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.

Question: "What subject did the United States meet with Mahathir about?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "Former deputy, Anwar Ibrahim, who is serving a 15-year sentence on charges of sodomy and abuse of power"

Response: yes

The Legal Services Corp. (LSC), a quasi-governmental agency that provides legal aid for the poor, would receive $329 million in fiscal 2004 under President Bush's proposal - the same amount requested in 2003 and approved for 2002 and 2001. If approved, the hold-the-line request for LSC means its budget would erode with inflation for another year, but it could be worse for the organization: Many conservatives fought for years to do away with the LSC altogether, saying legal services attorneys were spending too much time fighting for liberal causes or pursuing politically charged cases against the government instead of representing the needy. Opposition to the organization has cooled since 1996, when Congress approved restrictions (PL 104-134) on the sorts of cases federally funded legal aid attorneys can take. (1996 Almanac, p. 5-36) Republicans cut the organization's budget deeply in 1996, but its funding has recovered slowly. Last month, in the omnibus spending bill for fiscal 2003, the Senate added a onetime increase of $19 million, which, if approved in the final version, would bring the LSC budget to $348 million. The money would go to help states, such as Michigan and Ohio, that lost money when the organization redistributed its funding based on census counts made in 2000 of poor households. If the extra money survives a conference with the House and makes it to the president's desk, LSC supporters may try to include it in the organization's fiscal 2004 funding. The federal government began funding some programs to provide legal assistance to the poor in the late 1960s; the Legal Services Corporation was created in 1974 (PL 93-355). LSC gives nearly all its money to state and local agencies, which provide civil legal assistance to those whose income is less than 125 percent of the federal poverty level - $11,075 a year for an individual and $22,625 for a family of four. Funding for legal services goes to defend needy clients in domestic violence cases, custody cases and other such matters, according to LSC. Since 1996, lawyers who receive money from Legal Services have been prohibited from such activities as lobbying legislatures, filing class-action suits, participating in political demonstrations or strikes, pursuing abortion-related litigation, representing illegal aliens or prisoners, or defending public housing tenants evicted because they were charged with selling drugs

Question: "What organization redistributed its funding based on census counts in Ohio and Michigan?"

Response: "A quasi-governmental agency"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: no

Tuesday, September 11, 2001, dawned temperate and nearly cloudless in the eastern United States. Millions of men and women readied themselves for work. Some made their way to the Twin Towers, the signature structures of the World Trade Center complex in New York City. Others went to Arlington, Virginia, to the Pentagon. Across the Potomac River, the United States Congress was back in session. At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, people began to line up for a White House tour. In Sarasota, Florida, President George W. Bush went for an early morning run. For those heading to an airport, weather conditions could not have been better for a safe and pleasant journey. Among the travelers were Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz al Omari, who arrived at the airport in Portland, Maine. Boston: American 11 and United 175. Atta and Omari boarded a 6:00 A.M. flight from Portland to Boston's Logan International Airport. When he checked in for his flight to Boston, Atta was selected by a computerized prescreening system known as CAPPS (Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System), created to identify passengers who should be subject to special security measures. Under security rules in place at the time, the only consequence of Atta's selection by CAPPS was that his checked bags were held off the plane until it was confirmed that he had boarded the aircraft. This did not hinder Atta's plans. Atta and Omari arrived in Boston at 6:45. Seven minutes later, Atta apparently took a call from Marwan al Shehhi, a longtime colleague who was at another terminal at Logan Airport. They spoke for three minutes. It would be their final conversation.

Question: "Who had their final conversation"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "Mohamed Atta"

Response:
yes