Asked about any potential threat from North Korea, Marine Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he did not know the intent of the Pyongyang leadership but the U.S. military could cope with any potential enemy.

"It is true that our units that are here at home are not fully equipped, as they would be if there wasn't a war going on," Pace told reporters at the Pentagon.

"But none of our potential enemies should miscalculate the capacity of this nation to generate overwhelming combat power, tomorrow, to defend our national interests."

Pace said the conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan meant some precision weapons and intelligence systems were already in use and could not be immediately be deployed elsewhere.

"It would be more brute force, wherever we might have to go next, than it would be if we weren't already involved in the war we have going on in Iraq or Afghanistan," Pace said.

"You would end up not having all of the precision weapons that you might otherwise have going into a second theater, wherever it might happen to be, and therefore you would end up using more dumb bombs, so to speak, more brute force, than you would otherwise," he said.

"So you end up with more collateral damage. You end up more like a World War Two, Korean War campaign than you would sitting at home waiting with the war not going on."

But he said that would not affect the capacity of the U.S. military to defeat any enemy.

"It would not be as clean as we would like it to be. But it would certainly be sure. And the outcome would not be in doubt," he said.

The United States has said it wants to use diplomacy to resolve its standoff with North Korea, which escalated when the secretive Communist state conducted a first nuclear test on October 9, but will take no option off the table.

The letters were filed in court as part of a recently settled lawsuit, in which Mahony -- head of the nation's largest archdiocese -- gave a deposition detailing actions to remove the priest from duties at a California diocese, said Mary Grant, spokeswoman for Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests.

"What we think Cardinal Mahony should have done is said: 'Bring that priest back here right now. He needs to be arrested,'" Grant said at a news conference. "That's what somebody who cares about children does."

Mahony's conduct in handling clergy abuse allegations has been under fire from SNAP for several years.

Mahony, who oversees the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Archdiocese, was out of town Tuesday and could not be reached for comment, but his spokesman Tod Tamberg said the cardinal "acted decisively and immediately" when informed of allegations against the Rev. Antonio Munoz, a Mexican priest visiting the Diocese of Stockton while Mahony was bishop there.

In a letter dated Sept. 18, 1981, Mahony wrote to Munoz at the Tijuana diocese informing the priest of his dismissal.

"For the spiritual and pastoral good of the people of the Dioceses of Stockton, please remain over there in Mexico," the letter said in Spanish. "If you, sir, would like to visit here for whatever reason, then I would have to inform police and immigration officials."

The letter ends with Mahony urging the priest to obtain "the professional and spiritual help you need."

Mahony also wrote a second letter dated the same day to Msgr. Juan Jesus Pasadas Ocampo of the Tijuana diocese about Munoz.

"It seems best to us that he doesn't return here ever, because there are many parents disposed to inform police about his actions," the letter said in Spanish.

"I hope that Father Munoz is not able to serve in a parish where there is the possibility to find more youngsters. He is truly (a) psychopath, and in reality he needs a lot of professional help."

Munoz could not be located for comment.

The Los Angeles archdiocese faces more than 500 lawsuits from people who allege they were abused by about 200 priests and lay people dating as far back as the 1930s. Settlement talks have been under way in those cases since 2002.

Sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests has cost the U.S. church at least $1.5 billion since 1950.

Although much of the evidence for the confiscations remains anecdotal, it is a hot topic this week among more than a thousand corporate travel managers and travel industry officials meeting in Barcelona at a conference of the Association of Corporate Travel Executives.

Last week, an informal survey by the association, which has about 2,500 members worldwide, indicated that almost 90 percent of its members were not aware that U.S. customs officials have the authority to scrutinize the contents of travelers' laptops and even confiscate them for a period of time, without giving a reason. Appeals are under way in some confiscation cases, but the law is clear.

"They don't need probable cause to perform these searches under the current law," said Tim Kane, a Washington lawyer who is researching the matter for corporate clients. "They can do it without suspicion or without really revealing their motivations."

Laptops may be scrutinized and subject to a "forensic analysis" under the so-called border search exemption, which allows searches of people entering the United States and their possessions "without probable cause, reasonable suspicion or a warrant," a U.S. court ruled in July.

The association is asking the U.S. government for better guidelines so corporate policies on traveling with proprietary information can be re-evaluated. It is also asking whether corporations need to reduce the proprietary data that travelers carry.

"We need to be able to better inform our business travelers what the processes are if their laptops and data are seized - what happens to it, how do you get it back," said Susan Gurley, the group's executive director.

Besides the possibility for misuse of proprietary information, travel executives are also concerned that a seized computer, and the information it holds, becomes unavailable for a time. A remedy some companies are considering is having travelers encrypt critical information and e-mail it to themselves before entering the country, protecting access to the data, if not privacy.

A U.S. court in California recently went against the trend, ruling that laptop searches were a serious invasion of privacy.

"People keep all sorts of personal information on computers," the court said, citing diaries, personal letters, financial records, lawyers' confidential client information and reporters' notes on confidential sources. In that specific case, the federal court ruled that "the correct standard requires that any border search of the information stored on a person's electronic storage device be based, at a minimum, on a reasonable suspicion."

In its informal survey, the association also found that 87 percent of its members said they would be less likely to carry confidential business or personal information on international trips now that they were aware of how easily laptop contents could be searched.


A lot of business travelers are walking around with laptops that contain private corporate information that their employers really do not want outsiders to see.

Until recently, their biggest concern was that someone might steal the laptop. But now there's a new worry: the laptop will be seized or its contents scrutinized at customs and immigration checkpoints upon entering the United States.

Although much of the evidence for the confiscations remains anecdotal, it is a hot topic this week among more than a thousand corporate travel managers and travel industry officials meeting in Barcelona at a conference of the Association of Corporate Travel Executives.

Last week, an informal survey by the association, which has about 2,500 members worldwide, indicated that almost 90 percent of its members were not aware that U.S. customs officials have the authority to scrutinize the contents of travelers' laptops and even confiscate them for a period of time, without giving a reason. Appeals are under way in some confiscation cases, but the law is clear.

"They don't need probable cause to perform these searches under the current law," said Tim Kane, a Washington lawyer who is researching the matter for corporate clients. "They can do it without suspicion or without really revealing their motivations."

Laptops may be scrutinized and subject to a "forensic analysis" under the so-called border search exemption, which allows searches of people entering the United States and their possessions "without probable cause, reasonable suspicion or a warrant," a U.S. court ruled in July.

The association is asking the U.S. government for better guidelines so corporate policies on traveling with proprietary information can be re-evaluated. It is also asking whether corporations need to reduce the proprietary data that travelers carry.

"We need to be able to better inform our business travelers what the processes are if their laptops and data are seized - what happens to it, how do you get it back," said Susan Gurley, the group's executive director.

Besides the possibility for misuse of proprietary information, travel executives are also concerned that a seized computer, and the information it holds, becomes unavailable for a time. A remedy some companies are considering is having travelers encrypt critical information and e-mail it to themselves before entering the country, protecting access to the data, if not privacy.

A U.S. court in California recently went against the trend, ruling that laptop searches were a serious invasion of privacy.

"People keep all sorts of personal information on computers," the court said, citing diaries, personal letters, financial records, lawyers' confidential client information and reporters' notes on confidential sources. In that specific case, the federal court ruled that "the correct standard requires that any border search of the information stored on a person's electronic storage device be based, at a minimum, on a reasonable suspicion."

In its informal survey, the association also found that 87 percent of its members said they would be less likely to carry confidential business or personal information on international trips now that they were aware of how easily laptop contents could be searched.


A lot of business travelers are walking around with laptops that contain private corporate information that their employers really do not want outsiders to see.

Until recently, their biggest concern was that someone might steal the laptop. But now there's a new worry: the laptop will be seized or its contents scrutinized at customs and immigration checkpoints upon entering the United States.

