WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An al Qaeda suspect alleged to have been involved in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Tanzania that killed 11 people faces war crimes charges, the Pentagon announced Monday.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani is shown in a photo posted by the FBI in 2004.

The bombing in Dar es Salaam, which also wounded hundreds, was one of two carried out nearly simultaneously on August 7, 1998. One in Nairobi, Kenya, killed 213 people.

Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, from Tanzania, faces nine charges, six of them offenses that could carry the death penalty if he is convicted by a military tribunal.

He was captured by Pakistan in 2004 and is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In a written announcement, the Pentagon said Ghailani is "charged with the following substantive offenses: murder in violation of the Law of War, murder of protected persons, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, destruction of property in violation of the Law of War and terrorism. In addition, he is charged with conspiracy to commit all of the above offenses.

"Ghailani is further charged with providing material support to terrorism. This charge alleges that after the bombing, Ghailani continued in his service to al Qaeda as a document forger, physical trainer at an al Qaeda training camp, and as a bodyguard for Osama bin Laden."

The charges say he purchased bomb components, scouted the embassy with the suicide bomb driver, met with co-conspirators, and fled to Karachi, Pakistan, one day before the bombing.

The convening authority for military commissions, Susan J. Crawford, will determine whether probable cause exists for a trial by military commission, said Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartman of the Office of Military Commissions.

For Ghailani to ultimately be sentenced to death, the 12-member jury would have to unanimously find him guilty, determine that aggravating factors apply, and concur on the death sentence, Hartman told reporters at the Pentagon. "Everything has to be unanimous."

"And then there are four levels of post-trial review, which is an extraordinary set of rights available," he said.

In December, 1998 -- a few months after the embassy bombings -- Ghailani and three other fugitives were indicted in U.S. District Court in New York. It is not known whether he may ultimately face a federal trial.  E-mail to a friend

Where was the bomber from?
Where did the bombing occur?
Who faces nine charges?
Was the Kenya bomber caught?

Answer: Tanzania,

Answer: Embassy in Tanzania

Answer: Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani,

Answer: captured by Pakistan in 2004 and is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Summary:
1998 bombing in Dar es Salaam killed 11, injured hundreds .
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian, faces nine charges .
Al Qaeda-linked suspect could get death sentence from military tribunal .
U.S. Embassy in Kenya bombed almost same time on August 7, 1998 .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An extended trip to Ecuador by two Americans changed from a dream to a nightmare after a brutal attack last week, according the couple's blog and U.S. officials. State Department spokesman Robert Wood confirmed Tuesday that the U.S. Embassy in Ecuador had been told that two Americans from Bend, Oregon, were attacked in the city of Esmeraldas, on Ecuador's northern coast. But he said he could provide no further information because of privacy laws. Two State Department officials, however, said that the man was stabbed more than 24 times and that his fiancée was beaten and raped. CNN does not name the victims of sexual assault and has removed publication of the man's name to help protect the identity of the woman. The couple was evacuated to the United States on Tuesday for treatment, the officials said. The couple wrote a blog throughout their trip. In the most recent post on Monday, the woman wrote that her fiance was in intensive care after three surgeries. "I was informed by the head surgeon there is no certainty he will survive," she wrote. The earlier postings were happier reflections on their visit to Ecuador, a year-long trip they planned after getting engaged and selling all their belongings. In the blog, the couple seems unconcerned about safety, posting that they occasionally hitchhiked, visited the homes of strangers and posed for pictures with new friends they made on their travels. One senior official told CNN that the victims' parents complained to U.S. consular officers in Ecuador  that the Embassy did not do enough to warn Americans that many people have been attacked in Esmeraldas. The State Department's  Web site advises caution when traveling to the northern border region of Ecuador, including Esmeraldas. The travel advisory section notes that "U.S. government personnel are under limitations with respect to traveling alone and over-nighting in these areas due to the spread of organized crime, drug trafficking, small arms trafficking, and incursions by various Colombian terrorist organizations." The Web site says that since 1998, at least 10 U.S. citizens have been kidnapped and one killed near Ecuador's border with Colombia. Wood on Tuesday expressed the State Department's "deep sympathy" for the victims and said the department worked with the victims' families to provide assistance. "It's a horrible and shocking incident" he said.

Where should travelers exercise extreme caution?

In what country was the couple attacked?

Answer: three

Answer: northern border region of Ecuador, including Esmeraldas.

Answer: beaten and raped.

Answer: his fiancée was beaten and raped.

Answer: Esmeraldas, on Ecuador's northern coast.

Answer: was in intensive care after three surgeries.

Answer: three

Answer: was stabbed more than 24 times

Answer: Ecuador

Summary:
U.S. officials say man was stabbed repeatedly, his fiancée raped and beaten .
Relative tells media that couple was attacked on beach in northern Ecuador .
Fiancée writes in blog that her companion may not survive despite three surgeries .
State Department site advises caution when traveling to parts of northern Ecuador .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An extensive federal report released Monday concludes that roughly one in four of the 697,000 U.S. veterans of the 1990-91 Gulf War suffer from Gulf War illness. A U.S. soldier wears protection against chemical weapons during the Gulf War in a February 1991 photo. That illness is a condition now identified as the likely consequence of exposure to toxic chemicals, including pesticides and a drug administered to protect troops against nerve gas. The 452-page report states that "scientific evidence leaves no question that Gulf War illness is a real condition with real causes and serious consequences for affected veterans." The report, compiled by a panel of scientific experts and veterans serving on the congressionally mandated Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, fails to identify any cure for the malady. It also notes that few veterans afflicted with Gulf War illness have recovered over time. "Today's report brings to a close one of the darkest chapters in the legacy of the 1991 Gulf War," said Anthony Hardie, a member of the committee and a member of the advocacy group Veterans of Modern Warfare. "This is a bittersweet victory, [because] this is what Gulf War veterans have been saying all along," Hardie said at a news conference in Washington. "Years were squandered by the federal government ... trying to disprove that anything could be wrong with Gulf War veterans." The committee's report, titled "Gulf War Illness and the Health of Gulf War Veterans," was officially presented Monday to Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Peake. Noting that overall funding for research into Gulf War illness has declined dramatically since 2001, it calls for a "renewed federal research commitment" to "identify effective treatments for Gulf War illness and address other priority Gulf War health issues."  Watch CNN's Elizabeth Cohen report more on Gulf War illness » According to the report, Gulf War illness is a "complex of multiple concurrent symptoms" that "typically includes persistent memory and concentration problems, chronic headaches, widespread pain, gastrointestinal problems, and other chronic abnormalities." The illness may also be potentially tied to higher rates of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) -- more commonly known as Lou Gehrig's Disease -- among Gulf War veterans than veterans of other conflicts. The illness is identified as the consequence of multiple "biological alterations" affecting the brain and nervous system. iReport.com: Do you know someone affected by Gulf War illness? While it is sometimes difficult to issue a specific diagnosis of the disease, it is, according to the report, no longer difficult to identify a cause. The report identifies two Gulf War "neurotoxic" exposures that "are causally associated with Gulf War illness." The first is the ingestion of pyridostigmine bromide (PB) pills, given to protect troops from effects of nerve agents. The second is exposure to dangerous pesticides used during the conflict. The report does not rule out other possible contributors to Gulf War illness -- including low-level exposure to nerve agents and close proximity to oil well fires -- though it fails to establish any clear link. The report concludes there is no clear link between the illness and a veteran's exposure to factors such as depleted uranium or an anthrax vaccine administered at the time. "Gulf War illness isn't some imaginary syndrome," said Ken Robinson, the senior intelligence officer for the initial Department of Defense investigation into Gulf War illness in 1996-97. "This is real, and it has devastated families. Now is the time to restore the funding cuts that have been made in the Veterans Administration. Our mission has to be to ensure that these veterans get help and become whole again." Robinson noted that soldiers in the field today are not at risk for Gulf War illness, because the military is no longer using the PB pills or pesticides that led to the illness in 1990 and 1991. The report backs Robinson's conclusion, noting that no problem similar to Gulf War illness has been discovered among veterans from the conflict in Bosnia in the 1990s or in the current engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq.

One in four Gulf War veterans suffer from what?

Answer: "Gulf War illness isn't some imaginary syndrome,"

Answer: War illness.

Answer: Gulf War illness.

Answer: Gulf War

Answer: illness.

Answer: "complex of multiple concurrent symptoms"

Answer: Anthony Hardie,

Summary:
NEW: Officer who investigated illness: "This is real, and it has devastated families"
One in four Gulf War veterans suffer from Gulf War illness, report says .
Pesticides, drug used to thwart effects of nerve gas called most likely to blame .
Illness termed "a real condition with real causes and serious consequences"


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An increase in the number of suicides among military personnel can be traced, in part, to a "stressed and tired force" made vulnerable by multiple deployments, a military leader said Wednesday.

Long troop deployments in Iraq, above, and Afghanistan have been cited in the rise in military suicides.

"We must find ways to relieve some of this stress," said Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, vice chief of staff of the Army, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee.

"I think it is the cumulative effect of deployments from 12 to 15 months," he said, adding that the longer deployments are scheduled to continue until June.

He cited long deployments, lengthy separations from family and the perceived stigma associated with seeking help as factors contributing to the suicides.

Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, vice chief of naval operations, said suicides are the third leading cause of death in the Navy.

