WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Defense Department will release "a substantial number" of photographs showing abuse of prisoners at prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

Aggressive techniques to interrogate terror suspects are making headlines again.

The release will be in response to an open-records lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the group said in a written statement. The statement released late Thursday said the photos were taken at facilities other than Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib," Amrit Singh, an ACLU attorney, said in the release. The photos are to be released by May 28, the ACLU said.

The Department of Defense announced in a letter addressed to the federal court on Thursday that it would release the photos.

In a copy of the letter posted on the ACLU's Web site, acting U.S. Attorney Lev L. Dassin said that 21 photographs would be released and that the government "also is processing for release a substantial number of other images."

The lawsuit was filed in 2004 after the Bush administration denied a 2003 open-records request by the ACLU.

The 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled last year that the photos should be released. The Defense Department will not appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, Dassin said in the letter.

Attempts by CNN to reach the White House and Department of Defense for comment were not immediately successful.

Question:
What did the ACLU file a lawsuit for?
When will the pictures be released?
Where are the abused prisoners?

Answer: was filed in 2004 after the Bush administration denied a 2003 open-records request by the

Answer: May 28,

Answer: prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan,

Summary:
Photos showing abuse of prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan to be released, ACLU says .
ACLU filed lawsuit in 2004 against Bush administration for access to photos .
Defense Department says it will not appeal court ruling, will release pictures .
ACLU: Pictures, taken at facilities other than Abu Ghraib, to be released by May 28 .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Department of Homeland Security and FBI have issued security bulletins to raise awareness regarding "terrorist interest" in attacking sports and entertainment venues as well as luxury hotels. The bulletins, which were sent to law enforcement Monday, said that authorities did not know of any credible or specific terrorist plots to attack U.S. stadiums, arenas or luxury hotels. However, it said that terrorist groups such as al Qaeda view crowded stadiums and arenas as potential targets. It said hotels are also attractive targets for terrorists. The Department of Homeland Security said it released the notes to assist law enforcement partners as they go about their daily duties. "While DHS and FBI have no information regarding the timing, location or target of any planned attack, we believe it is prudent to raise the security awareness of our local law enforcement partners regarding the targets and tactics of previous terrorist activity," the department said. The bulletins did not mention the recent arrest of three men in connection with what the Justice Department has said was a plot to detonate bombs in the United States. The men are charged with lying to federal agents during the probe of the alleged plot. The bulletin on stadiums and arenas said that previous attacks against crowd gatherings have included improvised explosive devices and car bombs, "tactics that are also applicable to many stadiums and arenas. ... "Detained terrorists have also discussed the use of aircraft and chemical weapons to attack stadiums and arenas. " It said the al Qaeda training manual lists " 'blasting and destroying the places of amusement, immorality and sin ... and attacking vital economic centers' as a key objective." The bulletins on luxury hotels said analysis of previous attacks abroad and thwarted plots showed that terrorists have used paramilitary and "small unit" tactics, explosives, improvised explosive devices and car bombs. It said hotel owners can protect their properties by installing fencing or walls around the buildings and populated areas; implementing random screening of people and their possessions; and training security staff.

Question: Did Homeland Security and FBI say there were credible or specific terrorist threats?

Question: What type of bulletins did both the department of homeland security and the FBI issue?

Question: What do crowds at stadiums and hotels generate?

Question: what agencies are involved

Question: What did the FBI issue?

Question: what are security bulletons

Answer: not know of any

Answer: awareness regarding "terrorist interest"

Answer: "terrorist interest"

Answer: The Department of Homeland Security and FBI

Answer: security bulletins

Answer: awareness regarding "terrorist interest" in attacking sports and entertainment venues as well as luxury hotels.

Summary:
Department of Homeland Security and FBI issue security bulletins .
No credible or specific terrorist attack threats at this time, agencies say .
Crowds at stadiums, hotels generate terrorist attention, agencies say .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Director of National Intelligence is replacing the agency's inspector general just days after the public release of a blistering report critical of the DNI's office. DNI head Dennis Blair announced Friday Justice Department official Roslyn Mazer will replace Inspector General Edward McGuire as the DNI's internal watchdog. The inspector general's role is to examine the operations of the office and investigate any allegations of waste, fraud or misconduct. Earlier this week, Maguire testified before Congress about his report on the state of the DNI's office, outlining rampant communication problems, continuing turf battles within the intelligence community and financial mismanagement. All of those problems were supposed to be addressed when the position of DNI was created by Congress in 2004 to look at the intelligence failures associated with the 9/11 terrorism attacks and the claims of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction. The classified inspector general report was completed in November 2008, but was not made public until this week. DNI spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Maguire's departure has nothing to do with his report. She claimed Blair, who assumed his position two months ago, wanted to bring his own leadership team. "The director appreciates the efforts and work of the previous inspector general and will continue to build on some of the suggested reforms," Morigi said.

Question: Who is being replaced as DNI's internal watchdog?

Question: What is the name of the Inspector General?

Question: What does Magure's Departure come after?

Question: Who is being replaced?

Question: Who was his blistering report critical of?

Answer: Inspector General Edward McGuire

Answer: Edward McGuire

Answer: just days after the public release of a blistering report

Answer: Inspector General Edward McGuire

Answer: DNI's office.

Summary:
Inspector General Edward McGuire is being replaced as DNI's internal watchdog .
Maguire's departure comes after blistering report critical of DNI .
Report details turf battles within intelligence community, financial mismanagement .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The FBI did not participate in harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists detained in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan or Iraq, said a Justice Department investigation released Tuesday.

An April 2007 photo shows a room at Guantanamo Bay that had been used for interrogations.

The investigation also concluded that the bureau generally reported potentially illegal actions by the CIA and Defense Department.

In "only a few instances" did FBI agents use techniques that were not approved by FBI policies, according to the report by Inspector General Glenn Fine.

Fine criticized the FBI for being slow in developing and distributing its interrogation policy to its interrogators.

Though the the FBI decided to avoid harsh techniques in August 2002, the decision was not put in writing until 2004, when the bureau also put in writing that the harsh techniques used by other agencies should be reported to FBI superiors.

The 2002 decision by FBI Director Robert Mueller was that the bureau would adhere to restrictions used in interrogations of detainees within the United States. Those techniques prohibit coercion, abuse or threats.

The policy is based on the belief that building a rapport with prisoners is the best way to gain intelligence, according to Tuesday's report.

The FBI issued a statement saying it is "gratified" by the report's findings, and Mueller promised that the bureau will continue to use "rapport-building techniques in interviews" of detainees.

The inspector general's investigators interviewed almost all of the more than 1,000 FBI employees who were deployed to one or more military zones between 2001 and 2004, the report said.

The vast majority of the agents adhered to FBI policies and separated themselves from other agencies' interrogators who were using techniques that the FBI didn't approve of, the report said.

The report listed "a few incidents" that "clearly would not be permissible for FBI agents to use in the United States," including isolating a prisoner from human contact and participating in an interrogation in which detainees were "given a 'drink of water' in a forceful and inappropriate manner."

It also listed incidents that were not "clear violations of FBI policy" but which should have raised questions.

Some agents participated in a program of subjecting detainees to frequent cell relocations, the report said. In another case, two agents joined in an interview in which a detainee's hands and feet were "short-chained" close together for several hours, during which time the prisoner urinated on himself.

FBI agents reported that non-FBI interrogators engaged in sleep deprivation or sleep disruption techniques, which include using bright lights, loud music and extreme temperatures "to keep detainees awake or otherwise wear down their resistance."

No FBI agents witnessed the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the U.S. Army-operated Baghdad correctional facility where some prisoners were physically and sexually abused, sparking outrage when photos of the abuse became public.

However, the report said, an FBI agent said he witnessed a naked Abu Ghraib prisoner forced to roll between rows of cells. He did not report the incident because he didn't know whether it was an acceptable technique.

The report also said FBI personnel did not witness the controversial waterboarding technique, which the CIA has confirmed was used on three prisoners.

The FBI protested when it witnessed techniques used by the military and the CIA in questioning top terror suspects Abu Zubayda and Yousef al-Qarani, according to the report. In one instance, an agent objected to using a snarling dog to interrogate al-Qarani.

Despite some criticism, the inspector general offered the FBI modest praise at the conclusion of his three-year investigation.

"We believe that while the FBI could have provided clearer guidance earlier, and while the FBI could have pressed harder for resolution of concerns about detainee treatment by other agencies, the FBI should be credited for its conduct and professionalism in detainee interrogations in the military zones in Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Iraq, and in generally avoiding participation in detainee abuse," the report concluded.

The inspector general's investigation did not quiet the FBI's chief critics. The American Civil Liberties Union said FBI leaders failed

Question: How many instances of unapproved techniques by the FBI were found?

Question: What did the investigation find about FBI?

Question: What did the report acknowledge?

Question: Who looked at interrogations at Guantanamo Bay?

Question: Who acted generally responsibly?

Question: At what places where the interrogations?

Answer: "only a few instances"

Answer: not participate in harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists detained

Answer: building a rapport with prisoners is the best way to gain intelligence,

Answer: Justice Department

Answer: the CIA and Defense Department.

