Input: The Principals Committee had its first meeting on al Qaeda on September 4. On the day of the meeting, Clarke sent Rice an impassioned personal note. He criticized U.S. counterterrorism efforts past and present. The "real question" before the principals, he wrote, was "are we serious about dealing with the al Qida threat? Is al Qida a big deal? Decision makers should imagine themselves on a future day when the CSG has not succeeded in stopping al Qida attacks and hundreds of Americans lay dead in several countries, including the US," Clarke wrote. "What would those decision makers wish that they had done earlier? That future day could happen at any time." Clarke then turned to the Cole." The fact that the USS Cole was attacked during the last Administration does not absolve us of responding for the attack," he wrote. "Many in al Qida and the Taliban may have drawn the wrong lesson from the Cole: that they can kill Americans without there being a US response, without there being a price."

Does the response "The day of the attack of the USS Cole" correctly answer the question "On what date did Clarke send Rice a note criticizing U.S. counter-terrorism efforts?"?

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes
***
Output: no

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.

Question: "Who blocked more than $34 million in Taliban assets held in U.S. banks, and froze $215 million in gold and $2 million in demand deposits belonging to the Afghan central bank?"

OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

Answer: "Taliban"

Response: no

Electric charge is a physical property. It occurs between particles or objects. It causes them to attract or repel each other. They do not even have to touch. This is unlike the typical push or pull you may be familiar with. All electric charge is based on the protons and electrons in atoms. A proton has a positive electric charge. An electron has a negative electric charge. Forces on Charged Objects Most atoms are balanced electrically. They have the same number of positive and negative charges. Therefore, the number of protons equals the number of electrons. Neutrons do not matter as they have no charge. When an object loses some electrons, it becomes positively charged. There are now more protons than electrons inside the atom. The lost electrons may remain free. Or, they may attach to another object. The new object now has more electrons than protons. It then becomes negatively charged.

Question: "What causes objects to attract or repel each other?"

Response: "Electrical charge"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A: yes

With a budget of $329 million, LSC provides civil legal assistance to low-income people in every county in America, Kleiman said. NLAP was created in 1968. A decade later, the agency used a $50,000 LSC grant to buy a building at 438 King St. in Charleston and $33,000 to buy a building at 201 King St. in Georgetown, according to Erlenborn's letter to Kaynard. In 1980, NLAP used $63,000 in LSC funds to buy property at 607 Main St. in Conway, the letter said. On Nov. 14, 2001, NLAP transferred title of the King Street building in Charleston to the Charleston County Bar Association, according to county property records. The local bar paid $5 for the building, which sits between a redeveloped office building and an antique shop. The local bar said it would maintain the building for "legal services to indigent residents of Charleston County and coastal South Carolina," the records said. The King Street building appears to be vacant. Notices at the entrance direct visitors to the equal justice center on West Montague Avenue in North Charleston. E. Douglas Pratt-Thomas, president of the local bar, was not available for comment. Charleston County has not appraised the King Street property because it is tax-exempt. But Randall Goldman, managing partner of Patrick Properties, which owns buildings from 440 to 456 King St., said he estimates 438 King St. would sell for between $700,000 and $900,000. "That building, which was purchased solely with federal legal aid dollars, should be used to provide legal services for poor people in South Carolina," Kleiman said. LSC wants the title to go to the equal justice center in Charleston or "we want 100 percent of the proceeds from the sale of the building to stay in Charleston. We are not contemplating taking that money out of South Carolina," he said. Kleiman said if the neighborhood legal program in Charleston "had honored their obligation, this would not be an issue."

Question: "What building has notices at the entrance that direct visitors to the equal justice center on West Montague Avenue in North Charleston?"

Response: "Goldman Building"
OPTIONS:
- no
- yes

A:
no