QUES: Crusaders, Mamelukes, and Turks: The Crusaders established a feudal Christian state with Godfrey at its head. They built many impressive churches during the term of the first Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, but in 1187 they were driven out by Muslim forces under the great warrior Saladin. During the Sixth Crusade (1228 1229), the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II managed to secure Jerusalem for the Christians by negotiation. The Christians, however, could not hold the city. After they lost Jerusalem, a Mongol invasion swept through, and in 1244 the Mameluke dynasty of Egypt took control, ruling Jerusalem for the next 250 years. The city struggled to rebuild from Crusader wars and invasions. Much of the best Islamic architecture in the city was constructed in the Mameluke era, but the past thousand years had taken their toll: Jerusalem was unable to regain the prosperity it had enjoyed in earlier times. In the early 16th century, the Ottoman Turkish Empire was advancing through the Middle East. Jerusalem fell to the Ottomans in 1517, remaining under their control for 400 years. Suleiman the Magnificent rebuilt the walls and gates in the form they retain to this day. Fountains, inns, religious schools, and barracks were constructed. But when Suleiman died, his empire, including Jerusalem, began a long period of decline. The Holy City remained a backwater until the 19th century, when renewed interest among Christian pilgrims made it the destination of thousands of travelers each year.
Do you have any questions?
MY QUESTION: What city struggled to rebuild from Crusader wars and invasions?

QUES: 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
Do you have any questions?
MY QUESTION: What year did the Republicans cut the LSC's budget?

QUES: Even though electronic espionage may cost U.S. firms billions of dollars a year, most aren't yet taking precautions, the experts said. By contrast, European firms will spend $150 million this year on electronic security, and are expected to spend $1 billion by 1992. Already many foreign firms, especially banks, have their own cryptographers, conference speakers reported. Still, encrypting corporate communications is only a partial remedy. One expert, whose job is so politically sensitive that he spoke on condition that he wouldn't be named or quoted, said the expected influx of East European refugees over the next few years will greatly increase the chances of computer-maintenance workers, for example, doubling as foreign spies. Moreover, he said, technology now exists for stealing corporate secrets after they've been "erased" from a computer's memory. He said that Oliver North of Iran-Contra notoriety thought he had erased his computer but that the information was later retrieved for congressional committees to read. No personal computer, not even the one on a chief executive's desk, is safe, this speaker noted. W. Mark Goode, president of Micronyx Inc., a Richardson, Texas, firm that makes computer-security products, provided a new definition for Mikhail Gorbachev's campaign for greater openness, known commonly as glasnost. Under Mr. Gorbachev, Mr. Goode said, the Soviets are openly stealing Western corporate communications. He cited the case of a Swiss oil trader who recently put out bids via telex for an oil tanker to pick up a cargo of crude in the Middle East. Among the responses the Swiss trader got was one from the Soviet national shipping company, which hadn't been invited to submit a bid. The Soviets' eavesdropping paid off, however, because they got the contract.
Do you have any questions?
MY QUESTION: Who did the Soviets contract with to pick up a cargo of crude oil in the Middle East?

QUES: After the 1998 embassy bombings, the U.S. government tried to develop a clearer picture of Bin Laden's finances. A U.S. interagency group traveled to Saudi Arabia twice, in 1999 and 2000, to get information from the Saudis about their understanding of those finances. The group eventually concluded that the oft-repeated assertion that Bin Laden was funding al Qaeda from his personal fortune was in fact not true. The officials developed a new theory: al Qaeda was getting its money elsewhere, and the United States needed to focus on other sources of funding, such as charities, wealthy donors, and financial facilitators. Ultimately, although the intelligence community devoted more resources to the issue and produced somewhat more intelligence, it remained difficult to distinguish al Qaeda's financial transactions among the vast sums moving in the international financial system. The CIA was not able to find or disrupt al Qaeda's money flows. The NSC staff thought that one possible solution to these weaknesses in the intelligence community was to create an all-source terrorist-financing intelligence analysis center. Clarke pushed for the funding of such a center at Treasury, but neither Treasury nor the CIA was willing to commit the resources. Within the United States, various FBI field offices gathered intelligence on organizations suspected of raising funds for al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. By 9/11, FBI agents understood that there were extremist organizations operating within the United States supporting a global jihadist movement and with substantial connections to al Qaeda. The FBI operated a web of informants, conducted electronic surveillance, and had opened significant investigations in a number of field offices, including New York, Chicago, Detroit, San Diego, and Minneapolis. On a national level, however, the FBI never used the information to gain a systematic or strategic understanding of the nature and extent of al Qaeda fundraising. Treasury regulators, as well as U.S. financial institutions, were generally focused on finding and deterring or disrupting the vast flows of U.S. currency generated by drug trafficking and high-level international fraud. Large-scale scandals, such as the use of the Bank of New York by Russian money launderers to move millions of dollars out of Russia, captured the attention of the Department of the Treasury and of Congress. Before 9/11, Treasury did not consider terrorist financing important enough to mention in its national strategy for money laundering.
Do you have any questions?
MY QUESTION:
What US government agency was Clark a member of?