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

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

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

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

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

Answer: violent acts based on bias,

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

who was given 48 hours to leave the country?

What policies is he accused of meddling in?

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

Answer: 48 hours

Answer: First Secretary Mark Sullivan

Answer: Armando Astorga,

Answer: Duguid

Answer: of meddling

Answer: internal police

Answer: Armando Astorga,

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does the State Department call the action?

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

What does the government fgive Mark Sullivan?

How long is Mark Sullivan given to leave the country?

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

Answer: "unjustified,"

Answer: 48 hours

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

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

Answer: 48 hours

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


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

Who had low-key reaction to missile tests?

What is potentially destabilizing to the region?

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

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

Answer: United States'

Answer: Hillary Clinton

Answer: nuclear and missile programs.

Answer: North Korea's recent missile test

Answer: "North Korea, and its provocative actions,

Answer: North Korea

Answer: United States'

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did Blackwater shooting survivor say?

What did the Assistant secretary of state announce?

Who is the secretary of state for diplomatic security?

What reason did Griffin give for resignation?

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

Answer: resigned

Answer: no explanation

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

Answer: Richard Griffin

Answer: Richard Griffin

Answer: Richard Griffin,

Answer: no explanation

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


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

When is the Supreme Court expected to rule?

Answer: "Hillary: The Movie,"

Answer: it broke the law on campaign advertising.

Answer: "Hillary: The Movie,"

Answer: Hillary Clinton,

Answer: on campaign advertising.

Answer: couple of months.

Answer: in a couple of months.

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


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

What was the justices ruling with regard to the officers?

Who was stopped for driving with suspended license?

What did police do instead of issuing a ticket?

Answer: Supreme Court

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

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

Answer: David Lee Moore

Answer: the evidence,

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

Answer: driving his vehicle on a suspended license.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What did the FCC chairman call the ruling?

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

What was the Supreme Court breakdown in votes?

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

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

Answer: Michael Copps,

Answer: 5-4

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How long do soldiers wants their eligibility to go back?

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

What did the Army order for all future PTSD sufferers?

How far back to soldiers want eligibility to go?

Who denied soldiers a disability rating?

What branch of the military was involved in this decision?

What veterans advocacy group helped the veterans?

Answer: post-traumatic stress disorder

Answer: six years.

Answer: the Defense Department

Answer: provide full benefits

Answer: past six years.

Answer: The U.S. Army

Answer: U.S. Army

Answer: National

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


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

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

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

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

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

CNN has chosen not to name any of the recruiters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What will the Army examine, of recruiters?

Which branch of the military is mentioned?

State that saw four suicides in three years?

How many suicides has Texas seen in three years?

What place has seen military-related suicides recently?

What are recruiters under pressure from?

What org will examine mental health of recruiters?

Who will examine the recruiters mental health?

Answer: mental

Answer: The U.S. Army

Answer: Texas-based

Answer: job-related and combat-related stress.

Answer: recruiters

Answer: fourth

Answer: Houston,

Answer: their job

Answer: U.S. Army

Answer: fourth

Answer: U.S. Army

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answer: Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir

Answer: reverse this decision.

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

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

Answer: President Omar al-Bashir

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


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

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

Answer: local units

Answer: "early warning system"

Answer: next year

Answer: Wardak

Answer: next year

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


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The U.S. military will stop publishing the number of Taliban and insurgents it kills in Afghanistan under orders from the senior U.S. military spokesman for the American-led coalition. A French soldier mans a gun Sunday during maneuvers in Afghanistan's Kapisa province. Rear Adm. Gregory Smith ordered the change as part of the new military strategy in the war that focuses on protecting Afghan citizens rather than killing militants. "Indicating the number of insurgents killed has little relevance to impacting the lives of Afghans. In fact, if that were the only purpose and metric, you would likely only extend the time it takes to bring about an end to the insurgency," Smith said in an e-mail to CNN responding to a query about the change. The issue of publishing enemy body counts has been extremely sensitive to the U.S. military since the Vietnam War when the military regularly published large enemy body counts but seemed to be failing overall to make progress in the war. In the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Pentagon has shifted policies several times, both publishing numbers in news releases on particular engagements and firefights and also declaring it would not publish body counts. In the past some military officials have said the numbers have been part of individual releases to the media as a means of demonstrating success against enemy forces. Smith said, "We conduct operations not aimed at killing insurgents, although in many instances that is the outcome, but to over time clear areas of insurgency and give the people a chance to reconnect with official forms of governance and to rebuild their lives, socially and economically."

What does the new military strategy focus on?

Where are Taliban and insurgents killed?

Answer: The U.S. military

Answer: protecting Afghan citizens rather than killing militants.

Answer: Afghanistan

Summary:
U.S. will stop publishing number of Taliban and insurgents killed in Afghanistan .
Change is part of a new military strategy that focuses on protecting Afghans .
Issue of publishing enemy body counts has been sensitive to military since Vietnam .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The United States Mint launched a new coin Tuesday featuring jazz legend Duke Ellington, making him the first African-American to appear by himself on a circulating U.S. coin.

The District of Columbia coin honoring Duke Ellington was introduced Tuesday in Washington.

Ellington, the composer of classics including "It Don't Mean a Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing" appears on the "tails" side of the new D.C. quarter. George Washington is on the "heads" side, as is usual with U.S. quarters.

The coin was issued to celebrate Ellington's birthplace, the District of Columbia.

U.S. Mint Director Ed Moy introduced the new coin at a news conference Tuesday at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of American History.