Although much of the evidence for the confiscations remains anecdotal, it is a hot topic this week among more than a thousand corporate travel managers and travel industry officials meeting in Barcelona at a conference of the Association of Corporate Travel Executives.

Last week, an informal survey by the association, which has about 2,500 members worldwide, indicated that almost 90 percent of its members were not aware that U.S. customs officials have the authority to scrutinize the contents of travelers' laptops and even confiscate them for a period of time, without giving a reason. Appeals are under way in some confiscation cases, but the law is clear.

"They don't need probable cause to perform these searches under the current law," said Tim Kane, a Washington lawyer who is researching the matter for corporate clients. "They can do it without suspicion or without really revealing their motivations."

Laptops may be scrutinized and subject to a "forensic analysis" under the so-called border search exemption, which allows searches of people entering the United States and their possessions "without probable cause, reasonable suspicion or a warrant," a U.S. court ruled in July.

The association is asking the U.S. government for better guidelines so corporate policies on traveling with proprietary information can be re-evaluated. It is also asking whether corporations need to reduce the proprietary data that travelers carry.

"We need to be able to better inform our business travelers what the processes are if their laptops and data are seized - what happens to it, how do you get it back," said Susan Gurley, the group's executive director.

Besides the possibility for misuse of proprietary information, travel executives are also concerned that a seized computer, and the information it holds, becomes unavailable for a time. A remedy some companies are considering is having travelers encrypt critical information and e-mail it to themselves before entering the country, protecting access to the data, if not privacy.

A U.S. court in California recently went against the trend, ruling that laptop searches were a serious invasion of privacy.

"People keep all sorts of personal information on computers," the court said, citing diaries, personal letters, financial records, lawyers' confidential client information and reporters' notes on confidential sources. In that specific case, the federal court ruled that "the correct standard requires that any border search of the information stored on a person's electronic storage device be based, at a minimum, on a reasonable suspicion."

In its informal survey, the association also found that 87 percent of its members said they would be less likely to carry confidential business or personal information on international trips now that they were aware of how easily laptop contents could be searched.


A lot of business travelers are walking around with laptops that contain private corporate information that their employers really do not want outsiders to see.

Until recently, their biggest concern was that someone might steal the laptop. But now there's a new worry: the laptop will be seized or its contents scrutinized at customs and immigration checkpoints upon entering the United States.

Although much of the evidence for the confiscations remains anecdotal, it is a hot topic this week among more than a thousand corporate travel managers and travel industry officials meeting in Barcelona at a conference of the Association of Corporate Travel Executives.

Last week, an informal survey by the association, which has about 2,500 members worldwide, indicated that almost 90 percent of its members were not aware that U.S. customs officials have the authority to scrutinize the contents of travelers' laptops and even confiscate them for a period of time, without giving a reason. Appeals are under way in some confiscation cases, but the law is clear.

"They don't need probable cause to perform these searches under the current law," said Tim Kane, a Washington lawyer who is researching the matter for corporate clients. "They can do it without suspicion or without really revealing their motivations."

Laptops may be scrutinized and subject to a "forensic analysis" under the so-called border search exemption, which allows searches of people entering the United States and their possessions "without probable cause, reasonable suspicion or a warrant," a U.S. court ruled in July.

The association is asking the U.S. government for better guidelines so corporate policies on traveling with proprietary information can be

'Traumatic and nasty experience'

The cute, black-haired boy is a shadow of his former bubbly self, according to his concerned mother Vivienne.

"He was such an outgoing, sociable young man. Since having this traumatic and nasty experience on MXit, Samuel has become withdrawn and angry. It has put our family under tremendous strain," Vivienne said.

Samuel began using MXit immediately after receiving his cellphone.

He explained that at first, he used the network to have conversations with his school friends and sports buddies, but soon he became curious about the chat rooms.