"We must eliminate the perceived stigma, shame and dishonor of asking for help," he said.

Gen. James F. Amos, assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, said his branch of the service has incorporated education and training about suicide prevention "at all levels."

He said four of 55 mental health professionals deployed in the U.S. Central Command were recently embedded with Marines. He expressed optimism that that tactic would pay off, but he said he had no data to support his expectation.

And Gen. William M. Fraser, vice chief of staff of the Air Force, said his branch, too, was taking steps "to ensure airmen are as mentally prepared for deployment and redeployment as they are physically and professionally."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said the efforts have not sufficed. He noted that last year, for the first time, the suicide rate among military personnel has exceeded that of the civilian population. "What's going on?" he asked rhetorically.

The panel members made clear that, whatever is going on, it is complex. Chiarelli said the Army tallied 133 confirmed suicides last year and is still investigating another seven possible ones. At least 70 percent of the suicides had "some kind of relationship problem," he said. Often, the situation was worsened by something else, such as a financial or legal problem, he said.

And it wasn't just the trauma of war that appears to heighten the risk. The suicides were about evenly divided among those who had returned from deployment, those who were still deployed -- some on a third or fourth tour -- and those who had never been deployed, Chiarelli said.

All of the military leaders said they had too few mental health professionals in their ranks.

But Walsh said professionals are not the only people who must be trained to intervene, noting that it is often the shipmate or the battle buddy who seeks assistance for someone in need.

And Navy counselors are now asking family members for feedback that often proves more illuminating than what the sailors themselves are willing to impart, he said.

"If I survey the family, I'm going to get a different set of answers."

One reason some service personnel are reluctant to seek help from their chain of command is because they fear they will then be passed over for promotions, the panel members said.

In some cases, they pay out of their own pockets to seek help privately, Rubenstein said.

And others call civilian hotlines, one of which reported getting three calls per day this year from active-duty military personnel.

Representatives of all of the branches of the military said they have seen recent increases in suicides.

At the Pentagon, Defense Secretary William Gates said he believes the 15-month deployments "were a real strain" on many, but expressed optimism that beneficial changes are in the works.

"All the services are are addressing this problem, but the Army in particular, I think, is really going after it in a very aggressive way," he said.

But some suicides appear to defy all prevention efforts. Maj. Gen. David A. Rubenstein

What does the Admiral say about suicides?

What are a third leading cause of death?

What is the third leading cause of death in the Navy?

Who said we must find ways to relieve stress?

What was said to contribute to the problem?

Answer: Long troop deployments

Answer: "stressed and tired force"

Answer: suicides

Answer: suicides

Answer: Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli,

Answer: Long troop deployments in Iraq,

Answer: seeking help

Summary:
Army Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli: "We must find ways to relieve some of this stress"
Admiral says suicides are the third leading cause of death in the Navy .
"Perceived stigma ... and dishonor of asking for help" is cited as part of problem .
Also blamed: Long deployments and lengthy separations from family .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Army Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, has been chosen to become chief of U.S. Central Command, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday. Gen. David Petraeus has been the commander in Iraq for more than a year. Petraeus would replace Adm. William Fallon, who said last month that he was resigning. Fallon said widespread, but false, reports that he was at odds with the Bush administration over Iran had made his job impossible. In addition, Gates said, Army Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of the Multinational Corps-Iraq -- the No. 2 position in Iraq -- is being nominated to fill Petraeus' post. Odierno has been home from Iraq for only a couple of months but has agreed to return, Gates said. The plan is for Petraeus to leave Iraq in late summer or early fall, Gates said, to ensure a smooth transition and plenty of time for Odierno to prepare. "We expect to move the paperwork on these nominations to the White House and to the Senate very quickly," Gates said. "Because of the complexity of this series of moves, I respectfully ask the Senate to move on them expeditiously, hopefully by Memorial Day, so the families and we can plan appropriately." Odierno was in line for a Pentagon desk job as Army Vice Chief just over a year after helping Petraeus implement the "surge" in U.S. troops in Iraq. The Pentagon says Petraeus will stay in Iraq long enough to make the first recommendation on further troop cuts after the surge is over.  Watch the challenges ahead of Petraeus » Gates said the generals' promotions reflected an endorsement of the current course in Iraq. "The course certainly that Gen. Petraeus has set has been a successful course. So, frankly, I think staying that course is not a bad idea. I would say it's a good idea," Gates said.  Watch Gates nominate Petraeus » Central Command, which oversees U.S. forces in East Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia, has its headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida. Gates said Odierno is well known to troops in Iraq, to military leadership and to Iraqis, and "I believe, in most parts of the world, especially in the Middle East, personal relationships make a difference." "I believe that this arrangement will probably preserve the likelihood of continued momentum and progress," Gates said. The defense secretary said he expects to easily win Senate approval for the nominations once they are made by President Bush. He said he had spoken with Sens. Carl Levin, D-Michigan; John McCain, R-Arizona; and John Warner, R-Virginia, and "I don't really anticipate any problems." In a press release Wednesday, McCain praised the move. "Both of these great generals have served our country with skill and distinction, and I am pleased that they will continue to do so in positions of high responsibility," McCain wrote. Gates acknowledged that Fallon's "decision to step down was unexpected." "I had intended that Adm. Fallon probably stay on for a third year. His second year would have ended in February," he said. "So I'm faced with a critical combatant command where a commander is needed -- and a commander who knows what's going on in the region." Asked whether he was using Petraeus "almost as a finger in the dike" because of the shortage of Army generals with expertise in counterinsurgency warfare, Gates admitted that there are few Army officers with experience in and knowledge of Iraq. Odierno served as commander of the 4th Infantry Division, the unit that captured former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Petraeus was picked in January 2007 to replace Gen. George Casey as the chief commander in Iraq and won Senate confirmation that month. He previously served as head of the U.S. Army Combined Arms Center and as a commander in Iraq, and he was one of the main writers of an Army manual on counterinsurgency efforts. He was seen as the logical

Who would take over for Adm. William Fallon?

Who would oversee all forces in Middle East?

Who says changes "will probably preserve ... momentum and progress"?

Answer: Army Gen. David Petraeus,

Answer: the top U.S. commander in Iraq,

Answer: U.S. forces in East Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia,

Answer: chief of U.S. Central Command,

Answer: the generals' promotions

Answer: Army Gen. David Petraeus,

Answer: Gates

Summary:
Gates says changes "will probably preserve ... momentum and progress"
Petraeus would oversee all forces in Middle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan .
Petraeus would take over for Adm. William Fallon, who resigned .
Central Command position is subject to Senate confirmation .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As Democrats continue to splinter over President Obama's proposed health care reform plan, Republicans are taking the opportunity to home in on a key argument: A good bill deserves more time and deliberation. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, says his party may have enough votes to stall Democratic health care reform. Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Georgia, said Friday that Obama's rush to put a bill together is "totally irresponsible." "Most of us believe that the decision as to major reform of how Americans get their health care in this country deserves at least as much time and deliberation as it would take to select a puppy to live in the White House," he said. "It took the president six months to decide how long and which puppy he was going to have. ... To expect Congress to do something on major health care reform in six days is totally irresponsible." Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, speaking on conservative Hugh Hewitt's radio show recently, was asked about whether his party had enough votes to block health care from going forward. His answer: "I think so. I really do." "If he is unsuccessful, which I anticipate and will predict he is, on getting a vote prior to the August recess, then I would say there's no way in the world they're going to get this done this year," he added. Obama's fight to get health care reform through Congress hit a major snag this week -- facing opposition from Republicans and fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats worried over the costs -- estimated to be around $1 trillion. On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, announced that the Senate would not take up a vote before August recess -- a deadline that Obama had originally wanted.  Watch a GOP senator lash out at Obama's plan » Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas responded to Democratic criticism that the GOP has failed to present a viable plan. "When the Democrats say we don't have a plan ... where's their plan? If they can't get a bill out of committee, where's their plan?" he said. Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Missouri, said it's hard to combat the Democrats' proposed legislation when it changes "by 100 pages every time you walk into the room." The GOP's fight is also getting political, namely looking ahead to the upcoming midterm election. "I just hope the president keeps talking about it, keeps trying to rush it through. We can stall it. And that's going to be a huge gain for those of us who want to turn this thing over in the 2010 election," Inhofe said. Last week, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, was quoted as telling the group Conservatives for Patients' Rights, which opposes Obama's health care plan, that "if we're able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him." Obama debunked DeMint's claim during a live prime time news conference Wednesday night at the White House. "I've heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to 'go for the kill.' Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about 'breaking' me," he said. "Let me be clear: This isn't about me," Obama said, noting that he and every member of Congress -- including those trying to scuttle health care reform legislation -- "have great health insurance." Obama's chief-of-staff, Rahm Emanuel, took a swipe at the GOP's political maneuvering. "At least they're honest about their motivation," Emanuel told National Public Radio Friday. "Their view about health care is about defeating President Obama. Politically, I actually appreciate what they said."

Who is the U.S presindent?
from where is Sen. Inhofe?
What does the Sen. Inhofe said?

Answer: President Obama's

Answer: R-Oklahoma,

Answer: says his party may have enough votes to stall Democratic health care reform.

