The thing is, the reasons given to engage in intervention (such as the drone strikes) should have justification that isn't paper thin. Saying "There are terrorists around here" is not a valid justification in any world. There is no logic in saying that, "If the Security Council won't authorize the action (which we have unilaterally deemed necessary) then we must take it upon ourselves." What on earth is the point of the Security Council if we're just going to roll over them whenever we feel like it? That simply isn't reasonable in any sense of the word. It's like giving the keys to the car to the UN and saying that they're fully in charge of the situation... and then when they won't let us take a joyride we beat them up and just take the keys anyway. It's completely empty. If our justification were actually sensible or even existent, they might be able to give us the OK, but because we've decided we need it, we're just taking it. Of course, this type of US exceptionalism is pretty much the norm so its not like it should surprise anyone. But the idea of it being an enforceable international policy is awful. By this logic Pakistan could say that they're justified to attack us on the basis that the Security Council won't permit "counter measures" to stop the drone attacks on their citizens. Since they're not the US though, they'd never be able to get away with half of what we do.