Members of Ellington's family were present at the ceremony, and the jazz band of Duke Ellington High School performed.

Ellington won the honor by a vote of D.C. residents, beating out abolitionist Frederick Douglass and astronomer Benjamin Banneker.

Also on the coin is the phrase "Justice for all." The Mint rejected the first inscription choice of D.C. voters, which was "taxation without representation," in protest of the district's lack of voting representation in Congress.

Edward Kennedy "Duke" Ellington received 13 Grammy Awards and a Pulitzer Prize, among numerous other honors. His orchestra's theme song, "Take the A Train," is one of the best-known compositions in jazz.

Ellington was born in the district in 1899 and composed more than 3,000 songs, including "Satin Doll," "Perdido" and "Don't Get Around Much Any More." "It Don't Mean a Thing If It Ain't Got That Swing" helped usher in the swing era of jazz.

Ellington performed with other famous artists, including John Coltrane, Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald, and he traveled around the world with his orchestras.

He died in 1974 at the age of 75.

The first African-American to appear on a circulating coin was York, a slave who accompanied Lewis and Clark on their "Corps of Discovery" adventures across America at the dawn of the 19th century. The 2003 Missouri quarter features the three men together in a canoe on the obverse.

The U.S. Mint distinguishes between circulating coins, which are intended for daily use, and commemorative ones, which mark special occasions.

African-Americans including Jackie Robinson, who broke baseball's color barrier, have appeared on commemorative coins. Educator Booker T. Washington, botanist George Washington Carver and the first Revolutionary War casualty, Crispus Attucks, all of whom were black, have also appeared on commemorative coins, according to the U.S. Mint.

Where was the coin introduced?
Where was the musician born?
Where was Ellington born?
Who is featured on the quarter?
What was Ellington featured on?

Answer: Washington.

Answer: the District of Columbia.

Answer: District of Columbia.

Answer: Duke Ellington,

Answer: "tails" side of the new D.C. quarter.

Summary:
Duke Ellington featured on reverse of new quarter honoring District of Columbia .
Coin introduced at Smithsonian's National Museum of American History .
African-Americans have appeared on commemorative coins or as minor figures .
Ellington was born in D.C. and composed several jazz standards .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The United States ambassador to Afghanistan, William Wood, said Friday that changes in communications with Afghan military forces have been made in the aftermath of a disputed U.S. air raid on an Afghan village.

Civilians are overcome with emotion outside a home destroyed by a U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan.

And despite Afghanistan's outrage over the loss of life, he said, the incident has not undermined the nations' relationship.

The Afghanistan government has said that as many as 90 civilians -- including many children -- were killed in the August 22 air attack on a village in the Shindand district of Western Afghanistan. The United States had said that only seven civilians died, along with dozens of insurgents.

A number of investigations into the incident are under way, including a "senior level" review by the United States.

"People who are reviewing our findings have been in Afghanistan for a while, and I don't know when they will complete their review," Wood said at the State Department late Friday.

"There is no American involved who doesn't feel a personal sense of pain and regret any time any civilian casualty occurs," he said. "Speaking as an official of the American government, I can say there is no one who works harder than the United States does to minimize such casualties.

"I know as a matter of absolute certainty of operations that have been canceled precisely because there was a risk of civilian casualties," he added.

"I think there is no question there has been what one Afghan official referred to as 'sort of a bumpy time' over this issue in the last few weeks. I think that it has never threatened the underlying relationship of confidence between our two countries and between our peoples or between our military and the people of Afghanistan.

"That said, we are certainly committed to taking the steps necessary to ensure that such casualties are reduced to the absolute minimum and to working closely, even more closely, with the Afghan government to successfully carry out the military mission."

The ambassador said the United States has made changes in communication between the U.S. and Afghan forces.

"Steps are already not simply under way but have been taken to improve coordination," he said.

U.S. and Afghanistan officials have just completed a new round in what is called the United States-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership.

A joint U.S.-Afghanistan statement released Thursday referred to the attack.

"The United States delegation expressed regret over the loss of any innocent civilian lives incurred during security operations," the statement said. "In response to concerns expressed by the government of Afghanistan, the United States is conducting a senior level review and assessment of the August 22 Shindand operation. In addition, both sides recognize the need for establishing a mutually agreed-upon framework and mechanism to minimize civilian casualties and to maintain the strong support of the Afghan people in fighting terrorism."

Who said attack hasn't threatened nation's relationship?

How many civilians does Afghan government say we're killed?

What did the ambassador say about the incident?

What did the bombings lead to according to US ambassador?

Number of civilians the airstrike killed?

what did U.S. ambassador call time after the bombing?

US says what number was killed in airstrikes?

Who said airstrike lead to 90 civilian deaths?

How many civilians does U.S. say we're killed?

Answer: William Wood,

Answer: 90

Answer: as many as 90 civilians

Answer: has not undermined the nations' relationship.

Answer: in communications with Afghan military forces

Answer: U.S. airstrike in Afghanistan.

Answer: as many as 90

Answer: William Wood,

Answer: bumpy

Answer: 90

Answer: Afghanistan government

Answer: 90

Summary:
U.S. ambassador says bombing led to "bumpy time"
Afghan government says August airstrike killed 90 civilians .
U.S. says attack killed seven civilians and many insurgents .
Incident hasn't threatened nations' relationship, ambassador says .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The United States and Britain said Wednesday they are committed to remaining in Afghanistan, despite increased military casualties and declining public support for the war effort. U.S. Marines partrol part of the Gharmsir district in Afghanistan's Helmand province on Wednesday. "We went into this together, and we will work it through together because we are stronger together," British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said after a half day of talks at the State Department with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton praised Miliband's approach on Afghanistan, including the call for the government to reconcile with moderate elements of the Taliban. "His analysis of the way forward is very much consistent with ours, and we will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder in pursuit of our common objectives," Clinton said of her counterpart. In a speech at NATO headquarters on Monday, Miliband called for rank-and-file Taliban to be given the chance to reconcile with the Afghan government, even as the campaign continues against Taliban commanders who are waging jihad. He also urged greater burden sharing not only among NATO allies in Afghanistan but by the Afghan government. "There is a lot of talk, rightly, about burden sharing within the coalition, but the greatest burden sharing must be between the international community and the government of Afghanistan, which increasingly needs to take the lead -- the security lead, as well as the political lead -- in shaping the future of that country," he said. Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, told reporters that boosting the training of Afghan forces would be a big focus after the country's August 20 election. When asked whether the election would be fair, Holbrooke, who just returned from the region, said he had heard complaints from all sides but was not "unduly upset." "It's an extraordinary thing to hold an election in the middle of a war, and this is the first contested election in Afghanistan in history," Holbrooke said, adding the United States has no favorite candidate but only wants "an election whose outcome is accepted as legitimate by the Afghan people and the world, which reflects the desires of those who vote." July has been the deadliest month for U.S. and British forces since the U.S.-led invasion in 2001, with 39 U.S. troops and 22 British troops killed. Miliband said the effort was going through a "tough phase," but added that the British people understood the "vital nature" of the mission to stabilize Afghanistan. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been under under enormous pressure from his opposition, which charges that British troops don't have proper resources to fight the war, including helicopters. But he was sanguine. "I think the British people will stay with this mission, because there is a clear strategy and a clear determination on behalf of the United States and other coalition members to see this through," he said, adding that the British people understood the mission's "vital nature." Americans, too, have questioned whether the war in Afghanistan is winnable and worth the effort. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and members of Congress, including Democrats, have predicted that President Obama has a year to show progress in Afghanistan before public support for the war further erodes. Clinton said Britain and the United States "have made significant gains in the recent operations" against the Taliban, but "there remains much work to be done." "We know that this is a challenge that is not going to be easily resolved in a short period of time," she said, adding "both of our countries are still threatened by the same enemy, an enemy that has attacked London, New York and Washington." "We know they've attacked us in the past, and, unfortunately, we know that they plot against us even today," she said.

What will be a big focus for the US in regards to Afghan forces?

The Afghan government needs to reconcile with who?

What is the name of the British Foreign Secretary?

What is the deadliest month for the forces?

What month is deadliest month fro U.S and British forces?

What British Foreign Secretary said about it?

what did the british foreign secretary David Miliband said?

What month was the deadliest month for U.S. and British forces in Afganistan since the 2001 invasion?

what's the deadliest month for U.S. British forces in Afghanistan since '01 invasion?

Miliband calls for Afghan government to do what?

Who does the British Foreign Secretary want the Afghan government to reconcile with?

Answer: David Miliband

Answer: boosting the training of

Answer: moderate elements of the Taliban.

Answer: David Miliband

Answer: July

Answer: July

Answer: "We went into this together, and we will work

Answer: "We went into this together, and we will work it through together because we are stronger together,"

Answer: "We went into this together, and we will work it through together because we are stronger together,"

Answer: July

Answer: July

Answer: July

Answer: reconcile with moderate elements of the Taliban.

Answer: that boosting the training of Afghan forces would be a big focus after the country's August 20 election.

Answer: moderate elements of the Taliban.

Summary:
July deadliest month for U.S., British forces in Afghanistan since '01 invasion .
"We will work it through together," British Foreign Secretary David Miliband says .
Miliband calls for Afghan government to reconcile with moderate Taliban elements .
U.S. official: Boosting the training of Afghan forces will be a big focus .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The United States fears recent weapons purchases by Venezuela could fuel an arms race in South America, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday. Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez met and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington on Tuesday. "They outpace all other countries in South America and certainly raise the question as to whether there is going to be an arms race in the region," Clinton said about Venezuela's arms deals, after a meeting with Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez. The Russian government Monday extended $2.2 billion in credit to Venezuela to finance arms purchases, including 92 Soviet-era T-72 tanks and short-range missiles with a reach of 55 miles (90 kilometers). Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez also said his nation will purchase an anti-aircraft weapons system with a range of 185 miles (300 kilometers). The planned arms purchases come at a time when Venezuela is at odds with neighboring Colombia over negotiations that would give U.S. troops access to Colombian military bases. Chavez has said his military buildup is in response to the growing U.S. presence in the region, which he calls threatening and dangerous to Latin America. The United States is also concerned about deepening ties between Venezuela and Iran. In addition to ongoing military cooperation, Chavez said in Tehran last week that the Iranian government would help Venezuela develop nuclear technology. In exchange, Venezuela has offered to export gasoline to Iran, which would give Tehran an out if Western nations impose petroleum sanctions over Iran's nuclear program. Senior administration officials say Venezuela's attempt at "sanctions busting" is alarming. Clinton urged Venezuela to be transparent about its weapons purchases. Venezuela, she said, "should be putting in place in procedures and practices to ensure that the weapons they buy are not diverted to insurgent groups or illegal organizations like drug trafficking gangs and other criminal cartels." Vazquez voiced concern that an arms race in South America would divert funds from badly needed development in poor countries. "We should devote our energies and resources to fight against the real scourges of our societies ... such as drug trafficking and terrorism," he said. "Instead of spending it in weapons, spending it in housing, good housing for our people, and to further deepen investment, especially in the field of education."

Washington worries about who deepening ties to Iran?

Who worries about the arms race in South America?

How many credit extends Russia to Venezuela?

Russia extends how much in credit to Venezuela to finance arms purchases?

Who is worried about arms race in South America?

Answer: Venezuela

Answer: Venezuela

Answer: Hillary Clinton

Answer: The United States

Answer: $2.2 billion

Answer: $2.2 billion

Answer: The United States

Summary:
Russia extends $2.2 billion in credit to Venezuela to finance arms purchases .
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worries about arms race in South America .
Relations tense between Venezuela and neighboring Colombia, a U.S. ally .
Washington worries about Hugo Chavez's deepening ties to Iran as well .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The United States is expelling the Venezuelan ambassador to the United States in response to a similar move by Venezuela, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday. "We have informed the Venezuelan ambassador to the United States that he will be expelled and should leave the United States," McCormack said. Separately, the U.S. Treasury Department accused Friday two senior Venezuelan intelligence officials -- Hugo Armando Carvajal Barrios and Henry de Jesus Rangel Silva -- and one former official -- Ramon Rodriguez Chacin -- of assisting leftist rebels in the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, with narcotics trafficking. "Today's designation exposes two senior Venezuelan government officials and one former official who armed, abetted and funded the FARC, even as it terrorized and kidnapped innocents," said Adam J. Szubin, director of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, in a statement. The action freezes assets the three men may have under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibits Americans from conducting business with them. The U.S. decision to expel the Venezuelan ambassador, Bernardo Alvarez Herrera, is the latest move in an escalating diplomatic battle that pits the United States against two of Latin America's leftist leaders. It comes a day after Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced that he was expelling the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela, Patrick Duddy. Chavez also said he was recalling the Venezuelan ambassador from the United States. "He has 72 hours, from this moment, the Yankee ambassador in Caracas, to leave Venezuela," Chavez told a crowd of supporters. "When there's a new government in the United States, we'll send an ambassador. A government that respects Latin America." The president said he was making the moves "in solidarity with Bolivia and the people of Bolivia." Bolivian President Evo Morales on Thursday accused the United States of fomenting a coup d'etat by rich eastern department landowners against him, and he called for the U.S. ambassador to leave for allegedly encouraging those protesters. For the past two weeks, the demonstrators in the country's richer eastern lowlands have been protesting Morales' plans to redistribute the country's natural gas revenues. "Without fear of anyone, without fear of the empire, today before you, before the Bolivian people, I declare the ambassador of the United States persona non grata," Morales said Wednesday of Ambassador Philip Goldberg in a nationally televised speech. The United States called the allegations baseless and kicked out the Bolivian ambassador Thursday. The Bolivians "made it very clear what their intention was and we took them at their word," McCormack said Friday. "We take President Chavez at his word in this particular case, and we have reacted appropriately." Before expelling the U.S. diplomat from his country, Chavez also said Thursday that he had uncovered a U.S.-backed plot to remove him from power. "It's the empire that's behind this," he told supporters in a televised address. "They go around looking for a way to stop our revolution and, with it, to strike all the processes of change that are occurring in our Americas, in the Caribbean, in Central America." Chavez then played a four-minute tape of what he said were conversations among current and retired members of the Venezuelan military discussing whom they could count on to support a movement against the presidential palace. He said also that the presence of two Russian warplanes on Venezuelan soil for a training exercise "is a warning" to the rest of the world that Venezuela's allies include Russia.

Who acussed the Venezuelans of aiding Colombian rebels?

What ambassador is being expelled by Chavez?

What's then name of the Venezuelan President?

What does the U.S. Treasury accuse Venezualans of?

Where was the U.S. ambassador expelled to?

What does the U.S. Treasury Department accuse Venezuelans of doing?

Who is the US in an escalating diplomatic war with?

Answer: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

Answer: U.S. Treasury Department

Answer: Hugo Chavez

Answer: U.S.

Answer: The United States

Answer: Hugo Chavez

Answer: of assisting leftist rebels in the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, with narcotics trafficking.

Answer: Venezuela,

Answer: assisting leftist rebels

Answer: Venezuela,

Summary:
U.S. move on Venezuelan ambassador follows similar action by Caracas .
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez expelling the U.S. ambassador to Venezuela .
U.S. Treasury Department also accuses Venezuelans of aiding Colombian rebels .
U.S. in escalating diplomatic battle with Venezuelan, Bolivian leaders .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The United States on Tuesday imposed financial sanctions on an Iran-based company that it said is a cover for North Korea's missile proliferation network, the Department of the Treasury announced. Hong Kong Electronics in Kish Island, Iran, was added to the list of "designated proliferators of weapons of mass destruction and their supporters" for working with two others already on the list: North Korea's Tanchon Commercial Bank and the Korea Mining Development Trading Corp. (KOMID), according to a Treasury news release. The designation under Executive Order 13382 freezes any U.S. assets of Hong Kong Electronics and prohibits any transactions with the company by U.S. individuals, companies or financial institutions, the statement said. "North Korea uses front companies like Hong Kong Electronics and a range of other deceptive practices to obscure the true nature of its financial dealings, making it nearly impossible for responsible banks and governments to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate North Korean transactions," said Stuart Levey, the undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the Treasury. "Today's action is a part of our overall effort to prevent North Korea from misusing the international financial system to advance its nuclear and missile programs and to sell dangerous technology around the world." The Treasury statement alleged that Hong Kong Electronics has transferred millions of dollars of proliferation-related funds on behalf of Tanchon and KOMID since 2007. It also accused Hong Kong Electronics of facilitating the movement of money from Iran to North Korea on behalf of KOMID. Tanchon, a commercial bank based in Pyongyang, North Korea, is the financial arm for KOMID, which the Treasury statement described as North Korea's premier arms dealer and main exporter of goods and equipment related to ballistic missiles and conventional weapons. Both Tanchon and KOMID were previously subjected to sanctions under Executive Order 13382 and sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council, according to the Treasury statement. It said both also had ties with other sanctioned entities, including Iran's Shahid Hemmat Industrial Group, which it called the Iranian organization responsible for developing liquid-fueled missiles.