Summary:
GOP Rep. Deal: Obama spent more time picking a dog than health care plan .
Obama's health care fight hit a major snag this week .
Sen. Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, says it's unlikely the president will get a bill this year .
Inhofe says stalling health care reform could be good for GOP in 2010 .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As President Obama approaches day 100 of his administration, some in Washington caution that the torture tug-of-war could be a costly distraction. Leg restraints await detainees at Guantanamo Bay in this 2006 photo. Earlier this month, the Obama administration released four Bush-era memos detailing "enhanced interrogations" of suspected al Qaeda members. Now, the White House is reviewing former Vice President Dick Cheney's request to make more memos public. Two weeks before Obama released any memos, Cheney submitted a request to the National Archives calling for the release of other documents. He says that what he requested will prove that the Bush interrogation tactics -- which critics have called a torture program -- worked. "I haven't talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country," Cheney said in an interview with Fox News last week. The White House is signaling that not only is it considering honoring Cheney's request, it may go even further. "I think the president, as you know, is a big believer in transparency," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I think one of the things that will have to be examined is whether there are additional memos that have to be released that give a broader picture of what's gone on in enhanced interrogation techniques." The almost daily revelations are dividing Democrats between those calling for full disclosure and those urging caution. "We don't just turn the page without reading it. We want to make sure what the mistakes were so that the Obama administration doesn't make these mistakes," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont. said Sunday. But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, warned Sunday against moving to quickly. "We need to find these things out, and we need to do it in a way that's calm and deliberative and professional, because I think all of this, on the front burner, before the public, does harm our intelligence gathering, it does harm America's position in the world," she said on CNN's "State of the Union." Across the aisle, Republicans are insisting the Justice Department drop any investigation of Bush administration officials who authorized harsh interrogations. "I think that would be a stab in the back. I think he has already demoralized the CIA, put them in a CYA mode," Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, said Sunday on Fox News. Arizona Sen. John McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate, said prosecuting those who gave legal advice is wrong. "I don't think those memos should have been released, but the fundamental point now is whether to prosecute people who gave the president, in my view, legitimate advice, even though it was wrong," he said.  "We should not be prosecuting people who gave legal advice. It's wrong to do that to them, and it sets a terrible precedent for the future." Rep. Pete Hoekstra of Michigan, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, and House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio are calling on the White House to release a list of who was briefed about the interrogation programs. "Congress and the American people deserve a full and complete set of facts about what information was yielded by CIA's interrogation program, and they deserve to know which of their representatives in Congress were briefed about these techniques and the extent of those briefings," Boehner said in a statement Monday. "To date, the administration has fallen short in providing this information. ... The American people have been provided an incomplete picture of exactly what intelligence was made available by the interrogation program," he said. But Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Democrat-turned-independent, said the whole debate over the memos is "moot." "What do we gain, first, by releasing the memos; but, secondly, what

what position did dick cheney hold?
What does Dick Cheney want?
What will the memos show?
Cheney wanted what released?
Who are calling for disclosure?
What group opposed investigations?
who opposes any investigation?

Answer: Vice President

Answer: make more memos public.

Answer: "enhanced interrogations" of suspected al Qaeda members.

Answer: submitted a request to the National Archives calling for the release of other documents.

Answer: Democrats between those

Answer: Republicans

Answer: Republicans

Summary:
Former Vice President Dick Cheney wants more memos released .
Cheney says memos will show what was learned through interrogation process .
Some Democrats are calling for full disclosure; others are urging caution .
GOP opposes any investigation of officials who authorized tactics .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As Supreme Court hopeful Sonia Sotomayor breaks ground for Hispanics, she is poised to add an exclamation point to another historic demographic shift: the move to a Catholic court. If confirmed, Sonia Sotomayor would be the sixth Catholic justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Sotomayor was raised Catholic and if she is confirmed, six out of nine, or two-thirds of the justices on the court will be from the faith. Catholics make up about one-quarter of the U.S. population. "It's most unusual," said Barbara Perry, a government professor at Sweetbriar College who was already writing a book about Catholics on the Supreme Court when Sotomayor was named as the next nominee. "Presidents used to reserve a Catholic seat and a Jewish seat on the Supreme Court," Perry told CNN Radio. "Now we've moved from a Catholic seat on the court to a Catholic court." Of the 110 people who have served on the Supreme Court, 11 have been Catholic. Five of those justices -- Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice John Roberts -- are currently on the court. "It is more than a random selection process that yielded the current five Catholics on the bench," Perry said. The five current Catholic justices were appointed by Republican presidents, which Perry notes may be a key reason why so many Catholics have joined the high court in recent years. "It's their tie to conservative Catholicism which made them agreeable to (Republican) presidents' ideology," she said. Perry sees Catholics as swing voters with a base of socially conservative principles, and therefore naturally attractive for Republican presidents. Catholic League President Bill Donohue goes further, hypothesizing that Catholics have conservative credentials on issues such as abortion, without the political baggage of terms such as the "religious right" or "evangelicals." "Is it safer to nominate a Catholic as opposed to an evangelical to get votes? I think the answer is decidedly yes," Donohue said. Donohue also suggests the vigorous education in Catholic schools during the 20th century produced sharp legal minds. "I think there might be a certain kind of Catholic edge, so to speak, as a residual property of a Catholic education," he said. Roberts, Scalia and Thomas attended Catholic school as children, as did Sotomayor.  Watch more about Sotomayor's personal history » Underlying causes aside, Perry sees the fast shift as a sign that centuries of American concern about Catholics are over. In 1985, a lone Catholic justice, William J. Brennan, Jr., sat on the court. A generation later, that number is poised to become six. "What that tells is that in our politics, religion doesn't matter anymore," Perry said. Then she added: "I don't think our politics are ready for an Islamic justice at this point." The current court is composed of two Jewish members -- Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. If Sotomayor joins the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens would be the solitary Protestant on a court once dominated by white Protestant men.  Learn about the other Supreme Court justices » Court observers wonder what, if anything, six Catholic justices would mean for Supreme Court decisions. The five Catholics currently on the bench concurred in a 2007 decision, Gonzales v. Carhart, which upheld a state ban on late-term abortions. Sotomayor has faced few abortion cases, and no tests on issues such gay rights or the death penalty. However, Donohue expects a Justice Sotomayor to lean more left than her fellow Catholics on the court.  Read about Sotomayor's record » "I think she's more reliably liberal," Donohue said. Donohue said he still would like to see Sotomayor join the bench. "Even though I'm a conservative and she is not, there's still a certain way that you do root for the home team," he said.

Who appointed the current Catholic justices?

Who, if confirmed would be the supreme court's sixth catholic?

How many  current Catholic justices were appointed by Republican presidents ?

Who said Sotomayor would lean more left than other justices?

How many current Catholic justices were appointed by Republican presidents?

Who says Sotomayor would lean more left than other justices ?

Answer: Republican presidents,

Answer: Catholic

Answer: Sonia Sotomayor

Answer: five

Answer: Donohue

Answer: five

Answer: more left

Answer: Donohue

Summary:
If confirmed, Judge Sonia Sotomayor would be Supreme Court's sixth Catholic .
Five current Catholic justices were appointed by Republican presidents .
Catholic League president says Sotomayor would lean more left than other justices .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As a bill that would expand education benefits for veterans has become a flash point in the early sparring between Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama, some Republicans admit that the Democrats may have outmaneuvered them on the issue. Sen. John McCain has sided with President Bush on opposing a popular GI Bill in Congress. McCain has defended his opposition to the bill that would expand education benefits for veterans, saying it would hurt the military that he hopes to lead. The bill, which passed the Senate last week 75-22, would expand education benefits for veterans who served at least three years in the military after the September 11, 2001, attacks. A former Navy officer and prisoner of war during Vietnam, McCain says the bill would hurt military retention by 16 percent and be a disincentive for service members to become noncommissioned officers, which he called "the backbone of all the services."  Democrats cite the Congressional Budget Office, whose figures say the expanded benefits would boost enlistment by 16 percent. Watch more of McCain's comments » "I think John McCain has been outmaneuvered," said GOP strategist Ed Rollins, who had served as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's presidential campaign chairman. "Sometimes in politics, there are intellectual issues and emotional issues." "John McCain is going against veterans groups; he is going against a constituency that should be his. ... But I think he is on the wrong side of this issue," Rollins said. "A lot of Republicans are voting for this, and I think to a certain extent as it moves forward there will be more and more. There will be tremendous pressure from veterans groups past and present and I think you will see a lot of bipartisan support for this as well." Over the weekend, Obama, who appears to be the likely Democratic nominee, again tried to tie McCain to Bush by noting that both of them oppose the GI Bill expansion. "I revere our soldiers and want to make sure they are being treated with honor and respect," Obama said Saturday in Puerto Rico. "I think the GI Bill is one way for us to do that, and I hope that John McCain and George Bush decide they believe the same thing."   Watch more of Obama's comments » Obama hasn't served in the military. "It is really probably Barack Obama's shining moment in this campaign. The way he phrased this debate, the way he framed the issue," said Robert Zimmerman, a Democratic superdelegate who supports Sen. Hillary Clinton's run for president.  Watch analysts weigh in on the issue » "Intellectually, John McCain may be right, the president may be right. Emotionally, you are on the wrong side, you can never win an emotional battle in an intellectual argument," Rollins added. Rollins also said that despite McCain's war hero status, history has shown veterans who run for president don't always capture the veteran vote. "I think the bottom line here in the statistic that was astonishing to me is George Bush's father was a war hero lost the veterans' vote to Bill Clinton who ... did not serve in a war," Rollins said. "Same way with Bob Dole, a war hero lost the vote." McCain, along with Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Richard Burr of North Carolina, has introduced an alternative bill that would increase education benefits on a sliding scale based on an individual's years of service. The GI Bill was created in June 1944, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944. It was designed to help educate and train military veterans returning from WWII. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, 7.8 million of 16 million troops who served in WWII received educational or vocational training from the GI Bill. Soldiers, Marines and airmen, speaking at a Capitol Hill rally on April 29, said they are not given enough funds from the bill to cover college expenses as they were promised. Todd Bowers, who served two tours in

Who opposes the bill due to retention problems?

