WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon is portraying India as a major customer for U.S. military equipment, worth an estimated $6 billion in the past decade, even as U.S. companies are shut out of a multibillion dollar bid for fighter jets that India is starting this week.

In the newest edition of a congressionally mandated report, the Defense Department signaled that it was hoping to interest India in its top-of-the-line and most expensive weapon, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, still being tested.

Arms sales, as well as more frequent military exercises and exchanges, are seen as an important ways to cement ties between the two countries.

But India doesn't always buy American. Recently, India considered and then rejected a major purchase of U.S. F-16 and F-18 fighters, a expensive setback for U.S. arms sales and the U.S. aviation industry. That deal -- now between the Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon -- is a reminder of the vast sums in play.

"With a potential contract price of US$9 billion to US$14 billion, this is the single biggest competition in the global defence aviation industry at the moment and offers both bidders a much-needed opportunity in a major market," said James Hardy, Asia Pacific Editor at IHS Jane's Defence Weekly said in a statement.

Arms sales, as well as more frequent military exercises and exchanges, are seen as an important ways to cement ties between the two countries.

The Defense Department downplayed any suggestion that arms sales and other contacts could backfire and that next-door Pakistan may feel new pressure both in its already-strained relationship with Washington and with its historical enemy, India.

"It's important that none of us think about relationships in this region as a zero-sum game," said Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert Scher at the Pentagon. "We have valuable relationships with Pakistan and valuable relationships with India and these things can co-exist."

Scher signaled that he hoped the relationship, and the arms sales would continue to grow.

"I think there is a great potential to do much more," Scher said in a briefing at the Pentagon. "India sees the U.S. as a reliable defense supplier and we have been able to provide some top-of-the-line equipment. Is there some potential for more? Certainly there is. That is for the government of India to decide"

Lisa Curtis of the Heritage Foundation, a long-time observer of U.S. and Indian affairs, said the report should be a catalyst to deepen defense ties and possibly lead to a loosening of present export and licensing controls.

"The Defense Department offer to provide India with information on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter sends a clear signal that the U.S. considers India one of its most important future defense partners and is willing to consider co-production of some of its most sophisticated defense technology," Curtis told CNN.

The Pentagon's government-to-government program of foreign military sales to India have included C-17 and C-130 aircraft, radar systems, Harpoon weapons and specialized tactical equipment.

Any consideration of India's role in the region must include China and U.S. concerns about the Chinese modernization of its armed services especially its navy.

"The attention given to maritime security cooperation in the report should be seen in light of a series of maritime incidents in which Chinese naval vessels have challenged other countries' naval vessels in the South China Sea," Curtis said.

"It is clear that the U.S. views India as a leader in helping to maintain freedom of navigation in the Indian Ocean region and will likely look for ways to enhance India's involvement in maritime security endeavors throughout the Indo-Pacific in the future."

Which country recently rejected the puchase of other U.S. fighters?

In what way could US-Indian relations be cemented?

Sales of what are seen as a way of cementing relations between the U.S. and India?

Answer: F-35 Joint Strike

Answer: India

Answer: Arms sales, as well as more frequent military exercises and exchanges,

Answer: India

Answer: Arms

Answer: the F-35 Joint Strike

Summary:
The Pentagon tells Congress it hopes to interst India in its most expensive weapon .
The top-of-the-line F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is still being tested .
But India recently rejected purchase of other U.S.-built fightrers .
Arms sales are seen as a way to cement relations between the U.S. and India .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Richard Nixon Presidential Library will allow access Tuesday to about 154 hours of Nixon White House tape recordings and 30,000 pages of documents that were formerly classified. President Nixon announces the U.S. incursion into Cambodia during the Vietnam War in April 1970. Among the tapes and documents are conversations about the Vietnam War, Nixon's second inauguration, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 and the first Watergate trial, according to a library statement. Tuesday's release is the 13th opening of Nixon White House tapes since 1980, the statement said. The new Nixon tapes and documents will be available on the Internet and in the Richard Nixon libraries in College Park, Maryland, and Yorba Linda, California. Nixon resigned August 9, 1974, over the Watergate scandal -- the first president to resign from office. President Ford pardoned Nixon the following month, saying it was necessary for the nation to heal after Watergate.

Who is to open access to 154 hours of recordings?

How many pages of formerly classified documents?

What will the Richard Nixon Presidential Library open access to?

Answer: The Richard Nixon Presidential Library

Answer: President

Answer: conversations about the Vietnam War, Nixon's second inauguration, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 and the first Watergate trial,

Answer: the Vietnam War, Nixon's second inauguration, the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 and the first Watergate trial,

Answer: 30,000

Answer: The Richard Nixon Presidential Library

Answer: White House tape recordings and 30,000 pages of documents that were formerly classified.

Summary:
Richard Nixon Presidential Library to open access to 154 hours of recordings .
Tapes include conversations about Watergate, Roe v. Wade, Vietnam War .
Release also includes 30,000 pages of formerly classified documents .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Salvadoran immigrant suspected in the 2001 slaying of Washington intern Chandra Levy told at least two people he killed her, according to an affidavit filed in the case. Ingmar Guandique is serving a 10-year sentence for two assaults in the park where Chandra Levy's body was found. Ingmar Guandique, 27, also kept a magazine photo of Levy in his prison cell, stated the affidavit detailing evidence supporting a warrant for his arrest for first-degree murder. Guandique is in prison in California for two assault convictions. Guandique boasted of his ties to the violent Salvadoran gang Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, and told witnesses that he was known as "Chuckie" -- the name of a demonic doll in a series of horror movies -- because he had a reputation for "killing and chopping up people," the affidavit states. D.C. Metro police and federal prosecutors released the affidavit on Tuesday, announcing they would charge Guandique with first-degree murder in the Levy case. He has not been charged with any other slayings.  Watch the police announce arrest » The affidavit revealed that Levy, 25, fought for her life, scratching her attacker on his face and giving him a "fat lip." Guandique said he received the injuries in a fight with his girlfriend. But the girlfriend later told police that while Guandique struck and bit her at times, she never hit him, the document says. Guandique is serving concurrent 10-year sentences in connection with attacks on two other joggers in the park during the summer of 2001. He told probation officials the attacks were motivated by robbery, but no valuables were taken from either victim. Guandique was arrested after the second attack -- exactly two months after Levy's slaying. D.C. Metro police began to take a hard second look at him in 2008, the affidavit shows. He has repeatedly denied to authorities that he killed Levy, and his public defenders have cautioned against a rush to judgment, citing what they called flaws in the investigation. The affidavit details a case built largely on circumstantial evidence collected over the eight years since Levy disappeared, apparently while jogging along the Western Ridge trail in Washington's Rock Creek Park. It portrays Guandique as an opportunistic attacker who came up behind female joggers, grabbing them as they were tiring and becoming winded. The affidavit includes highlights from interviews with a dozen witnesses, who are not identified by name and are instead given numbers. One witness, who frequently exchanged letters with the suspect, told police Guandique had told him as early as 2003 that he killed a young woman in the park. During a taped 2008 phone conversation with the witness, "Guandique acknowledged that he had told W9 about the 'girl who's dead,''' the affidavit says. Another witness told police that Guandique said he and two male teenagers were sitting on a bench in a park smoking marijuana laced with cocaine when a woman with dark, thick hair jogged by. The witness said Guandique thought she "looked good" and told the two teens that he was going to "get her." Guandique told the witness that the three followed her along a path, then grabbed her and forced her off the trail. When she started screaming, he grabbed her by the neck and choked her to death, so that other people in the park would not hear her cries for help. It is not clear from the affidavit whether the two teens Guandique said were with him actually exist. Police have said no other arrests are imminent, but the investigation is continuing.  Timeline of Levy's disappearance » Levy's skull was found in the park on May 22, 2002 -- more than a year after she disappeared. A search turned up other remains, as well as clothing later identified as hers strewn down the side of a ravine. Her running shoes were unlaced. He clothes were turned inside out, the pants knotted in tight restraints around her legs. "It appears that Guandique wanted Ms. Levy naked and incapacitated," states the affidavit, signed by D.C. Metro Det. Todd Williams. Also among the witnesses are two

What did the affidavit say about the suspect?

Answer: he killed a young woman

Answer: affidavit,

Answer: kept a magazine photo of Levy in his prison cell,

Answer: "Chuckie"

Answer: Guandique said he and two male teenagers were sitting on a bench in a park smoking marijuana laced with cocaine when a woman with dark, thick hair jogged by.

