General Discussion

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/pakistan-drone-study-stanford_n_1911555.html

In a recent essay in Foreign Policy, Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who has closely examined the U.S. use of drones, argued that a claim by John Brennan, Obama's counterterrorism czar, that "the U.S. government has not found credible evidence of collateral deaths resulting from U.S. counterterrorism operations outside of Afghanistan or Iraq," was simply not believable.

The good news - you say:

if dead innocent people are not the authentic FUNDAMENTAL criteria for both the pro-drone and he anti-drone positions, if there are, instead, other criteria for pro- and anti- drone agendas that are not on the table...

As somebody who's fairly critical of the drone program myself, I can tell you that there are, regardless of the collateral damage ratios. My two issues are:
1) The mechanisation of conscience: Critical "common moral sense" present in soldiers is inherently missing in machines
2) Centralisation of control: Also increases the probability of decisions being made, which are contrary to common human moral sense, being executed on a mass scale. (Again, no human veto power)