Answer: Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan

Summary:
Justice Department investigation finds FBI generally acted responsibly .
Probe looked at interrogations at Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, Iraq .
Investigators find "only a few instances" of unapproved techniques by FBI .
FBI "could have provided clearer guidance earlier," report acknowledges .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Federal Aviation Administration has ordered its inspectors to make sure regional airlines' training programs are in line with federal regulations, authorities announced Tuesday. Regional airline Colgan Air's Flight 3407 crashed near Buffalo, New York, on February 12. "It's clear to us in looking at the February Colgan Air crash in Buffalo that there are things we should be doing now," FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt said. "My goal is to make sure that the entire industry -- from large commercial carriers to smaller, regional operators -- is meeting our safety standard." Colgan Air Flight 3407 crashed near Buffalo, New York, on February 12, killing all 49 passengers and crew members aboard. One person on the ground was also killed. Federal investigators held hearings on Capitol Hill last month on the cause of the crash but have not concluded their inquiry. Several shortcomings of the crew came to light during the National Transportation and Safety Board hearings when it was revealed that Colgan Air Capt. Marvin Renslow failed to reveal two pilot exam failures in his job application. Testimony at the hearings also revealed that fatigue apparently contributed to the failure of Renslow and First Officer Rebecca Shaw to save the plane as it approached Buffalo Niagara International Airport. USA Today newspaper reviewed the safety board's accident reports over the past 10 years and found that in nearly every serious accident involving a regional airline during that time, at least one of the pilots had failed multiple skill tests. "In eight of the nine accidents during that time, which killed 137 people, pilots had a history of failing two or more 'check rides,' tests by federal or airline inspectors of pilots' ability to fly and respond to emergencies," USA Today reported Sunday. "In the lone case in which pilots didn't have multiple failures since becoming licensed, the co-pilot was fired after the nonfatal crash for falsifying his job application." In addition to reviewing regional airlines' training programs, Babbitt and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood have called on representatives from major air carriers, their regional partners, aviation industry groups and labor to participate in a "call to action" in Washington on Monday, according to a U.S. Department of Transportation news release. The review will address pilot training, cockpit discipline and other flight safety issues, the release said.

Question: Will FAA examine training at regional airlines?

Question: How many pilot test failures did USA Today find in regional airline crashes?

Question: who investigated the fatal crash?

Question: Where did the fatal crash occur that the NTSB is currently investigating?

Question: who's inquiry found pilot test failures?

Question: What is the FAA examining?

Answer: programs are in line with federal regulations,

Answer: eight of the nine accidents

Answer: Federal Aviation Administration

Answer: Buffalo, New York,

Answer: The Federal Aviation Administration

Answer: regional

Summary:
FAA to examine training at regional airlines to make sure it meets federal standards .
NTSB investigation into fatal crash in Buffalo revealed pilot exam failures .
USA Today inquiry found pilot test failures in eight of nine regional airline crashes .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The House of Representatives on Tuesday passed a bill that would make suing for pay discrimination easier by altering a time limit on such suits.

The act is named for Lilly Ledbetter, seen here in 2008. Her discrimination lawsuit victory was overturned in 2007.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which passed 250-177, would give workers alleging unequal pay the right to sue within 180 days of their most recent paycheck.

Current law says such employees must sue within 180 days of receiving their first unfair paycheck. Supporters of the new legislation say that, under the current law, an employer merely needs to hide unfair pay practices for three months before being able to continue them without penalty.

The act, named for a former Goodyear Tire employee who sued the company for gender discrimination in 1998, would effectively overturn a 2007 Supreme Court decision on the limit.

Ledbetter was awarded $360,000 in back pay by a federal judge in Alabama, but the verdict was overturned in a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in May 2007.

The court said that even though she filed her complaint within 180 days of when she first learned that she was getting paid less than comparable male employees, she had failed to file within 180 days of the first unequal paycheck.

After Tuesday's House vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the chamber had "taken a bold step" in passing the legislation.

"In doing so, it has injected fairness, reason and common sense back into policy," Pelosi said.

The legislation, which passed the Senate on Thursday, now goes to President Barack Obama, who has promised to sign it into law. It is the first major piece of legislation Congress has sent to Obama for his approval.

On the campaign trail, Obama and Republican nominee Sen. John McCain debated the bill. Obama heavily emphasized what he called the plan's benefits to working women, while McCain criticized it as a boon for trial lawyers.

Pelosi said Obama called to congratulate her on the bill's passage. Obama danced with Ledbetter at one of his inaugural balls, and she spoke at the Democrat National Convention at which he accepted his party's nomination.

"My case is over -- I will never receive the pay I deserve," Ledbetter said in that speech. "But there will be a far richer reward if we secure fair pay for our children and grandchildren, so that no one will ever again experience the discrimination that I did."

Question: What would the Act change?

Question: Who is the Act named for ?

Question: What has President Obama promised to sign?

Question: What will the act do?

Question: What has Obama promised to sign?

Question: When was the women's discrimination victory overturned?

Answer: give workers alleging unequal pay the right to sue

Answer: Lilly Ledbetter,

Answer: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,

Answer: give workers alleging unequal pay the right to sue within 180 days of their most recent paycheck.

Answer: The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act,

Answer: in 2007.

Summary:
President Obama has promised to sign Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act .
Act would alter time limit for pay-discrimination suits, makes them easier to file .
Limit would be based on date of most recent unfair paycheck, not the first .
Act named for woman whose discrimination victory was overturned in 2007 .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has been asked to investigate whether Panama tortured an Ecuadorian citizen who was being held as an illegal immigrant, an official hemispheric human rights organization said. Jesus Tranquilino Velez Loor was arrested November 11, 2002, and deported to Ecuador on September 10, 2003. During that time, he was held without receiving procedural guarantees, the right to be heard and the right to present a defense, said the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. "The case also involves the lack of investigation of complaints of torture presented by Mr. Velez Loor before the Panamanian authorities, as well as the inhumane conditions of detention under which he was held in several Panamanian penitentiaries," the human rights commission said in a release Tuesday. The human rights panel, which is part of the 35-nation Organization of American States, said it referred the case to the court last week because Panama did not adopt sufficient measures to address issues raised in a previous commission report. Velez Loor "was sentenced to a prison term for having repeatedly entered Panama illegally. ... Panamanian law provides that foreign nationals, who repeatedly enter Panama, without the necessary papers, will be imprisoned for two years and then deported," Panama said in a 2006 report. Velez Loor admitted he had gone into Panama without proper papers or visas. The commission said it received an e-mailed complaint from Velez Loor on February 10, 2004, "in which he claims to have undergone torture, forced isolation, and mistreatment at the hands of Panamanian police officers at two Panamanian detention centers without being given the opportunity to defend himself, without the benefit of any court of law, without being allowed to make a telephone call and while being deprived of all medical care." Panama denied those allegations in the 2006 human rights commission report. Officials at the Panamanian embassy in Washington did not return a telephone request Tuesday from CNN for comment on the latest development. The human rights commission consists of seven members who act in a personal capacity, without representing any country, and who are elected by the OAS General Assembly.

Question: What did Commission say?

Question: What did embassy not do?

Question: What was Loor sentenced to prison for?

Question: Who did not return request for comment?

Question: When did Commission say it received complaint from Velez Loor?

Question: What was Loor sentenced for?

Answer: "The case also involves the lack of investigation of complaints of torture presented by Mr. Velez Loor before the Panamanian authorities, as well as the inhumane conditions of detention under which he was held in several Panamanian penitentiaries,"

Answer: return a telephone request

Answer: having repeatedly entered Panama illegally.

Answer: Officials at the Panamanian embassy in Washington

Answer: February 10, 2004,

Answer: having repeatedly entered Panama illegally.

Summary:
Commission says it received complaint from Velez Loor in 2004 of alleged torture .
Velez Loor sentenced to prison term for illegal entry into Panama, Panama says .
Officials at Panamanian embassy in Washington did not return request for comment .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The National Archives -- a repository of important government documents, including the U.S. Constitution -- has lost a computer hard drive containing large volumes of Clinton administration records, including the names, phone numbers and Social Security numbers of White House staff members and visitors. The National Archives has lost a hard drive containing large volumes of Clinton administration records. Officials at the Archives say they don't know how many confidential records are on the hard drive. But congressional aides briefed on the matter say it contains "more than 100,000" Social Security numbers, including one belonging to a daughter of then-Vice President Al Gore. It also contains Secret Service and White House operating procedures, the staffers said they were told. The hard drive was last seen in the National Archive's complex in College Park, Maryland, sometime between October of last year and the first week of February. It was discovered missing in late March, prompting a thorough search for the small, 2.5 pound device, the Archives said. When it could not be located, the inspector general's office opened a criminal investigation. On Wednesday, the Archives announced a $50,000 reward for information leading to its return. The Archives said no national security information is on the hard drive, nor any original documents. But they said it does contain "personally identifiable information," and they take the loss "very seriously." U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, whose staff was briefed on the matter, said the House will hold a hearing Thursday on the incident. "If they [the National Archives' staff] can't handle a hard drive that may be sensitive properly, we need to ask the question, will they handle the most secret materials properly?" Issa said. The Archives Wednesday gave the following account of the disappearance: Last October, the hard drive was moved from a "secure" storage area to a workspace where it was being used for routine recopying to ensure preservation of the records. But work was halted last year because archivists "wanted to investigate using automated tools to generate inspection reports." Staffers were moved to other projects until an automated tool was found in mid-March -- that's when they found the hard drive was missing. The device is described as a two terabyte Western Digital MY BOOK external hard drive, measuring 6.5 x 2.1 x 5.4 inches. More than 110 4-millimeter tape cartridges were copied onto the hard drive. The records included records from the Clinton Administration Executive Office of the President. The archives said no original records have been lost, and the Archives has a backup hard drive that will enable them to determine what information is on the missing device. The inspector general said at least 100 people had access to the area where the hard drive was left unsecured, and that janitors, visitors and others also passed through the area. The Archives said it is reviewing the data on a copy of the missing hard drive and compiling a list of people whose personal information may be compromised. It will notify individuals of the potential breach and will provide them with a year of credit monitoring, the Archives said. "Because of the extremely large volume of data on the drive, we do not know yet the number of individuals whose privacy has been affected," the Archives said Wednesday. "As individuals are identified, they will be notified." The Archives also said it has taken steps to improve security, including both physical control of records and the treatment of personal information.

Question:
What is on the hard drive?
What reward has been announced?
What do the Congressional aides say?
How many records are on the hard drive?
How much is the reward?
What don't Officials know?
Who has announced the reward?
What is the reward for?

Answer: containing large volumes of Clinton administration records, including the names, phone numbers and Social Security numbers of White House staff

Answer: $50,000

Answer: it contains "more than 100,000" Social Security numbers,

Answer: it contains "more than 100,000" Social Security numbers,

Answer: $50,000

Answer: how many confidential records are on the hard drive.

Answer: The National Archives

Answer: information leading to its return.

Summary:
Officials say they don't know how many confidential records are on the hard drive .
Congressional aides say "more than 100,000" Social Security numbers on drive .
Archives announced a $50,000 reward for information leading to its return .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The National Organization for Women has sharply criticized comedian David Letterman, accusing him of promoting a hostile, uncomfortable work environment. David Letterman's behavior with employees has created "a toxic environment" in the workplace, NOW says. "The latest Letterman controversy sheds new light on the widespread objectification of women in the workplace," NOW said in a statement Tuesday. "Most women can attest to the fact that many workplaces are plagued with inappropriate behavior by men in power." The "Late Show With David Letterman" host admitted last week on his CBS program that he had sex with unnamed employees and had testified about those liaisons before a New York grand jury as part of an alleged extortion attempt. A CBS producer, Robert "Joe" Halderman, is accused of threatening to go public with embarrassing information about Letterman's private life unless the 62-year-old funnyman ponied up $2 million.  Watch NOW's president slam Letteman, CBS » Letterman made a public apology Monday to his wife, Regina Lasko, who, he said, had been "horribly hurt by my behavior." He said he is trying to repair that relationship. "Either you're going to make some progress and get it fixed, or you're going to fall short and perhaps not get it fixed, so let me tell you folks, I got my work cut out for me," Letterman told the audience Monday night. Letterman married Lasko in March, and they have a 5-year-old son together. All the affairs took place before the marriage, Letterman's production company has said. One of the women who engaged in a sexual relationship with Letterman was identified as Stephanie Birkitt, an assistant to the talk show host and also a former live-in girlfriend of Halderman. Letterman spokesman Tom Keaney said that Birkitt is on a paid leave of absence from the show. NOW said Letterman's behavior was inappropriate in the workplace, saying all employees should be respected for their talent and skills. "Recent developments in the David Letterman extortion controversy have raised serious issues about the abuse of power leading to an inappropriate, if not hostile, workplace environment for women and employees," NOW said in Tuesday's statement. Men such as Letterman make decisions on hiring and firing, who gets raises, who advances and who does entry-level tasks, NOW said. "As 'the boss,' he is responsible for setting the tone for his entire workplace -- and he did that with sex. In any work environment, this places all employees -- including employees who happen to be women -- in an awkward, confusing and demoralizing situation," the group said. "The National Organization for Women calls on CBS to recognize that Letterman's behavior creates a toxic environment and to take action immediately to rectify this situation. With just two women on CBS' board of directors, we're not holding our breath." Those board members are Shari Redstone, vice chairwoman of the board and president of National Amusements Inc., which operates motion picture screens, and Linda Griego, president and chief executive of Griego Enterprises Inc., a business management company. CBS airs "Late Show With David Letterman," which Letterman's company, Worldwide Pants Inc., produces.

Question: What did he do with employees?

Question: Who accused in extortion plot against talk-show host?

Question: Who urges CBS "to take action immediately"?

Question: Which group urgs CBS to take action inmediately?

Question: Whose behaviour was inappropriate in the workplace?

Question: Who are urging CBS to take action immediately?

Question: Who admitted to sex with employees, apologized to wife?

Question: Who accused of extortion?

Question: Who admitted on air to sex with employees?

Answer: unnamed

Answer: Robert "Joe" Halderman,

Answer: "The National Organization for Women

Answer: National Organization for Women

Answer: David Letterman's

Answer: The National Organization for Women

Answer: David Letterman"

Answer: David Letterman

Answer: David Letterman"

Summary:
NOW calls David Letterman's behavior inappropriate in the workplace .
Letterman on air admitted to sex with employees, apologized to wife .
Feminist group urges CBS "to take action immediately"
CBS producer accused in extortion plot against talk-show host .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The National Transportation Safety Board has released dramatic animation of two runway near-collisions this year to illustrate what the agency says is the need for improvements in runway safety.

The NTSB animation shows two planes nearly colliding at the San Francisco International Airport in May.

The first animation shows a Delta Air Lines Boeing 757 and a United Airlines Airbus A320 coming within 230 feet of colliding on the runway at the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in Florida in July.

The re-creation was based on radar and flight data recorder information from the planes involved.

The animation includes audio from the air traffic controller, who can be heard yelling, "Stop, stop, stop!" to the United plane as the Delta aircraft attempts to land.  Watch animation, hear controller's pleas »

The second animation shows a May incident at San Francisco International Airport in California in which a Republic Airlines jet takes off, coming within 35 feet of a SkyWest Airlines commuter turboprop that has just landed.

There were no injuries in either situation.

The videos were shown Thursday during the NTSB's annual "most wanted transportation safety improvements" board meeting, where the agency reviews its greatest concerns in transportation safety.

The Federal Aviation Administration reported that serious runway incursions were reduced by 25 percent in 2007, but the NTSB said much work remains on runway safety and systems to notify pilots when they are about to collide with another plane or vehicle.

NTSB Chairman Mark Rosenker expressed frustration with the slow progress of implementing new technology, such as the use of a global positioning system-type procedure in cockpits that would help warn pilots of dangers on the runway.

Rosenker told the NTSB-only panel, "It is time to do something before we have to investigate an accident that is catastrophic."

Among the most wanted transportation safety improvements cited on the NTSB's Web site are items to "stop runway incursions/ground collisions of aircraft" with the notations "action needed by Federal Aviation Administration" and "unacceptable response."

The site says systems the FAA has added to airports to warn air traffic controllers of potential collisions aren't "sufficient."

"In recent incidents, [one system] did not alert controllers in time to be effective, and the situations were instead resolved by flight crew actions that sometimes bordered on heroics or just plain luck," the NTSB site says. "Until there is a system in place to positively control ground movements of all aircraft, with direct warning to pilots, the potential for this type of disaster will continue to be high."

Rosenker told Thursday's board gathering that "this must be resolved."

"We've had this recommendation for a number of years -- too many number of years," he said.

Other areas of NTSB concern include fuel tanks on airplanes, pilot and air traffic controller fatigue, and technologies that could help prevent automobile collisions. E-mail to a friend

CNN's Eric Fiegel contributed to this report.

Question: What age are the examples the NTSB is using?

Question: What does the animation show?

Question: What does the NTSB want?

Question: Who is asking the FAA to improve systems?

Question: Who shows dramatic animations of two recent near-collisions on runways?

Question: What was the distance?

Question: How many planes were involved in Florida?

Answer: this year

Answer: two planes nearly colliding

Answer: improvements in runway safety.

Answer: The National Transportation Safety Board

Answer: National Transportation Safety Board

Answer: 230 feet

Answer: two

Summary:
NTSB shows dramatic animations of two recent near-collisions on runways .
In a Florida incident, planes came within 35 feet of colliding .
NTSB wants FAA to improve systems to alert pilots to runway danger .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Obama administration is working on a substantial sanctions package against Iran in case current diplomatic efforts to curb its nuclear program fail, top officials told Congress on Tuesday. Treasury Under Secretary Stuart Levy also developed some of the existing financial sanctions against Iran. Under Secretary of the Treasury Stuart Levy, who developed some of the existing financial sanctions against Iran under the Bush administration, said at a Senate Banking Committee hearing that the "comprehensive" plan would target "key vulnerabilities and fissures" in Iran to show Tehran that it would face "serious costs" for thwarting international demands. "It takes into account that no single sanction is a 'silver bullet'; we will need to impose measures simultaneously in many different forms in order to be effective," Levy said. He stressed, however, that the United States would be mindful of actions that would harm the Iranian people or undercut the opposition battling the Iranian government. The hearing comes as some members of Congress push for tougher U.S. sanctions on the Iranian regime in light of the recent revelation that Iran was building a second uranium enrichment facility near Qom, a dramatic development that jacked up tension between Iran and international powers. During talks last week in Geneva, Switzerland, between Iranian officials and representatives of the so-called P5+1 -- the United States, Britain, France, German, Russia and China -- Iran agreed to admit inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to the Qom facility. Tehran also agreed "in principle" to ship its low-enriched uranium produced in Iran to third countries for further enrichment for a nuclear reactor used for medical research. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg told the panel Tuesday that one reason for the Obama administration's engagement toward Iran was to secure international support for sanctions if Iran continued to defy international demands. Last week's talks, he said, shined a "spotlight" on Iran that makes inaction more costly. Levy also stressed that an international coalition was key to keeping pressure on Iran. "Because financial measures are most effective when imposed as part of a broad-based effort with support of the largest possible international coalition, we are working closely with our allies as we put together this strategy," he said. "The less united we are in applying pressure, the greater the risk our measures will not have the impact we seek." Several lawmakers expressed doubt that Iran would negotiate in good faith and threatened legislation to impose tough new sanctions against Tehran. Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut, said he planned to move forward this month on a proposal to expand financial restrictions, impose new sanctions on Iran's oil and gas sectors and ban both the export of refined gasoline products to Iran and the import of Iranian goods. Steinberg said the United States and its allies will judge Iran's seriousness about the talks by whether it makes good on its commitments to ship the uranium out of the country and admit the IAEA inspectors, who are expected to visit the Qom facility October 25. "By the end of the month, we will have some very clear indications of what their intentions are," he said.

