Sorry petr,

Re: Dr. A. Q. Khan, I would tend to bet that there was a damn sight more than a peep came out of the Bush administration, and out of the IAEA (whose responsibility this really is) - the world at large would not hear about it, such is diplomacy. But one thing resulting from that particular incident is that the IAEA, now knows a great deal more about the "black-market" in this sort of technology. Undoubtedly there was a deal done, one can only imagine that those who interviewed Dr. Khan considered that the information he supplied them with was significant enough to allow him to make his confession and depart the scene. In allowing him to do so, they got information, an essential ally was spared a great deal of embarrassment, which allows the international effort against nuclear proliferation, and against Al-Qaeda, to proceed unhindered.

"as far as Im concerned the wake up call should have been the 93 bombing of the World Trade Centre." Clarke covered this point quite well when he appeared in front of the 9/11 committee - At the time there was nothing to suggest this attack had anything to do with Al-Qaeda, IN HIS OPINION. With 20 x 20 hindsight you can make the statement "as far as I'm concerned..." - Did you think it was Al-Qaeda at the time (1993)?

The incidents relating to the East African embassy bombings, claimed by Al-Qaeda, resulted in the Clinton administration lobbing cruise missiles, rather ineffectively, at targets in the Sudan and in Afghanistan. This only suceeded in making the US look weak and ineffectual and increased the standing of Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, according to the considered opinion of both Berger and Tenet.

The USS Cole incident was covered extensively, before the 9/11 committee by Samuel Berger. Both he and George Tenet, explained that shortly after that attack a preliminary judgement that Al-Qaeda was responsible had been made. Richard Clarke's calls for immediate bombing of Afghanistan were rejected on the grounds of unfeasibility and ineffectiveness.

The intelligence relating to an expected Al-Qaeda attack was evaluated by the intelligence agencies of the US. The bulk of evidence indicated that this strike would fall outside the USA. Only Richard Clarke was of the opinion that the attack would come in the US.

No-one did predict that Al-Qaeda would use aircraft as weapons, Clarke, Tenet, Berger or Rice. Your reference to prior articles written by terrorism experts, would only come into play, if those articles had been studied/evaluated, and, if any credence had been put in them.

On the shipping thing, this problem is currently being addressed in new IMO ISPS codes that come into effect on the 1st July this year. This code covers security of ports and all vessels over 500 dwt engaged in international trade.

Ships do get hijacked in the Far East, mainly it is piracy. I do not know about the Pentagon think tank, but I do remember very early in the 70's, the Royal Navy were tasked with looking at this problem. The scenario you described (oil tanker 3/4 empty) is by no means the worst, believe me. The Royal Navy did at least three trials, that I am aware of, which simulated an attack launched from a hijacked merchant vessel. Of the three trials, the best the "terrorist controlled" ship managed to do was to get 12 miles off track - that was in the English Channel - busiest sea-way in the world.

Shortly after 9/11, around the time of operations starting in Afghanistan, UK Catters might remember a cargo ship being boarded and searched in the English Channel - We are awake to this form of attack. Incidently, Spain's major contribution to the war on terror to date has been naval patrols in the western Mediterranean.