I think the point of the article was how they are doing the data collecting and making the decisions (for which they provided statements from a named source as well as the leaked documents).
The thought that targeting a 'cell phone/sim', as opposed to the actual person, could cause unexpected deaths seemed to be more of a 'logical next step' rather than a substantiated claim (although it has been shown elsewhere that unexpected deaths are happening with some frequency due to drone strikes/targeting).
> that unexpected deaths are happening with some frequency due to drone strikes/targeting
No doubt. The behaviour is extremely troubling, and the "collateral damage" should be considered war crimes IMO.
I'm doubting the authenticity of the source and that geolocation alone is being used for targeting, without any secondary confirmation. I find that very difficult to take at face value, although in our current climate I wonder why I should.
The thought that targeting a 'cell phone/sim', as opposed to the actual person, could cause unexpected deaths seemed to be more of a 'logical next step' rather than a substantiated claim (although it has been shown elsewhere that unexpected deaths are happening with some frequency due to drone strikes/targeting).