Not what I was saying. Maybe read next time?
"I don't believe in rights." Well, do you believe in any concept of morality at all? Honest question. Now that morality, whatever it is that views this behavior as acceptable, seems to hold that government killing its innocent citizens is just the price of doing business. Because that's what you are arguing here.
But what's the entire justification for government, morally speaking? Assuming you don't believe in a divine right system, it's almost always to protect its citizens. But your morality system is fine with the government killing its own innocent citizens for a sufficiently good purpose. And this is the key point: every action the government (with maybe the exception of printing money) takes will kill and harm the innocent.
From this, we come to a clear point: if every action the government takes will kill, then how can a government achieve it's goal of protecting people? First: every time government acts, it acts as a hypocrite at best, claiming to exist to protect people while simultaneously killing them. Second, then the only time it's okay for government to act is if it saves more than it kills.
I have my own code of morals. I just understand that nobody else is compelled to give a fuck about them. My morals only have weight given a big enough stick to back them up.
And who says a government's purpose is to protect its people? Do you still believe in Santa Claus my man?
Remember, friend: your own personal philosophy and idealistic beliefs about existence, seldom match up to reality. We live in a world where a creature's very existence is predicated on killing and consuming other creatures; a non-stop exchange of energy and suffering and occasional happiness, but mostly suffering.
If you find some point between those two extremes for any length of time, consider it a blessing and go forward