Question: What is key to keeping pressure up?

Question: Who could possibly be harmed?

Question: What would target "key vulnerabilities,"?

Question: What would the U.S. be mindful of?

Question: Who would be mindful of actions that would harm Iranian people?

Question: What is the key to keeping the pressure up?

Answer: international coalition

Answer: Iranian people

Answer: "comprehensive" plan

Answer: harm the Iranian people or undercut the opposition

Answer: United States

Answer: Levy also stressed that an international coalition was

Summary:
"Comprehensive" plan would target "key vulnerabilities," official says .
But U.S. would be mindful of actions that would harm Iranian people, he says .
International coalition is key to keeping pressure up, diplomat says .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Obama administration will ask Congress for another $83.4 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of September, Democratic congressional sources said Thursday.

President Obama's spending measure is likely to be the last supplemental request submitted to pay for the wars.

The request is expected to pay for those conflicts for the rest of the 2009 budget year, two Democratic congressional sources said.

The money would bring the running tab for both conflicts to about $947 billion, according to figures from the Congressional Research Service.

More than three-quarters of the $864 billion appropriated so far has gone to the war in Iraq, the agency estimated.

Since taking office in January, President Obama has announced plans to shift troops out of Iraq and beef up U.S. forces in Afghanistan, where American troops have been battling al Qaeda and Taliban fighters since al Qaeda's 2001 attacks.

In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Obama said the situation in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan "demands urgent attention."

"The Taliban is resurgent, and al Qaeda threatens America from its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border," Obama wrote in submitting the funding request.

"There is no question of the resolve of our military women and men. Yet, in Afghanistan, that resolve has not been matched by a comprehensive strategy and sufficient resources," Obama wrote.

About $75 billion of the latest request would pay for military operations, including $9.8 billion for body armor and protective vehicles and $11.6 billion to replace worn-out equipment. The rest would go to diplomatic programs and development aid -- including $1.6 billion for Afghanistan, $1.4 billion for Pakistan and $700 million for Iraq.

The request would also provide about $800 million for the Palestinian Authority, including humanitarian aid for Gaza, the Hamas-ruled territory that was heavily bombarded by Israel in December and January; $800 million to support U.N. peacekeeping missions in Africa; and $30 million to the Department of Justice to manage the closure of the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The supplemental spending bill is likely to be the last such request submitted to Congress to pay for the wars, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. While the Bush administration relied on supplemental spending bills to fund the conflicts, Obama began including war spending in his 2010 budget.

The president urged Congress to move quickly on the request "and not to use the supplemental to pursue unnecessary spending."

But Rep. Lynn Woolsey, a prominent anti-war Democrat, said the requested funding would "prolong our occupation of Iraq through at least the end of 2011," when U.S. troops are scheduled to leave the country, "and it will deepen and expand our military presence in Afghanistan indefinitely."

"Instead of attempting to find military solutions to the problems we face in Iraq and Afghanistan, President Obama must fundamentally change the mission in both countries to focus on promoting reconciliation, economic development, humanitarian aid, and regional diplomatic efforts."

Last month, Obama announced the United States plans to withdraw most of its troops from Iraq by the end of August 2010. A residual force of between 35,000 to 50,000 troops will remain until December 31, 2011. There are 142,000 American troops in Iraq now.

Obama has ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops to fight the Taliban in the south and east and 4,000 more to train Afghan troops.

Question: What will body armor cost?

Question: who did  says funds would prolong U.S. occupation of Iraq?

Question: How much are the total funds between Iraq and Afghanistan?

Question: what are they funding?

Answer: $9.8 billion

Answer: Lynn Woolsey,

Answer: $947 billion,

Answer: wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

Summary:
NEW: About $9.8 billion would pay for body armor and protective vehicles .
NEW: More than $2 billion would go to aid for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq .
NEW: Democratic lawmaker says funds would prolong U.S. occupation of Iraq .
Funds would bring tab for Iraq and Afghanistan wars to $947 billion .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Organization of American States suspended Honduras late Saturday because the nation's new leaders refused to reinstate ousted President Jose Manuel Zelaya. Ousted Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya appears Tuesday at the U.N. General Assembly. Zelaya was removed by the military on June 28 and flown to Costa Rica. Congressional leader Roberto Micheletti was sworn in as provisional president later that day. The OAS set a Saturday deadline for Honduras to return Zelaya to power or be suspended from the 35-nation hemispheric organization. Honduran officials told OAS Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza on Friday that they would not allow Zelaya to return to power. Thousands of protesters demanding the return to power of ousted Honduran President Jose Manuel Zelaya pushed through riot police at Tegucigalpa's airport and surrounded the terminal Saturday, but there were no reports of violence. The airport continued to operate, CNN Correspondent Karl Penhaul reported. Zelaya, a leftist who took office in 2006, says he will return to Honduras on Sunday. Micheletti has vowed to have Zelaya arrested if he returns. "I am simply defending a system," Zelaya told the OAS delegates early Sunday, after the 33-0 vote to suspend Honduras. Among the delegates were two heads of state: Presidents Christina Fernandez de Kirchner of Argentina and Fernando Lugo of Paraguay. "I am here not only as president of the republic of Argentina, but also as part of a delegation who was the object of coups in Argentina," Fernandez said. Lugo also spoke in favor of restoring Zelaya and democracy to his nation. "I come from Paraguay, a country that has had the long night of dictatorships," Lugo said. "I come here with a pain, but also with a hope." Micheletti repeated in an interview with CNN en Español on Saturday night that a coup did not take place. What happened, he said, was a constitutional transfer of power authorized by the nation's congress. But Micheletti is swimming against world opinion. The U.N. General Assembly condemned the coup last week and demanded that Zelaya be reinstated. The European Union and other nations have recalled their ambassadors from Honduras, and the United States and the World Bank have suspended some aid. Honduran officials have said the Central American nation was prepared to withdraw from the OAS rather than reinstate Zelaya. "If the Organization of American States doesn't deem Honduras worthy of membership of the Organization of American States, then Honduras would renounce with immediate effect the inter-American charter," said Deputy Foreign Minister Marta Lorena Alvarado. At the center of the dispute was a referendum Zelaya had vowed to carry out even after the country's supreme court and congress found it illegal. The nonbinding referendum could have led to the creation of a constitutional assembly to modify the country's charter to allow the president to run for re-election. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a Zelaya ally, won a similar referendum this year, and many Hondurans thought Zelaya was trying to maneuver a way to seek re-election in November. Zelaya has denied that was his intent. Zelaya narrowly won the presidency in 2005, with 49.8 percent of the vote to 46.1 percent for Porfirio "Pepe" Lobo. After 18 years of nearly uninterrupted military rule, Honduras returned to civilian control in 1981. Since then, the military has not seemed interested in holding power in the nation of more than 7 million people, about 70 percent of whom live in poverty. Military interventions were once common in Latin America, but civilian governments have held sway since the 1980s. Before Sunday, the only other barracks revolt this decade was an unsuccessful 2002 coup attempt against Chavez, when the military displaced him but backed down days later and allowed his reinstatement. CNN's Tom Watkins contributed to this report

Question: What does the new President of Honduras say he will do to Jose Zelaya?

Question: What happened in wake of coup

Question: Was Jose Zelaya ousted?

Question: Will Jose Zelaya be arrested upon return?

Question: Who wants Zelaya restored to power is Honduras?

Question: What is name of ousted president

Answer: arrested if

Answer: The Organization of American States suspended Honduras

Answer: June 28

Answer: Micheletti has vowed to have

Answer: Thousands of protesters demanding the return

Answer: Jose Manuel Zelaya.