What did Hong Kong Electronics call a cover for?

Who called for a cover of NK's missile proliferation network?

Answer: North Korea's missile proliferation network,

Answer: The United States

Answer: to prevent North Korea from misusing the international financial system to advance its nuclear and missile programs and to sell dangerous technology around the world."

Summary:
Hong Kong Electronics called a cover for North Korea's missile proliferation network .
U.S. Treasury says company's U.S. assets frozen, transactions in U.S. prohibited .
It says company worked with bank, arms dealer tied to other sanctioned entities .
Goal is to stop misuse of financial system to advance arms programs, Treasury says .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The United States temporarily closed its government facilities in South Africa on Tuesday after a "possible threat" to its embassy, the U.S. State Department said. The U.S. Consulate in Johannesburg, South Africa, is among the American facilities closed Tuesday. The U.S. Embassy in Pretoria and other government offices in South Africa will remain closed Wednesday as the security threat is being monitored, embassy spokeswoman Sharon Hudson-Dean said. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the action was a precaution. "We are ... notifying the American community in South Africa to remain vigilant," Kelly said. "We are also maintaining close contact with South African authorities on this issue." He had no further details on the "possible threat" to the embassy in Pretoria. A note on the embassy's Web site said all U.S. government facilities in South Africa were temporarily closed following "information recently received" by regional security officials. Kelly said the embassy's Emergency Action Committee met and is formulating an appropriate course of action. CNN's Nkepile Mabuse and Elise Labott contributed to this report.

What recommendation are giving to Amercans in South Africa ?

Answer: remain vigilant,"

Answer: The U.S. Embassy in Pretoria and other government offices in South Africa

Answer: remain vigilant,"

Answer: Tuesday.

Answer: "possible threat" to its embassy,

Answer: in Pretoria

Summary:
NEW: U.S. Embassy in Pretoria, other offices will be closed additional day .
U.S. State Department spokesman calls temporary closings a precaution .
Americans in South Africa told to remain "vigilant"


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Veterans Administration's handling of disability claims has seen improvements and setbacks, a congressional watchdog said Wednesday. Sen. Daniel Akaka says, "Our goal is to provide veterans with accurate and timely resolution to their cases." "Over the past several years, VA disability claims workloads at both the initial and appellate levels have improved in some areas and worsened in others," the Government Accountability Office said in a report. The Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee asked the GAO to present its preliminary findings on the processing of disability claims, which were under discussion at a committee hearing. "Our goal is to provide veterans with accurate and timely resolution to their cases," said Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii, the committee's chairman. Ranking member Sen. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, said, "For the men and women who have served and sacrificed for our nation, they deserve a system that meets their needs without hassles or delays." Along with a GAO representative, the hearing invited testimony from the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs, a professor and an official from the Disabled American Veterans. The GAO report said the number of initial claims the VA annually completes has increased from the 1999 to 2008 fiscal years. But it says the number of pending claims at year's end has grown during the same time period. The review cites "increases in disability claims received, growing complexity of claims, court decisions and changes in regulation." There have been mixed results for claims workloads at the appellate level. The number of resolved claims has increased from 2003 to 2008, but it took an average 96 days longer to resolve appeals during that same time period. "One factor that affects workloads at the appellate level is the submission of new evidence or claims that must be evaluated," the report said. The report said the VA has worked to improve the handling of claims but said the results of those efforts "is not yet known." It mentions an increase in staff from 2005 to 2009, "which has helped to increase the total number of decisions VA issues annually." At the same time, training and staff integration challenges could cause a "short-term" decline in productivity "In addition, VA has established 15 resource centers to which it redistributes claims and appeals for processing from backlogged regional offices. Although VA has not collected data to evaluate the effect of its workload redistribution efforts, these efforts may ultimately increase the timeliness and consistency of VA's decisions," the report said. The VA is starting a pilot program with the Pentagon "to perform joint disability evaluations that has the potential to streamline the disability process for prospective veterans." The VA also is reviewing other potential programs -- "targeting certain claims for fast-track processing and leveraging technology."

What happened with the number of claims?