Summary:
NEW: Affidavit says suspect kept a magazine photo of Chandra Levy in prison cell .
NEW: Witnesses say suspect known as "Chuckie," like demonic movie doll .
An arrest warrant for Ingmar Guandique was signed Tuesday .
Levy disappeared in May 2001; her body was found a year later .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate Wednesday approved a bill to put new rules in place for intelligence agency eavesdropping on suspected terrorists. Communication technologies like mobile phones have made the 1978 FISA bill out of date, supporters say. The bill also effectively protects telephone companies from being sued for cooperating with a government surveillance program launched in the wake of the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. The White House pushed hard for the provision, with a threat to veto the bill if it did not contain protection for phone companies. The vote was 69-28, with Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois voting in favor. Republican candidate Sen. John McCain of Arizona was not present for the vote. President Bush said Wednesday afternoon he will sign the bill, calling it "vital" and "long overdue."  Watch Bush praise the new FISA bill » The bill, formally known as the FISA Amendments Act, updates the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It will: Opponents argued that the provision creating a judicial review of cases against the telecommunication companies is a sham. The bill essentially grants immunity to the telecommunication companies, the opponents said, because all of the telephone carriers received government certifications saying their participation in the program was legal. Obama was criticized for backing away from his early opposition to the bill by liberal bloggers and individuals commenting on his campaign Web site. Before voting for the bill, Obama voted for an amendment offered by Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Connecticut, that would have stripped the language granting immunity to telecommunications companies. Civil liberties groups have vowed to fight the legislation in court. "This fight is not over. We intend to challenge this bill as soon as President Bush signs it into law," Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project, said in a statement issued minutes after the Senate approved the bill. "The bill allows the warrantless and dragnet surveillance of Americans' international telephone and e-mail communications. It plainly violates the Fourth Amendment." President Bush acknowledged in 2005 that he ordered the secretive National Security Agency to intercept communications between U.S. residents and people overseas suspected of having ties to terrorism. The administration says the program was authorized when Congress approved military action against al Qaeda after the 2001 attacks. CNN's Pam Benson contributed to this report.

How much did the senate pass the measure by?

What do civil liberties groups vow to do?

What did civil liberties groups vow to do?

Answer: The vote was 69-28,

Answer: 1978 Foreign Intelligence

Answer: the new FISA bill

Answer: fight the legislation in court.

Answer: Surveillance Act.

Answer: have vowed

Summary:
Bill updates Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 .
Senate passes measure by a vote of 69-28; Bush says he will sign the bill .
Bill updates eavesdropping rules to take into account technology changes .
Civil liberties groups vows to fight bill in court .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate approved a controversial nuclear deal with India on Wednesday, clearing the way for the United States to export nuclear know-how to India after a ban lasting decades. President Bush, who supports the deal, meets with India Prime Minister Manmohan Singh last week. Sen. Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, said the deal would not only "set the stage for a stronger U.S.-India relationship," but also would promote stability in India's troubled neighborhood. "This agreement is indicative of a new era in Indian foreign policy, an era in which India will see all the world's powers as potential partners in efforts to address its own needs and the needs of others," Dodd said. "I believe that this new era will bring increased stability and progress in South Asia." India and Pakistan have fought several wars since they became independent in 1947, and both countries have tested nuclear weapons. Wednesday's vote was 86-13. Sen. Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, spoke against what he called flawed legislation before the vote. "If we pass this legislation, we will reward India for flouting the most important arms control agreement in history, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and we will gravely undermine our case against hostile nations that seek to do the same," Harkin said. Before he voted against the bill, he said Congress had not debated the legislation properly. "It was hustled through [the House of Representatives] without any hearings and without a vote in the House Foreign Affairs Committee," he said. "Here in the Senate, the Foreign Relations Committee held just one hearing with just one witness who spoke in support of the agreement." Presidential candidates Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain voted for the bill. President Bush urged the Senate to pass the bill in a statement released before the vote. The bill "represents a major milestone in the transformation of our nation's important relationship with India," the statement said. One senator had anonymously been using parliamentary rules to prevent the bill from coming to a vote, but the leaders of the Senate announced Tuesday night the vote would go ahead. The House of Representatives passed the bill without debate on Saturday. The next step is for Bush to sign it into law. The Indian nuclear market is a rich prize, and the agreement could open the way for U.S. companies to earn billions of dollars building nuclear power plants in India. The French government clinched its own nuclear trade deal with India on Wednesday when President Nicolas Sarkozy signed an agreement in Paris. That puts French companies in the running for some of the same contracts U.S. companies want. In exchange for access to U.S. nuclear technology, India would allow international inspections of its civilian -- but not military -- nuclear power plants. It would also promise not to resume testing of nuclear weapons. The United States banned nuclear trade with India after India exploded a nuclear device in 1974 and refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In an informal agreement between the two nations, the United States said it would halt any nuclear cooperation should India resume testing.

In which country could US businesses earn billions if the bill passes?

Who could earn billions building plants in India?

Who said we're rewarding India for flouting pact?

When did the US ban nuclear trade with India?

In what year did the US ban nuclear trade with India?

Answer: India.

Answer: Sen. Tom Harkin,

Answer: U.S. companies

Answer: Harkin

Answer: nuclear power

Answer: device in 1974

Answer: 1974

Answer: President Bush,

Summary:
Deal could let U.S. businesses earn billions building plants in India .
President Bush backs the deal; he's expected to sign it into law .
U.S. banned nuclear trade with India in 1974 .
Sen. Harkin, bill opponent: We're rewarding India for flouting nonproliferation pact .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate confirmed by unanimous consent retired Adm. Dennis Blair as director of national intelligence Wednesday. Retired Adm. Dennis Blair answers questions at his confirmation hearing last week. The confirmation followed the resignation of former director Michael McConnell, who left the post Tuesday after nearly two years on the job. Earlier this month, President Barack Obama nominated Blair to be chief of intelligence. McConnell had been expected to remain as DNI until Blair was in place, but a delay in Blair's confirmation prompted him to announce his resignation sooner than that. Blair's confirmation hearing was held last week. The retired admiral will continue to advise Obama, however, having agreed to serve on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. The defense consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton announced Tuesday that McConnell will return to the company as a vice president. He left the firm in February 2007 to become the nation's second director of national intelligence. In a farewell letter obtained by CNN, McConnell thanked his colleagues for their hard work and touted some of the accomplishments during his tenure. At the top of his list: passage of legislation revising the law governing intelligence community eavesdropping and updating the presidential order that outlines the power and authorities of the community. "These documents lay a foundation to provide the IC the structure and the tools needed to continue our work, while expanding privacy and civil liberties protections to all Americans," wrote McConnell. The office was created in late 2004 as part of the effort to improve intelligence gathering after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States and the faulty intelligence on Iraq weapons of mass destruction.

What position did Obama nominate the Admiral for?

When did President Obama nominate Blair?

Answer: retired Adm. Dennis Blair as director

Answer: Adm. Dennis Blair

Answer: former director

Answer: answers questions at his confirmation hearing

Answer: chief of intelligence.

Answer: retired admiral

Answer: the resignation of former director Michael McConnell,

Answer: Earlier this month,

Summary:
Retired Adm. Dennis Blair confirmed by unanimous consent .
Confirmation comes after previous director Michael McConnell resigned .
Earlier this month, President Obama nominated Blair as chief of intelligence .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate voted Thursday night to extend the "Cash for Clunkers" program with an infusion of $2 billion. President Obama is expected to sign the OK to spend $2 billion more on the "Cash for Clunkers" program. White House aides said earlier that President Obama will quickly sign the bill into law to prevent any interruption to the popular incentive. The Senate voted 60-37 to approve the measure already passed by the House. "[President Obama's] going to want to make sure the funds are in place by this weekend," one senior White House official noted, because of the particularly brisk weekend business the program has sparked. The program under Obama's economic stimulus package pays people up to $4,500 for trading an older-model vehicle with low fuel efficiency for new vehicles that get better miles per gallon. " 'Cash for Clunkers' has been a proven success. The initial transactions are generating a more than 50 percent increase in fuel economy; they are generating $700 to $1,000 in annual savings for consumers in reduced gas costs alone; and they are getting the oldest, dirtiest and most air polluting trucks and SUVs off the road for good," Obama said in a statement Thursday night. "I want to thank Leader Reid and the members of the Senate who moved quickly to extend a program that benefits our recovery and our auto industry while reducing our economy's dependence on oil," he said. The program was intended to run until autumn, but higher than expected participation caused the government to warn last week the program would run out of money without an infusion from Congress. The extension would keep the program going through Labor Day. The House voted to add $2 billion to the program before it adjourned for the summer on Friday. With the Senate vote, the additional money will become available right away. Several top Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona, raised concerns about pouring more money into the program at a time when the government is deep in debt. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and other top Democrats had been lining up votes for the expansion by making the case that the program is providing a boost to the economy by increasing weak auto sales, while also helping the environment by getting "clunkers" off the road in favor of more fuel-efficient vehicles. The program calls for the engines of the clunkers to be made inoperable so the cars cannot be returned to the road.  Watch what happens to 'clunkers' » Democratic officials said several hurdles were cleared in order to allow the Senate to pass the bill with new money on Thursday night. On Monday, two key senators who opposed more money for the program announced they had changed their minds and now supported the extension. The announcement by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, and Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, boosted Democratic efforts to secure enough votes to pass the measure this week. CNN Senior White House Correspondent Ed Henry contributed to this report.

What does the program allow?
what does program allow drivers to do?
What do lawmakers fear?
What program did sanate vote to expand?
What did the Senate vote 60-37 for?

Answer: pays people up to $4,500 for trading an older-model vehicle with low fuel efficiency for new vehicles that get better miles per gallon.

Answer: $4,500 for trading an older-model vehicle with low fuel efficiency for new vehicles that get better miles per gallon.

Answer: the program would run out of money without an infusion from Congress.