Summary:
Organization of American States suspend Honduras in wake of coup .
Thousands of supporters at airport for return of ousted president Jose Zelaya .
Organization of American States wants Zelaya restored to power .
Newly installed president says Jose Zelaya will be arrested upon return .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Senate on Wednesday narrowly rejected a controversial measure to allow people to carry concealed weapons from state to state. A Miami, Florida, gun store offers concealed weapons training. The measure would have required each of the 48 states that currently allow concealed firearms to honor permits issued in other states. The vote was 58-39 in favor. The amendment needed 60 votes to pass. The vote split the Democrats, with 20 supporting the measure and 35 opposing it. Two of the Senate's 40 Republicans -- Richard Lugar of Indiana and George Voinovich of Ohio -- and both independents, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont, voted against it. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, all Democrats, did not vote. A coalition of mayors that fought the law welcomed its defeat. "Our bipartisan coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns fought this amendment tooth-and-nail, because we recognize that the laws of one state may not be best for another," Mayor Thomas M. Menino of Boston, Massachusetts, said in a statement. "We will continue to work with our members to support common-sense policies and oppose dangerous ones, like the Thune Amendment that was defeated today," he said, referring to Sen. John Thune, R-South Dakota, who sponsored the proposal. It was the first significant defeat this year for advocates of gun rights, after gun control advocates faced an unexpected setback in May.  Map: See which states allow citizens to carry concealed weapons » Gun rights advocates attached a measure allowing people to carry guns in national parks to credit card legislation. President Obama signed the package into law. The interstate concealed-weapons proposal was an amendment to a larger defense appropriations bill. Supporters of the measure argued it would help deter criminals; opponents claimed it would, in effect, force most of the country to conform to regulations in states with the loosest gun-ownership standards. Opponents of the amendment mounted a huge campaign to stop it. Mayors Against Illegal Guns -- which says it represent more than 450 mayors in 40 states -- took out an ad in USA Today opposing the measure. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a campaign co-chairman, opposed the law on a number of grounds, arguing both that it tramples on states' rights and that guns are dangerous. "There's no evidence that if you have a gun, you're safer," he said on CNN's "American Morning" Wednesday. "Quite the contrary. If you have a gun at home, [you are] something like 20 times more likely to have somebody in your house killed. ... "We have to protect our policemen, protect our citizens. We can't have all these guns, and it's reasonable to have each state make their own laws," he said. "Wyoming shouldn't be subject to New York state laws, and we're going in that direction," he said. "What's right for the people of Wyoming isn't necessarily right for the people of New York and vice versa." Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican who was a co-sponsor of the amendment, had argued that gun licenses should apply across state lines, like driver's licenses. "People travel," he said on "American Morning." "We have truck drivers on our roads, people traveling for vacation in their vehicles, and if you have a license ... you should be able to use that license in other states. It should apply like a driver's license," he said. He argued that concealed weapons deter crime. "Carrying a concealed weapon is a sign of self-defense, self-protection, and I think it lowers crime," he said. And he said people carrying guns would still have to obey laws wherever they are. "The law of the state where that person happens to be at the time are the laws that apply in terms of if

Question: What did they turn down

Question: What would the proposal force states to do?

Question: What lobby was defeated?

Question: Who turns down the proposal?

Answer: a controversial measure to allow people

Answer: honor permits issued in other

Answer: advocates of gun rights,

Answer: The Senate

Summary:
Senate turns down proposal to make permits valid despite differing laws .
Foes said it would force states to honor laws in more gun-permissive states .
First significant defeat for the gun lobby .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Senate passed groundbreaking legislation Thursday that would make it a federal crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. President Obama has said the country must make significant changes to ensure equal rights. The expanded federal hate crimes law now goes to President Obama's desk. Obama has pledged to sign the measure, which was added to a $680 billion defense authorization bill. President George W. Bush had threatened to veto a similar measure. The bill is named for Matthew Shepard, a gay Wyoming teenager who died after being kidnapped and severely beaten in October 1998, and James Byrd Jr., an African-American man dragged to death in Texas the same year. "Knowing that the president will sign it, unlike his predecessor, has made all the hard work this year to pass it worthwhile," said Judy Shepard, board president of the Matthew Shepard Foundation named for her son. "Hate crimes continue to affect far too many Americans who are simply trying to live their lives honestly, and they need to know that their government will protect them from violence, and provide appropriate justice for victims and their families." Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate-crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality. Attorney General Eric Holder has asserted that any federal hate-crimes law would be used only to prosecute violent acts based on bias, as opposed to the prosecution of speech based on controversial racial or religious beliefs. Holder called Thursday's 68-29 Senate vote to approve the defense spending bill that included the hate crimes measure "a milestone in helping protect Americans from the most heinous bias-motivated violence." Watch survivor of attack discuss legislation » "The passage of this legislation will give the Justice Department and our state and local law enforcement partners the tools we need to deter and prosecute these acts of violence," he said in a statement. Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, called the measure "our nation's first major piece of civil rights legislation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people." "Too many in our community have been devastated by hate violence," Solmonese said in a statement. "We now can begin the important steps to erasing hate in our country." This month, Obama told the Human Rights Campaign, the country's largest gay rights group, that the nation still needs to make significant changes to ensure equal rights for gays and lesbians. "Despite the progress we've made, there are still laws to change and hearts to open," he said during his address at the dinner for the Human Rights Campaign. "This fight continues now, and I'm here with the simple message: I'm here with you in that fight." Among other things, Obama has called for the repeal of the ban on gays serving openly in the military, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. He also has urged Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and pass the Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act. The Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage, for federal purposes, as a legal union between a man and a woman. It allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages. The Domestic Partners Benefit and Obligations Act would extend family benefits now available to heterosexual federal employees to gay and lesbian federal workers. More than 77,000 hate-crime incidents were reported by the FBI between 1998 and 2007, or "nearly one hate crime for every hour of every day over the span of a decade," Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee in June. The FBI, Holder added, reported 7,624 hate-crime incidents in 2007, the most current year with complete data.

Question:
What did the Attorney general say?
what could be criminalized
What do religious groups fear?
what does it prosecute?
what is now a crime
what will the law be used for

Answer: called Thursday's 68-29 Senate vote to approve the defense spending bill that included the hate crimes measure "a milestone in helping protect Americans from the most heinous bias-motivated violence."

Answer: to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

Answer: a hate-crimes law could be used to criminalize conservative speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality.

Answer: violent acts based on bias,

Answer: to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

Answer: crime to assault an individual because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

Summary:
NEW: Senate approves bill expanding hate crimes law .
Measure would make it a crime to assault person because of sexual orientation .
Religious groups fear law could criminalize conservative speech .
Attorney general says it will be used only to prosecute violence .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The State Department called the expulsion of the second U.S. diplomat from Ecuador in just over a week "unjustified," rejecting charges the diplomats meddled in Ecuador's internal affairs.

First Secretary Mark Sullivan has been given 48 hours to leave the U.S. embassy in Quito, Ecuador.

On Wednesday, the Ecuadorian government expelled First Secretary Mark Sullivan, whom it accused of meddling in the government's internal police policies, giving him 48 hours to leave the country.

On February 7, the government expelled Armando Astorga, an attaché with the Department of Homeland Security working in the U.S. Embassy.

Acting Deputy Spokesman Gordon Duguid said the expulsions stem from the fact that certain Ecuadorian police were banned from taking part in U.S. counternarcotics training programs, but rejected "any suggestion of wrongdoing by embassy staff."

"Despite the government of Ecuador's unjustified actions, we remain committed to working collaboratively with Ecuador to confront narcotics trafficking," Duguid said.

Asked whether the State Department would reciprocate the expulsions by kicking out Ecuadorian diplomats from the United States, Duguid would say only, "We will respond as appropriate."

A senior State Department official suggested the police in Ecuador police did not meet the criteria to take part in the training, noting, "The United States does have procedures that require it to vet candidates for U.S.-funded training."

The official added, "In some countries this is seen as onerous. However, it is part of the legal accountability measures we must follow."

Question: How long before he has to leave?

Question: who was given 48 hours to leave the country?

Question: Who was the other diplomate expelled?

Question: who calls action unjustified?

Question: What is he accused of?

Question: What policies is he accused of meddling in?

Question: Who was the first U.S. diplomat expelled by Ecuador?

Answer: 48 hours

Answer: First Secretary Mark Sullivan

Answer: Armando Astorga,

Answer: Duguid

Answer: of meddling

Answer: internal police

Answer: Armando Astorga,

Summary:
Government gives First Secretary Mark Sullivan 48 hours to leave the country .
Sullivan is accused of meddling in internal police policies .
The State Department calls the action 'unjustified'
He's the second U.S. diplomat Ecuador has expelled in just over a week .


Question: What is Sullivan accused of?

Question: What does the State Department call the action?

Question: How much time was Mark Sullivan given to leave the country?

Question: What is Sullivan accused of doing?

Question: What does the government fgive Mark Sullivan?

Question: How long is Mark Sullivan given to leave the country?

Answer: meddling in the government's internal police policies,

Answer: "unjustified,"

Answer: 48 hours

Answer: meddling in the government's internal police policies,

Answer: 48 hours to leave the U.S. embassy in Quito, Ecuador.

