In nearly every case on your list, the decision was made by politicians, not by the military.
Sacking a Canadian city (thinking GB was too busy with Napoleon, GB then burnt down gov buildings in Washington)
This was more than 200 years ago. Exactly how long do you hold a grudge?
Fire bombing Tokyo
A bombs needlessly on two Japanese cities
All depends what you consider "needless". Did the US "need" to nuke Hiroshima? No, of course not, they could have spent another million American lives (and likely ten times as many Japanese) instead. But someone has to make those judgment calls.
Actual invasion of UK Colony, Granada
Granada is a city in Andalusia. You probably mean Grenada, which gained independence from Britain some ten years before the US invaded (to reverse an internal military coup).
Multiple attacks using drones in Pakistan, who they are not even at war with.
They're not at war with Arizona, either, but federal agents kill people there on quite a regular basis. Frankly I'd rather they attacked with drones than using, say, nerve agents in a perfume bottle, or polonium in tea.
Refusal to extradite USA citizens
From Wikipedia: "From January 2004 to the end of December 2011, seven known US citizens were extradited from the US to the UK." The "extradition" nonsense is pure bullshit.
Refusal to allow 3rd party trials of US soldiers. Much violation of civilians at Okinawa.
Now this? - this is the only item on your list where I'll concede the point. But even there, I'll point out that some sort of "limited legal immunity" is standard pretty much everywhere soldiers - of any nationality - are stationed abroad. I don't recall British troops in Iraq, for instance, being prosecuted by Iraqi courts all that many times.