Answer: "Cash for Clunkers"

Answer: Clunkers" program

Summary:
NEW: Obama says program stimulates economy while getting old vehicles off road .
Senate votes 60-37 to expand program with an infusion of $2 billion .
Program allows drivers to turn in gas guzzlers for fuel-efficient models .
Lawmakers fear program will run out of money without extension .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate voted Wednesday to move forward on a bill meant to crack down on oil speculators. Democrats say speculation in oil futures is a significant reason why oil prices have risen this year. But Republicans vowed to block the Senate from taking up any other measure until the Democratic leadership agrees to vote on other energy-related issues. Republicans want to offer up to 28 amendments to the bill on a wide range of energy topics, including increasing domestic oil production. The Democrats want to limit them to two amendments. "This is not some arcane subject; this is the biggest issue in the country," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky. "It's on the floor now. We say, let's deal with it. We're not afraid to vote on their amendments, they shouldn't be afraid to vote on ours. Let the Senate work its will on the No. 1 issue in the country." The Republicans said they would not prevent the Senate from taking up the housing bill passed earlier in the day by the House, although a final vote on that bill is not expected before the end of the week. Democrats oppose Republican measures to lift bans on offshore drilling and oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. See how gas prices have risen across the country » Republicans say the process would not be fair unless they can offer all of their amendments. Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, accused the Republicans of wanting to score political points rather than pass legislation. "The problem with our Republican colleagues is that they want to debate, not act. ... Even when they are offered what they want, they say no." Menendez suggested there was bipartisan support for measures meant to limit speculation, encourage conservation and provide tax credits for renewable energy. "Why would you not move forward on the items that you have consensus?" he asked. The disagreement between Republicans and Democrats could result in Congress leaving Washington for its monthlong recess in August without passing any measures to lower gas prices, which are averaging above $4 a gallon at the pump. Experts have said lifting bans on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore would not affect the oil market for several years, but Republicans have argued that the psychological effect of opening more areas for oil exploration would bring prices down. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, one of the main sponsors of the bill, pleaded for Republicans to help "wring excessive speculation" from the oil markets. He says speculation is responsible for 71 percent of the increase in a price of a barrel of oil this year. Some analysts say speculation has added between $40 to $60 dollars to a barrel of oil. But other experts have questioned the extent to which speculators -- rather than basic market principles of supply and demand -- have driven up the price of oil. Wednesday morning, a barrel of light, sweet crude was priced around $128 on the New York Mercantile Exchange, down from the $147 a barrel record set July 11 and the lowest price since June 5. Dorgan said ending speculation in the oil market would be a sensible first step toward lowering gas prices that both sides of the aisle could agree to. Republicans "have come up with a hundred excuses why they don't want to do that," he said. But Republicans say they want the opportunity to offer "real" solutions that will lower energy prices, which includes more drilling to expand domestic production.  See what factors are driving up the price of oil » "The Republicans know that American people want us to do something real, something big, something important about the price of gasoline," said Sen. Pete Dominici, R-New Mexico. "And the only thing that we can do that is important is to release large quantities of crude oil and natural gas that are owned by American people and that have been locked up for 27 years in moratoria." Dorgan, however, said the Republicans are trying to

What would allow regulators to crack down on speculation in oil markets?

What is the amount of amendments that the Republicans and Democrats want to add to the bill?

What number of amendments does the GOP want to add to bill?

What number of amendments do the Democrats want to allow?

What would the bill  allow regulators to crack down on?

Answer: a bill

Answer: something real, something big, something important about the price of gasoline,"

Answer: The Senate

Answer: 28

Answer: speculators.

Answer: $40 to $60 dollars to a barrel of oil.

Answer: 28

Answer: 28 amendments

Answer: two

Answer: oil

Summary:
Bill would allow regulators to crack down on speculation in oil markets .
GOP wants to add 28 amendments to bill; Democrats want to allow two .
Republicans say Americans want "real" answers, which includes more drilling .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court agreed Monday to examine whether prosecutors can aggressively prosecute illegal immigrants for identity theft if they didn't know the documents they were given belonged to someone else. The Supreme Court has agreed to grapple with the issues of identity theft and illegal immigration. The justices announced they will hear arguments in the appeal of a Mexican national arrested in a government work site raid in the Midwest. A ruling is expected by June. At issue is whether people who use fake IDs to obtain work in the United States but did not know the documents belonged to someone else can be convicted of "aggravated identity theft." Stealing personal identification such as Social Security numbers  is illegal, but federal courts around the country are divided over how to treat people who buy them on the black market. Federal law states that for aggravated identity theft to occur, it must be proved that a person "knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person." Many criminals steal a person's identification to empty his or her bank account or falsely obtain loans or credit. Lawyers for the detained illegal immigrants say their clients simply used numbers picked "out of thin air" that happened to belong to another person. They used the numbers only to obtain work, not steal to money, the lawyers said. The Justice Department argues its prosecutors need not prove "knowledge" that the documents belonged to someone else instead of being fabricated. The difference could mean an additional two years in federal prison under an enhanced sentence. Most workers with false papers serve only a few months behind bars, and many are then deported. At stake is the government's crackdown on undocumented workers, most of whom must rely on fake IDs to obtain employment. Read a report from the front lines of the immigration debate The case before the justices involves Mexican immigrant Ignacio Flores-Figueroa, who worked at a steel plant in East Moline, Illinois. He was arrested with phony Social Security and alien registration cards that had been assigned to someone else. He admitted obtaining the documents but said he did not know they were someone else's. He was convicted and sentenced to 75 months in prison. The court did not act on a similar appeal from a Mexican national who was arrested during a raid on a meat processing plant in Iowa, the largest criminal workplace enforcement operation in U.S. history. Nicasio Mendoza-Gonzalez was among 389 people arrested, most of whom were given five months in prison.

Who need not prove "knowledge" that ID belongs to someone?

Who argues their clients used random numbers?

Answer: by June.

Answer: A ruling

Answer: The Justice Department

Answer: Lawyers for the detained illegal immigrants

Summary:
Attorneys for illegal immigrants argue their clients used random numbers .
U.S. says prosecutors need not prove "knowledge" that ID belongs to someone .
A decision is expected by the end of June .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court dealt federal prosecutors dual setbacks Monday in efforts to prosecute the laundering of drug ring and organized crime profits.

The Supreme Court considered a pair of cases involving hidden money and an illegal gambling ring.

The justices ruled that merely hiding money headed out of the United States is not proof of money laundering.

Justices also concluded that prosecutors had to prove that an illegal gambling ring had laundered profits of its betting, rather than just proceeds.

In a unanimous ruling, the justices overturned the federal conviction of Humberto Regaldo Cuellar, who had run afoul of the "transportation" part of the international money-laundering law when his car was stopped by a deputy sheriff near Eldorado, Texas.

Inside the car, officers found nearly $81,000 in cash wrapped in duct-taped bundles and hidden in a secret compartment covered with animal hair, presumably to trick drug-sniffing dogs. Police suspected the money came from drug trafficking and arrested Cuellar, who had been heading for Mexico when he was stopped. Cuellar was convicted and sentenced to 78 months in prison.

Federal law requires proof the transportation was "designed to conceal or disguise the nature, location, the source, the ownership, or the control" of the money. Writing for the high court, Justice Clarence Thomas said prosecutors failed to prove the reason for moving the money across the border was to hide its source, as part of an alleged international drug ring.

"Although the evidence suggested Cuellar's  transportation would have the effect of concealing funds, the evidence did not demonstrate that such concealment was the purpose of the transportation " Thomas wrote.

Congress passed a law in 1986 designed to prevent the laundering, or "washing," of criminal funds through legitimate enterprises and overseas bank accounts.

In the other case, the high court split 5-4 in concluding that prosecutors failed to show money used to pay couriers in alleged gambling operation were "profits," rather than "gross proceeds."

The case involved Efrain Santos and Benedicto Diaz, convicted of running an illegal lottery in Indiana since the 1970s. Santos allegedly used a network of "runners" and "collectors" to run the enterprise, and Diaz was a collector who gathered money from the runners and delivered it to Santos.

"The money laundering charges brought against Santos were based on his payments to the lottery winners and his employees, and the money laundering charge brought against Diaz was based on his receipt of payments as an employer," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a very narrow opinion.

"Neither type of transaction can fairly be characterized as involving the lottery's profits," Scalia added. "Indeed, the government did not try to prove, and the defendants have not admitted, that they laundered criminal profits."

Scalia noted the high court's ruling would not overly burden prosecutors, saying only one instance of "profitability" would be required to prove money laundering. "What counts is whether the receipts from the charged unlawful act exceeded the costs fairly attributable to it," he said, adding the government "exaggerates" the difficulty it would have to do that.

Although Scalia wrote the main ruling, it was Justice John Paul Stevens who provided the critical fifth vote for a majority, and his concurring views will probably provide the controlling opinion to guide lower courts in similar cases down the road.

Stevens did not go as far as Scalia wanted, saying Congress failed by writing an "ambiguous" law that only confused judges. He said lawmakers seemed to want a broader interpretation of "proceeds" as the term applied to money laundering.

Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, and Chief Justice John Roberts dissented.

What did the justices say the prosecutors have to do?

Answer: illegal gambling ring had laundered profits of its betting,

Answer: secret compartment covered with animal hair,

Answer: prove that an illegal gambling ring had laundered profits of its betting, rather than just proceeds.

Answer: hidden money and an illegal gambling ring.