Answer: 48 hours


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The State Department on Monday continued to publicly downplay the threat North Korea presents to the United States with spokesman P.J. Crowley telling reporters North Korea "represents an infinitesimal threat to the United States directly." A North Korean soldier looks at the South Korean side of the demilitarized zone earlier this month. The spokesman's statement followed comments from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an interview with ABC, broadcast Monday, in which she said the reason for the United States' low-key reaction to North Korea's recent missile test was that the United States wasn't "going to give the North Koreans the satisfaction they were looking for, which was to elevate them to center stage." In that interview, Clinton said North Korea has a "constant demand for attention," and she added, "maybe it's the mother in me, the experience I've had with small children and teenagers and people who are demanding attention: Don't give it to them." After calling the direct threat to the U.S. "infinitesimal," Crowley went on to say that "North Korea, and its provocative actions, does represent a significant threat to the region and its actions recently have been unhelpful and potentially destabilizing." A senior U.S. official, who did not want to be identified, said there is a "theoretical" question of whether a North Korean missile could hit the United States. "There's nothing in their recent development," he said, "which would suggest that their technology is becoming more accurate." The United States says its primary concerns about North Korea's actions are its impact on security in the region and the risk of nuclear proliferation. Last week the United Nations imposed sanctions on a number of individuals, companies and goods connected with North Korea's nuclear and missile programs. Taking aim at several key North Korean officials, it subjected them to a freeze on their assets and an international travel ban.

Question: Who had low-key reaction to missile tests?

Question: Who is the Secretary of State?

Question: What does North Korea have?

Question: What did U.S have low key reaction to?

Question: What is potentially destabilizing to the region?

Question: Who does Secretary Clinton say has "constant demand for attention'?

Question: What country had a low-key reaction to missile tests?

Answer: United States'

Answer: Hillary Clinton

Answer: nuclear and missile programs.

Answer: North Korea's recent missile test

Answer: "North Korea, and its provocative actions,

Answer: North Korea

Answer: United States'

Summary:
State Department spokesman: Recent actions "potentially destabilizing" to region .
Secretary of State Clinton: North Korea has "constant demand for attention"
That is why U.S. had low-key reaction to missile tests, Clinton says .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The State Department's chief of diplomatic security has resigned amid scrutiny of the use of private military contractors to guard the department's staff in Iraq, a spokesman said Wednesday.

Richard Griffin testifies before a House committee looking into private security contractors earlier this month.

Richard Griffin, a 36-year career official, gave no explanation for his decision in his resignation letter to President Bush.

"I am grateful that I had the opportunity to serve as the assistant secretary for the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, whose brave men and women serve on the front lines of the Global War on Terror," he wrote in his resignation letter, a copy of which was obtained by CNN.

"Without their courage and commitment, the State Department could not possibly carry out its foreign policy mission."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accepted Griffin's resignation, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Griffin's decision to step down follows weeks of investigations into the September 16 killings of Iraqi civilians by Blackwater USA, a North Carolina-based firm hired by the State Department to protect American diplomats in Baghdad.

Meanwhile, a survivor of the September 16 incident told CNN on Wednesday that he and a number of other victims were summoned to a meeting with U.S. Embassy officials and were offered money.

Mohammed Abdul Razzaq, whose 9-year-old son died, said the embassy offered him $12,500 -- which he said he refused because "they didn't acknowledge their crime."

"Don't they need to acknowledge my son's blood first so I can forgive them? Now I can't. How can I take compensation and they never acknowledge the crime?" he said.

The father is demanding a formal apology from Blackwater CEO Erik Prince, prosecution of those responsible for his son's death and political asylum in the United States so he can pursue the case in American courts.

Another survivor, taxi driver Sami Hawas, told CNN he received $7,500 from the embassy, a payment he described as "aid." Hawas was shot a number of times in the back and leg.

He said he is unable to work now and complained about the high cost of medication. He took the money, he said, because he needs help paying for medical treatment and supporting his family. "Even if they compensate me with millions, it will not make up for the lost blood and the pain I live every day," he told CNN.

U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Natango said the payments were "part of a standard procedure" and would continue.

She described them as "short-term and speedy aid and support" but said they were not an admission of guilt. She said those receiving the money do not waive any right to future compensation.

The State Department and the FBI are conducting their own investigation into the killings, and a joint U.S.-Iraqi commission is reviewing the results of both probes.

Prince has said that Blackwater guards came under fire while protecting a State Department convoy and acted properly in self-defense.  Watch Blackwater chief talk about his company »

But Iraqi authorities have called the killings "premeditated murder" and demanded Blackwater leave Iraq.

A State Department report of its own operations, released Tuesday, found lax oversight of security contractors, who are under the supervision of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

It recommended tightening the rules of engagement for contractors to bring them in line with those used by the U.S. military, and Rice appointed a top U.S. diplomat to oversee all security operations in Iraq.

Blackwater is the most prominent of the military contractors working in Iraq, where an estimated 25,000 private contractors guard diplomats, reconstruction workers and government officials. Company officials urged subscribers to its e-mailed newsletter Wednesday to help fight its public-relations battle.

"In this tumultuous political climate, Blackwater Worldwide has taken center stage, our services and ethics aggressively challenged with misinformation and fabrications. Letters, e-mails and calls to your elected congressional representatives can and will create a positive impact by influencing the manner in which they gather and present information," the company wrote

Question: What did Blackwater shooting survivor say?

Question: What did the Assistant secretary of state announce?

Question: What reason did he give

Question: What did the survivor say

Question: Who is the secretary of state for diplomatic security?

Question: Who is resigning?

Question: Who decided to resign

Question: What reason did Griffin give for resignation?

Answer: he and a number of other victims were summoned to a meeting with U.S. Embassy officials and were offered money.

Answer: resigned

Answer: no explanation

Answer: he and a number of other victims were summoned to a meeting with U.S. Embassy officials and were offered money.

Answer: Richard Griffin

Answer: Richard Griffin

Answer: Richard Griffin,

Answer: no explanation

Summary:
Assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security announces decision to resign .
Richard Griffin gave no specific reason for resignation or offered timetable .
Blackwater issues appeal to supporters to stand up for company .
NEW: Blackwater shooting survivor says U.S. Embassy offered victims money .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Supreme Court heard new arguments Wednesday in a dramatic case that started with a movie attacking Hillary Clinton -- but that could have far-reaching implications for U.S. elections. The campaign finance case before the court stems from a film critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. "If you thought you knew everything about Hillary Clinton, wait till you see the movie," said an ad last year for "Hillary: The Movie," a scorching attack on the woman then running for president. Citizens United, the conservative group behind the film, promoted it as featuring 40 interviews -- a "cast to end all casts"-- and promised that if "you want to hear about the Clinton scandals of the past and present, you have it here! 'Hillary: The Movie' is the first and last word in what the Clintons want America to forget!" Few Americans ever saw the ad; a federal court ruled that it broke the law on campaign advertising. Citizens United argued that the movie was a documentary, not "electioneering communication." As a result, the group argued, it was not subject to campaign finance rules that require disclosure of the movie's financial backers or restrictions on when the film could air. It was financed with a mix of corporate and individual donations. Judges disagreed. Citizens United, a Washington-based nonprofit advocacy group, took its case to the Supreme Court. Unusually, the top court did not reach a decision on the case after it was first heard and ordered Wednesday's rare September rehearing to consider more aspects of the case. A ruling is expected in a couple of months. The case hinges on whether corporations can be barred from pouring money into election campaigns or whether they have free-speech rights -- and the right to spend their cash to influence elections, just like individual people do. "It's about money," said Lawrence Noble, former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission and a national expert on campaign spending. "It's about free speech, and it's about the ability of corporations to influence elections through the direct use of their ... money." Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21 said the courts were right in the first place. "Allowing corporations to flood our elections and use campaign expenditures to buy influence would fundamentally undermine our democracy," he said. "The little guy would have no role here, because the dominant force in politics -- the dominant force in Washington decision-making -- would become corporations." But David Bossee of Citizens United doesn't buy that. He argued that groups of people who pool resources, ranging from labor unions to the health industry to advocacy groups like the National Rifle Association, still have the right to free speech. "I don't believe the federal government should have the right to impede people's entry into the [political] process," he said. "And that's what I believe the Federal Election Commission is doing here: squelch our First Amendment rights." U.S. courts have consistently ruled that spending money on elections is a form of speech. The case has made for unusual alliances: the American Civil Liberties Union, for example, sides with Citizens United. "For many free-speech advocates, this is maybe a case of strange bedfellows, but they agree with Citizens United," said George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. "They say, 'If you start to say these types of movies are prohibited speech, it could sweep into things like books.' Indeed, [the first time this case was argued,] the U.S. government said, 'Yes, we could restrict books during these election periods,' " Turley said. "That sent a chill through the free-speech community. On the other side, people are saying, 'Yeah, campaign finance [reform] is strangling the democratic process,' " he said. "You have two worthy values and very strong values on both sides," he said on CNN's "American Morning."

Question: What movie broke the laws?

Question: what did federal court rule?

Question: what was documentary?

Question: Who does the film attack?

Question: What kind of laws did the movie break?

Question: When is the Supreme Court expected to rule?

Question: when is supreme court expected to rule?

Answer: "Hillary: The Movie,"

Answer: it broke the law on campaign advertising.

Answer: "Hillary: The Movie,"

Answer: Hillary Clinton,

Answer: on campaign advertising.

Answer: couple of months.

Answer: in a couple of months.

