Globe and Mail cheers on criminals

As we saw the other day, there is a serious question as to the legality of the current American strategy in Pakistan. The Globe and Mail doesn't appear to care a wit:

Don't wait to ask
The Globe and Mail
(Editorial - September 12)

... After allowing some of the worst elements of the Taliban and al-Qaeda to operate in Pakistan for years, the government in Islamabad is in no position to cite "sovereignty" when U.S. forces pursue them.

Territorial inviolability is a bedrock principle of international relations, but when a state is used as a launching pad for aggression abroad, even by non-state groups, it is forfeit.

... agree that the ISI has been providing active support for terror attacks inside of Afghanistan, including the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul in July. Mr. Kayani is thought to have approved of that operation in his role as head of the army.

In light of such treachery, why should Washington wait for a green light from the Pakistani government before acting, when it identifies threats to its soldiers or to stability on the Afghan side of the border?

Some Pakistani leaders have made good-faith efforts to bring militant activity under control, and rein in the ISI. The new President, Asif Ali Zardari, will have to walk a tightrope, assisting Western anti-terrorist efforts, while not excessively provoking Pakistani extremists. And offending the military, which has few reservations about intervening in politics, has generally been an unwise idea in Pakistan.

But until and unless Islamabad can take responsibility for what goes on in territory it nominally rules, American raids should continue, and they do not require the Pakistani government's permission. (link)

To a rational observer, it would appear that Canada's national paper is suggesting that the state of Florida deserves missile attacks and invasion by special forces for harbouring Orlando Bosch, or more recently Luis Posada Carriles. But the Globe is so singularly concerned with Uncle Sam's problems that the editors likely wouldn't see the contradiction if it was pointed out to them.