Summary:
In one case, court rules that hiding money not same as money laundering .
In another, justices say prosecutors have to prove gambling ring laundered "profits"
Cases involved cash hidden in car, illegal Indiana lottery .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has agreed to review a civil liberties dispute over the government's power to criminalize "support" of a terrorist organization. The Supreme Court will review a key provision of the 2001 Patriot Act. The justices on Wednesday accepted review of a key provision of the 2001 Patriot Act, and whether it threatens free speech rights of those who would assist non-violent activities of designated groups. Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States, federal prosecutors have pursued "material support" cases against at least 120 individuals or organizations, winning convictions in about half of those cases. Nearly every such domestic terrorism-related prosecution has included that charge as part of the indictment. At issue is whether the congressional law allows prosecution of those with knowledge of "any service, training, expert advice or assistance" to a foreign terrorist organization, as designated by the U.S. government. A federal appeals court in San Francisco, California, struck down several parts of the legislation, finding them too vague to satisfy the Constitution. The government then asked the high court to intervene and uphold the law. Among those charged under the "material support" provision: John Walker Lindh, an American Muslim captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan; the "Lackawanna Six," men from Buffalo, New York, who attended an al Qaeda training camp; several men in Portland, Oregon, who allegedly sought to travel to Afghanistan to fight on behalf of the Taliban; a group of young Virginia individuals who allegedly tried to assist a Kashmir terror group; and James Ujaama, an African-American activist in Seattle, Washington. The key plaintiff in the current appeal is the Humanitarian Law Project, a Los Angeles, California-based non-profit that says its mission is to advocate "for the peaceful resolution of armed conflicts and for worldwide compliance with humanitarian law and human rights law." HLP sought to help the Kurdistan Workers' Party, a group active in Turkey. Known as PKK, the party was founded in the mid-1970s and has been labeled a terror organization by the United States and the European Union. Its leaders have previously called for militancy to create a separate Kurdish state in parts of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran, where Kurds comprise a population majority. In its appeal to the high court, the government noted that "since its inception, the organization has waged a violent insurgency that has claimed over 22,000 lives." HLP claimed it wanted to advocate on behalf of the PKK before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and conduct other advisory sessions and public awareness campaigns. Another plaintiff is an American physician who wanted to help ethnic Tamils in his native Sri Lanka. Much of the island nation is controlled by the rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, which has also fought for decades to carve an independent state. The government claims the Tamil Tigers have "used suicide bombings and political assassinations in its campaign for independence, killing hundreds of civilians in the process." HLP and a group of Tamil doctors say they merely wanted "to provide their expert medical advice on how to address the shortage of medical facilities and trained physicians" in the region but "they are afraid to do so because they fear prosecution for providing material support." The Patriot Act was passed six weeks after the 9/11 terrorism attacks. It included amending a previous anti-terror law to strengthen the "expert advice and assistance" provision, making it a crime punishable by a 10- to 15-year prison sentence. The Justice Department calls the material support provision "a vital part of the nation's effort to fight international terrorism." Officials told the justices the law is constitutional since "the statute in question regulates conduct, not speech, and does not violate the First Amendment in any of its applications." And the government argues lawmakers properly used their authority to address a pressing problem. "Congress has banned a broad range of material support -- regardless of whether the terrorist group claims to engage in otherwise lawful activities, and regardless of whether the support is ostensibly given to assist those supposedly

Which provision is being reviewed by the Supreme Court?

What federal appeals court had to struck down?

What aspects of the Patriot Act have been struck down by the Federal appeals court?

Answer: a key provision of the 2001 Patriot Act.

Answer: 2001 Patriot Act.

Answer: The government

Answer: several parts of the legislation,

Answer: several parts of the legislation,

Answer: 2001 Patriot Act.

Summary:
Supreme Court to review a key provision of the 2001 Patriot Act .
Federal appeals court had struck down several aspects of Patriot Act .
Government had asked the high court to intervene and uphold the law .
Oral arguments to be held early next year, with decision expected by spring .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has blocked further consideration of a federal law designed to keep sexual material from underage users of the Web.

The justices without comment Wednesday rejected an appeal from the federal government to reinstate the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), passed by Congress in 1998. The high court and subsequent federal courts said the law -- which has never taken effect -- had serious free speech problems.

The Bush administration was a strong supporter of the law and the Justice Department led the fight in court to revive it.

The justices issued their ruling a day after all nine were on hand for the inauguration of President Barack Obama. Retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor also attended the ceremony.

The case tested the free speech rights of adults against the power of Congress to control Internet commerce. The Supreme Court twice ruled against COPA, arguing that it represented government censorship rather than lawful regulation of adult-themed pornography businesses. The law would have prevented private businesses from creating and distributing "harmful" content that minors could access on the Internet.

Free speech advocates said adults would be barred access to otherwise legal material and that parental-control devices and various filtering technology are less intrusive ways to protect children.

The high court in 2004 upheld a preliminary injunction against the law and sent the case back to lower courts for consideration of the arguments. In their opinion at the time, the 5-4 majority concluded COPA "likely violates the First Amendment."

"The government has not shown that the less restrictive alternatives proposed ... should be disregarded," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 2004 decision. "Those alternatives, indeed, may be more effective" than the law passed by Congress. "Filters are less restrictive" he said, and thus pose less risk of muzzling free speech. "They impose selective restrictions on speech at the receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source."

He added, "There is a potential for extraordinary harm and a serious chill upon protected speech" if the law takes effect."

In reconsidering the law, a federal appeals court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, again ruled the law unconstitutional.

What would COPA have kept business from?

Answer: serious free speech problems.

Answer: Wednesday

Answer: rejected an

Answer: rejected an appeal

Answer: The Supreme Court

Answer: underage users of the Web.

Answer: "harmful"

Answer: the First Amendment."

Summary:
Justices reject appeal to reinstate the Child Online Protection Act .
COPA violates the First Amendment right to free speech, justices say .
COPA would have kept businesses from distributing "harmful" content to minors .
In 2004 ruling, justice said parental filters are less restrictive on free speech .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has blocked the imminent release of dozens of sex offenders who have served their federal sentences after the Obama administration claimed many of them remain "sexually dangerous."

The Supreme Court has blocked the release of sex offenders  after claims they remain dangerous.

Chief Justice John Roberts on Friday ordered that the men be kept in custody while the case works its way through a federal appeals court, which had ruled as many as 77 North Carolina inmates should be released, some as early as next week.

At issue is whether the government has the power to indefinitely detain prisoners who have served their sentences but could pose a public threat upon release. Such laws are known as "civil commitments."

The Justice Department filed papers with the high court Friday, asking that any release be put on hold until the justices have more time to consider the larger legal issues raised in their appeal.

Such an early release "would pose a significant risk to the public and constitute a significant harm to the interest of the United States," wrote Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who took office this month.

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act passed by Congress in 2006 included a provision allowing indefinite confinement of sex offenders. A federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, ruled lawmakers had overstepped their authority, prompting the emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.

The law was named after the son of "America's Most Wanted" host John Walsh. The boy was kidnapped and murdered by a suspected child molester in 1981.

Four inmates brought suit against the law. They were serving sentences of up to eight years for sexual abuse of a minor or possessing child pornography. Their detention was to have ended two years ago, but corrections officials and prosecutors determined they remained a risk for further sexually deviant behavior if freed. The inmates argued such continued imprisonment violates their constitutional right of due process.

The justices' actions means the men remain behind bars for now.

The case is U.S. v. Comstock (08A863).

what does the Obama administration claim

Answer: dozens

Answer: many of them remain "sexually dangerous."

Answer: as 77

Answer: they remain dangerous.

Answer: behind bars

Answer: North Carolina

Summary:
As many as 77 North Carolina inmates are scheduled to be released .
Obama administration claims many of them remain "sexually dangerous"
The men must remain in jail for now .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has given a girl's parents the go-ahead to sue a Massachusetts school district over alleged sexual harassment by another student.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling allows a couple two avenues to pursue claims against their daughter's school district.

The justices, in a unanimous ruling, allowed the plaintiffs two avenues to make their claims -- a 1972 law banning gender bias in education and a separate civil rights law enacted 138 years ago.

Lisa and Robert Fitzgerald said their then-kindergartner daughter was forced by an older male student to lift her skirt or pull down her underwear. The parents alleged school officials ignored their concerns and refused to discipline the boy.

Federal courts had been split over whether the newer law -- known as Title IX -- displaced any claims made under part of the 1871 civil rights law, called "Section 1983." The Fitzgeralds lost their initial Title IX claims and an appeals court blocked them from pursuing the other legal strategy.

The ruling from the justices now gives the Fitzgeralds the right to continue their lawsuit against school officials.

"We hold that Section 1983 suits based on the Equal Protection Clause remain available to plaintiffs alleging unconstitutional gender discrimination in schools," Justice Samuel Alito wrote.

The plaintiffs allege the incidents happened on a school bus in Barnstable, Massachusetts, in the 2000-01 academic year. The child had told her parents that whenever she wore a dress, a third-grader would make her do things she did not want to do.

After the mother complained to school officials, the boy denied the allegations. The principal, after interviewing other students and the bus driver, concluded she could not corroborate the girl's version of events.

The principal suggested the girl be transferred to another bus as a possible solution. The Fitzgeralds said that amounted to punishing their daughter and said the boy was the one who should be transferred.

The local police department also looked into the case but concluded there was insufficient evidence to bring criminal charges against the boy.

The parents began driving the girl to school and filed a lawsuit, claiming the schools system's response was inadequate.

School officials denied wrongdoing and tried to limit the case to Title IX, which applies to public or private schools receiving federal aid. The law is credited, among other things, with helping bring equality in sports participation and funding for college women.

"Our concern was that the school district just didn't take things as seriously as they should," said Charles Rothfeld, attorney for the Fitzgeralds. "They were frustrated by what they perceived as indifference by the school."

Rothfeld said the school's behavior was "pretty egregious."

Barnstable school officials did not respond to a request for comment.

The case is Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Cmte. (07-1125).

Who was sexually harassed on the school bus?

Answer: Massachusetts

Answer: then-kindergartner daughter

Summary:
Parents allege older boy sexually harassed daughter on school bus .
Parents: School district ignored our concerns, refused to discipline the boy .
U.S. Supreme Court: Parents can sue school district .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has granted a condemned Georgia inmate's request that his execution be delayed as he attempts to prove his innocence. Troy Davis has always maintained his innocence in the 1989 killing of Officer Mark MacPhail. The inmate, Troy Davis, has gained international support for his long-standing claim that he did not murder a Savannah police officer nearly two decades ago. Justice John Paul Stevens on Monday ordered a federal judge to "receive testimony and make findings of fact as to whether evidence that could not have been obtained at trial clearly establishes petitioner's innocence." Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer supported the decision. Sonia Sotomayor, who was sworn in August 8 as the newest member of the high court, did not take part in the petition. Davis' case has had a dramatic series of ups and downs in the past year. He was granted a stay of execution by the Supreme Court two hours before he was to be put to death last fall. A month later, the justices reversed course and allowed the execution to proceed, but a federal appeals court then issued another stay. The high court's latest ruling means Davis will continue to sit on death row. Stevens said the risk of putting a potentially innocent man to death "provides adequate justification" for another evidentiary hearing. His supporters in June delivered petitions bearing about 60,000 signatures to Chatham County, Georgia, District Attorney Larry Chisolm, calling for a new trial. Chisolm is the county's first African-American district attorney. Davis is also African-American. Davis has always maintained his innocence in the 1989 killing of Officer Mark MacPhail. Witnesses said Davis, then 19, and two others were harassing a homeless man in a Burger King restaurant parking lot when the off-duty officer arrived to help the man. Witnesses testified at trial that Davis then shot MacPhail twice and fled. But since his 1991 conviction, seven of the nine witnesses against him have recanted their testimony. No physical evidence was presented linking Davis to the killing of the policeman. The Georgia Pardons and Parole Board last year held closed-door hearings and reinterviewed the witnesses and Davis himself. The panel decided against clemency. MacPhail's mother, Annaliese, told CNN at the time, "This is what we were hoping for, and I hope pretty soon that we will have some peace and start our life, especially my grandchildren -- my grandson and granddaughter. It has overshadowed their lives." After the justices in October refused to grant a stay of execution, Davis' sister, Martina Correia, told CNN she was "disgusted" by the decision. "It doesn't make any sense," she said. "We are praying for a miracle or some kind of intervention. We will regroup and fight. We will never stop fighting. We just can't be discouraged. The fight is not over till it's over." Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas objected to the court's decision Monday, calling it a "fool's errand." "Petitioner's claim is a sure loser," wrote Scalia. "Transferring his petition to the [federal] District Court is a confusing exercise that can serve no purpose except to delay the state's execution of its lawful criminal judgment." Ten days after the high court refused last October to intervene, a federal appeals court in Georgia granted a temporary stay of execution. Since then, further appeals by Davis' legal team have dragged on for nearly a year. Prominent figures ranging from the pope to the musical group Indigo Girls have asked Georgia to grant Davis a new trial. Other supporters include celebrities Susan Sarandon and Harry Belafonte; world leaders such as former President Jimmy Carter and former Archbishop Desmond Tutu; and former and current U.S. lawmakers Bob Barr, Carol Moseley Braun and John Lewis.

What crime did Davis commit in 1991?
Who will sit on death row
what did he commit
Who will continue to sit on death row?
What was Davis convicted of?
Who objected to the court's decision?

Answer: to the killing of the policeman.

Answer: Troy Davis

Answer: killing of Officer Mark MacPhail.

Answer: Davis

Answer: murder

Answer: Martina Correia,

Summary:
Supreme Court's latest ruling means Troy Davis will continue to sit on death row .
Davis was convicted in 1991 of murdering a Savannah, Georgia, police officer .
Since his conviction, 7 of 9 witnesses against him have recanted their testimony .
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas objected to the court's decision .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday lifted sanctions placed on the Navy over its underwater sonar testing, a setback for environmental groups that claimed the warfare technology was harming whales and other marine mammals. An endangered blue whale surfaces off the coast of Southern California in July. At issue in the 5-4 ruling was whether the Navy's need to conduct exercises to protect the country from enemy submarines outweighed concerns raised by environmental groups. The case focused on whether the president had the power to issue executive waivers allowing such tests and whether federal judges can issue preliminary injunctions blocking them. The high court ultimately sided with claims of national security over environmental concerns. Those environmental interests, said Chief Justice John Roberts for the majority, "are plainly outweighed by the Navy's need to conduct realistic training exercises to ensure that it is able to neutralize the threat posed by enemy submarines." Roberts said a lower federal court "abused its discretion" by imposing a 2,200-yard perimeter for testing and ordering a shutdown of sonar use during surfacing exercises. But in dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned that the ecological damage was significant. "This likely harm cannot be lightly dismissed," she said, "even in the face of an alleged risk to the effectiveness of the Navy's 14 training exercises." Justices David Souter, Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens also questioned the Navy's arguments. The exercises have continued while the case was under appeal. Environmentalists had sued the Pentagon over the practice, and a federal judge ordered major changes to the Navy's annual offshore training exercises in March. President Bush had issued an emergency waiver to allow the exercises to go on without the filing of an environmental impact study, but the lower court ruling blocked the use of sonar. That federal judge, in ruling against the government last March, said it was "constitutionally suspect" for Bush to issue the national security exemption to allow skipping the impact study. Military officials argued that the restrictions could hamper readiness in time of war, because new sonar technology is needed to detect increasingly sophisticated enemy submarines. "This case was vital to our Navy and nation's security, and we are pleased with the Supreme Court's decision in this matter," Navy Secretary Donald Winter said. "We can now continue to train our sailors effectively, under realistic combat conditions." One of the environmental organizations that sued the Defense Department told the justices that the exercises had been planned in advance and that the Navy was required under law to conduct more extensive environmental tests than it had. The waters of southern California are home to dozens of species of whales, dolphins, seals and sea lions, nine of them federally listed as endangered or threatened. Federal courts have cited scientific studies and the Navy's own conclusions that high levels of sonar can cause hearing loss and disorientation in the animals. In February, the U.S. Navy demonstrated for CNN its onboard procedures for turning down mid-frequency sonar when whales come within 1,000 meters and shutting it off completely when they approach 200 meters. The sonar sounds like a "ping, ping" noise, and it can be reduced as necessary, officers said. But environmentalists say that the sonar can hurt whales much farther than 1,000 meters away and that the noise created by the sonar "was like having a jet engine in the Supreme Court multiplied 2,000 times, compensating for water," attorney Richard Kendall told the justices. Reacting to the ruling, Kendall said, "It is gratifying that the court did not accept the Navy's expansive claims of executive power and that two-thirds of the injunction remain in place." In 2000, 16 whales beached themselves in the Bahamas, and the Navy concluded that too many sonar ships had been operating in a narrow underwater channel. The service says it is funding $16 million in independent research to minimize sonar's effect on marine mammals.

Can sound waves permanently harm sea mammals?

Answer: to conduct exercises to protect the country from enemy submarines outweighed concerns raised by environmental groups.

Answer: cause hearing loss and disorientation in the animals.

Answer: 5-4 ruling

Answer: combat conditions."

Summary:
NEW: Navy secretary says ruling allows sailors to train under "realistic" conditions .
By 5-4 vote, Supreme Court allows Navy exercises in whale habitat .
Sound waves can permanently harm sea mammals, environmentalists argue .
Fleet's safety and need to train trump concern for whales, chief justice writes .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court voiced deep free speech concerns Tuesday about a law designed to stop the sale and marketing of videos showing dog fights and other acts of animal cruelty. Selling depictions of animal cruelty like this amateur dogfighting video may be illegal under a 1999 statute. The justices heard an hour of lively debate about the scope and intent of the decade-old statute that supporters say has done much to stop the spread of profiting from the torture and abuse of animals. But media groups and the National Rifle Association were among those who say the law is overly broad. "It's not up to the government to decide what are people's worst instincts," said Justice Antonin Scalia. "One can contemplate a lot of other areas, where government could say: You are appealing to people's worst instincts, and, therefore, movies cannot be made" showing dramatized depictions of animals being abused, for example. "What about people who like to see human sacrifices?" asked Justice Samuel Alito, somewhat sarcastically. "Suppose that is legally taking place someplace in the world. I mean, people here would probably love to see it. Live, pay-per-view, you know, on the Human Sacrifice Channel. They have a point of view they want to express. That's okay?" He seemed to indicate strongly it was not, and that lawmakers would have discretion to block it. The specific case before the court dealt with tapes showing pit bull dogs attacking other animals and one another in staged confrontations. Watch an excerpt of the tapes » A federal appeals court had thrown out the conviction of Robert Stevens, a Pittsville, Virginia, man who sold videos through his "Dogs of Velvet and Steel" business. According to court records, undercover federal agents found he was advertising his tapes in "Sporting Dog Journal," an underground magazine on illegal dogfighting. Among the products Stevens advertised was "Catch Dogs," featuring pit bulls chasing wild boars on organized hunts and a "gruesome depiction of a pit bull attacking the lower jaw of a domestic farm pig," according to the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania-based appeals court. Stevens was charged in 2004 with violating interstate commerce laws by selling depictions of animal cruelty. He was later sentenced to 37 months in prison, and promptly appealed. He argued his sentence was longer than the 14 months given professional football player Michael Vick, who ran an illegal dogfighting ring. It was the first prosecution in the United States to proceed to trial under the 1999 law. The divided appeals court concluded that when it came to the federal law in question, "research and empirical evidence in the record before us simply does not support the notion that banning depictions of animal cruelty is a necessary or even particularly effective means of prosecuting underlying acts of animal cruelty." Nearly every state and local jurisdiction have their own laws banning mistreatment of wild and domesticated animals. Several media organizations have come out in support of Stevens, worrying the federal law was too broad and could implicate reports about deer hunting, and depictions of bull-fighting in Ernest Hemingway novels. A number of justices too had concerns, raising a number of hypotheticals, a possible sign a majority of the court remains uncomfortable with allowing the law to be reinstated. "Why not do a simpler thing?" suggested Justice Stephen Breyer. "Rather than let the public guess as to what these words mean, ask Congress to write a statute that actually aims at those frightful things that it was trying to prohibit. Now, that can be done." "You have to look at the content to determine whether or not the speech is prohibited," said Chief Justice John Roberts. "How can you tell these aren't political videos? With organizations like PETA [People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals] and others, depictions of the same sort of animal cruelty that is used to generate support for efforts to prohibit it. Why aren't these videos the exact opposite of efforts to legalize it?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned the distinction between Stevens

