> The "intent" in question isn't whether the "Clinton gang" wanted to bomb
> some target but rather whether they had any interest in destroying a
> pharmaceutical plant. That seems doubtful to me.
Really? Why? Because it was a "humanitarian" bombing? Recall that one of gang's cruder and more cowardly members, Albright, openly said that strangling a half million Iraqi children was "worth the price." And if it was an "accident," then why all the lies and spin that followed? Why the blocking of UN inspection?
> Even as a
> consequentialist, I have a problem with Chomsky assigning moral
> responsibility on the basis of all the often unforeseeable consequences of
> an act as opposed to the original calculation of expected utility.
Don't know if this would fly at Nuremberg.
DP