Question:
Powell contended that it was not inconsistent to want to foster cooperation even with an organization like the Indonesian military, which has a history of human rights abuses. "If you get young officers, expose them to a military organization that is within a democratic political institution, such as the United States, then that rubs off on them," he said. In Malaysia, Powell met with Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who has led the country since 1981. The Malaysian foreign minister, Syed Hamid Albar, later told local reporters that Powell had proposed that American and Malaysian officials review the idea of forming a regional training center in Malaysia to coordinate antiterrorism activities. His brief stop in Malaysia also highlighted the moral ambiguities of the effort to prevent terrorism and its emphasis on cooperation with governments that the United States has often criticized. The United States once distanced itself from Mahathir for strong-arm tactics with political rivals, and human rights groups criticize him for arresting and jailing scores of suspected militants, including some who may be linked to al-Qaida, without trial. Powell said his discussions with Mahathir "touched on the case" of his former deputy, Anwar Ibrahim, who is serving a 15-year sentence on charges of sodomy and abuse of power after trials that Powell said the United States had "always felt" were flawed. The assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, James Kelly, met on Tuesday morning with Anwar's wife, Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, for what she later told Malaysian reporters was a discussion about both the detention of her husband and six supporters, and the campaign against terrorism. After reading the above, is "Powell contended that it was not inconsistent to want to foster cooperation even with an organization like the Indonesian military, which has a history of human rights abuses" the correct answer to the question "How is Colin Powell's approach to relations with the Indonesian military different than the US previous approach?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes

Question:
Clarifying the Record The defense of U.S. airspace on 9/11 was not conducted in accord with preexisting training and protocols. It was improvised by civilians who had never handled a hijacked aircraft that attempted to disappear, and by a military unprepared for the transformation of commercial aircraft into weapons of mass destruction. As it turned out, the NEADS air defenders had nine minutes' notice on the first hijacked plane, no advance notice on the second, no advance notice on the third, and no advance notice on the fourth. We do not believe that the true picture of that morning reflects discredit on the operational personnel at NEADS or FAA facilities. NEADS commanders and officers actively sought out information, and made the best judgments they could on the basis of what they knew. Individual FAA controllers, facility managers, and Command Center managers thought outside the box in recommending a nationwide alert, in ground-stopping local traffic, and, ultimately, in deciding to land all aircraft and executing that unprecedented order flawlessly. More than the actual events, inaccurate government accounts of those events made it appear that the military was notified in time to respond to two of the hijackings, raising questions about the adequacy of the response. Those accounts had the effect of deflecting questions about the military's capacity to obtain timely and accurate information from its own sources. In addition, they overstated the FAA's ability to provide the military with timely and useful information that morning. In public testimony before this Commission in May 2003, NORAD officials stated that at 9:16, NEADS received hijack notification of United 93 from the FAA. This statement was incorrect. There was no hijack to report at 9:16. United 93 was proceeding normally at that time. In this same public testimony, NORAD officials stated that at 9:24, NEADS received notification of the hijacking of American 77. This statement was also incorrect. The notice NEADS received at 9:24 was that American 11 had not hit the World Trade Center and was heading for Washington, D.C. In their testimony and in other public accounts, NORAD officials also stated that the Langley fighters were scrambled to respond to the notifications about American 77,178 United 93, or both. These statements were incorrect as well. The fighters were scrambled because of the report that American 11 was heading south, as is clear not just from taped conversations at NEADS but also from taped conversations at FAA centers; contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records. After reading the above, is "FAA controllers" the correct answer to the question "Who coordinated the defense of US airspace on September 11?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes

Question:
Surely, you have noticed the tall poles along the roadside. Do you know what is on top of those poles? Thats right, wires that carry electric current. These wires carry electric current to your home. But what is electric current? Electric current is actually the flow of electrons. You may recall, an electron is the outer-most particle in an atom. They have a negative charge. Electricity is the continuous flow of these particles. Electrons are able to move through wires. Their speed can even be measured. The SI unit for electric current (or speed) is the ampere (A). Ampere is often shortened to amp. Electric current may flow in just one direction, or it may keep reversing direction. Direct current (DC) flows in only one direction. Direct current is what is used in devices like flashlights. Alternating current (AC) flows in two directions. This is the type of current that flows into your home through wires. After reading the above, is "RoadSide" the correct answer to the question "Where are the wires that carry electric current to your home?"? OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer:
yes