What benefits are extended by the updated bill?

Who said McCain was on the wrong side of the issue?

Answer: McCain

Answer: education benefits for veterans

Answer: may be right, the president may be right. Emotionally, you are on the wrong side, you can never win an emotional battle in an intellectual argument,"

Answer: a bill that would expand education benefits for veterans

Answer: education

Answer: the bill that would expand education benefits for veterans,

Answer: Ed Rollins,

Answer: GI

Answer: education

Summary:
Senate passes an update to the GI Bill, extending education benefits to veterans .
Sen. McCain and President Bush oppose it, citing retention problems .
Ed Rollins: McCain's "outmaneuvered" and "on the wrong side of this issue"


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As a career military officer, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry is familiar with sacrifice for his country and long stretches away from home.

Karl Eikenberry testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee March 26.

But he apparently doesn't want any more separation from his wife, Ching Eikenberry.

If he is approved as the next U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan he wants her to come with him.

That could collide with State Department rules. Afghanistan is designated "an unaccompanied post" by the department because of the dangers of the war and terror attacks. That means family members are not allowed.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, who as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee was running Eikenberry's confirmation hearing last week, was in favor of the idea.

"I know you are hoping to take your wife there with you, and I think I certainly, and I think the committee is entirely supportive," Kerry said. "I think it would be a terrific message and a strong boost of morale for the Embassy, and obviously wherever possible we should try to encourage that. So I hope that will be facilitated."

Said Eikenberry, "Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for that support."

There was no immediate reaction from the State Department.

For what country  might Karl Eikenberry become the next ambassador

what would collide with State Department rules?

who is waiting to be next  ambassador to Afghanistan?

If Karl Eikenberry becomes ambassador to Afghanistan who will go with him?

Answer: to Afghanistan

Answer: family members are not allowed.

Answer: Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry

Answer: he wants her to come with him.

Answer: State Department

Answer: his wife, Ching

Summary:
Karl Eikenberry awaits Senate confirmation to be next ambassador to Afghanistan .
If approved, Eikenberry wants to take his wife with him .
But that request could collide with State Department rules .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As he awaits a crucial progress report on Iraq, President Bush will try to put a twist on comparisons of the war to Vietnam by invoking the historical lessons of that conflict to argue against pulling out.

President Bush pauses Tuesday during a news conference at the  North American Leaders summit in Canada.

On Wednesday in Kansas City, Missouri, Bush will tell members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars that "then, as now, people argued that the real problem was America's presence and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end," according to speech excerpts released Tuesday by the White House.

"Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left," Bush will say.

"Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education camps' and 'killing fields,' " the president will say.

The president will also make the argument that withdrawing from Vietnam emboldened today's terrorists by compromising U.S. credibility, citing a quote from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden that the American people would rise against the Iraq war the same way they rose against the war in Vietnam, according to the excerpts.

"Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility, but the terrorists see things differently," Bush will say.

On Tuesday, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "President Bush's attempt to compare the war in Iraq to past military conflicts in East Asia ignores the fundamental difference between the two. Our nation was misled by the Bush Administration in an effort to gain support for the invasion of Iraq under false pretenses, leading to one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our history.

"While the President continues to stay-the-course with his failed strategy in Iraq, paid for by the taxpayers, American lives are being lost and there is still no political solution within the Iraqi government. It is time to change direction in Iraq, and Congress will again work to do so in the fall."

The White House is billing the speech, along with another address next week to the American Legion, as an effort to "provide broader context" for the debate over the upcoming Iraq progress report by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad.

President Bush has frequently asked lawmakers -- and the American people -- to withhold judgment on his troop "surge" in Iraq until the report comes out in September.  Watch Bush criticize the Iraqi government »

It is being closely watched on Capitol Hill, particularly by Republicans nervous about the political fallout from an increasingly unpopular war.

Earlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he would wait for the report before deciding when a drawdown of the 160,000 U.S. troops in Iraq might begin.

Bush's speeches Wednesday and next week are the latest in a series of attempts by the White House to try to reframe the debate over Iraq, as public support for the war continues to sag.

A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that almost two-thirds of Americans -- 64 percent -- now oppose the Iraq war, and 72 percent say that even if Petraeus reports progress, it won't change their opinion.

The poll also found a great deal of skepticism about the report; 53 percent said they do not trust Petraeus to give an accurate assessment of the situation in Iraq.

In addition to his analogy to Vietnam, Bush in Wednesday's speech will invoke other historical comparisons from Asia, including the U.S. defeat and occupation of Japan after World War II and the Korean War in the 1950s, according to the excerpts.

"In the aftermath of Japan's surrender, many thought it naive to help the Japanese transform themselves into a democracy. Then, as now, the critics argued that some people were simply not fit

Who is President Bush going to address on Wednesday?

Who will President Bush address on Wednesday?

Who will address the veterans on Wednesday?

What is the topic of White House speech?

Who is President Bush talking to on Wednesday?

Whose attempt will be to frame debate over Iraq?

What day is the speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars?

Answer: members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars

Answer: Veterans of Foreign Wars

Answer: "Three decades later, there is a legitimate debate about how we got into the Vietnam War and how we left,"

Answer: Wednesday

Answer: Bush

Answer: an effort to "provide broader context" for the debate over the upcoming Iraq progress report

Answer: members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars

Answer: "Whatever your position in that debate, one unmistakable legacy of Vietnam is that the price of America's withdrawal was paid by millions of innocent citizens, whose agonies would add to our vocabulary new terms like 'boat people,' 're-education

Answer: "President Bush's

Answer: "Here at home, some can argue our withdrawal from Vietnam carried no price to American credibility, but the terrorists see things differently,"

Answer: argue against pulling out.

Answer: withdrawing from Vietnam

Answer: Foreign Wars

Answer: the Veterans of Foreign Wars

Answer: twist on comparisons of the war to Vietnam

Answer: "provide broader context" for the debate over the upcoming Iraq progress report

Answer: President Bush

Answer: Wednesday

Summary:
President Bush to address the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Wednesday .
Bush to say that withdrawing from Vietnam emboldened today's terrorists .
Speech will be latest White House attempt to try to reframe the debate over Iraq .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As he walks past the tiny, dingy waiting area into an equally cramped garage, Nui Srisook says business at his car repair shop is thriving. Drivers are choosing to keep their old cars longer, and they're turning to repair shops to make it so, observers say. Sales are up 20 percent this month and Srisook spends most nights working late, helping his customers to get extra mileage out of their old cars. "Most of the customers right now we see, they don't really have much extra money to ... buy a new car. So that's why they just do repair," Srisook said. "And now, people are willing to spend more money on maintaining the car, deciding what is broke, anything that needs to be maintained on the car." As more cash-strapped Americans turn to do-it-yourself projects and bargain shopping, car repair shops like Srisook's are feeling the boon. Drivers are choosing to keep their old cars longer, and often they're willing to put in the money to do so, observers say. The Automotive Service Association reports their members' sales were up 16 percent over last year.  Watch Kate Bolduan's report on the thriving auto repair industry » "That indicated that people were coming in and putting the vehicle in the repair facilities' hands and saying, 'Look, I am going to be keeping this car. I want to be sure it runs well. I want to be sure that if there are any safety issues or any maintenance issues that I have overlooked, let's get those taken care of,' " said ASA President Ron Pyle. Pyle said that's a change from the past, when drivers would scrimp on the cost of maintenance and repair. "That was surprising news. We didn't expect that in the midst of the beginnings of the economic woes," Pyle said. "But they are looking at the cost of trying to purchase a new vehicle ... so I think that in relative terms that $1,000 repair to keep a $2,500 car running may be an attractive alternative." The economic slump has cut automakers deeply. Last month, sales of new cars were down more than 40 percent compared with the same time last year, according to sales tracker Autodata. The trend seems to have translated into increased traffic at auto parts stores. "We're doing way more business. The phones are ringing, you know, customers are walking in," said Darryl Wright, owner of D.C. Brake & Bearings Co. "Basically, if it's broke, they fix it." In the past, only savvy auto mechanics knew to shop at Wright's nondescript discount store. Now, he sees more car owners who are looking for a cheaper deal on parts. "[Customers will] find a guy on the street, you know -- Joe Shady Mechanics is what we call them -- to fix it at a deeper discount rate, labor-wise, and they'll send the customer in here to buy the parts on their own," Wright said. "So people are saving money that way too." Srisook said he keeps service prices low to appeal to those bargain shoppers, such as Esther White, a loyal customer. She brought in her daughter's 1996 Oldsmobile for new rotors and brakes, and said her daughter would be driving the car "until it drops dead." "Believe it or not, we were raised to fix things, and to hold on to things as long as we could," White said. "But it goes back to today's economy, and making the right financial decisions."

Who said that people were willing to spend more?

What percentage did member sales grow by?

Answer: Srisook

Answer: increased traffic at auto parts stores.

Answer: auto parts

Answer: "We're doing way more business. The phones are ringing, you know, customers are walking in,"

Answer: 16 percent

Answer: "Most of the customers right now we see, they don't really have much extra money to ... buy a new car. So that's why they just do repair,"

Summary:
As more strapped Americans opt to fix their cars, repair shops are doing well .
Automotive Service Association: Members' sales grew 16 percent over the last year .
D.C. shop owner: "People are willing to spend more" to keep cars well-serviced .
Trend seems to have translated into increased traffic at auto parts stores, as well .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As thousands gathered Sunday in Washington for a march and rally focused on gay rights issues, lawmakers showed that some of the demonstrators' key goals face major obstacles ahead. President Obama speaks to a major gay-rights group Saturday night in Washington. Even with President Obama pushing Congress to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act -- a stance he highlighted to one of the nation's leading gay-rights groups Saturday night, to huge applause -- members of his own party told CNN they're not in lockstep. "I've said in the past I don't think that's the way to go," Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pennsylvania, told CNN's John King. He added, "We can move forward on a lot of measures, but I'm not sure there's the support yet for that." Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, noted that her state is one of many that has a law prohibiting same-sex marriage. "So I think, for a number of us, that becomes a challenge," she said. Stabenow would not say whether she would vote to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. The law, signed by President Clinton in 1996, defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, and ensures that states do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Clinton has since changed his mind, and said he no longer opposes same-sex marriage. Obama does not support same-sex marriage and has said he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He does, however, support civil unions for same-sex couples that offer similar rights and protections. The two Democratic senators on Sunday expressed support for the president's stances on several other key issues regarding gay rights, including legislation expanding the definition of hate crimes to include attacks based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The bill passed the House last week. Both also expressed support for the president's efforts to end the military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. On NBC's "Meet the Press," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, said he thinks the president will succeed on that front. "I think he will and he can, but it has to be done in the right way, which is to get a buy-in from the military, which I think is now possible," Levin said. "Other militaries in the West -- the British and other Western armies -- have ended this discriminatory policy. We can do it successfully, but it ought to be done with thoughtfulness, with care and with a buy-in from the military." Retired Gen. Richard Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "Gays can serve in the military; they just can't do so openly. And they do, and there are lots of them, and we're the beneficiary of all that." Myers did not weigh in on whether the change should happen, but said he agreed with Levin that the "senior military leadership needs to be part of this, the Pentagon needs to be part of this." But retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey disagreed. "There's no question that it's time to change the policy. The key to it isn't buy-in from the military; it's for Congress to change the law. They ought to do so, and I'm confident that the military will move ahead on it," he said. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, rejected McCaffrey's suggestion. "It's my belief that if you don't have buy-in from the military, that's a disservice to the people in the military. They should be included in this. I'm open-minded to what the military may suggest, but I can tell you I'm not going to make policy based on a campaign rally," Graham told NBC. "If this policy about 'Don't ask, don't tell' changes, it should be done based

What reaction had Democrats to Obama's proposal?

Where was the gay and lesbian rally held on Sunday?

What do they think Obama will succeed in ending

Which policy do some say he will succeed in ending?

Which act are some demcrats cautious about?

Answer: support

Answer: Washington

Answer: the Defense of Marriage Act

Answer: end the military's "Don't ask, don't tell"

Answer: gay-rights groups

Answer: Defense of Marriage

Summary:
Some Democrats cautious about Obama's pledge to end Defense of Marriage Act .
Some say they think he'll succeed in ending military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy .
Others debate whether military "buy-in" is necessary to end that policy .
Thousands of gay and lesbian rights supporters hold rally in Washington on Sunday .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- At 33, Joe Sullivan is serving a life term without the possibility of parole in a Florida prison while confined to a wheelchair. Joe Sullivan, now 33, was convicted of burglary and rape when he was 13. He is serving a life sentence without parole. The crime for which he was convicted was brutal: burglary and the rape of a 72-year-old woman in Pensacola. The man's lawyers say the punishment was equally harsh, particularly for someone with Sullivan's circumstances. He was 13 at the time, and is one of only two people his age in the world, say his supporters, tried as an adult and sentenced to "die in prison" for a crime that wasn't a homicide. Now the Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether  that sentence was cruel and unusual punishment for someone who was barely a teenager at the time of his crime. The justices are scheduled to announce Monday whether they will accept the case for review. If they do, oral arguments would be held in the fall. If the review is rejected, Sullivan would have few legal options remaining to reduce his sentence. His lawyers are also fighting to get him a new trial. Outside a death-penalty context, the high court has offered little recent guidance on how to treat the youngest of underage criminal defendants. The appellate record for rapists under age 15 is almost nonexistent, say legal experts consulted by CNN. Child legal advocates say many states lack adequate resources to handle young inmates given long sentences, including a lack of proper jailhouse counseling. Few studies have been conducted on the psychological effects on young defendants facing life in prison, said the Equal Justice Institute, which is representing Sullivan in the high court case. "We have created a forgotten population with a lot of needs," said Bryan Stevenson, Sullivan's lawyer. The crime happened in 1989, when Sullivan later admitted he and two friends ransacked a home in West Pensacola. But he denied the prosecutor's claim he returned with a knife and sexually assaulted the elderly homeowner. An older co-defendant claimed Sullivan was the rapist. According to the trial record, the victim testified the assailant was a youngster with "kinky hair and he was quite black and he was small." She could not recognize Sullivan by his facial features, but the defendant was made to repeat at trial what he allegedly told the woman: "If you can't identify me, I may not have to kill you." The victim testified, "It's been six months, it's hard, but it does sound similar." After a daylong trial, Escambia County circuit court Judge Nicholas Geeker sentenced Sullivan to life without parole. "I am going to try to send him away for as long as I can, he is beyond help," the judge told the boy. "The juvenile system has been utterly incapable of doing anything with Mr. Sullivan." Sullivan had a lengthy juvenile record, but continues to deny the attack. At the time, state prosecutor Larry Kaden, who retired last month, said, "It was a brutal crime and he had an extensive record. This was a bad, bad crime." The Florida Attorney General's office told the high court that prosecutors should have the discretion they have long been given to decide how harshly young criminal should be prosecuted. Sexual battery remains a crime punishable by life imprisonment in Florida. A study by the Equal Justice Institute found eight prisoners serving life terms for crimes committed at 13, all in the United States. Besides Sullivan, Florida inmate Ian Manuel is in a similar situation. He was 13 when convicted of attempted murder and robbery in 1990 and will not get out of prison. The Justice Department reports no 13-year-old has been given life without parole for crime that wasn't a homicide in a decade. And while about a thousand people every year under 15 are arrested for rape, none have been given life without parole since Sullivan. Only a handful of states -- including Alaska, Colorado, Kansas

What was his sentence for committing the  crime?

At what age did Joe Sullivan commit a crime?

Answer: a life sentence without parole.

Answer: life term

Answer: burglary and the rape of a 72-year-old woman

Answer: convicted of burglary and rape

Answer: Monday

Answer: 72-year-old

Answer: convicted of burglary and rape when he was 13.

Answer: the punishment was equally harsh, particularly for someone with Sullivan's circumstances.

Summary:
Convicted for a crime committed at 13, Joe Sullivan appeals to Supreme Court .
He is serving life without parole for burglary and the rape of a 72-year-old woman .
Defense attorneys say punishment for Sullivan, now 33, was too harsh .
The Supreme Court is expected to decide Monday if it will hear the case .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attacks are down 75 percent in recent months in a perilous stretch of neighborhoods in northeastern Baghdad, prompting a U.S. military officer to proclaim Monday that security there is "dramatically improving."

Concerned citizens have helped troops improve security in parts of Baghdad, a military official says.

People line the streets, cars congest them, trash collectors and other city workers have returned, local leaders are holding community meetings again and "markets have come back like gangbusters," said Army Col. Don Farris, commander of 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division.

He added that the largely Sunni al Qaeda in Iraq presence has been "crushed" since the beginning of May.

However, there are still dangers, most notably the threats posed by Iranian-backed Shiite militants, Farris said.

Speaking to Pentagon reporters via video link from Baghdad, Farris cited several factors he said contributed to the improving security situation. Among them is the "surge," the additional U.S. troops deployed earlier this year.  Watch how old rivalries have been posing problems »

Also helping improve the security situation are the cease-fire by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army and the development of a program that employs "concerned local citizens" to assist U.S. and Iraqi forces, Farris said.

Some of those citizens are members of local Sunni "awakening councils," comprised of former militants -- often armed -- who create neighborhood watch groups to root out the insurgent elements in an area.

Especially in the last six weeks, Farris said, civic and religious leaders have seen outsiders operating in the area and troops have made arrests, two Iranian operatives among them

"From my foxhole, in our sector, it is working," he said of the improving security in the area. "I can only speak to what I see in my sector and I am encouraged."

Farris' sector -- which includes the Sunni-dominated district of Adhamiya and Sadr City, the Shiite slum where militants have demonstrated a strong presence -- has seen a "remarkable turnaround," he said.