how long did the judges listen to the debate

What will the statue help stop, according to supporters?

what do the media groups say about the law?

Answer: an hour

Answer: the sale and marketing of videos showing dog fights and other acts of animal cruelty.

Answer: 1999

Answer: decade-old

Answer: is overly broad.

Answer: overly broad.

Summary:
The justices heard an hour of debate about scope and intent of decade-old statute .
Statute supporters say it helps stop profiting from the torture and abuse of animals .
Media groups, National Rifle Association say the law is overly broad .
Case is first prosecution in the United States to go to trial under the 1999 law .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court will decide whether it is cruel and unusual punishment for young criminal offenders to be sentenced to life in prison with parole. Joe Sullivan, now 33, was convicted of burglary and rape when he was 13. He is serving life without parole. The justices agreed without comment Monday to accept appeals from two Florida inmates convicted as teenagers of criminal offenses. Oral arguments will be heard in the fall. One of the men is Joe Sullivan, 33, serving a life term without the possibility of parole in a Florida prison while confined to a wheelchair. He was sentenced for a rape committed when he was 13. The man's lawyers say he is one of only two people his age in the world who was tried as an adult and sentenced to "die in prison" for a non-homicide. The justices also accepted a case dealing with Terrance Graham, who was 17 when he took part in a violent home-invasion robbery while on parole for another felony. Outside a death-penalty context, the high court has offered little recent guidance on how to treat the youngest of underage criminal defendants. The appellate record for rapists younger than 15 is almost nonexistent, legal experts say. Child legal advocates say many states lack adequate resources to handle young inmates given long sentences, including a lack of proper jailhouse counseling. Few studies have been conducted on the psychological effects of young defendants facing life in prison at such a young age, said the Equal Justice Institute, which is representing Sullivan's high court case. "We have created a forgotten population with a lot of needs," said Bryan Stevenson, Sullivan's lawyer. The crime happened in 1989, when, Sullivan admitted, he and two friends ransacked a home on Seabrook Street in West Pensacola. But he denied the prosecutor's claim that he returned with a knife and sexually assaulted the 72-year-old female homeowner. An older co-defendant claimed that Sullivan was the rapist. After a daylong trial, Escambia County Circuit Judge Nicholas Geeker sentenced Sullivan to life without parole. "I am going to try to send him away for as long as I can. He is beyond help," the judge said. "The juvenile system has been utterly incapable of doing anything with Mr. Sullivan." Sullivan, who had a lengthy juvenile record, continues to deny that he committed the attack. At the time, state prosecutor Larry Kaden -- who retired this year -- said, "It was a brutal crime, and he had an extensive record. This was a bad, bad crime." The Florida attorney general's office told the high court that prosecutors should have the discretion they have long been given to decide how harshly young criminals should be prosecuted. Sexual battery remains a crime punishable by life imprisonment in Florida. A study by the nonprofit Equal Justice Initiative found eight prisoners serving life terms for crimes committed at age 13, all in the United States. Among them is another Florida inmate, Ian Manuel, who was 13 when convicted of attempted murder and robbery in 1990. The Justice Department reports that no 13-year-old has been given life without parole for a non-homicide in a decade. And although about a thousand people under 15 are arrested for rape every year, none has been given life without parole since Sullivan. Only a handful of states -- including Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico and Oregon -- prohibit sentencing minors to life without a chance for parole, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The Equal Justice Initiative says 19 states have laws allowing the possibility of life without parole for those younger than 14. In 2005, the Supreme Court banned the death penalty for underage killers. The justices cited evolving "national standards" as a reason to ban such executions. Sullivan is in deteriorating health from multiple sclerosis and is confined to "close management" for dangerous or trouble-prone inmates, state corrections officials say. His lawyers admit that he has had more than a 100 incidents of fighting and threatening inmates and guards, plus

Joe Sullivan committed his crime at age?

What do attorneys say about life without parole?

At what age was Joe Sullivan when he committed his crime?

Answer: 1990.

Answer: two Florida inmates convicted as teenagers of criminal offenses.

Answer: 13.

Answer: many states lack adequate resources to handle young inmates given long sentences, including a lack of proper jailhouse counseling. Few studies have been conducted on the psychological effects of young defendants facing

Answer: United States.

Answer: 13.

Summary:
Justices will hear appeals of two Florida inmates sentenced as teens .
Joe Sullivan committed his crime at age 13; Terrance Graham was 17 .
Attorneys say life without parole is too harsh a punishment for young offenders .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Taliban in Afghanistan -- whose government was toppled by U.S.-led forces after the September 11 attacks in 2001 -- has strengthened its military and technical capabilities even while suffering heavy combat losses, says a State Department report released Wednesday. Afghan policemen stand Wednesday outside the ruins of a house destroyed during clashes with Taliban insurgents. "The Taliban-led insurgency remained a capable, determined, and resilient threat to stability and to the expansion of government authority, particularly in the Pashtun south and east," according to the "Country Reports on Terrorism 2007." The Taliban's information operations have become "increasingly aggressive and sophisticated," and their ability to obtain al Qaeda support and recruit soldiers from the Taliban base of rural Pashtuns is "undiminished," the report says. But new civilian-military counterinsurgency approaches in the east, particularly Nangarhar, have begun to yield successes, the report says. The Taliban is funding its terror activities with money from supporters in neighboring Pakistan and from narcotics trafficking and kidnappings. Kidnappings of foreigners have increased, the report says. The group also has increased its use of improvised explosive devices, and suicide bombings have become more frequent and more deadly, it says. Quoting U.N.-compiled figures, the State Department said terrorists launched about 140 suicide-bomb attacks in 2007. The number of terror attacks in Afghanistan increased from 969 in 2006 to 1,127 last year, and the number of people killed, injured or kidnapped as the result of terrorism rose from 3,557 in 2006 to 4,673 in 2007, the report says. In the face of attacks by the Taliban and related groups on coalition forces and others, Afghanistan has struggled to build a stable, democratic government. However, it has taken steps to build strong relationships with neighboring Pakistan and address problems such as poverty that help fuel terrorism, the report says. The Program for Strengthening Peace and Reconciliation has persuaded more than 5,000 Taliban members and other insurgents to stop their lives of violence, it says. The shifting situation in Afghanistan prompted the top U.S. military officer to say in early April that he is "deeply concerned" about the situation there, and that maintaining troops in Iraq is harming overall U.S. military capabilities. "The Taliban is growing bolder, suicide attacks are on the rise, and so is the trade in illegal narcotics," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the United States needs more troops to hold areas of southern Afghanistan -- the region of highest concern -- and to train local army and police personnel. The two men testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. The United States recently sent an additional 3,500 troops to Afghanistan, but commanders in the region would like 10,000 to 12,000 more, Gates said. He said he doubted NATO would make up the difference. Although 25 NATO allies and 13 other countries have contributed forces, the bulk of the recent fighting in Afghanistan has been done by U.S., Canadian, British and Dutch troops. Canadian troops are based in the southern province of Kandahar, once a Taliban stronghold. E-mail to a friend

What did the number of terrorist attacks increase to last year?

Who is called a determined threat to Afghan stability?

Answer: number of terror attacks in Afghanistan

Answer: supporters in neighboring Pakistan and

Answer: military and technical capabilities

Answer: has strengthened its military and technical capabilities

Answer: Taliban

Answer: 1,127

Answer: "The Taliban-led insurgency

Answer: supporters in neighboring Pakistan

Answer: stability and to the expansion of government authority,

Summary:
State Department report: Taliban military, technical capabilities stronger .
Taliban called a determined threat to Afghan stability .
Funding comes from Pakistan supporters, narcotics trafficking, abductions .
Number of terror attacks increased from 969 in 2006 to 1,127 last year .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Transportation Security Administration is looking into a report that Louisiana Sen. David Vitter had an angry altercation with an airline worker at Washington Dulles International Airport last week.