Answer: Sen. Daniel Akaka

Answer: has increased

Answer: The Veterans Administration's

Answer: has seen improvements

Answer: The Veterans Administration's handling of disability claims

Summary:
VA's handling of disability claims has seen improvements, setbacks, review finds .
Government Accountability Office presents findings at Senate panel hearing .
Number of pending claims at year's end has grown, GAO report says .
Report: Larger staff has led to increase in number of decisions VA issues annually .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The Watergate Hotel, part of a complex that became synonymous with President Richard Nixon's downfall, attracted no bids at an auction Tuesday. The Watergate Hotel will most likely have to be sold privately after not attracting bids at auction. According to Paul Cooper, vice president of Alex Cooper Auctioneers, some 10 bidders ready to provide a $1 million deposit were registered for the auction. But the hotel fell back into the hands of its lender, PB Capital, after no one advanced the $25 million opening bid, the auction company said. The auction was sponsored by PB Capital, which holds a $40 million note on the hotel after the previous owner, Monument Reality, defaulted on its loan. Monument's 30-day foreclosure note expired Thursday. Cooper said PB Capital will most likely sell the hotel privately after it takes over the title and will not try to operate the hotel itself. On the night of June 17, 1972, the hotel served as a base for an illegal break-in by operatives of the Nixon re-election campaign at the offices of the Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate office building next door. Some of the burglars and their handlers, whose arrests began the investigation that led, two years later, to Nixon's resignation, actually stayed at the Watergate hotel prior to the break-in. Among the hotel guests were former FBI agent G. Gordon Liddy, and former CIA operative Howard Hunt, both of whom later served prison time as a result of the Watergate break-in. Developers estimate the hotel could need up to $100 million in renovations. The Watergate complex was built in the late 1960s and consists of the hotel, two office buildings, and three apartment buildings. Only the hotel building was up for auction Tuesday. It closed two years ago for renovations, and possible conversions into co-op apartments.

When will PB Capital likely sell the hotel?

What will PB Capital do after it takes over the title?

The operatives were part of whose campaign?

Answer: after it takes over the title

Answer: sell the hotel privately

Answer: break-in

Answer: an illegal

Answer: PB Capital,

Answer: PB Capital,

Answer: PB Capital,

Answer: Nixon re-election

Answer: sell the

Summary:
Hotel falls back into the hands of its lender, PB Capital .
PB Capital will most likely sell the hotel privately after it takes over the title .
Hotel was a base for a break-in by operatives of the Nixon re-election campaign .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The commander of a U.S. Navy submarine that collided with another Navy ship last month has been relieved of duty, according to a U.S. Navy statement issued Tuesday. The submarine USS Hartford and amphibious ship USS New Orleans are shown in Navy photos. U.S. Navy Cmdr. Ryan Brookhart was relieved by his superior officer, who cited a loss of confidence in his ability to command, according to the statement. While the investigation into the collision is still ongoing, Brookhart's commander, Rear Adm. Michael J. Connor, decided there was enough evidence to remove him from his leadership position. Brookhart has been reassigned to administrative duty in Bahrain. Cmdr. Chris Harkins, deputy commander of Submarine Squadron Eight, based in Norfolk, Virginia, has taken over as commander of the USS Hartford, according to Navy officials. Brookhart was in command of the Hartford, a nuclear-powered submarine, when it collided with the USS New Orleans (LPD 18) on March 20 in the Strait of Hormuz. Fifteen sailors aboard the Hartford were slightly hurt in the incident, and both vessels suffered extensive damage, according to U.S. Navy officials. The submarine also punched a hole in the fuel tank of the New Orleans, causing thousands of gallons of fuel to pour from the ship. When the incident occurred, both vessels were headed to ports in the Persian Gulf to stock up on provisions and allow for some recreation, Navy officials said. There were about 200 sailors in the sub and 1,000 sailors and Marines aboard the ship. The Strait of Hormuz is between the United Arab Emirates and Iran, linking the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf. It is heavily used by oil tankers. Both vessels are on regularly scheduled deployments to the U.S. Navy Central Command area of responsibility and conduct Maritime Security Operations.

what did the officer cite
where was he assigned
What will happen in Bahrain?
who was assigned in Bahrain

Answer: a loss of confidence in his ability to command,

Answer: to administrative duty in Bahrain.

Answer: Brookhart has been reassigned to administrative duty in

Answer: U.S. Navy Cmdr. Ryan Brookhart

Summary:
Superior officer cited a loss of confidence in removing the Navy commander .
U.S. Navy Cmdr. Ryan Brookhart reassigned to administrative duty in Bahrain .
Fifteen sailors were slightly hurt in the incident; two vessels damaged .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general was all but assured Friday when two key Democratic senators said they will vote in favor of the nominee despite questions about his views on "waterboarding" and the president's power to order electronic surveillance.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles Schumer of New York announced they would support the retired federal judge from New York just hours after the chairman of the Judiciary Committee announced his opposition to the nominee.

Feinstein and Schumer are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is scheduled to vote on the Mukasey nomination Tuesday.

If all the Republican members of the committee also vote for Mukasey, which is expected, his nomination will go before the full Senate. A leading Democrat, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Wednesday Mukasey is likely to be confirmed if his nomination passes the Judiciary Committee.

Schumer had praised the nomination of Mukasey as a consensus candidate when the president announced Mukasey as his choice to replace former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales gave up the post in September.

"This is an extremely difficult decision," Schumer said.

"When an administration so political, so out of touch with the realities of governing and so contemptuous of the rule of law is in charge, we are never left with an ideal choice. Judge Mukasey is not my ideal choice. However, Judge Mukasey, whose integrity and independence is respected even by those who oppose him, is far better than anyone could expect from this administration."

A number of Democratic senators, however, have said they will oppose Mukasey because of questions about his views on the interrogation technique called "waterboarding" and the president's power to order electronic surveillance.

