Question:
The second major point on which the principals had agreed on March 10 was the need to crack down on terrorist organizations and curtail their fund-raising. The embassy bombings of 1998 had focused attention on al Qaeda's finances. One result had been the creation of an NSC-led interagency committee on terrorist financing. On its recommendation, the President had designated Bin Laden and al Qaeda as subject to sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This gave theTreasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) the ability to search for and freeze any Bin Laden or al Qaeda assets that reached the U.S. financial system. But since OFAC had little information to go on, few funds were frozen. In July 1999, the President applied the same designation to the Taliban for harboring Bin Laden. Here, OFAC had more success. It blocked more than $34 million in Taliban assets held in U.S. banks. Another $215 million in gold and $2 million in demand deposits, all belonging to the Afghan central bank and held by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, were also frozen. After October 1999, when the State Department formally designated al Qaeda a "foreign terrorist organization," it became the duty of U.S. banks to block its transactions and seize its funds. Neither this designation nor UN sanctions had much additional practical effect; the sanctions were easily circumvented, and there were no multilateral mechanisms to ensure that other countries' financial systems were not used as conduits for terrorist funding. Attacking the funds of an institution, even the Taliban, was easier than finding and seizing the funds of a clandestine worldwide organization like al Qaeda. Although the CIA's Bin Laden unit had originally been inspired by the idea of studying terrorist financial links, few personnel assigned to it had any experience in financial investigations. Any terrorist-financing intelligence appeared to have been collected collaterally, as a consequence of gathering other intelligence. This attitude may have stemmed in large part from the chief of this unit, who did not believe that simply following the money from point A to point B revealed much about the terrorists' plans and intentions. As a result, the CIA placed little emphasis on terrorist financing. Nevertheless, the CIA obtained a general understanding of how al Qaeda raised money. After reading the above, is "The NSC-led interagency committee on terrorist financing" the correct answer to the question "What gave the OFAC the ability to search for and freeze any Al Qaeda assets that reached the U.S. financial system?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
no

Question:
But I think it is certain that most of the early Christians understood these words of our Lord's ascension and coming again in glory. They believed that He was coming again in a very little while during their own life-time, in a few months or years, to make an end of the world and to judge the quick and the dead. And as they waited for His coming, one generation after another, and yet He did not come, a sadness fell upon them. Christ seemed to have left the world. The little while that He had promised to be away seemed to have become a very long while. Hundreds of years passed, and yet Christ did not come in glory. And, as I said, a sadness fell on all the Church. Surely, they said, this is the time of which Christ said we were to weep and lament till we saw Him again--this is the time of which He said that the bridegroom should be taken from us, and we should fast in those days. And they did fast, and weep, and lament; and their religion became a very sad and melancholy one--most sad in those who were most holy, and loved their Lord best, and longed most for His coming in glory. After reading the above, is "Christians" the correct answer to the question "Who believed their Lord was coming again in a very little while during their own life-time?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes

Question:
Victims of domestic violence will have access to quality legal representation through a campaign undertaken by Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Linda Copple Trout and corporate leaders. "Thousands of times a year, Idahoans are victims of domestic violence. The victims are often women and their children and they frequently have few resources with which to pursue their legal rights," Trout said Tuesday. "This campaign helps fill that gap in legal services for women who need the help at a time when they are in crisis." The Idaho Partners for Justice Project has already secured pledges of more than $35,000 from law firms, attorneys, corporations and individuals. The goal is $100,000. The drive to pay for free legal services will continue for the next two months. The money goes to Idaho Legal Aid Services and the Idaho Volunteer Lawyers Program. Last year, more than 5,000 petitions were filed in Idaho for protection orders in domestic violence cases. More than 12,000 victims contacted shelters or crisis hotlines. Joining Trout in the announcement was Idaho Bar Association President Fred Hoopes of Idaho Falls and Ida-West Energy Co. Chief Executive Officer Randy Hill, members of the project's executive committee. Also on hand were some women who were victims of such violence, but benefited from free legal services. Last year's campaign generated enough money and resources to help more than 450 victims. The help ranged from representation in protection order hearings to legal assistance in divorce, visitation and child support cases. The donations are tax deductible. After reading the above, is "More than 450" the correct answer to the question "More than 5,000 petitions for protection orders were filed in Idaho last year, how many victims contacted shelters?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
no

Question:
While this process moved along, diplomacy continued its rounds. Direct pressure on the Taliban had proved unsuccessful. As one NSC staff note put it, "Under the Taliban, Afghanistan is not so much a state sponsor of terrorism as it is a state sponsored by terrorists." In early 2000, the United States began a high-level effort to persuade Pakistan to use its influence over the Taliban. In January 2000, Assistant Secretary of State Karl Inderfurth and the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator, Michael Sheehan, met with General Musharraf in Islamabad, dangling before him the possibility of a presidential visit in March as a reward for Pakistani cooperation. Such a visit was coveted by Musharraf, partly as a sign of his government's legitimacy. He told the two envoys that he would meet with Mullah Omar and press him on Bin Laden. They left, however, reporting to Washington that Pakistan was unlikely in fact to do anything," given what it sees as the benefits of Taliban control of Afghanistan." President Clinton was scheduled to travel to India. The State Department felt that he should not visit India without also visiting Pakistan. The Secret Service and the CIA, however, warned in the strongest terms that visiting Pakistan would risk the President's life. Counterterrorism officials also argued that Pakistan had not done enough to merit a presidential visit. But President Clinton insisted on including Pakistan in the itinerary for his trip to South Asia. His one-day stopover on March 25, 2000, was the first time a U.S. president had been there since 1969. At his meeting with Musharraf and others, President Clinton concentrated on tensions between Pakistan and India and the dangers of nuclear proliferation, but also discussed Bin Laden. President Clinton told us that when he pulled Musharraf aside for a brief, one-on-one meeting, he pleaded with the general for help regarding Bin Laden." I offered him the moon when I went to see him, in terms of better relations with the United States, if he'd help us get Bin Laden and deal with another issue or two." The U.S. effort continued. After reading the above, is "President Clinton offered the moon in terms of better relations with the United States" the correct answer to the question "What did the high-level effort to persuade Pakistan include?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes