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.

Input: Consider Input: 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!

Output: 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 .


Input: Consider Input: If Mitt Romney were to write a bumper sticker slogan for the past month, it would probably be, "Detroit DID go bankrupt. Russia IS a geopolitical foe." Reality isn't quite so simple as to perfectly apply recent developments on Detroit and Russia to the American debate in 2012, but neither were Romney's arguments on the car industry and on Russia. That didn't stop Democrats and pundits from using them to beat Romney down. And it would be a good retort to Joe Biden's often-repeated 2012 bumper sticker slogan: "Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive!" Biden used the phrase to simultaneously flaunt what the Obama administration accomplished in the war on terror and hit Romney for his position against the auto bailout. Romney had different ideas than the president about the war on terror, and he also had outspoken ideas on Russia, which he told Wolf Blitzer on CNN in March of 2012 was "without question our number one geopolitical foe." His statement drew snickers in Washington and complaints in foreign policy circles that he was stuck in the Cold War. Archives: Hillary Clinton criticizes Romney's remarks on Russia . "You don't call Russia our No. 1 enemy -- not al Qaeda, Russia -- unless you're still stuck in a Cold War mind warp," President Barack Obama said at the Democratic National Convention last September. The president probably still wouldn't call Russia this country's top foe. But now that Russia has given NSA leaker Edward Snowden a year of asylum, and the two countries can't find accord on Syria or Iran, he might choose not to put the line in his convention speech. Snowden asylum could cancel planned Obama-Putin talks . "Now is the time to fundamentally rethink our relationship with Putin's Russia," Sen. John McCain said upon hearing news of Snowden's asylum. "We need to deal with the Russia that is, not the Russia we might wish for. We cannot allow today's action by [Russian President Vladimir Putin] to stand without serious repercussions." "Russia has stabbed us in the back," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat. He called on Obama to protest by demanding the upcoming G-20 summit for world economic powers be moved away from Russia. Biden's slogan, "General Motors is alive!" drew a direct contrast between the candidates on the auto bailout that Obama engineered after initial action by President George W. Bush. Romney's much-cited New York Times op-ed argued the car industry should be shepherded into a managed bankruptcy and not propped up with taxpayer dollars. The headline of Romney's op-ed in November 2008 was "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt." That headline followed him all the way to November of 2012 when he lost the election. Romney's argument in the opinion piece was directed at the car industry, but it foreshadowed last month's news that the Detroit the city, once the powerhouse of the American economy, was going bankrupt. "[W]e refused to throw in the towel and do nothing," Obama said in a video message in October of 2012. "We refused to let Detroit go bankrupt, I bet on American workers, and American ingenuity and three years later that bet is paying off in a big way." A conservative might apply the high labor costs Romney cited as part of the downfall for the auto industry to the cost of government worker pension plans that have helped put the city in trouble. How to deal with promises made to public employees is an issue Americans will face in the coming decades in places far flung from the Motor City. Hatch: After Detroit, replace public pensions . The federal government has made pretty clear there won't be any sort of bailout for the city of Detroit like there was for the auto industry that lives there. CNNMoney: Why Obama won't bail out Detroit . Campaigns are full of little moments like the Detroit and Russia storylines that may have worked against Romney. They add up. More damaging for Romney than either the Detroit op-ed or the Russia as a foe storyline was his statement to fundraisers about giving up on the 47% of Americans who would not vote for him no matter what. This week we also got the most in-depth explanation from Romney on those comments in the form of a book excerpt from Washington Post writer Dan Balz. Romney said he was misunderstood. More: Romney regrets 47% comments . Archives: Romney doesn't back away from message caught on secret tape . In politics, eight months is an eternity. It's enough time for the Romneys to welcome four new grandchildren into the world. How Detroit and Russia and the 47% factored into 2012 are interesting historical questions, but the national dialogue has moved on. Romney is retired from national politics and the pundits and press have moved on to the 2016 parlor game. Trio of potential 2016 GOP contenders heading to South Carolina .

Output: During the 2012 race, Mitt Romney was criticized for calling Russia the United States' top "geopolitical foe"
Romney was also haunted by an op-ed about the auto industry entitled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"
Now, Russia has granted temporary asylum to NSA leaker Edward Snowden and the City of Detroit is bankrupt .
But Romney was also hurt in his 2012 White House bid by other controversies like his "47 percent" comments .


