Ah, I see. Well, unfortunately we can't usually do that sort of thing. There may have been exceptions during the Cold War but no recent ones that I know about. The sort of pressure we can apply is at a higher level. For example, when we were worried about whether a Pakistani Islamist nuclear scientist was giving weapons to Al-Quaeda we put enormous pressure on Musharaff to get his nukes under total control (according to George Friedman). We threatened to go in there and take care of the matter if he couldn't (again according to George Friedman), but we didn't actually do it, and Musharaff did. For those who think Iraq was not the logical next step (in the War against Terror) after Afghanistan, there was a time when that next step could have been Pakistan (despite their nukes). That it wasn't is largely thanks to Musharaff. Lawrence _____ From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 12:29 PM To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: War on terror ... I'm trying to figure out how the security in Yemin was so incredibly lax that such a tunnel could be built without notice. A prisoner in the *Missouri* State Pen wouldn't be able to accomplish such a thing and get by with it. The U.S. is involved in all these questionable spy activities, such as checking peoples' library records and doing unauthorized wire-tapping; but here some of the big fish just ..... get away. While they've been plotting with the outside guys who helped dig the tunnel, I'm sure they've been plotting some other things about what to do when they get out. If they can't be kept once they're caught..... I guess I just wonder if the U.S. couldn't have done something to assist in the security considering the level of the guys who escaped. That would have done a lot more to keep people safe than expending resources checking library records. Julie Krueger