"I just wanted to see what the chat rooms were all about. I didn't plan on getting hooked on chatting," Samuel says, his eyes downcast and his voice a mere whisper.

'The anonymity of chat rooms means that trust and intimacy can develop quickly'
Samuel revealed that he soon began chatting with one particular person, a user who was known to him as "Candy 14".

"We started chatting and she told me she was living in Pietermaritzburg and was 14 years old," Samuel said, adding that he was very pleased with himself for finding himself a 14-year-old female friend who described herself as "spunky, cute and sugar-sweet".

"We spoke about everything, our families, our schools, our likes and dislikes. It was so cool. She told me her real name was Claudia," said Samuel.

Samuel divulged that pretty soon, the conversations became more personal, with "Claudia" asking him about girls, his preferences when it came to choosing girlfriends, what turned him on and other topics that Samuel was loathe to confess.

It was after about a month of chatting on MXit that "Claudia" asked Samuel to meet in person.

Samuel readily agreed, eager to put a face to the name and meet his new friend.

The two set up a meeting for a Saturday afternoon at Milky Lane in Scottsville, where Samuel was going to be identified by the black Quicksilver T-shirt and military cargo pants he was wearing.

Samuel informed his parents that he was meeting friends at the movies and was dropped off by his father.

"After about 10 minutes of waiting, I was approached by an old man who had been standing nearby. He asked if my name was Samuel. I did not answer him because I was scared," he said.

The man told Samuel that he was Claudia and wanted to "get to know him better".

"He made a move for my hand and I just bolted," Samuel said, adding that he ran to the public restroom, locked himself in and called his parents.

"I broke down. I told this man such intimate and personal things about myself and my family. I am so ashamed," the young boy said.

MXit has enjoyed phenomenal growth since its launch in May 2005. But the dangers attached to this extremely easy-to-use and attractive service are all too real.

The service can become addictive to certain users and may become a hunting ground for perverse predators intent on luring young, naive children into their clutches.

Statistics released by Clockspeed Mobile, the company that developed MXit reveal that in 2006 45 percent of users fall in the 12-17 age group.

"For this reason", Alex Meiring, director of Clockspeed Mobile and creator of MXit, was reported as saying, "it is up to parents to communicate to their children the importance of using technology responsibly."

Meiring confirmed that to prevent nasty experiences from occurring, profanity filters have been put in place to block bad language and a report abuse function is operational on the website for users to report bad behaviour.

A list of safety tips have also been posted on the website and MXit portal.

MXit is also in the process of a joint venture with ChildLine, allowing for children to receive online counselling should they require it.

Child psychologist Terry Heide said it is imperative for parents to become more involved in their children's technological escapades.

"Often we have parents who are struggling to keep up with technological advances and choose to ignore their children's interest in the cellphone and MXit culture," Heide said.

He explained that most parents have no idea of the faceless dialogues that their children are engaging in, or what sort of personal information they are dispensing.

"The anonymity of chat rooms means that trust and intimacy can develop quickly, allowing predators to take advantage of this anonymity to build relationships with inexperienced, unsuspecting children," said Heide.

Heide advised parents not to prevent their children from using their cellphones or computers, because "we all know forbidden fruit tastes better".

Heide says parents should rather make themselves aware of which chat rooms their children visit and whom they speak to, as well as to monitor the conversation.

Children should be instructed never to divulge any personal information to other users, as well as to never leave the chat rooms to engage in "private" conversations with other users.

"Parents should always maintain a good, open relationship with their children, one in which the child is comfortable enough to approach their parents if anything unpleasant does occur," Heide said.

He said it is important that parents sit down with their children to discuss the dangers of chat rooms and the responsibility that comes with using such a service.

Another MXit user, Danielle, 16, had this to say: "MXit is great. It allows me to chat with my friends and family at minimal cost. But don't be fooled. There are some pervs out there who abuse the service, giving it a bad name.

"That's the downside of groundbreaking technology. There will always be someone out there who will find a way to screw it up."