Waterboarding involves restraining a suspect and using water to produce the sensation of drowning.

Mukasey told senators this week that he finds waterboarding "repugnant," but he could not answer whether the technique amounts to torture.

While saying "serious questions have been raised about Judge Mukasey's views on torture and on separation of powers," Feinstein said she would support the nominee because the Justice Department needed fresh leadership.

"First and foremost, Michael Mukasey is not Alberto Gonzales. Rather, he has forged an independent life path as a practitioner of the law and a federal judge in the Southern District of New York.

"I believe that Judge Mukasey is the best we will get and voting him down would only perpetuate acting and recess appointments, allowing the administration to avoid the transparency that confirmation hearings provide and diminish effective oversight by Congress."

Just hours before Feinstein and Schumer announced their decisions, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, announced he would vote against the Mukasey nomination.  Watch Sen. Leahy explain why he can't support the Mukasey nomination »

"No American should need a classified briefing to determine whether waterboarding is torture," Leahy said. "Waterboarding was used at least as long ago as the Spanish Inquisition. We prosecuted Japanese war criminals for waterboarding after World War II.

"I am eager to restore strong leadership and independence to the Department of Justice. I like Michael Mukasey. I wish that I could support his nomination. But I cannot. America needs to be certain and confident of the bedrock principle -- deeply embedded in our laws and our values -- that no one, not even the president, is above the law."

President Bush demanded the Senate confirm Mukasey during a speech Thursday at the Heritage Foundation, an influential conservative think tank.

"In a time of war, it's vital for the president to have a full national security team in place," the president said.

The president has equated asking Mukasey about his opinion of waterboarding with asking him about the CIA-run interrogation program, whose details are classified.

Bush said the program does not violate U.S. bans on torture, but added that Mukasey "does not want an uninformed opinion to be taken by our professional interrogators in the field as placing them in legal jeopardy."

But Leahy said "Judge Mukasey was not asked to evaluate any secret 'facts and circumstances

Is Mukasey's nomination expected to pass the Judiciary Committee?

Who says he will not vote to confirm Michael Mukasey?

Who says they'll vote for attorney general nominee?

Is there a reason why Sen. Patrick Leahy won't vote?

What day is the committee scheduled to vote on?

When is the committee scheduled to vote on the nomination?

Will Sen. Leahy vote to confirm Mukasey?

What was the outcome of the committee's decision?

Answer: Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles Schumer of New York

Answer: Tuesday.

Answer: all but assured

Answer: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont,

Answer: D-Vermont,

Answer: Schumer

Answer: Democratic senators

Answer: Charles Schumer

Answer: he can't support the Mukasey nomination

Answer: Michael Mukasey

Answer: Tuesday.

Answer: Tuesday.

Answer: A number of Democratic senators,

Answer: Michael Mukasey

Answer: Patrick

Answer: confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general

Answer: The confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general

Answer: attorney general

Answer: Friday

Answer: Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Charles Schumer of New York

Summary:
NEW: Feinstein, Schumer say they'll vote for attorney general nominee .
Michael Mukasey's nomination now expected to pass Judiciary Committee .
Sen. Patrick Leahy says he will not vote to confirm Michael Mukasey .
Committee scheduled to vote on nomination on Tuesday .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The contentious debate over so-called enhanced interrogation techniques took center stage Wednesday on Capitol Hill as a former FBI agent involved in the questioning of terror suspects testified that such tactics -- including waterboarding -- are ineffective. From left: Sens. Lindsey Graham, Sheldon Whitehouse,

Patrick Leahy and Dianne Feinstein listen Wednesday. Ali Soufan, an FBI special agent from 1997 to 2005, told members of a key Senate Judiciary subcommittee that such "techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable and harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda." Soufan's remarks followed heated exchanges between committee members with sharply differing views on both the value of the techniques and the purpose of the hearing. Soufan, who was involved in the interrogation of CIA detainee Abu Zubaydah, took issue with former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has said that enhanced interrogation techniques helped the government acquire intelligence necessary to prevent further attacks after September 11, 2001. The techniques, which the Bush administration approved, are considered torture by many critics.  Watch analysts discuss harsh interrogations and torture » "From my experience -- and I speak as someone who has personally interrogated many terrorists and elicited important actionable intelligence -- I strongly believe that it is a mistake to use what has become known as the 'enhanced interrogation techniques,' " Soufan noted in his written statement. Such a position is "shared by many professional operatives, including the CIA officers who were present at the initial phases of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation." Soufan told the committee that within the first hour of his interrogation of Zubaydah, the suspected terrorist provided actionable intelligence. But once the CIA contractors took over and used harsh methods, Zubaydah stopped talking, Soufan said. When Soufan was asked to resume questioning, Zubaydah cooperated. After another round of more coercive techniques used by the contractors, however, Soufan said it was difficult for him to re-engage Zubaydah. One of four recently released Bush administration memos showed that CIA interrogators used waterboarding at least 266 times on Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the suspected planner of the September 11 attacks. "People were given misinformation, half-truths and false claims of successes; and reluctant intelligence officers were given instructions and assurances from higher authorities," Soufan testified. "I wish to do my part to ensure that we never again use these ... techniques instead of the tried, tested and successful ones -- the ones that are also in sync with our values and moral character. Only by doing this will we defeat the terrorists as effectively and quickly as possible."  Watch as Soufan makes his case before the panel » Soufan was hidden behind a protective screen during his testimony before the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts. Staffers for the committee cited "documented threats" against him, noting his previous interaction with al Qaeda terrorists as well as his undercover work against Islamic extremists. Philip Zelikow, who was a top aide to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, repeated an accusation during the hearing that Bush officials ordered his memo arguing against waterboarding to be destroyed. The order, "passed along informally, did not seem proper, and I ignored it," Zelikow said. He said that his memo has been in State Department files and is being reviewed for possible declassification. Zelikow slammed the "collective failure" behind the government's adoption of "an unprecedented program of coolly calculated dehumanizing abuse and physical torment to extract information. This was a mistake, perhaps a disastrous one." He added that some "may believe that recent history, even since 2005, shows that America needs an elaborate program of indefinite secret detention and physical coercion in order to protect the nation. ... If they are right, our laws must change and our country must change. I think they are wrong."  Watch Zelikow tell CNN's Kiran Chetry how U.S. leaders came to the wrong conclusions on interrogation policy » Committee Republicans warned that the hearing ultimately could contribute to diminished national security. "As we harshly judge those who had to make decisions we

