The US participated directly when Colombia attacked a FARC camp just across the border in Ecuador.

The argument that a state has the right to fight its enemies when they are sheltered by another state is valid in some circumstances, but one must look at the rest of the situation. For instance, did the Ecuadorian government shelter or sponsor that camp (or even know about it)? Did Colombia ask Ecuador for assistance in dislodging it?

There may be other relevant factors. The Colombian state was and still is closely connected with the worst terrorist group in Colombia, the paramilitaries.

Although the FARC have degenerated into drug trafficking and kidnap for profit, they are still better than the paramilitaries. Is support for the FARC justified on these grounds?

Taliban attacked and murdered foreign climbers on a mountain in Pakistan, as an intentional reprisal against people who had nothing to do with the war.

This is much nastier than US drone attacks. Imagine if the US had deliberately targeted a wedding party while believing that everyone there was a noncombatant, and you'd have an equivalent for this.

Pakistan says it has arrested those responsible.

Just about all the sides in Syria and Iraq are fighting against al Qa'ida. Even some other Islamist militias.

The defeat of al Qa'ida would mean the defeat of the worst sort of fanaticism. However, if the other Islamist militias are part of the winning side, I fear that women, human rights and non-Muslims in those areas will still be on the losing side.

US citizens: sign this petition for Obama to give Snowden amnesty.

And this one: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/Dp03vGYD

There is another campaign asking people to fax Obama copies of the New York Times editorial that says Snowden should be offered a reduced punishment. I think that is an insult to a hero, and I didn't support it. I support this instead.

US citizens: sign this petition calling for prosecution of Clapper for lying to Congress.