Many of the communities in his area have been wracked with sectarian warfare and terrorized by insurgents and death squads.

Despite improvements in the security situation, Farris warned that "we still have a lot of work to do" because there doesn't appear to be any sign that Shiite extremists with links to Iran are halting their activities.

Farris said troops also are still finding explosively formed penetrators, which are often delivered or manufactured by Iran. Nine such bombs were found in late October, he said.

There are intelligence reports indicating weapons and money are still flowing into Sadr City, he said.

There are also problems returning refugees and displaced people to their homes in the area, Farris said, because "essential services" like water and electricity are not yet up to snuff.

Though a "trickle" of families has returned home and many are asking when they can return, Farris said he believes residents will return en masse only when basic services are in better shape.

Paul Folmsbee, a State Department provincial reconstruction team leader, said at the same news conference that his personnel was handling development issues involving law, governance, economic development and essential services.

Farris' Monday remarks echo a string of similar assertions made by U.S. and Iraqi military officials over recent weeks. The military officials say they are seeing signs of Sunni-Shiite reconciliation.

At a press conference earlier Monday in Baghdad, Brig. Gen. Ed Cardon, deputy commander for support of Multi-National Division-Center, discussed a "definite period of progress" in his region on the southern Baghdad outskirts. E-mail to a friend

When will more families return, according to the Commander?

What is still posing problems in northeastern Baghdad?

What is everyone doing to help the security situation?

Which basic services haven't been restored?

Who is still posing problems in northeastern Baghdad?

What is causing a problem in Northeastern Baghdad?

Which weapons are posing problems in Baghdad?

Answer: "dramatically improving."

Answer: gangbusters,"

Answer: only when basic services are in better shape.

Answer: basic services are in better shape.

Answer: Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi

Answer: threats posed by Iranian-backed Shiite militants,

Answer: old rivalries

Answer: old rivalries

Answer: cease-fire by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army and the development of a program that employs "concerned local citizens" to assist U.S. and Iraqi forces,

Answer: Concerned citizens

Answer: create neighborhood watch groups

Answer: Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi

Answer: water and electricity

Answer: Farris

Answer: Iranian-backed Shiite militants,

Answer: threats posed by Iranian-backed Shiite militants,

Answer: bombs

Answer: basic services are in better shape.

Answer: come back like gangbusters,"

Answer: Concerned citizens have helped troops improve security in parts of Baghdad,

Answer: explosively formed penetrators,

Answer: "markets have come back like gangbusters,"

Summary:
Official: Streets bustling, workers returning, markets "back like gangbusters"
Troop surge, citizens groups, Mehdi Army cease-fire all help security situation .
Iranian weapons, fighters still posing problems in northeastern Baghdad .
Commander says more families will return when basic services fully restored .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attorney General Eric Holder stepped up his call for the passage of federal hate crimes legislation Thursday, arguing that the federal government needs to take a stronger stand against criminal activity fueled by bias and bigotry. Attorney General Eric Holder has been a vocal proponent for tougher laws regarding hate crimes. He also sought to assure opponents that such a bill would not allow Christian clergy to be prosecuted for outspoken opposition to homosexuality. Holder made his remarks during testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is currently considering the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The bill would allow the Justice Department to provide assistance to state and local authorities in the prosecution of hate crimes while also expanding federal protection against hate crimes to cover disability, gender and sexual orientation. "Hate crimes victimize not only individuals but entire communities," Holder said. "Perpetrators of hate crimes seek to deny the humanity that we all share, regardless of the color of our skin, the God to whom we pray or the person who we choose to love. ...," he said. "The time is now to provide justice to victims of bias-motivated violence and to redouble our efforts to protect our communities from violence based on bigotry and prejudice." The attorney general argued that recent numbers "suggest that hate crimes against certain groups are on the rise, such as individuals of Hispanic national origin." Specifically, he said, 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." In light of such statistics, he said, it was one of his "highest personal priorities ... is to do everything I can to ensure this critical legislation finally becomes law." Republicans on the Judiciary Committee disputed Holder's assertion that there has been a noticeable increase in the number of hate crimes. They also questioned the need for federal involvement in the prosecution of violent acts -- traditionally a function of state and local governments. They pointed to FBI figures showing a slight decline from 7,755 hate crimes reported in 1998 to 7,624 in 2007, the most recently compiled statistics. It is "important to know (if) we have a problem of significant numbers of (hate crime) cases ... not being prosecuted in state and local governments," said Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the committee. "Murders occur all over America every day. Robberies, assaults, rapes, burglaries occur every day, and those are handled by our state and local jurisdictions. ... They do a pretty good job." When pressed, Holder acknowledged he had no hard evidence of trends showing the problem getting worse, nor that states are not prosecuting cases based on their own state hate crimes statutes. The attorney general insisted, however, that the issue should be viewed more broadly. "It seems to me this is a question of conscience," Holder argued. He emphasized that the bill is designed to give special protections to groups that historically have been victims solely based on who they are. Holder added that while state and local governments generally do a good job prosecuting violent crimes, there is nevertheless a need for the federal government to serve as a "backstop" on occasion, particularly if localities lack the resources for an effective investigation or prosecution. "There are instances where the (federal) government needs to come in," he said. He also 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. "It is the person who commits the actual act of violence, who would be subject to this legislation, not the person who is simply expressing an opinion," Holder said. Several religious groups have expressed concern that a hate crimes law could be used to criminalize speech relating to subjects such as abortion or homosexuality. The attorney general has been a vocal proponent of federal hate crimes legislation since his tenure in the Clinton Justice

What do religious groups worry about the law?

Who says that hate crimes against certain groups are on the rise?

What kind of crime does Eric Holder say is on the rise?

What would the bill expand the scope of?

Answer: would not allow Christian clergy to be prosecuted for outspoken opposition to homosexuality.

Answer: Attorney General Eric Holder

Answer: hate

Answer: federal protection against hate crimes to cover disability, gender and sexual orientation.

Summary:
Bill would expand scope of federal protection against hate crimes .
Eric Holder says hate crimes against certain groups, such as Hispanics, on the rise .
Republicans on Senate panel dispute assertion of increase in hate crimes .
Some religious groups worry law could be used to criminalize speech .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Attorneys for a "high-value" terror suspect who says he was tortured while being held at secret CIA prisons have requested that a judge bar the agency from destroying evidence of the alleged torture. One of 14 "high-value" detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, alleges he was tortured. The motion, filed by the Center for Constitutional Rights attorneys on behalf of Majid Khan -- who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba -- is dated November 29. That is a week before CIA Director Michael Hayden acknowledged the agency destroyed videotapes it made in 2002 of interrogations of al Qaeda suspects using newly approved "alternative" interrogation techniques. Khan -- a native of Pakistan who attended high school in Baltimore -- was held for more than three years at the secret CIA prisons and "subjected to an aggressive CIA detention and interrogation program notable for its elaborate planning and ruthless application of torture," attorney Gitanjali S. Gutierrez claims in the court documents. Details of Khan's torture claims are redacted in the filing -- a whole page is blacked out -- but Khan's attorneys say he suffers "severe physical and psychological trauma from which he is unlikely ever to recover fully" as a result of his ordeal. Asked about Khan's claims, CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano told CNN, "CIA's terrorist interrogation effort has always been small, carefully run, lawful and highly productive. Fewer than 100 hardened terrorists have gone through the program since it began in 2002, and of those, less than a third required any special methods of questioning. The United States does not conduct or condone torture." Khan's attorneys claim he was taken into custody in 2003 and "forcibly disappeared" before his transfer to Guantanamo, "where he remains imprisoned without charge or trial." He filed a legal challenge to his detention in September 2006 and appeared before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal in April, the court documents said. He was found to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant, but filed a challenge to that on August 14. He was not allowed to meet with an attorney, however, until October, the document said. The Bush administration contends Khan was an operative working for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mastermind of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Khan researched how to blow up gas stations and poison reservoirs in the United States, the administration has said. He is among 14 "high-value" detainees held at Guantanamo. Gutierrez and another CCR attorney, Wells Dixon, also released declassified notes of their meetings with Khan, saying he has been on hunger strikes while in Guantanamo, is "painfully thin and pale" and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. In detention, he has been able to communicate with Abu Zubayda, an alleged lieutenant for Osama bin Laden, they said in the notes. A government official with knowledge of the destroyed CIA tapes has said that Zubayda was one of the two al Qaeda suspects whose interrogations were videotaped. While undergoing interrogation and torture by the CIA, "Khan admitted anything his interrogators demanded of him, regardless of the truth, in order to end his suffering," the documents said. Without a court order requiring the preservation of evidence, "there is substantial risk that the torture evidence will disappear" and that may affect the challenge to his detention, the attorneys claim. The motion was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Hayden has said the CIA stopped videotaping in 2002, while Khan was not taken into custody until the following year. "The careful, professional and lawful questioning of hardened terrorists has produced thousands of intelligence reports, revealed exceptionally valuable insights on al Qaeda's operations and organization, foiled terrorist plots and saved innocent lives," Gimigliano said. "The information developed by the detention and interrogation program has been irreplaceable, and the program has operated in strict accord with American law." E-mail to a friend CNN's Gary Nurenberg contributed to this report.

According to the CIA, the United States does not what?

Answer: conduct or condone torture."

