this is ultimately a question of jurisprudential philosophy.

if you believe in "mens rea" intent matters and collateral damage is just the cost/risk of war.

if you do not believe in "mens rea", the ultimate _effect_ is what counts, and you assign blame based on the #innocents killed.

i do not believe in "mens rea". like the mikado, i am of the firm opinion that the punishment should fit the crime, and crime is defined by its _effect_, not its _intent_.

(a) ken lay should have been fried on the electric chair, and even now, his assets must be seized, for the crimes committed by enron on his watch, never mind that he himself was "out of the loop".

(b) bush, cheney, rumsfeld must be tried, convicted, and punished for war crimes, even if they "delegated their decision making" or "were fed bad intelligence" or "were just trying to protect the u.s.".

and so on.

as long as the american jurisprudential system subscribes to "mens rea", scumbag lawyers (yes, that means you, john edwards) will always be able to claim: temporary insanity, out of the loop, bad-apple minions exceeding their authority, and any and every sorry shit of an excuse to argue that a criminal is not really guilty or merits a punishment less than the one they truly deserve.

punishment must be based on the depth and breadth of the suffering and damage an action causes, whatever its intent.