Summary:
Federal court ruled that movie broke campaign ad laws .
Group behind film attacking Clinton said it was a documentary .
Can corporations be barred from giving to election campaigns?
Supreme Court expected to rule in a couple of months .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Supreme Court offered unanimous support for police Wednesday by allowing drug evidence gathered after an arrest that violated state law to be used at trial, an important search-and-seizure case turning on the constitutional limits of "probable cause." The Supreme Court unanimously gave police broader powers to search for and seize evidence. "When officers have probable cause to believe that a person has committed a crime in their presence, the Fourth Amendment permits them to make an arrest, and to search the suspect in order to safeguard evidence and ensure their own safety," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote. David Lee Moore was stopped by Portsmouth, Virginia, officers five years ago for driving his vehicle on a suspended license. Under state law in such incidents, only a summons is to be issued and the motorist is to be allowed to go. Instead, detectives detained Moore for almost an hour, arrested him, then searched him and found cocaine. At trial, Moore's lawyers tried to suppress the evidence, but the state judge allowed it, even though the court noted the arrest violated state law. A police detective, asked why the man was arrested, replied, "Just our prerogative." While some of the justices expressed concern about that level of discretion at oral arguments in January, their 9-0 ruling raised few such doubts. "The arrest rules that the officers violated were those of state law alone," Scalia said. "It is not the province of the Fourth Amendment to enforce state law." The state had argued an arrest is constitutionally reasonable if officers have probable cause to believe a suspect has committed a crime. "This standard represents the best compromise between the needs of the citizens and the duty of the government to combat crime," Stephen McCullough, Virginia's deputy solicitor general, had told the high court. But Moore's attorney, Thomas Goldstein, called an "extreme proposition" the idea that it would be reasonable "to go out and arrest someone for a non-arrestable offense and not only do that, but having committed that trespass at common law, to further search them." There has been widespread judicial confusion over how such police searches should be handled. Some lower courts had ruled that when state arrest law is violated, the Constitution provides a remedy in the suppression of any evidence resulting from the arrest and a related search. But the justices agreed with the majority of courts that said constitutional requirements are satisfied when an officer has probable cause to make an arrest, even if some provision of state law was violated in the process. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a concurring opinion suggesting Virginia change its law to make driving on a suspended license an arrestable offense. During arguments, Ginsburg spoke for several colleagues when she pointed out that if a summons had been issued in Moore's case, any incriminating evidence would have been excluded. "Would you explain the logic to saying that when the police violate state law, then the evidence can come in, but when they comply with state law, it can't," she asked. The ruling means Moore's original jury conviction and 3-½ year prison term will stand. E-mail to a friend

Question: Who allowed evidence of drugs?

Question: what does case involve?

Question: What was the justices ruling with regard to the officers?

Question: Who was stopped for driving with suspended license?

Question: what did trial judge allowed?

Question: What did police do instead of issuing a ticket?

Question: What was the Virginia man stopped for?

Answer: Supreme Court

Answer: violated state law to be used at trial, an important search-and-seizure

Answer: Moore's original jury conviction and 3-½ year prison term will stand.

Answer: David Lee Moore

Answer: the evidence,

Answer: detectives detained Moore for almost an hour, arrested him, then searched him and found cocaine.

Answer: driving his vehicle on a suspended license.

Summary:
Case involves Virginia man stopped for driving with suspended license .
Instead of issuing ticket, police detained him and searched his car .
Arrest violated state's law, but trial judge allowed evidence of drugs .
Justices ruled that officers had probable cause for search .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday federal regulators have the authority to clamp down on the broadcast TV networks that air isolated cases of profanity, known as "fleeting expletives."

The Supreme Court ruled federal regulators can stop TV networks from airing profanity.

The 5-4 vote was a victory for Bush-era officials who pushed fines and sanctions when racy images and language reached the airwaves.

Controversial words have been aired in scripted and unscripted instances on all the major over-the-air networks in the past six years -- dating back to when the Federal Communications Commission began considering a stronger, no-tolerance policy.

"It suffices the new policy is permissible under the statute, there are good reasons for it, and the agency believes it to be better," said Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the conservative majority.

The high court, however, refused to decide whether the commission's policy violates the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, only the agency's enforcement power. The justices ordered the free-speech aspect to be reviewed again by a federal appeals court.

ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox were parties in the case. A federal appeals court in New York had ruled in their favor, calling the commission's policy "arbitrary and capricious."

The commission then appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking restoration of its power to penalize the networks airing "indecent" speech, even if it is broadcast only one time, and even if it does not describe a specific sex act.

The high court agreed to some extent. "Even when used as an expletive, the F-word's power to insult and offend derives from its sexual meaning," wrote Scalia.

Such language is heard with greater, albeit varying frequency on cable television, the Internet, and satellite radio, which do not use public airwaves. But the federal government is charged with responding to viewer complaints when "indecent" language reaches broadcast television and radio, which is subject to greater regulation. That is especially relevant during daytime and early evening hours, when larger numbers of families and younger viewers may be watching.

The FCC's acting chairman, Michael Copps, called Tuesday's ruling a "a big win for America's families."

The commission formally reversed its policy in March 2004 to declare even a single use of an expletive could be illegal.

The changes became known as the "Golden Globes Rule," for singer Bono's 2003 acceptance speech at the awards show on NBC, where he uttered the phrase "really, really, f---ing brilliant."

The commission specifically cited celebrities Cher and Nicole Richie for potty-mouth language in the 2002 and 2003 Billboard Music Awards, which aired on Fox. Richie, in an apparent scripted moment said, "Have you ever tried to get cow s--t out of a Prada purse? It's not so f---ing simple."

The complaint against ABC involved "NYPD Blue," a now-canceled scripted police drama, and the CBS' complaint involved "The Early Show," a news and interview program.

Enforcement of the law had been put on hold while the case was being argued.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said "customs of speech" and context made the Federal Communications Commission's position unworkable.

"As any golfer who has watched his partner shank a short approach knows, it would be absurd to accept the suggestion that the resultant four-letter word uttered on the golf course describes sex or excrement and is therefore indecent," he wrote. "But that is the absurdity the FCC has embraced in its new approach to indecency."

And Stevens wondered why the agency was going after words that he said had a "tenuous relationship" to sex and bodily functions, while at the same time prime-time commercials "frequently ask viewers whether they, too, are battling erectile dysfunction or are having trouble going to the bathroom."

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made clear how she viewed the broader free speech questions the high court may be forced

Question: what did supreme court rule

Question: What did the FCC chairman call the ruling?

Question: Who called the ruling "a big win for America's families"?

Question: What was the Supreme Court breakdown in votes?

Question: what does FCC's chairman call ruling

Question: What did the Supreme Court rule?

Answer: federal regulators can stop TV networks from airing profanity.

Answer: "a big win for America's families."

Answer: Michael Copps,

Answer: 5-4

Answer: "a big win for America's families."

Answer: federal regulators can stop TV networks from airing profanity.

Summary:
NEW: FCC's acting chairman calls ruling "a big win for America's families"
NEW: Thomas sides with majority, but questions FCC's "underlying authority"
NEW: Media Access Project head warns of "impaired artistic expression"
Supreme Court ruled 5-4 federal regulators can clamp down on "fleeting expletives"


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The U.S. Army intentionally denied benefits to soldiers suffering from a widespread stress disorder after they returned from service in Iraq and Afghanistan, a veterans advocacy group charges in a suit filed Wednesday.

A soldier is welcomed home from Iraq by his son at Fort Stewart, Georgia, earlier this month.

The lawsuit, filed by the National Veterans Legal Services Program, accuses the Army of illegally cutting off benefits to thousands of veterans and their families by refusing to assign a proper disability rating to those veterans after they had been discharged with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

As a result, the veterans have been denied benefits, including, among other things, lifetime monthly disability payments and free medical care for  themselves and their families.

"I experience firsthand the horrors of war" said Juan Perez, an Iraq veteran and one of five plaintiffs in the lawsuit. "My expectation was that the military would be there for me, and my country would be there for me. Instead, the way I was treated felt more like a slap to the face."

All disabled veterans are assigned a disability rating from zero to 100 percent. According to the Legal Services Program, a rating of at least 30 percent is required to qualify for benefits such as monthly disability payments and free health care.

Soldiers receiving less than a 30 percent rating are  entitled only to a one-time lump sum severance payment after being discharged.

On October 14, the Defense Department ordered the Army to assign at least a 50 percent rating to all soldiers discharged with PTSD in the future.

The lawsuit seeks to provide full benefits to all veterans discharged with PTSD in the past six years.

A Rand Corp. study released in April indicated that nearly 20 percent of all military service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan have reported symptoms of PTSD or major depression.

Question: What does PTSD stand for?

Question: How long do soldiers wants their eligibility to go back?

Question: Who ordered all future PTSD sufferers to be eligible for benefits?

Question: What did the Army order for all future PTSD sufferers?

Question: How far back to soldiers want eligibility to go?

Question: Who denied soldiers a disability rating?

Question: What branch of the military was involved in this decision?

Question: What veterans advocacy group helped the veterans?

Answer: post-traumatic stress disorder

Answer: six years.

Answer: the Defense Department

Answer: provide full benefits

Answer: past six years.

Answer: The U.S. Army

Answer: U.S. Army

Answer: National

Summary:
Soldiers: Army denied them disability rating, so they were denied benefits .
Lawsuit filed by veterans advocacy group on behalf of vets with PTSD .
In October, Army ordered all future PTSD sufferers to be eligible for benefits .
Soldiers want eligibility to go back six years .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The U.S. Army is establishing a suicide prevention board to examine the mental health of its recruiters around the country after the fourth suicide in three years by Houston, Texas-based recruiters, according to Army officials.