Answer: requested that a judge bar the agency from destroying evidence of the alleged torture.

Answer: was tortured while

Answer: not conduct or condone torture."

Summary:
Majid Khan's attorneys say he endured an "aggressive" interrogation program .
Khan's allegations of torture redacted in court documents .
Bush administration: Khan worked for 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed .
CIA: The United States does not conduct or condone torture .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Banana producer Chiquita will pay a $25 million fine and serve five years' probation for once paying millions of dollars to groups in Colombia considered by the U.S. to be terrorist organizations, a Department of Justice spokesman said Tuesday.

A worker at a banana plantation in Santa Maria, Colombia, in December 2000.

In so doing, the banana producer avoided prosecution for the company's now-defunct payoff of Colombian terrorists protecting its most profitable banana-growing operation, according to terms of a plea agreement with the U.S. Justice Department.

If approved by U.S. courts, the $25 million fine would represent the largest U.S. criminal penalty ever imposed under federal global terrorism sanction regulations, said Justice spokesman Dean Boyd. The regulations prohibit transactions with people who commit, threaten to commit or support U.S.-designated terrorists and establish penalties for doing so.

Attorneys from the Justice Department's National Security Division and federal prosecutors for the District of Columbia filed a joint sentencing motion Tuesday asking the court to accept the plea agreement, which was reached March 19, Boyd said. A hearing on the matter is set for Monday.

In its motion, the government asked that Chiquita Brands International be fined and sentenced to probation, as well as being required to implement an effective ethics program in connection with the company's guilty plea, Boyd said.

Federal prosecutors accused the Cincinnati-based company of paying more than $1.7 million to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, a right-wing paramilitary group, in two parts of Colombia where the company grew bananas.

The payments to the group, known as the AUC, went through the company's Colombian subsidiary, Banadex, from 1997 to 2004, according to court documents filed in the case.

Court papers also say Chiquita paid Colombia's two leftist guerrilla groups, the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) and ELN (National Liberation Army) from about 1989 to 1997. At the time, according to court documents, those groups controlled areas where the company grew bananas.

The AUC, FARC and ELN are all combatants in Colombia's decade-long civil war, and all have been designated as terrorist organizations by the United States.

In a written statement issued in March, Chiquita Brands International CEO Fernando Aguirre said the company viewed the plea agreement "as a reasoned solution to the dilemma the company faced several years ago." The company voluntarily disclosed the payments to the Justice Department in 2003, he said, adding the payments were made "to protect the lives of its employees."

Court documents said the company began making the payments after a Banadex general manager met with the then-leader of the AUC, Carlos Castano. Castano told the manager that the AUC was preparing to drive FARC from Colombia's Uraba region and asked for payments to be made to the AUC through private security companies.

"Castano sent an unspoken but clear message that failure to make the payments could result in physical harm to Banadex personnel and property," court documents said.

Charges filed in the case said senior company executives knew about the payments to the AUC and, while checks were written to the security companies, the companies provided no actual services. In 2002, after the U.S. government designated the AUC as a terrorist organization, Chiquita began paying the organization in cash, according to court documents, and continued the payments even after being told by outside counsel that the payments were illegal and should be stopped.

In the motion filed Tuesday, federal prosecutors noted Chiquita's cooperation in the investigation and its voluntary disclosure of its illegal activity, Boyd said. While the government considered filing additional charges in the matter, it decided not to "after an extensive investigation and after considering critical evidence and information that Chiquita provided through its post-plea cooperation," he said.

Chiquita sold Banadex to another company more than two years ago but remains one of the largest purchasers of bananas in Colombia. E-mail to a friend

CNN's Kevin Bohn contributed to this report.

What is the amount of fine Chiquita must pay?

Who paid groups controlling the land where bananas grew?

Answer: Chiquita paid Colombia's two leftist guerrilla groups,

Answer: Chiquita

Answer: groups in Colombia

Answer: $25 million

Answer: Banana

Answer: Chiquita

Answer: $25 million

Answer: Chiquita

Answer: Chiquita

Summary:
Chiquita to pay $25M fine, serve probation, Justice Department says .
Plea agreement avoids prosecution of the banana producer .
Court papers: Chiquita paid groups that controlled lands where bananas grew .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton met privately Thursday night at the Washington home of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a key supporter of Clinton's presidential campaign, Feinstein said Friday. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama speak Wednesday at the AIPAC meeting. She left them in her living room with nothing other than water and comfortable chairs for what she called a positive meeting. No one else was in the room, and no one is giving details of what was discussed. "They talked. I went upstairs and did my work," Feinstein said Friday. "They called me when it was over. I came down and said, 'Good night, everybody; I hope you had a good meeting.' "They were laughing, and that was it." The meeting began at 9 p.m. and lasted about an hour, Feinstein said. "I think the opportunity to sit down, just the two of them, was positive," she said. It was the two Democratic candidates' first meeting since Obama became the party's presumptive nominee Tuesday. "They talked about how to come together and how to unify this party and move forward because what we have at stake in November is so important," Robert Gibbs, the Obama campaign's communication director, said Friday on CNN's "American Morning."  Watch Gibbs explain the secret meeting » "And what unites us as a party far exceeds what might divide either of these two candidates." A joint statement from the candidates said only, "Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama met tonight and had a productive discussion about the important work that needs to be done to succeed in November." Gibbs would not say whether the senators discussed the possibility of Clinton becoming Obama's running mate.Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democratic superdelegate from Nevada, said Friday that he told Clinton he intended to support Obama. But he didn't shed any light on whether Clinton would have a place on the ticket. "Hillary is going to endorse Barack [on Saturday]," Reid said on "American Morning." "She's a very good woman. She's been a great senator. And she's going to be a great help to us in this [election], no matter what role she has in the campaign." On Thursday, reporters on Obama's press plane learned that the candidate was not aboard when it departed Virginia, where he had been campaigning. Aides said staff members had "scheduled him some meetings" in Washington. The meeting originally was believed to be at Clinton's Washington home. "It wasn't at her house, and it was not at Dick Cheney's undisclosed location," Gibbs said jokingly. Also Thursday, Clinton thanked supporters in an e-mail and pledged to help Obama capture the White House after eight years of Republican control. Clinton also plans to thank supporters Saturday at a Washington event. "I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Sen. Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise," the e-mail read. "This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Sen. Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Sen. [John] McCain and the Republicans." Read Clinton's message to supporters (PDF) Clinton plans to suspend her campaign within days, her campaign said. By suspending instead of dropping out, Clinton technically would remain a candidate, entitled to keep statewide pledged delegates and district-level delegates. Democrats nationwide have coalesced around Obama since he received enough delegates to win the nomination Tuesday evening. The New York Democratic congressional delegation embraced Obama's candidacy Thursday on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. iReport.com: Should Obama pick Clinton? On Friday, Democratic leaders in New York, including state legislators and City Council members, endorsed Obama at New York's City Hall, sources said. Obama earned enough delegates Tuesday to clinch the nomination, but Clinton

Who will Sen. Hillary Clinton endorse?
What were the talks about

Answer: Barack

Answer: how to come together and how to unify this party and move forward

Summary:
NEW: Talks end with laughter, host Sen. Dianne Feinstein says .
NEW: Aide to Sen. Barack Obama calls private meeting "cordial"
NEW: Sen. Hillary Clinton to endorse Obama on Saturday, top Senate Democrat says .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Barack Obama's presidential transition, already disrupted by the sudden withdrawal of New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, may face another challenge in the confirmation hearings of his pick for attorney general.

Eric Holder likely will face a grueling round of questions from Republicans during his confirmation hearings.

While the Senate is expected to easily confirm the majority of the president-elect's Cabinet appointments, it increasingly appears that attorney general designate Eric Holder could face a grueling round of questions next week from Senate Republicans who are already emboldened by charges of "pay-to-play" politics against Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich and a federal investigation into Richardson, who Obama picked as his commerce secretary.

"Republicans are seeing enough different stories in the taints of possible corruption around Democratic politicians lately," said Alexander Keyssar, a professor of history and social policy at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government. "Where they can score some political points around this corruption issue, they will try to do it."

Holder has drawn heavy criticism from Republicans over his involvement in former President Bill Clinton's last-minute pardon of Mark Rich, a major Democratic donor and billionaire financier charged with federal tax evasion.

Clinton pardoned Rich in the final hours of his administration on January 20, 2001. Holder was a deputy attorney general at the time.

Senate Democrats have long braced for a tough committee hearing over Holder, especially after Republicans successfully delayed its start to obtain more time to review his lengthy record in both the public and private sector.

But after Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the judiciary committee's ranking Republican, unexpectedly took to the Senate floor Tuesday to castigate Holder over a wide range of issues -- even comparing him to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who was forced to resign -- Democrats may have to brace for a tougher fight than they expected.

"President-elect Obama chose not to seek my advice or even to give me advance notice in my capacity as ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee," Specter said. "Had he done so, I could have given him some facts about Mr. Holder's background that he might not have known."

Stephen Hess, a presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution, said it's not surprising Republicans are targeting a particular appointment.

"There always seems to be one appointee where the Senate opposition directs its firepower," Hess said. "This year the designated fall guy seems to be Eric Holder. He's going to be made to grovel."

Holder played a significant role in the heavily criticized Rich pardon, having communicated with Rich's lawyers frequently before it was issued, according to the New York Times.