Louisiana Sen. David Vitter reportedly went into a "tirade" with a Washington Dulles International Airport worker.

The agency is not doing a formal investigation, TSA spokesman Sterling Payne told CNN, but it is gathering information to determine if one is needed.

"We are looking into the reported incident," Payne said.

An aide to Vitter said Friday morning the Republican senator had not been contacted by the TSA and maintains the media account of the incident is overblown.

Roll Call had a report in its gossip column earlier this week, based on an unnamed eyewitness, that Vitter arrived at the airport 20 minutes before his United Airlines flight was scheduled to depart.

The door to the boarding bridge was already closed, but Vitter opened it anyway, triggering an alarm. The paper said an airline worker warned him not to enter the walkway, which led to a "tirade" by Vitter who "remained defiant."

The source told Roll Call the senator left the area before airport police arrived.

Vitter has refused to answer reporters' questions about the incident, but in a statement Wednesday described his actions more innocently and the Roll Call report "silly."

"After being delayed on the Senate floor ensuring a vote on my anti-pay raise amendment and in a rush to make my flight home for town hall meetings the next day, I accidentally went through the wrong door at the gate," he said. "I did have a conversation with an airline employee, but it was certainly not like this silly gossip column made it out to be."

Vitter has been the subject of unwelcome headlines before. In 2007, he was linked to a Washington, D.C., prostitution ring. He denied allegations he had relationships with prostitutes, but apologized for "a very serious sin."

Joel DiGrado, Vitter's spokesman, said the congressman would not comment further on the issue.

CNN's Mike Ahlers contributed to this report.

Who did the reportedly have an angry confrontation with?

Answer: Sen. David Vitter had an angry altercation with an airline worker

Answer: TSA

Answer: has refused to answer reporters' questions

Answer: had an angry altercation

Answer: the media account of the incident

Answer: information

Answer: David Vitter

Answer: Washington Dulles International Airport worker.

Summary:
TSA gathers information about alleged incident involving Louisiana Sen. David Vitter .
Vitter reportedly had angry confrontation with airport worker .
Vitter says media account of incident is overblown .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Air Force is grounding more than 100 planes used to support ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan because of fatigue cracks in the wings, Air Force officials said Friday.

Aircraft like this A-10 Warthog provide close support to ground troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The officials said 127 A-10 Thunderbolt IIs, including some used in the United States, will be grounded until they are each inspected for the cracks.

"The inspections are a necessary step in addressing the risk associated with A-10 wing cracking, specifically with thin-skin wings. This risk is of great concern to the Air Force and is representative of a systemic problem for our aging Air Force fleet," the Air Force said.

The A-10 Thunderbolt II, nicknamed the "Warthog" because of its unique un-aerodynamic look, is one of the Air Force's older aircraft, having first been delivered to the service in 1975. The average age of the A-10 fleet is now 28 years, but the entire Air Force fleet has an average age of 25 years, according to Air Force statistics.

The Air Force has more than 400 A-10s in its fleet. The cracks in the older A-10 A-models and A-10 C-models were discovered at Hill Air Force Base in Utah during routine maintenance.

No A-10 has had an accident because of the cracks just discovered, according to Air Force officials.

The inspection of the 127 planes will give priority to the planes in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of battle, officials said.

The plane was designed as a tank killer, with a front-mounted Gatling gun that fires 30-mm armor-piercing ammunition capable of destroying a tank.

The planes are now primarily used in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect ground troops in close combat situations, flying low and slow and with the ability to target individuals hidden on mountainsides or rooftops.

Last year, the Air Force grounded hundreds of F-15 fighter jets after one fell apart during a training mission.

The culprit was a fatigued longeron, a part that holds the fuselage together. Numerous F-15s flying in Iraq and Afghanistan also were grounded until they were inspected, forcing the service to fly other aircraft in their place. The Navy was also asked to help cover the F-15 missions during the weeks they were grounded.

What is the reasoning behind the grounding?

Answer: fatigue cracks in the wings,

Answer: fatigue

Answer: 28 years,

Answer: Iraq

Answer: Iraq and Afghanistan

Answer: 127 A-10 Thunderbolt IIs,

Answer: A-10 Thunderbolt IIs,

Summary:
127 A-10 Thunderbolt IIs will be grounded because of fatigue cracks in wings .
A-10s first delivered to Air Force in 1975; average age is 28 years .
None of the cracks has been attributed to accidents .
Planes used in Iraq, Afghanistan to protect ground troops in close combat situations .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced Wednesday that laboratory tests on popular smoking devices known as electronic cigarettes have found they contain carcinogens and other toxic chemicals dangerous to humans. E-cigarettes are battery-operated and contain cartridges filled with nicotine and other chemicals. Known as "e-cigarettes," the devices are battery-operated and contain cartridges filled with nicotine and other chemicals, spiced with flavors such as chocolate, cola or bubble gum. While manufacturers tout e-cigarettes as a "healthy way" to smoke, federal health officials say the devices turn nicotine, which is highly addictive, and other chemicals into a vapor that is inhaled by the user. "The FDA is concerned about the safety of these products and how they are marketed to the public," said Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, commissioner of the FDA. CNN contacted Florida-based Smoking Everywhere, one of the largest manufacturers of e-cigarettes, after the FDA announcement, and a spokeswoman said the company had no comment. Because e-cigarettes have not been submitted to the FDA for evaluation or approval, the agency had no way of knowing the levels of nicotine or the amounts or kinds of other chemicals that the various brands of these products deliver to the user. That is why the FDA began to test them. The FDA's Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis analyzed the ingredients in a small sample of cartridges from two leading brands of e-cigarettes. In releasing its information, the FDA did not identify the two companies, but said in one sample, diethylene glycol -- a chemical used in antifreeze that is toxic to humans -- was detected. Other samples detected carcinogens that are dangerous to those who smoke them, the FDA said. The FDA has been examining and seizing shipments of non-U.S.-made e-cigarettes at the U.S. border since summer 2008. To date, 50 shipments have been stopped. The products examined thus far meet the definition of a combination drug-device product under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. "We know very little about these devices, said Dr. Jonathan Samet, director of the Institute for Global Health at the University of Southern California, "but to say they are healthy -- that's highly doubtful." Samet and other health experts attended the FDA announcement on its findings. Dr. Jonathan Winickoff, chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics Tobacco Consortium, said parents need to be aware of e-cigarettes. "It is very important that parents let their children know these are not safe and to make recommendations, or even enforce rules that they not be used," he said. "Children who use these products may also be using other tobacco products," said Dr. Matthew McKenna, director of the Office of Smoking and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "It's a good idea to make sure the child is aware of the dangers of tobacco in products in general." The FDA has been challenged regarding its jurisdiction over certain e-cigarettes in a case pending in federal court. The FDA suggested health care professionals and consumers report serious side effects or product quality problems with the use of e-cigarettes to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting Program either online, by regular mail, fax or phone. CNN's Valerie Willingham contributed to this report.

What did the FDA lab test find on e-cigarettes?

What is battery operated and contains cartridges filled with nicotine and chemicals?

Answer: they contain carcinogens and other toxic chemicals dangerous to humans.

Answer: contain carcinogens and other toxic chemicals dangerous to humans.

Answer: E-cigarettes

Answer: a vapor

Summary:
FDA lab tests on e-cigarettes find carcinogens and other toxic chemicals .
E-cigarettes are battery operated, contain cartridges filled with nicotine, chemicals .
They turn nicotine, chemicals into a vapor that is inhaled by the user .
Product had not been submitted to the FDA for evaluation or approval .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a resolution Friday that says it supports "all Iranians who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law." Throngs in Tehran cheer Thursday for defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi, center. The resolution was approved by 405 lawmakers, while one -- Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas -- voted against it. Two others, Reps. Brad Ellsworth, D-Indiana, and Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, voted "present." In a statement on his Web site, Paul said he voted against the measure because he is "always very cautious about 'condemning' the actions of governments overseas." "I have always hesitated when my colleagues rush to pronounce final judgment on events thousands of miles away about which we know very little," said Paul, who attracted attention last year during his unsuccessful bid for the Republican presidential nomination. "And we know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran." The resolution, which also "condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators," was sponsored by Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, D-California, and two Republicans, Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia. Speaking shortly after the resolution passed, Pence called it a message from Americans to the Iranian people. "As Americans have done throughout our history, this Congress today, on behalf of the American people, has spoken a word of heartfelt support to all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law," he said. He urged U.S. senators to support the identical resolution that Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, introduced Friday. Both Pence and McCain have been outspoken in their criticism of President Obama's response to massive rallies in Iran against the results of last week's presidential election.  Watch as Obama walks a fine line » Supporters of Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Moussavi have taken to the streets this week calling for a new election after the results of the June 12 vote showed an overwhelming victory for hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The rallies also have denounced the Iranian government's crackdown on the protests in which at least eight people have died. Obama has said he is "deeply troubled" by the violence, but he has avoided siding with Ahmadinejad's opponents, telling reporters, "It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be." "It's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling, the U.S. president meddling in Iranian elections," Obama said this week. But several Republicans, particularly McCain -- Obama's opponent in last year's presidential race -- have criticized the administration's position. McCain introduced a resolution on the Senate floor Friday morning that he said would be "an expression of support by the government and the people of the United States of America" for those protesting the election results. "It is unfortunate in a way that this resolution is required since the administration does not want to 'meddle' and has refused, the president has refused to speak out in support of these brave Iranian citizens, most of them young, who are risking their very lives to protest what was clearly an unfair and corrupt election," McCain told his fellow senators.  Watch what else McCain said about Obama » The resolution passed Friday states that the House: On Thursday, Cantor joined the critics of the White House, saying the United States has a "moral responsibility" to condemn attacks on protesters. "The administration's position that what's going on in Iran is a 'vigorous debate' is absurd," he said. "People are being brutalized and murdered by the regime in Tehran. We have no idea exactly how many have died or have been seriously injured since the regime has restricted journalists. In no way do these actions constitute a 'vigorous debate.' " Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House

Who offered a similar resolution in the Senate?

