From the headline article
in the WSJ today [that is, 26 September in the US] regarding CIA drone strikes in Pakistan (subscription required):
Conducting drone strikes in a country against its will could be seen as an act of war.
The fact that this actually needs to be stated these days is rather disturbing. If the US bombed the Soviet Union with B-52s in, say, 1980, does anyone doubt that would be thought of as an act of war by the USSR? But, whoa, since we're using drones in Pakistan today, things are suddenly muddled. And the matter of Pakistani consent?
About once a month, the [CIA] sends a fax to a general at Pakistan's intelligence service outlining broad areas where the U.S. intends to conduct strikes with drone aircraft, according to U.S. officials. The Pakistanis, who in public oppose the program, don't respond. On this basis, plus the fact that Pakistan continues to clear airspace in the targeted areas, the U.S. government concludes it has tacit consent to conduct strikes within the borders of a sovereign nation, according to officials familiar with the program.
Convincing! There is some muddying around in the article using other "legal" theories (such as, the Pakistanis are "unable and/or unwilling" to take action against the "threat" to the US, so we can bomb them without consent), but essentially it's as follows:
CIA: Dear Pakistanis, here's where we'll be bombing you in the next month, mmmkay?
And this is cute:
The White House also is worried about setting precedents for other countries, including Russia or China, that might conduct targeted killings as such weapons proliferate in the future, officials said.
You know what White House/officials? IT'S TOO FNCKING LATE!
Hmmm....It seems that the software won't accept paragraphs breaks anymore.