TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you are given news articles and you need to generate a highlight, i.e., a short summary, with a maximum length of 10 lines.
PROBLEM: Washington (CNN) -- In what one member of Congress called "a charade," a couple that showed up at President Obama's first state dinner -- uninvited, the White House claims -- declined to answer questions surrounding the event before a House committee Wednesday. Under questioning from House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi, and others, Tareq Salahi repeated over and over again, "On the advice of counsel, I respectfully assert my right to remain silent and decline to answer your question." The Salahis' attorney notified the committee in December that because of a pending investigation by federal prosecutors, they would not answer questions about how they gained entry to the White House on November 24, despite not being on the guest list to attend that night's state dinner for the prime minister of India. In a brief statement that opened the often-contentious hearing, Salahi chastised the committee for requiring the couple to appear despite having been told the two would invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if subpoenaed. That, he alleged, is against the ethical rules of the Washington bar. He incensed some committee members by reiterating the couple's respect for U.S. troops, the Secret Service and the president. "You have shown effrontery here," said Daniel Lungren, R-California. He called it "an abomination" that the Salahis would invoke the name of those in uniform "and suggest that somehow what you do provides support to them." "The Constitution protects fools," Lungren said. "The Constitution protects stupidity. The Constitution protects errant thought. Thank God it does." "This was not a hearing looking for information," the couple's attorney, Stephen Best, told reporters after the hearing. "This was an opportunity for a public flogging." "I think today's procedure is a charade," Rep. Mark Souder, R-Indiana, said in the hearing, referring to the Salahis' refusal to answer questions. Other committee members also lambasted the couple, alleging they put their own desire for celebrity before the security of the president and are wasting the committee's time and taxpayers' money. "I don't respect your right to take the Fifth Amendment. Not at all," Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., D-New Jersey, told the couple. "Were you there?" he asked Salahi, referring to the dinner. When Salahi began, "On the advice ..." Pascrell interrupted him, asking, "Are you here right now? You gonna get an answer from your attorney on that?" Pascrell noted the committee had offered to allow the couple to speak behind closed doors. After conferring with his attorney, Salahi said, "Yes, but you didn't offer us any legal protection." Salahi's wife, Michaele, also invoked her Fifth Amendment right under questioning by committee members, but replied, "yes," when asked if she would return to testify after the investigation has concluded. Asked by Thompson whether the state dinner appearance was part of a "reality TV stunt," Tareq Salahi said the couple was under a non-disclosure agreement and "should not discuss matters related to the television matter." The Salahis contend they were told they could attend the program to honor India's prime minister, but the White House says they were not invited and were not on the guest list for the exclusive affair. Best said after the hearing the couple received "representations that they relied upon" that they were invited guests. Two Secret Service investigators were privy to this information from a person who knows the Salahis, he said. "This was not a stunt, and they committed no criminal act." There was no connection to any reality TV show, he said, and the Salahis were not seeking publicity. The couple has turned down multiple offers from the media to be "rewarded handsomely," he added. "Whatever the real story is, it's on the other side of the gates of the White House, not with the Salahis," Best said. "They thought they were invited. ... If it was a misunderstanding, it was a misunderstanding caused by representatives of the government." Tareq Salahi also noted in his opening statement that the couple's attorneys have offered to provide information to the committee, but that offer was declined by Thompson's staff. "Those offers are not satisfactory," Thompson said. "These lawyers were not at the state dinner and have no firsthand knowledge of the facts." Tareq Salahi also said the couple has provided phone records, e-mails and other documentary evidence to the committee. There also was criticism of the White House in Wednesday's hearing. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, said the White House "continues to stonewall" and will not allow social secretary Desiree Rogers to testify on the security breach. Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs has said that allowing a White House staff member to testify before a congressional committee would violate the Constitution's separation of powers. "I don't know what the White House is trying to hide," King said. "Obviously, something went wrong, and it originated with the White House, not the Secret Service." Secret Service Director Mark Sullivan, in previous testimony before the committee, took responsibility for the security breach, acknowledging that "appropriate procedures were not followed." Rep. Charles Dent, R-Pennsylvania, said Wednesday he thought it was "unfortunate" that Sullivan "had to take all that grief from us." "I hold you responsible for it," he told the Salahis. "Your actions ... made a mockery of this country, a mockery of our security," Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, told the couple. "I'm saddened, and I'm disappointed, and I'm outraged." Best reiterated afterward the Salahis do not want the events surrounding the dinner to detract from the "extraordinary institution" of the Secret Service. "They are Americans," he said. "They are proud Americans."

SOLUTION: Tareq and Michaele Salahi decline to answer questions at congressional hearing .
House panel looking into how the couple attended state dinner in November .
White House says they weren't invited; Secret Service says procedures not followed .
Salahis' attorney says they can't answer questions because of pending investigation .