The Army Recruiting Command is examining recruiters all over the country for job-related and combat-related stress.

The board will look at how to handle the high-stress climate facing recruiters who may be both under pressure from their job and victims of post-combat deployment stress, according to Douglas Smith, a spokesman from the U.S. Army Recruiting command.

"The United States Army Recruiting Command is deeply concerned by the instances of suicide within the Houston Recruiting Battalion," said a statement released by the Recruiting Command. "The board's objective will be to prevent future suicides, increase suicide awareness, analyze trends and highlight additional tools and resources to combat suicide within the Recruiting Command."

The Army's examination comes after a sergeant first class, a member of the Houston Recruiting Battalion and an Iraq combat veteran, killed himself at his home earlier this month.

CNN has chosen not to name any of the recruiters.

The sergeant's was the second suicide within the ranks of the battalion within weeks, Army officials said. In August, a staff sergeant, a combat veteran in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, also killed himself.

Another Houston recruiter killed himself in 2007 and a yet another in 2005, Army records show.

The Army Recruiting Command is sending a team -- including a chaplain and a psychologist -- to assist the Houston recruiters. The team was scheduled to show up in mid-September, but because of the severe hurricane damage the arrival was delayed until October, officials said.

A chaplain from Army Recruiting Command in Fort Knox, Kentucky, was sent to be with the battalion shortly after the latest victim's death, Smith said.

He said recruiters receive annual suicide prevention training, and commanders have additional tools to help their soldiers cope.

The members of the Houston battalion received their last training in December 2007, according to an Army statement.

The Army Recruiting Command is examining recruiters all over the country for both job-related and combat-related stress problems, but is giving special attention to the Houston battalion at the moment, according to Smith.

"We do not have any other circumstances with our recruiters around the country like we do with the Houston unit," he said.

The deaths of the two recruiters this year also caught the eye of U.S. Sen. John Cornyn from Texas.

Cornyn wrote a letter to Army Secretary Pete Geren this month about the suicide rate in the battalion.

"Due to the recurring deployments that have proven necessary to sustain operations in the Middle East, it is likely that a large majority of our recruiters are also veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan," he wrote.

"Many of our military recruiters work in recruiting offices and facilities remote from the military installations at which their fellow soldiers serve. As such, many of them lack the same access to peer support networks and important services for dealing with stress, anxiety, PTSD and other conditions that may directly result from their prior combat service," he said.

A veteran's advocacy group says Houston has one of the top recruiting operations in the United States but there is a good deal of stress in bringing in new recruits when the Army is stretched.

"The suicides in the Houston battalion are a very loud, very bright alarm that Army officials and politicians can't afford to ignore," said Paul Sullivan, executive director of Veterans for Common Sense.

While recruiting among all of the services has been on target for more than a year, the stress levels on recruiters to bring in new service members can be crushing with extended hours and, many times, six- or seven-day work weeks.

Army officials said Cornyn was correct in saying one of the problems for recruiters is they work in locations often far from bases where they can get the mental health help that is readily available to other troops.

Question: What will the Army examine, of recruiters?

Question: Which branch of the military is mentioned?

Question: State that saw four suicides in three years?

Question: What puts pressure on recruiters?

Question: Who is under pressure?

Question: How many suicides has Texas seen in three years?

Question: What place has seen military-related suicides recently?

Question: What are recruiters under pressure from?

Question: What org will examine mental health of recruiters?

Question: How many suicides has Texas seen?

Question: Who will examine the recruiters mental health?

Answer: mental

Answer: The U.S. Army

Answer: Texas-based

Answer: job-related and combat-related stress.

Answer: recruiters

Answer: fourth

Answer: Houston,

Answer: their job

Answer: U.S. Army

Answer: fourth

Answer: U.S. Army

Summary:
Army will examine mental health of recruiters .
Recruiters under pressure from job and victims of post-combat deployment .
Texas sees four suicides in three years .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The U.S. State Department threw aside diplomatic language Tuesday, attacking Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for creating what it calls a "catastrophe" by throwing many international aid workers out of the country.

President Omar al-Bashir ordered the expulsion of aid groups after he was indicted on war crimes charges.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a direct challenge to Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir Tuesday, warning that he and his government "will be held responsible for every single death that occurs in" the refugee camps of the Darfur region.

Al-Bashir ordered the expulsion of 13 international aid groups from the Sudan earlier this month after he was indicted by the International Criminal Court on charges of war crimes. While other aid groups remain in Sudan, the United Nations said the 13 expelled groups provided roughly half the assistance delivered in Darfur.

Nearly 300,000 people have died in the Darfur conflict, and millions are homeless, according to the U.N.

Calling the situation in Darfur "horrendous," Clinton said President Obama's administration will appoint a special envoy for Sudan "in the coming days."

On Wednesday, retired Air Force Gen. J. Scott Gration was appointed as U.S. special envoy for Sudan, the White House announced in a written statement.

"Sudan is a priority for this administration, particularly at a time when it cries out for peace and for justice. The worsening humanitarian crisis there makes our task all the more urgent," President Barack Obama said in the statement. "General Gration's personal and professional background, and his service to the country as both a military leader and a humanitarian, give him the insights and experience necessary for this assignment."

Gration, a former fighter pilot, served as assistant deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for international affairs. Fluent in Swahili, he was raised partly in Africa, where his parents were missionary teachers

Clinton said the real question now is what kind of pressure can be brought to bear on al-Bashir and the government in Khartoum to make them understand "that they will be held responsible for every single death that occurs in those camps."

State Department spokesman Robert Wood told reporters, "It's just a catastrophe that Bashir has created. We're going to continue to make this case and we're imploring others to make this case that he needs to reverse that decision he took. Thousands, hundreds of thousands of people, could possibly be at risk and it's irresponsible, the action he took, and he needs to reverse it and reverse it immediately. People's lives are at risk."

Clinton said countries that support al-Bashir's expulsion order "have the responsibility to persuade the government in Sudan to change its decision to let the aid workers back, or they must replace with money and personnel those who have been expelled so that innocent lives are not lost and further undermined."

Clinton said the United States is "very concerned" and is looking for more effective ways to convince the Sudanese government that "they have assumed an even greater sense of responsibility and infamy in the eyes of the world by turning their backs on these refugees whom they created in the first place."

Wood said it is clear that Bashir is the sole person at fault.

"Bashir is to blame for this crisis on the ground," he said.  His actions have only made things a lot worse. We are trying to get him to reverse this decision. We want to call on all those who have influence with the government of Sudan, institutions like the African Union, the Arab League, to do what they can to get Bashir to reverse his decision."

Obama, during his election campaign, made the crisis in Darfur a major focus. Since then, some have criticized him for putting it on the back burner. Seeking to rebut that view, Wood listed all recent steps the administration has taken to resolve the situation.

Last week, he said, Obama discussed the deteriorating situation in Sudan with U.N. Secretary General Ban ki-Moon. U.S. officials have been meeting in New York, Washington

Question:
Who did Hillary Clinton warn?
What must Bashir do?
Whose lives are at risk?
What is a catastrophe?
Who is throwing out aid?

Answer: Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir

Answer: reverse this decision.

Answer: Thousands, hundreds of thousands of people, could possibly be

Answer: throwing many international aid workers out of the country.

Answer: President Omar al-Bashir

Summary:
State Department says Sudan president throwing out aid agencies is "catastrophe"
Hillary Clinton warns Sudan president will be "responsible for every single death"
Omar al-Bashir wanted aid groups out after indictment on war crime charges .
Spokesman: Bashir must reverse decision because "people's lives are at risk"


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The U.S. military plans to help the Afghanistan government recruit, train and arm local Afghans to fight a resurgent Taliban, U.S. military officials say. U.S. soldiers patrol near Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan on Wednesday. U.S. officials describe the proposal as a "community-based" security effort. The main job of the local units is to be an "early warning system" and be armed mainly for defensive operations, a U.S. military official said. Participants will get uniforms so they can be readily identified, officials said. The first phase of the program is expected to begin next year in Wardak province, where the Taliban have overrun many local government institutions. For the United States, the most sensitive part of the proposal will be the use of American military funds to purchase small arms, most likely AK-47 rifles, that will be given to local Afghans, according to a U.S. military official. U.S. commanders acknowledge concerns that arming local groups is risky, as it could lead to new armed conflicts between tribes, putting American troops in the middle of unexpected firefights. The Afghan government will select men for the new security program. It will train them and technically arm them, although the funds will come from the U.S. military. The Afghans will be responsible for ensuring the loyalty of people in the program, but the United States will oversee the effort and collect biometric information, such as eyeprints and fingerprints, on all participants, according to the U.S. military official. U.S. officials are emphasizing that because of tribal diversity, the Afghan program differs from the Awakening Councils in Iraq, which include tens of thousands of Sunni gunmen and was credited with helping reduce violence there.

Question:
Who will be "early warning system?"
What are locals to be?
When is the program to begin?
Where is the program to begin in?
When will the program begin?

Answer: local units

Answer: "early warning system"

Answer: next year

Answer: Wardak

Answer: next year

Summary:
"Community-based" security effort designed to counter Taliban gains .
Locals to be "early warning system," U.S. official says .
Program to begin next year in Wardak province .