Critics have charged that the Justice Department should have blocked the pardon, and Holder later said he wished he had handled the matter differently.

Supporters of Holder say his role in the pardon was limited, but Senate Republicans, seemingly eager for at least one high-profile fight with the incoming president, are set to put the Rich pardon front-and-center when his Judiciary Committee hearing kicks off next week.

For a Republican Party still reeling from a demoralizing Election Day, Holder's hearing will likely be the GOP's first chance to put heat on the president-elect in a very public way, and in the process demonstrate that it intends to stand up to the new administration despite its minority status.

"With Holder they are going to look to score some points on the evening news," Keyssar said.

But the Rich matter is only one issue on which Republicans plan to grill Holder. Also at issue, according to Republicans, will be Holder's involvement with the Elian Gonzalez case and potential conflicts of interests with his work over the past eight years with a corporate law firm.

"There are going to be some tough questions that Holder will have to answer," a Senate Republican aide said. "We want to have a fair, open discussion for his qualifications for the job."

Republicans say they are not specifically looking to block Holder's nomination, and the GOP would be unable to do so even if it tried

Whose confirmation hearings begin next week?

Who is unlikely to block Holder from becoming Obama's AG?

Whose attorney general is Holder likely to become?

Who criticizes Holder for his role in the Marc Rich pardon?

Answer: Eric Holder

Answer: attorney general designate

Answer: attorney general designate

Answer: the Justice Department

Answer: Barack Obama's

Answer: Republicans

Answer: Mark Rich, a major Democratic donor and billionaire financier charged with federal tax evasion.

Summary:
Confirmation hearings for attorney general-designate Eric Holder begin next week .
Republicans criticize Holder for his role in Clinton pardon of Marc Rich in 2001 .
GOP unlikely to block Holder from becoming Obama's attorney general .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Before lighting up that patriotic sparkler this weekend, remember to play it safe. The Consumer Product Safety Commission uses mannequins to show the dangers of fireworks. That was the message from the Consumer Product Safety Commission Tuesday, which put out an early July Fourth holiday warning urging families to put safety first when celebrating with fireworks. "We know that 70 percent of all [fireworks-related] accidents occur between June 20 and July 20," commission head Inez Tenenbaum said during a demonstration of fireworks safety on the National Mall. "This is the time of year that people are using fireworks." Tenenbaum noted that the largest number of young people injured by fireworks are between the ages of 14 to 17.  Learn more about fireworks-related injuries » According to the latest report from the CPSC, there were seven fireworks-related deaths and roughly 7,000 reported injuries in 2008. Tenenbaum stressed that parents should always supervise young people around fireworks and that consumers should only buy legal products.  Watch the CPSC warnings about fireworks » "Never pick up a firework that is a dud [and] hasn't fired, because it might go off in your hand," she added. After Tenenbaum spoke, government lab technicians demonstrated some of the potentially deadly consequences that can result from a failure to observe basic firework safety. Using mannequins posed in typical outdoor settings, the technicians showed how a simple sparkler often used by children can easily cause clothing to catch fire. They also demonstrated the explosive power of cherry bombs, among other things, using them to blow up large watermelons. In another setting, they showed how professional-grade and illegal fireworks often use faster-burning fuses, which do not give the person lighting enough time to get away. "Parents need to exercise caution and make certain they're buying fireworks that comply with their state and local and county ordinances," Tenenbaum warned.

What is the largest age group that gets injured?

What age group are often the most injured?

In what months do the most accidents occur?

When does the most number of accidents occur?

When do 70% of fireworks accidents occur?

What percentage of fireworks accidents occur in June-July?

What percentage of fireworks accidents happen between June 20 and July 20?

Answer: 14 to 17.

Answer: 14 to 17.

Answer: between June 20 and July 20,"

Answer: between June 20 and July 20,"

Answer: urging families to put safety first when celebrating with fireworks.

Answer: the Consumer Product Safety Commission

Answer: between June 20 and July 20,"

Answer: 70 percent

Answer: 70 percent

Summary:
Consumer Product Safety Commission put warning on fireworks out Friday .
70 percent of fireworks accidents occur between June 20 and July 20, says CPSC .
Largest number of young people injured by fireworks are between 14 and 17 .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Bucking tradition, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will bypass Europe and travel to Asia on her maiden voyage overseas, diplomats familiar with the planning said Tuesday.

Bill Clinton looks at his wife Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as she is sworn in on February 2.

Clinton is expected to visit China, Japan and South Korea on her first trip overseas. The diplomats said she may also add other stops, including one in Southeast Asia.

The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because Clinton's schedule was still being finalized. The State Department has not commented on her travel plans.

Making Asia Clinton's first overseas destination illustrates the Obama administration's desire for a broader partnership with China and its commitment to resolving the North Korean nuclear issue, as well as strengthening ties with Tokyo and Seoul, the diplomats said.

The White House said President Barack Obama told Chinese President Hu Jintao in a Friday phone call that he looked forward to "to early contacts and exchanges between senior officials of our two countries."

Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month she hoped to make an early trip to Southeast Asia, in particular Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation where Obama spent part of his childhood. Clinton said she wanted to restart Peace Corps programs there, which were suspended in the 1960s.

Traditionally U.S. secretaries of state make Europe or the Middle East their first official trip overseas. But given that Vice President Joseph Biden is headed to Europe this week for a security conference in Germany, and special envoy George Mitchell is currently in the Middle East, Clinton is free to break with tradition.

However British Foreign Secretary David Miliband and German Foreign Secretary Walter Steinmeier will be Clinton's first foreign guests to the State Department on Tuesday.

Clinton was sworn in as America's 67th secretary of state on Monday -- for a second time.  Watch Clinton being sworn in »

Biden administered the oath to Clinton in a ceremonial star-studded gathering at the State Department, with actor Chevy Chase and designer Oscar de la Renta among those on hand.

"It is an overwhelming honor ... to assume this position," Clinton said. "We have a lot of work to do [to ensure that] America's future can be even brighter than our storied past."

Which countries does Clinton expect to visit?

What does the Obama administration desire with China?

Where will Clinton bypass on here voyage overseas?

Who bypassed Europe and travelled to Asia?

when U.S. Secretary of State Clinton expected to visit China?

who desires to have broader partnership with China?

Answer: China, Japan

Answer: and its commitment to resolving the North Korean nuclear issue,

Answer: Europe

Answer: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Answer: on her first trip overseas.

Answer: Obama administration's

Summary:
Hillary Clinton will bypass Europe and travel to Asia on her maiden voyage overseas .
U.S. Secretary of State Clinton expected to visit China, Japan and South Korea .
Trip illustrates Obama administration's desire for a broader partnership with China .
Trip also highlights commitment to resolving the North Korean nuclear issue .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- CIA interrogators used waterboarding at least 266 times on two top al Qaeda suspects, according to a Bush-era Justice Department memo released by the Obama administration.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, seen in a December sketch, was waterboarded 183 times in a month, a memo says.

The controversial technique that simulates drowning -- and which President Obama calls torture -- was used at least 83 times in August 2002 on suspected al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah, according to the memo.

Interrogators also waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in March 2003. Mohammed is believed to be the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

Obama released the memo Thursday, saying that "exceptional circumstances surround these memos and require their release."  Watch other tactics outlined in memos »

The memo, dated May 30, 2005, was from then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury to John Rizzo, who was acting general counsel for the CIA.

It paints a different picture from the one described by former CIA officer John Kiriakou. In a December 2007 interview with CNN, Kiriakou said Zubaydah had been waterboarded for "about 30 seconds, 35 seconds" and agreed to cooperate with interrogators the following day.

In an interview on "Fox News Sunday," Michael Hayden, who directed the CIA from 2006 to 2009, was asked about the number of times Mohammed was waterboarded.

Hayden denounced the release of the memos and did not comment on the number, saying it was his understanding that the frequency of waterboarding was among the operational details that had not been declassified.  Watch one expert say tactics 'worse than Abu Ghraib' »

The 2005 memo refers to a letter that had contained the numbers as well. Part of the reference to the letter was redacted in the released memo.

Waterboarding is among the interrogation tactics that Obama has prohibited through an executive order.

The CIA also has admitted waterboarding Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the first person charged in the United States for the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen that killed 17 U.S. sailors.

Obama said last week he felt comfortable releasing the classified memos because the Bush administration acknowledged using some of the practices associated with the memos, and the interrogation techniques were widely reported and have since been banned.

"Withholding these memos would only serve to deny facts that have been in the public domain for some time," Obama said in a statement. "This could contribute to an inaccurate accounting of the past, and fuel erroneous and inflammatory assumptions about actions taken by the United States."

The president applauded the work of the U.S. intelligence community and said no one who "carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice" would be prosecuted.

What happened to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

who did denounces decision to release memos?

Answer: the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

Answer: was waterboarded 183 times in a month,

Answer: Kiriakou said Zubaydah had been waterboarded for "about 30 seconds, 35 seconds" and agreed to cooperate with interrogators the following day.

Answer: Hayden

Answer: Hayden

Summary:
Memo: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed waterboarded 183 times in one month .
Former CIA officer said in 2007 that Mohammed waterboarded for 30-35 seconds .
Obama: Memos released because methods were reported, are now banned .
CIA's ex-chief denounces decision to release memos .