PROBLEM: Ten years ago I was one of a small number of UK lawyers who opposed the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it was illegal and unauthorised by the United Nations. We were all strong advocates of the notion that the rule of law was the bedrock of any civilised and democratic society. Without it our lives would be subject to a free for all in which might becomes right. The embodiment of the rule of law internationally has been the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- direct results of the devastation inflicted by the Nazi regime in Germany during the Second World War. No one wanted a repeat of such flagrant aggression, so the Charter was drawn up to replace gunboat diplomacy with peaceful measures overseen by the U.N. Security Council. This was not a new vision. In 1945 the U.N. Charter was ratified by the U.S., the UK, and the majority of the 50 states who had originally agreed to this framework. Thrashed out by experts and with massive support behind it, the document was no maverick, outlandish or oddball agreement. The Charter is not gobbledygook -- it is full of common sense, and it should be obligatory reading in every school. OPINION: Why Iraq War was fought for oil . Article 1 makes clear that the main purpose of the U.N. is to "maintain international peace and security and to that end to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace" and to act in accordance with justice and the principles of international law. It is for the U.N. to determine what collective measures should be taken -- not for individual states to take unilateral or bilateral action. This is not rocket science, but the simple application of restraint and respect for the rules that Britain and America agreed to when they signed the Charter. But this is not what happened 10 years ago at the behest of U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Their agenda was quite different -- to remove a dictator, Saddam Hussein, whose regime was abhorrent. But regime change, however desirable, is not permitted by the Charter. If it were, the powerful nations could go round the world picking off the weak -- or more particularly the states thought to be hostile to their own ambitions. In case some politicians found it difficult to understand all this, Article 2(4) spelled it out in unequivocal terms: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". Everyone recognised there might have to be exceptions to this rule, but the Charter specifically does not authorize preemptive nor preventative action(i.e. getting in first) on the basis of a perceived future threat. INTERACTIVE: How has the war changed you? The only way around this predicament was for the Bush-Blair axis to fabricate a case of threat. This they did by the knowing manipulation of flawed intelligence about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (which were never found), and the bogus claim that Saddam Hussein could deploy such WMD within a 45-minute window. This argument, which was false, became the main basis for invasion because the only other route to war had been closed off by international law. The U.N. has the power to authorise military intervention once all other options have been exhausted and the peace and stability of a region is in jeopardy. At the time it became a debate about whether Iraq satisfied these criteria by its failure to abide by U.N. resolutions concerning disarmament. The principal Security Council resolution 1441, adopted in November 2002, called on Iraq to disarm its WMD and cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors. The Council made clear they continued to be in charge but had not authorised the use of force in Iraq. EXCLUSIVE: Hans Blix on 'terrible mistake' in Iraq . Tony Blair insisted to the British public that he would only support a war if a second Security Council resolution authorising the action was passed, but the resolution never came. Bush and Blair realised they would never get one, and so they prepared to go it alone with a cobbled together coalition. Troops had already been committed on the ground. There was no going back. This was why Bush and Blair were not prepared to allow the weapons inspectors, who were in Iraq, any more time. Inspectors had found no evidence of WMD in the lead-up to the war and never did, but were ordered to go home. I am not alone in these views. There is a substantial consensus of international legal opinion which recognises the illegality of the invasion. Kofi Annan, then the U.N. Secretary General, told the BBC in 2004 that the Charter had been breached and that the invasion was not sanctioned by the Security Council. FULL COVERAGE: The Iraq War, 10 years on . In the UK we are still waiting for the results of a public inquiry into the circumstances in which the decision to go to war was taken. Blair never wanted this inquiry but was forced by the power of the victims' families and public opinion to accede. So far two years have gone by while the government has obstructed disclosure and publication. It is intolerable and inexcusable. I believe George W. Bush and Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes as defined by international law. In 1998 the International Criminal Court was established to deal with individuals who commit international crimes. Four transgressions were agreed -- war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the crime of aggression. Unfortunately only the first three have been brought into effect. The UK, to their credit, signed up to the court. But the U.S. did not, lest its leaders end up accused of crimes before the court. ARWA DAMON: Iraq suffocates in cloak of sorrow . Whilst the act of aggression cannot be prosecuted, war crimes committed thereafter can be. So for example to launch an attack, like the invasion of Iraq, with the knowledge that its effect is likely to cause incidental death or injury to civilians or the natural environment (Article 8) will render the perpetrator liable to prosecution. The use of cluster bombs and depleted uranium in Iraq by coalition forces (euphemistically called collateral damage) upon vulnerable civilians falls within this definition. As a result, a legal consortium of which I was a part, and other groups in Europe, petitioned the ICC for action against UK politicians over their involvement in the war. Nothing has happened. Getting U.S leaders hauled before the court is even more problematic -- the Security Council could refer Americans to the court, but the U.S. is a permanent Council member and can veto any potential referral. Alternatively individual member states could incorporate these crimes of universal jurisdiction into their own domestic law. Then if a U.S. perpetrator of war crimes travelled into that country's jurisdiction, they could be arrested. The UK has such a provision, but when put to the test by UK citizens seeking arrest warrants in relation to the planned visits of Israeli political and military leaders -- who were potentially responsible for war crimes in Gaza -- the UK government reprehensibly placed impediments in the way of its future use. So George W. Bush can safely plan a visit for tea with Tony Blair in London without fear of prosecution in the UK. The whole episode regarding the Iraq War is a tawdry tale that has subverted the rule of law and tarnished the reputation of international law. Without accountability for Western states, how can we expect the rest of world to respect these principles? It is time for Bush and Blair to be thoroughly, independently and judicially investigated for the crimes I suggest have been committed and it is time for the crime of aggression to come into force. Until this is redressed, la lotta continua!

