Due to the lack of a governing body regulating the use of armed drones in the global political context, it is practically subject to no legal constraints. This paves the way to a drone-possessor state's ability to employ said technology in contemporary armed conflicts, secretly or not, without having to make an honest legal or ethical case for their actions. As a consequence, governments can sidestep accountability. Those in favour of armed drones, politicians and scholars of the ethics of war alike, attempt to justify their use by appeal to the traditional criteria of Just War Theory which has provided a framework for the ethical evaluation of war for centuries. Upon closer inspection, however, it becomes evident that current drone practices severely violate the same normative ethical principles they promise to uphold. While drones are, for instance, lauded as high-precision weapons sparing innocent civilians to a much higher degree than traditional bombs, this narrative is dangerously misleading. The US in the War on Terror, for instance, have widened the definition of "terrorist" so as to include military-aged males, that is, civilians, who may then be legitimately targeted in drone strikes. Drone technology, in sum, seems to enable the possessor-state to redefine the rules of war as it pleases which can have terrifying consequences. Can this be avoided?