Who did the ex-FBI agent take issue with?

What could help diminish national security?

Answer: the hearing ultimately could contribute to diminished national security.

Answer: Republicans warned that the hearing ultimately could contribute to diminished national security.

Answer: former Vice President Dick Cheney,

Answer: Vice President Dick Cheney,

Answer: misinformation, half-truths and false claims of successes;

Answer: the Bush administration

Answer: the hearing

Summary:
Committee Republicans say hearing could help diminish national security .
Ali Soufan: "People were given ... half-truths and false claims of successes"
Ex-FBI agent takes issue with Dick Cheney, who says such tactics helped U.S.
The techniques, OK'd by Bush administration, are considered torture by some .


WASHINGTON (CNN)  -- The crew of a commuter plane that crashed outside Buffalo, New York, in February may have responded improperly to signs the plane was stalling, according to details of the investigation released Wednesday.

Only a few pieces of the Continental Connection Dash 8 turboprop were recognizable after the crash.

The crew of Continental Connection Flight 3407 pulled back on the plane's control column when it received a stall warning, pulling the plane upward, an update released by the National Transportation Safety Board revealed. That would have aggravated the situation rather than improving it, according to a veteran pilot contacted by CNN.

But investigators are far from determining the exact cause of the crash, the NTSB said. And Colgan Air, the plane's operator, urged the public not to jump to conclusions.

The Bombardier Dash 8 Q400 crashed into a house about six miles from Buffalo-Niagara International Airport the night of February 12. All 49 people on the plane and one man who was in the house were killed.

The pilot and first officer discussed "significant" ice buildup on the aircraft's windshield and wings before the crash, the cockpit voice recorder revealed. But in an update on the investigation, the NTSB said there is no indication that aircraft's systems failed, or that ice had a significant impact on the plane.

The NTSB said a stall warning device known as a "stick shaker" appears to have behaved properly, activating when the plane's speed dropped to 130 knots (150 mph). At that point, however, "there was a 25-pound pull force on the control column," pulling the plane upward, and data suggests there was a "likely separation of the airflow over the wing" -- meaning the plane had stalled.

"The circumstances of the crash have raised several issues that go well beyond the widely discussed matter of airframe icing," the NTSB's acting chairman, Mark Rosenker, said in a statement on the findings.

In general, when a stick shaker activates, pilots are taught to apply full power and maintain the plane's altitude or lower the nose, a captain for a major airline told CNN.

"What you don't want to do is aggravate the situation," said the pilot, who would not be named because he had not sought approval from his airline. "By pulling it up without adding power, you're aggravating the situation."

The safety board said it intends to investigate "stall recovery training" among other issues at a three-day public hearing it will offer on the crash in mid-May. Doug Moss, a United Air Lines pilot and aerospace consultant, said that appears to be what the NTSB "is really looking at."

"It's easy to build a lot of experience in airline flying without ever getting close to the edges of the envelope," he said.

In a statement issued Wednesday afternoon, Colgan Air said the NTSB data does not pinpoint a cause, and its crews "are prepared to handle emergency situations they might face."

"We stand by our FAA-certified crew training programs which meet or exceed the regulatory requirements for all major airlines and include training on emergency situations," the Virginia-based carrier said. Colgan Air said it is "cooperating thoroughly" with the investigation.

"The only absolute fact is that we do not know the cause of this accident," it said.

Information released Wednesday appears to count out one possibility that was the subject of speculation after the crash: a stall induced by ice on the aircraft's tail. Pilots say those stalls are particularly insidious because pilots cannot see the tail wings and because the recovery procedure is the opposite of a main-wing stall -- tail-wing stalls generally are overcome by raising the plane's nose.

The NTSB said that toxicology tests of the flight crew were negative for alcohol or illicit substances. The captain tested positive for diltiazem, a prescription blood pressure medication the Federal Aviation Administration had permitted him to use.

At the board's hearing in May, the NTSB will look into a number

How many were killed
What month did this accident occur?
What city were they killed near?
What did pilot tell CNN?
What shouldn't public do?

Answer: 49

Answer: February

Answer: Buffalo,

Answer: That would have aggravated the situation rather than improving it,

Answer: not to jump to conclusions.

Summary:
NEW: Plane's operator: Cause still not known; public shouldn't jump to conclusions .
NTSB: Crew pulled back on control column after stall warning .
A pilot tells CNN that move would have aggravated the situation .
All 49 aboard, plus 1 in house, were killed in February crash near Buffalo, New York .