Who offered the resolution in the Senate?

Who said that, we know very little about what is happening in Iran?

Answer: Sen.

Answer: Sen. John McCain,

Answer: President Obama's response to massive rallies in Iran

Answer: 405

Answer: meddling in Iranian elections,"

Answer: The U.S. House of Representatives

Answer: Rep. Ron Paul,

Summary:
NEW: Lone dissenter: "We know very little ... about what is happening in Iran"
House votes 405-1 for resolution supporting democracy in Iran .
Republican Sen. John McCain offers similar resolution in Senate .
McCain, other Republicans criticize President Obama's warning against "meddling"


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Marine commander on Wednesday warned of a "growing" insurgent threat in Afghanistan, but he said forces would have to be cut in Iraq to send more Marines to Afghanistan. Marines could be pulled from Iraq's Anbar province, Gen. James Conway said Wednesday. "To do more in Afghanistan, our Marines have got to see relief elsewhere," said Gen. James Conway in a briefing for Pentagon reporters. Conway said the Corps' two regimental combat teams -- about 10,000 Marines -- in Iraq's Anbar province could be removed as there are only two or three insurgent attacks a day in what was once the hotbed of the Iraqi insurgency. The U.S.-led coalition is scheduled to hand over security control in Anbar to Iraqi troops next week. Despite the progress, Conway said, he doesn't expect any decisions on troop withdrawals until Gen. David Petraeus -- the head of the U.S. military in Iraq -- makes his recommendations on troop deployment in Iraq to President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates. There are more than 3,000 Marines in Afghanistan, and Conway said that the Marine Corps would be willing to help bolster the fight against the Taliban in that country. "I think that a battalion of Marines in Afghanistan count for more than a battalion of Marines in Iraq, if you will, just in terms of the impact that they can have," he said.

Where could the Marines have a greater effect?

What area did Conway claim should be focused on?

What type of ground troops are mentioned here?

How many attacks a day are there in Anbar?

How many attacks are taking place in Anbar?

What did Gen. James Conway say about attacks?

Who would have a greater effect in Afghanistan?

Answer: Iraq's

Answer: "To do more in Afghanistan, our Marines have got to see relief elsewhere,"

Answer: Afghanistan,

Answer: Afghanistan,

Answer: Iraq's Anbar province,

Answer: Marines

Answer: two or three

Answer: Gen.

Answer: two or three

Answer: forces would have to be cut in Iraq to send more Marines to Afghanistan.

Answer: a battalion of Marines

Summary:
Marines in Iraq's once-volatile Anbar province could leave, general says .
Anbar attacks down to a few a day, Gen. James Conway says .
Marines could have greater effect in Afghanistan, Conway says .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Navy has moved the guided-missile destroyer USS Cole and other ships to the eastern Mediterranean Sea off Lebanon, Pentagon officials said Thursday. A file image of the USS Cole, which the U.S. Navy moved to the Mediterranean Sea off Lebanon. The deployment comes amid a political standoff over Lebanon's presidency, but the Navy would not say whether the events are linked. "It's a group of ships that will operate in the vicinity for a while and as the ships in our Navy do, the presence is important," Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday. "It isn't meant to send any stronger signal than that," he said. "But it does signal that we're engaged and we are going to be in the vicinity, and that's a very important part of the world." The Cole was badly damaged by an al Qaeda bombing during a port call in Yemen in 2000, killing 17 sailors. It returned to service in 2002. The destroyer and two support ships are close to Lebanon but out of visual range of the coast, Pentagon officials said. Another six vessels, led by the amphibious assault ship USS Nassau, are close to Italy and steaming toward the other three, the officials said. Mullen would not say whether the deployment has anything to do with the upcoming Lebanese parliamentary vote on a new president, which was postponed for a 15th time earlier this week. But he said the vote was "important," and Washington was waiting for it to take place. And a Bush administration official told CNN the decision to move ships to the region was a message to neighboringSyria that "the U.S. is concerned about the situation in Lebanon, and we want to see the situation resolved." "We are sending a clear message for the need for stability," said the official, who was not authorized to speak for publication. The ships "should be there a while," the official added. Lebanon's pro-Western majority in parliament and the pro-Syrian opposition have battled for power over the last three years. The country has been without a president since November, when pro-Syrian leader Emile Lahoud's term expired and parliament was unable to agree on a replacement. Despite general agreement among the factions to award the post to army chief Gen. Michel Suleiman, disagreements over how to share power in a future Cabinet have kept the issue from coming up for a vote. Parliament speaker Nabih Berri's office announced Tuesday that the next planned session has been pushed back to March 11. Berri's office said the Arab League needed more time to break the deadlock. Lebanon has been wracked by a sometimes-violent power struggle since the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, whose supporters blamed Damascus for his killing. The resulting outcry eventually drove Syrian forces out of Lebanon, where they had been stationed since the 1970s. E-mail to a friend CNN Correspondent Zain Verjee contributed to this report.

Who do the majority in parliament struggle with?

Answer: pro-Syrian opposition

Answer: Mike Mullen,

Answer: Adm. Mike Mullen,

Answer: moved the guided-missile destroyer USS Cole and other ships to

Answer: The U.S.

Answer: "We are sending a clear message for the need for stability,"

Summary:
U.S. Navy makes move amid a political standoff over Lebanon's presidency .
The presence is important," says chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff .
Lebanon's pro-Western majority in parliament struggles with pro-Syrian opposition .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Navy is having hundreds of its older F/A-18 fighter jets inspected, including some flying operations over Afghanistan, for cracks in part of a wing assembly, officials said Friday. Inspectors looking at F/A-18 fighter jets have found 15 with stress crack problems on the wings. Some 636 F/A-18 A through D model Hornets in both the Navy and the Marine Corps are being inspected for stress cracks on a hinge connecting the aileron to the flaps on the back side of the wings, according to Navy spokesmen. Inspectors started looking at the planes Thursday and have found 15 aircrafts with the problem. A panel on the wing can be swapped out with a new one to get rid of the problem. The Navy is still looking at the hinge in question to see whether the problem is severe enough to ground the Hornets and come up for a permanent fix for the hinge. Navy officials said there are no immediate plans to ground the 636 planes. This month, a post-flight inspection of one F/A-18 found a crack, and it was determined to be systemic enough to warrant an inspection of the older F/A-18s, according to Navy officials. The Navy also flies the Super Hornet, a newer version of the F/A-18. That plane is not part of this inspection. Navy flight operations around the world will not be interrupted because of the inspections, officials said.

What model Hornets are being inspected for stress cracks?

How many planes were discovered to have a problem?

What did  Navy officials say about the plans for the planes?

Who said there are no immediate plans to ground the planes?

When did inspectors begin to look at the planes?

Did Air Force officials also plan to ground planes?

How many models have been found with problems?

Answer: F/A-18.

Answer: 15

Answer: no immediate

Answer: Navy officials

Answer: Thursday

Answer: stress cracks

Answer: the 636

Answer: said there are no immediate plans to ground the 636 planes.

Answer: 15

Answer: 15

Summary:
636 F/A-18 A through D model Hornets being inspected for stress crack .
Inspectors started looking at planes Thursday and have found 15 with problem .
Navy officials said there are no immediate plans to ground the planes .


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Navy released nine of the 16 suspected pirates it was holding on a ship for the last few weeks, according to defense officials. The U.S. Navy apprehends suspected pirates February 12 in the Gulf of Arden. The pirates were released because the Navy did not have enough evidence to hand them over to Kenya for prosecution in court, in accordance with a recent agreement between the United States and Kenya, the officials explained. The nine were brought into Somali waters and then handed over to the Puntland coast guard. Puntland is the self-proclaimed Somali state that includes the point of the horn of Africa. The suspected pirates were detained by the Navy after the captain of the Indian-flagged ship Premdivya broadcast a distress call to all ships in the area that it had come under attack by a small boat. The Navy saw a small boat meeting the description given by the Premdivya, and the occupants were detained and moved to the nearby USS Vella Gulf, where they were held.

The Navy lacked what to hand over suspects to Kenya?

How many people were brought into Somali waters?

How many people were brought into Somali waters and handed to the Coast Guard?

Answer: evidence

Answer: were released because the Navy did not have enough evidence

Answer: nine

Answer: enough evidence to hand them over to Kenya for prosecution in court,

Answer: suspected pirates

Answer: enough evidence to hand them over to Kenya for prosecution in court,

Answer: nine

Summary:
Navy didn't have evidence to hand suspected pirates to Kenya for prosecution .
Nine people were brought into Somali waters, handed to coast guard .
Suspected pirates were detained after a captain broadcast a distress call .
Captain said he was under attack by pirates in small boat .