Input: Consider Input: (Mashable) -- For all their buzz and value, location-based social networks haven't really gone mainstream yet. Only 7 percent of Americans are aware of location-based social networks, according to data from Edison Research. Part of the explanation for this is that the majority of mobile users aren't using smartphones. And as a result, just 10 percent of those surveyed use mobile location services at least once a week, according to the Mobile Marketing Association's latest Mobile Consumer Briefing survey. For smartphone users, like those of the iPhone (a popular device among early adopters), that number jumps all the way up to 63 percent. Still, even with smartphones predicted to overtake feature phones sometime next year, there may still be adoption hurdles for location-based social networks. Here's a look at why location-based services haven't yet hit critical mass and what those platforms are doing about it. Privacy concerns remain an issue . Kristine van Dillen, director of industry initiatives and partnerships at the Mobile Marketing Association, said location-based services aren't growing as quickly as they should be. One reason for the lag is concern over privacy and who has access to users' data. Sites like PleaseRobMe.com, which humorously bring awareness to location-based privacy issues, may have scared some social media users from opting in. Furthermore, the use of geo-location data for commercial purposes has also raised concerns, prompting the Congressional subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection to hold hearings on the issue. Concerns about loopholes in Foursquare that give others the ability to announce your check-inshave also been raised. "There's still a perceived risk in accessing location data," van Dillen said. Location-based service providers are addressing these concerns by giving consumers more control. Most current iterations of the popular location-based networks allow users to opt-out of location tagging and notifying users when their location is being shared. Consumer education is also key. Users need to know how their location data will be used, and feel comfortable that the companies that have access to it will behave responsibly, according to van Dillen. She said consumers will become more comfortable sharing information with their friends and trusted applications. Brands will view these services as less risky, and more mainstream, and new types of location-based services will come to the forefront. Where is the value? Because of privacy concerns, it is imperative for location-based services to clearly communicate the value proposition to users. Without a clear picture of what they're getting in return, users may be hesitant to share location data. One of the ultimate promises of location-based check-ins is more accurately targeted advertising. For some users, the privacy concerns of sharing their location might be trumped by the potential utility of receiving highly targeted advertising and promotions. However, even though Gowalla, Foursquare, BrightKite and Yelp allow for check-ins at "places," rather than just map coordinates, which makes the data more valuable for targeted advertising, actual advertiser value hasn't yet totally materialized. Michael Boland, a senior analyst and program director at BIA/Kelsey said check-ins represent the makings of a business model, but they haven't reached their full potential value yet because there isn't a well-defined system to buy and sell advertising. "I think it does have a lot of staying power. We're only going to see it grow and evolve," he said. For early adopters, though, the long-term promise of more value through targeted ads, coupons and deals, along with the game mechanics (i.e., badges and "mayor" competitions) instituted by some networks has made location-based services worth the potential privacy headaches. As Twitter and Facebook move into the location tagging space, they might finally take the trend mainstream. During its Chirp developer conference in April, Twitter announced the launch of its annotations feature, which gives users the ability to attach metadata to tweets, including location. Facebook, meanwhile, will also reportedly soon enable members to add location details to their status updates and release an API so other apps can offer location ability to Facebook users. Each network faces the usual hurdles for location adoption. For Twitter, the biggest problem might be convincing users of the value of location-enabled tweets. Twitter has yet to clearly communicate to users what they get in return for adding location to their tweets. On their knowledge base page explaining the feature they write that location will help you "add context to your updates and help you join the local conversation, wherever you are." Twitter gives an example of one user tweeting about the weather in one location, while another user tweets about traveling to that very location. Unfortunately for Twitter, compared to sites like Foursquare and Gowalla which clearly indicate the value -- every check-in is part of a game, you can find your friends, get tacit recommendations for places to go, and maybe score a deal or two -- Twitter is only communicating what feels like a very niche and impractical value proposition. Further, because location is off by default for all users, without a more clearly communicated message, the feature may remain off for many people. Facebook, meanwhile, faces the other major problem: Privacy. Because Facebook has had so many different privacy issues over the years, many users are wary of new features. And Facebook hasn't always had the best track record when it comes to rolling out new features in a way that people trust. So how they roll out location to users and how well they do at making users feel that their information is safe may be make or break for location on Facebook. One thing Facebook does have in its favor is a great track record of getting people to eventually use new services en masse -- concerns or not. When Facebook launched its news feed feature in 2006 it faced a very vocal user backlash. A few months and a few tweaks later, the feature was widely used and has become an integral part of the service. The advantage for both Twitter and Facebook is that their users already have a built-in network of followers and friends, so they don't have to sign up for a new service and start adding people to it. The location feature is simply an add-on to their existing account. "Facebook could really be the looming giant that could wipe all [other location services] away," Boland said. "Facebook has proven to have so many users who are mobile. If they turn on that feature, it's the looming category killer." What remains to be seen is if the users will go for it. © 2010 MASHABLE.com. All rights reserved.


Output: Sites and apps that let users track their locations get buzz from tech media .
But the sites are not achieving mainstream popularity, according to surveys .
Only 7 percent of Americans are aware of location-based social networks .
Facebook and Twitter may soon popularize the idea, however.