<HTML><HTML>Not to be legally pedantic but in order to keep discussion of this clear, "willfully negligent" is a sort of oxymoron. "Negligent" means an unintentional, i.e. unwillful, wrongful act that is carelessly liable or criminal.  Manslaughter is negligent killing. Murder is intentional or willful killing. Perhaps you mean there was a criminal omission.  They knew about and therefore had a duty to act to prevent the attack, but breached that duty by omitting to act. Charles ^^^^^ From: "Joseph Wanzala" Yes, the idea that there was government foreknowledge ('Bush knew') is not necessarily the same as saying 'the government fucked up'. That the government knew is almost beyond dispute now - see http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0332/mondo4.php. The question before us (or at least before me) is: Did they know about an impending attack but were nevertheless unable to foil it - or did they know about an impending attack - but opportunistically 'let it happen', in a scenario similar to that described by Stinnet re Pearl Harbor. So far we know that they have lied about not knowing about the impending attack, they also lied about having 'no idea' anyone would launch such an attack, and there has not been any sacrificial head rolling, instead everyone was promoted - except some FBI agent Colleen Rowley whose efforts to arrest Moussaui for example were inexplicably scuttled by her superiors. There are many indications of wilful negligence and that much has been strongly insinuated by Sen. Richard Shelby when he stated: "They don't have any excuse because the information was in their lap, and they didn't do anything to prevent it." A conservative interpretation of that is: 'you fucked up'. Another interpretation would be 'what the fuck were you thinking?!' He didn't say 'they *failed* to prevent it' he said 'they didn't do anything to prevent it'. i.e.: wilful negligence. </HTML>