SOLUTION: Mansfield: Bush, Blair should be tried for war crimes over invasion of Iraq .
Mansfied: Regime change is not permitted by the U.N. Charter .
Mansfield: Charter does not authorize preemptive action based on perceived threat .

PROBLEM: ROOSEVELT, New York (CNN) -- When Lisa Brown moved into her rental house on Long Island last summer with her three daughters, she says, it felt like a new beginning. Lisa Brown has to move out of her rental house because it is facing foreclosure . After living in apartments, the spacious house got her attention immediately. "It was bigger than what I had lived in," she says. Brown was also won over by the neighborhood with its tidy homes and good school district. "I wanted to come here, and I wanted to see my kids graduate from this school district." But they hardly had a chance. Instead, fighting back tears, she says, "I have to get out." Brown and her family are being evicted not because of anything they did, but because her landlord defaulted on the mortgage and the house fell into foreclosure. The house was recently sold at auction. The bad news came just seven months after Brown had moved in. A real estate broker came to the door and handed her an eviction notice, telling her she had 30 days to vacate. "I was hysterical, I was like, what do you mean?" Watch Lisa Brown's talk about why she has to move »  The broker explained that the landlord no longer owns the property and that the lease was no longer valid. Brown had no idea the house was in foreclosure.  As a tenant, she always paid her rent on time, and she assumed the rent was going toward the mortgage. "I didn't see there was a problem," she said. "You know, I'm paying rent, and she's putting it toward her mortgage, I didn't see the problem." Unfortunately, Brown is not the only tenant caught off guard. According to the Center for Housing Policy, nearly 20 percent of all foreclosures are on rental properties, and tenants' rights in such situations are minimal.   In most states, when a bank forecloses on a landlord, the tenant has no guarantee of being allowed to stay in the property, and neither the bank nor the landlord has a legal obligation to tell the tenant about the foreclosure. So while the owners know what's going on, renters are usually kept in the dark. New York State Sen. Jeff Klein is aware that renters can run into problems. "In many instances, they're actually paying their rent on time, and the owner of the property who is in foreclosure is pocketing the money," he says. Klein says rental properties are involved in 50 percent of all foreclosures in New York, and he is working on a law to warn renters of foreclosure proceedings ahead of time and to keep them from losing their security deposit and being evicted with nowhere to go. Similar laws are already in place in Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota, Maryland, Rhode Island, Michigan and California. "What we're facing here", Klein says, "is sort of the new homeless population unless we do something about it." Brown was astonished to learn that her landlord rented her the house when she knew she was losing it. "She knew that this house was foreclosing on her. She did nothing about it. Nothing, except take my money." Brown was paying $1,900 a month in rent. She had also paid $5,700 for a security deposit and broker fees to secure the house. She says that money is gone. "She will not give me my deposit back. Nothing." CNN tried to reach the owner, who lives upstairs, for comment, but her phone was disconnected, and no one answered the door. The broker who rented her the house and who was paid $1,900 says he did not know the house was in foreclosure. He also says the brokerage fee will not be returned. "It took everything I had to move in," Brown says, "to give my kids a better environment." And now, "I'm left out with nothing." Because eviction papers trump the lease, Brown has no legal right to stay. The bank that foreclosed on the house, and now owns it, offered her $1,000 to get out, but she says she's lost close to $6,000 and has nowhere to go. "If it was me, yeah I could move out and go on my own. But it's my family you're talking about, my children, my three daughters and my pets, that I brought in here thinking that we were going to stay and be happy." Brown is considering suing the owner in small-claims court to get her money back and cover moving expenses. For now, though, she says she will adjust her dreams and find another place for her family to live.

SOLUTION:
Mortgage meltdown affects renter Lisa Brown after landlord is foreclosed upon .
Brown evicted because landlord defaulted on mortgage, house fell into foreclosure.
Brown wanted a better life for her three daughters; now she must find a new home .
New York state senator working on law to warn renters of foreclosure early .