aside the mistake that led to an American citizen being killed by friendly fire. The White House still hasn’t convincingly argued that killing American combatants is on firm legal ground.

The government’s rationale — outlined in a white paper revealed in 2013 — follows that U.S. citizens fighting on the side of Al Qaeda forgo their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, because they are necessarily planning to conduct imminent attacks the U.S. in the future.

This line of reasoning continues that if the Al Qaeda member is in hiding — removed from the means by which the U.S. could capture him — then the U.S. could blow him up with a drone to remove the threat. And this would be completely legal.

It’s worth noting that the White House stretches the definition of imminent to mean a terrorist planning to attack from a location outside the reach of U.S. law enforcement. The terrorist could plan an attack that happens in a few hours, or years from now … it doesn’t matter.

Nor is the process subject to public review. There’s no trial, defense attorney or even acknowledgment from the White House that it’s targeted a U.S. citizen for assassination.

Finally, the administration wants Congress to believe this is legal.

“Should we have done this strike?” Roff asked. “Well, wait a minute. We haven’t resolved whether or not the two guys who were American citizens and were targeted was a good idea.”