Well, in law, extreme recklessness (not giving a damn about the probable consequences of dangerous acts) can amount to knowledge. If I shoot in your direction, killing you, and not caring about whether I hit you, then I have the requisite mental state for murder, whether or not I intended to kill you. Maybe it's morally worse to mean to kill you rather than not to care whether I do, but surely either is unacceptably bad, and that judgment is embodied in the way we have written the law of homicide. The US, with its massive intelligence gathering capability, didn't bother to find out whether it was condemning thousands of Sudanese to horrible and unnnecessary lingering deaths. It didn't bother because it didn't care. It was more important for Brad's old boss, Bill, to Make a Statement. That makes the US culpable by ordinary legal standards.
Btw, the WTC hijackers certainly thought that they were doing something tragic and awful that would nonetheless make the world a better place by their lights. Perhaps they thought they were striking a blow at US imperialism, or retaliating for US support of Israeli repression of the Palestinians, or something of that sort. They were wrong to think so; they were simply doing something appalling. But they were doing it out of better motives than Bill, who killed to boost his polls and get reelected.
I take the back seat to no one in condemning this evil and loathesome act without quibbles or equivocations. But I don't have your double standard, Brad, in providing apologetics for the shameless cynicism of the exercise of murderous power by the US. And then there is your astounding statement that the US and the West took the stand it did in the former Yugoslavia because of its deep concern for Bosnian Muslims. I suppose you actually believe that. Chomsky's right: you can make intellectuals believe any damn fool thing.
--jks
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp