Editor's Note: This week, the Vermont State Supreme Court began hearing a case that started in July 2003, when Denis and Sarah Scheele, who were visiting relatives, let their mixed-breed dog wander into a neighbor's yard and he fatally shot it. The court is now reviewing the case.

The Scheeles filed a civil suit against Dustin, arguing that Shadow was more than a piece of property and that they could not be compensated just with reimbursement of what they paid to adopt him from an animal shelter, the veterinary bill that resulted from the shooting and the cost of his cremation.

Jeffrey Toobin and Lisa Bloom will be on to discuss the case tonight at 10 p.m. ET.

When we heard about this story, many of us here at 360° started thinking about our own dogs. Check out this gallery of a few of our canine companions.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Erica Hill's dog, Jake.

Kathleen Friery's dog, Wally.

Tom Foreman's dog, NOLA.

Gary Tuchman's dog, Star.

Sean Yates' dog, Tasi.

Joey Gardner's dog, Sugar.

Randi Kaye's dog, Boulder.

Charlie Moore's dog, Conrad.

Joneil Adriano's dog, Macho.

Katie Ross' dog, Guapo.

Eliza Browning's dog, Emma.

Joneil Adriano's dog, Regina.

Kira Kleaveland's dog, Maddie.

Julia Calzonetti's dog, Lucy.

Ella Perlis' dog, Lavan.

Eliza Browning's dog, Nell.

Susan Chun's dog, Romeo.

Eliza Browning's dog, Nell.

Jack Gray's dog, Sammy, in New York City.

Jack's dog, Sammy.

Jill Billante's dog, Romeo.

Santa Sammy.

Diana Miller's dog, Franklin.

Jack's dog, Sammy.

Cate Vojdik's dog, Dodger.

Devna Shukla's dog, Buddy.

Cate Vojdik's dog, Bailey.

Joneil Adriano's dog, Gizmo.

David Puente's dog, Luc.

Kathryn Leonard's dog, Ted.

Shimrit Sheetrit's dog, Loofie.

Eddie Ryan's dog, Sam.

Program Note: Tune in tonight to hear Gary Tuchman's report on the investigation into James Arthur Ray's self-help program. AC360° at 10 p.m. ET.

Jason Hanna
CNN

Amber Lemna says studying "The Secret" is changing her life for the better.

The 2006 book and film discusses the law of attraction, something adherents say allows people to attract what they want by envisioning it and believing it will come. Lemna says she's used it to kick-start a business idea: attaching decorated tabs to credit cards so people can easily pull the cards from wallets.

Thanks to "The Secret," she says, she's attracted people and resources to help her and already is selling the tabs in 10 local stores.

"Nothing has been the same since I've listened to the CD [of the book]," said Lemna, 29. "I can control how my day goes."

So the Minneapolis, Minnesota-area insurance agent bristles when she hears people using the troubles of self-help entrepreneur James Arthur Ray, who appears in but did not create "The Secret" film, to bash the attraction principles.

Read More...

Chuck Hadad
AC360° Producer

In 2004, Roy Hallums was abducted in Iraq and held hostage by insurgents for 311 days.

The American contractor was ambushed at his company’s compound in Baghdad by the Mujahideen Army, made up primarily of former intelligence officers under Saddam Hussein’s administration. Although he was moved around, Hallums spent most of his captivity imprisoned in an underground cell in Al-Mahmoudiyah, about 15 miles outside of Baghdad.

Hallums was working for the Saudi Arabian Trading and Construction Company when he was taken by insurgents. The company was involved in building projects in Iraq and had food service contracts with the U.S. military.

Roy Hallums, now 61, describes his experience living in captivity for 311 days.

Hallums, who was 56 when he was abducted, describes his experience in his new book, “Buried Alive.” He told CNN that his situation was excruciating. Temperatures soared to 120 degrees and every single day of his captivity he lived in fear that his captors would execute him.

Roy Hallums' rescue by U.S. Special Forces in 2005.

“A doctor told me a human system is built to be terrified for an instant and then run away from the bear, not to live with the bear wondering, ‘When is the bear going to eat me?’, which is the situation I was in for so long,” Hallums told CNN’s Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware.

Over the course of nearly one year in captivity, Hallums was beaten, interrogated, bound and blind-folded. But the most terrifying might have been the final few months, when he was – literally – buried alive.

The insurgents holding him, concerned that U.S. troops investigating his kidnapping were closing in, gave him meager rations, and cemented over the underground cell where he been locked. They disappeared and returned days later, smashed through the cement, replaced his rations and repeated the process.

“You’re buried in there, and if these people are really nervous, then why come back to the house,” Hallums said. “You’re sealed in, you’re not going anywhere and if they decide, ‘Well it’s just too dangerous to go back to the house’, and they never come back, then you’re in your tomb.”

Hallums was rescued by U.S. Special Forces on September 7, 2005. After searching for Hallums for much of his captivity, investigators obtained his exact location from an Iraqi suspect and immediately orchestrated a morning mission. With four helicopters and a predator drone and F-15 jet high overhead, U.S. troops swooped down to the house where he was being held, broke through the cement in the floor and ended Hallums 311-day imprisonment.

“I heard Special Forces pounding on this little door in the room where I was, and the guy jumps down in there and says, ‘You alright?’ It’s like, well, this can’t really be happening, you know, because after all this time, they actually found where I was, which was a miracle,” Hallums said.

Inside Roy Hallums' cell.

Ware himself was kidnapped in Iraq in 2004. He was documenting the rise of al Qaeda and its leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, and was ripped out of his vehicle by the terrorist group and threatened with execution. He spoke with Anderson Cooper in 2007 about narrowly escaping death.

“These men intercepted my vehicle and with grenades, with the pins pulled so that they were live, hauled me from the car, and with my own video camera, they were preparing to film my execution. So as far as we're aware, after that day on Haifa Street, I'm the only Westerner that we know of who's been in the control of Zarqawi's organization, al Qaeda, and to have lived to tell the tale,” Ware said.

“I was in a vehicle with a mid-ranking Iraqi insurgent commander who'd told me of Zarqawi's takeover, essentially complained about it .. so he took me in there to show me that these radicals, these foreign Islamists, have taken our territory. When the foreign radical Islamists, essentially who became al Qaeda, dragged me from the car, this man was left to negotiate for my life. “

Ware’s captors returned him to Iraqi insurgents later that day and he was able to escape. Although estimates vary, more than 500 foreigners are said to have been kidnapped in Iraq and the number of Iraqis held hostage is in the tens of thousands.

Learn more about the experiences of both Hallums and Ware tonight.

Editor's Note: Roy Hallums was kidnapped in 2004. He was rescued in 2005. He endured 311 days as a hostage in Iraq. He was actually buried alive when he was rescued and now we have the exclusive videotape of his rescue. We’ll show you how the special forces team did it. Hallum says what might appear hyperbolic with a calm earnestness. "I hoped they wouldn't decide to just cut off my head and videotape the occasion for mass distribution to the international media." Instead, we have the videotape of his rescue. Michael Ware reports tonight at 10 p.m. ET.

The entrance to Hallums' cell.

Inside Roy Hallums' cell.

Roy Hallums, when he was rescued.

Roy Hallums today.

Sanjay Gupta | BIO
AC360° Contributor

Lake Chad once was the sixth-largest lake in the world, but in 45 years it has shrunk to half the size of Rhode Island – only 10 percent of its earlier size.

The shallow body of water borders four countries: Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria – and provides water to 20 million people.

In Nigeria, the shrinking lake has a huge effect on human health – farmers find it more difficult to siphon water into irrigation and they have a harder time growing food, which means people become more vulnerable to diseases like malaria and yellow fever.

Scientists say water diversion (irrigation and new dams on nearby rivers) and drought are equally to blame for the shrinking lake levels.

Keep Reading...

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste today urged President Barack Obama to veto the $446.8 billion omnibus spending bill. The bill, H.R. 3288, passed the House of Representatives on December 10, 2009 and the Senate on December 13, 2009. The omnibus is an amalgamation of six of the seven remaining fiscal year (FY) 2010 spending bills: Transportation, Housing and Urban Development; Commerce, Justice, Science; Labor/Health and Human Services, and Education; State and Foreign Operations; Financial Services and General Government, and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs. The omnibus appropriations bill contains thousands of earmarks worth billions of dollars and an average 12% increase in the departments and agencies funded in the six appropriations bills.

Here are some of the earmarks in the bill:

TRANSPORTATION-EDI (Economic Development Initiative)
• $1,000,000 by Senate appropriator Judd Gregg for repairs, restoration
and modernization of a theatre and construction of an additional space at the Portsmouth Music Hall
• $400,000 by House appropriator Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) for restoration
and renovation of the historic Ritz Theatre
• $400,000 by Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) for construction and renovation
for safety improvements at the Brooklyn Botanical Garden
• $350,000 by House appropriator Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.) and Rep. Robert
Brady (D-Pa.) for renovation of the Uptown Theatre
• $250,000 by Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) for construction of the Monroe
County Farmer’s Market
• $250,000 by Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio) for building renovation of the
Murphy Theatre
• $194,000 by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) for completion of the
historic restoration project at the Historic Slater Mill
• $150,000 by House appropriator Jose Serrano for Safe Harbors of the
Hudson, Inc., for renovation and buildout of the Pregones Theatre
• $100,000 by Rep. House appropriator Calvert (R-Calif.) for construction
on the Santa Ana River Trail

FINANCIAL SERVICES-SBA
• $200,000 by House appropriator Marion Berry (D-Ark.) for the Arkansas
Commercial Driver Training Institute at Arkansas State University
• $150,000 by House appropriator James Moran (D-Va.) and Eleanor Holmes
Norton (D-D.C.) for education programs and exhibitions at the National Building Museum in Washington, D.C.
• $134,000 by House appropriator Dennis Rehberg (R-Mont.) for Montana
Growth Through Trade at the Montana World Trade Center
• $100,000 by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Rep. Henry Brown (R-S.C.)
for the Myrtle Beach International Trade and Conference Center

LABOR/HHS
• $500,000 by Senate appropriator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Charles Grassley
(R-Iowa) for exhibits relating to the Mississippi River at the National Mississippi River Museum and Aquarium in Dubuque
• $200,000 by Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Thad Cochran
(R-Miss.) for the Washington National Opera for set design, installation, and performing arts at libraries and schools
• $150,000 by Louis McIntosh Slaughter (D-N.Y.) for exhibits and
interactive displays at the Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural Site Foundation in Buffalo

Programming note: Tune in at 9pm EST tonight to see the full interview with the cast of 'Nine' on Larry King Live, then don't miss Anderson's interview with Larry at 10pm EST when he reveals what went on behind the scenes.

Program note: Tonight, Dr. Gupta and Anderson discuss the recent studies linking overuse of CT Scans to cancer. Tune in at 10pm EST to get the latest.

What is computed tomography?
Computed tomography (CT) is a diagnostic procedure that uses special x-ray equipment to obtain cross-sectional pictures of the body. The CT computer displays these pictures as detailed images of organs, bones, and other tissues. This procedure is also called CT scanning, computerized tomography, or computerized axial tomography (CAT).

What can a person expect during the CT procedure?
During a CT scan, the person lies very still on a table. The table slowly passes through the center of a large x-ray machine. The person might hear whirring sounds during the procedure. People may be asked to hold their breath at times, to prevent blurring of the pictures.

Often, a contrast agent, or “dye,” may be given by mouth, injected into a vein, given by enema, or given in all three ways before the CT scan is done. The contrast dye can highlight specific areas inside the body, resulting in a clearer picture.

The length of the procedure depends on the size of the area being x-rayed; CT scans take from 15 minutes to 1 hour to complete.

Read More...

Self-help guru James Arthur Ray may face serious charges relating to the sweat lodge deaths, but are there other incidents where he was involved? AC360, tonight at 10 p.m. ET

JOIN: LIVE BLOG Weeknights 10p ET

Anderson Cooper | BIO
AC360° Anchor

Program Note: Go inside a sophisticated, newly discovered underground tunnel on the Mexican-U.S. border with Anderson Cooper tonight at 10 p.m. ET.

Ismael Estrada
AC360° Producer

It's an all-too common scene on patrol with a joint Mexican law enforcement task force in Juarez, Mexico.

Two people are shot dead in broad daylight Wednesday in a city lost in a drug war between rival cartels over the lucrative drug route into the United States.

Gunmen fire on a car, killing the driver; the passenger starts to flee and is gunned down in the street. These are the 11th and 12th killings in the Mexican city that day. Locals said killings are more frequent in the evenings. At this point, the sun hasn't even started to go down.

Juarez has become a deadly city where bodies, blood and gun-shell casings are commonplace in the streets.

In 2008, more than 1,600 people were killed in drug-related violence; this year local government officials put that number at more than 2,400. The carnage is taking place in a city with a population of around 1.5 million, literally at America's doorstep. Mexican President Felipe Calderon has declared a war on drug cartels and the way they operate their businesses.

Calderon ordered 45,000 Mexican military troops and 5,000 federal police to hot spots in the drug war. No place has witnessed the amount of carnage this Mexican border city has.

Mayor José Reyes Ferriz said in March - when Juarez saw a drop in drug-war killings during the initial buildup of those forces - that he felt there was going to be a turnaround for the city. The scores of dead here indicate that he may have been wrong.

The military and federal and local police are on patrol, on the lookout for suspicious activity and making random stops as night begins to fall Wednesday. In the distance, the city lights of El Paso, Texas, are visible. The violence is separated by the Rio Grande, which serves as the natural border between the sister cities.

The crackle of voices comes over the police radio that a 13th person is dead in Juarez that Wednesday night. The unit then goes on another call where suspicious men are causing a disturbance in a neighborhood. As the police arrive, witnesses who saw the men run off after brandishing firearms do not give a good description of them.

There are no descriptions of clothing, body types or vehicles, which police say can be a major frustration.

Many locals we spoke with say the police and military are corrupt and cannot be trusted. The city, in an attempt to counter such fears, announced a program where residents can call in information anonymously. The calls are answered on the U.S. side of the border. Local officials said they hope this strategy will generate more tips.

At 11 p.m., as the city streets begin to quiet down, there is another call. A gruesome discovery is made literally steps from the border crossing - four females are found shot; two are children, ages 14 and 12. These deaths are just steps from a pedestrian crossing, where military and local police have increased the numbers on patrol.

The death toll for Wednesday stands at 17. It's another deadly day in the life of a city just steps from American soil.

AC360°

President Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize on Thursday with much discussion of war and the limits of nonviolence.

But he also praised the peacemakers of the past and said the world can and should still strive for peace.

The following is a transcript of Obama's acceptance speech:

Your majesties, your royal highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America and citizens of the world:

I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations - that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who have received this prize - Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela - my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened of cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women - some known, some obscure to all but those they help - to be far more deserving of this honor than I.

But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the commander in chief of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by forty-three other countries - including Norway - in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.

Still, we are at war, and I am responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill. Some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the cost of armed conflict - filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.

These questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease - the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.

Over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers, clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when it meets certain preconditions: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional, and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.

For most of history, this concept of just war was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations - total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it is hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.

In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another World War. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations - an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize - America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide and restrict the most dangerous weapons.

In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty, self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.

A decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.

Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states; have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sewn, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed and children scarred.

I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth that we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations - acting individually or in concert - will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King said in this same ceremony years ago - "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life's work, I am living testimony to the moral force of nonviolence. I know there is nothing weak - nothing passive - nothing naive - in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A nonviolent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

I raise this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter the cause. At times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.

Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions - not just treaties and declarations - that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest - because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another - that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause and to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly irreconcilable truths - that war is sometimes necessary, and war is at some level an expression of human feelings. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions."

What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?

To begin with, I believe that all nations - strong and weak alike - must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I - like any head of state - reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards strengthens those who do, and isolates - and weakens - those who don't.

The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait - a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.

Furthermore, America cannot insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our action can appear arbitrary, and undercut the legitimacy of future intervention - no matter how justified.

This becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.

I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That is why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.

America's commitment to global security will never waiver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.

The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries - and other friends and allies - demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they have shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular. But I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That is why NATO continues to be indispensable. That is why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That is why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali - we honor them not as makers of war, but as wagers of peace.

Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant - the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.

Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe that the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor those ideals by upholding them not just when it is easy, but when it is hard.

I have spoken to the questions that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me turn now to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.

First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to change behavior - for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure - and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.

One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work toward disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I am working with President [Dmitry] Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.

But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.

The same principle applies to those who violate international law by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur; systematic rape in Congo; or repression in Burma - there must be consequences. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.

This brings me to a second point - the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based upon the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.

It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.

And yet all too often, these words are ignored. In some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists - a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values.

I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests - nor the world's - are served by the denial of human aspirations.

So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung San Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear to these movements that hope and history are on their side

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach - and condemnation without discussion - can carry forward a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable - and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty, and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There is no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement; pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.

Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights - it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.

It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. It does not exist where children cannot aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.

And that is why helping farmers feed their own people - or nations educate their children and care for the sick - is not mere charity. It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action - it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance.

Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All of these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, or the staying power, to complete this work without something more - and that is the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there is something irreducible that we all share.

As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we all basically want the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.

And yet, given the dizzying pace of globalization, and the cultural leveling of modernity, it should come as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish about their particular identities - their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we are moving backwards. We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.

Most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint - no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but the purpose of faith - for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. We are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.

But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The nonviolence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached - their faith in human progress - must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.

For if we lose that faith - if we dismiss it as silly or naive; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace - then we lose what is best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.

Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."

So let us reach for the world that ought to be - that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. Somewhere today, in the here and now, a soldier sees he's outgunned but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protester awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, who believes that a cruel world still has a place for his dreams.

Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. We can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that - for that is the story of human progress; that is the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.

Keep Reading...

Tom Foreman | BIO
AC360° Correspondent

As a journalist, I’m used to being pushed around in the polls. It’s OK. I know you don’t like us much. You have doubts about the media’s integrity, trustworthiness, and honesty, and frankly there are times when I do too; when I want to say, “Move over. Make some room on that pew for me.”

Yet the good folks at Gallup have given my profession an early holiday gift that is lifting spirits in newsrooms coast to coast. A new poll shows that you, the public, consider members of Congress much less trustworthy than journalists. The House crowd was already in the ethics ICU, but now they are practically in need of life support.

Among the professions Gallup tested, nurses were the most trusted. Doctors, police officers and clergy, also took predictably high slots on the list. But then comes the bad news for the legislative bunch. Chiropractors, bankers, lawyers, advertising types, even insurance salespeople, and stockbrokers are all rated as more ethical. Congress members are down in the basement near HMO operators and car salesman.

This disapproval number has been steadily rising for years, and Gallup says it is now more than twice as high as it was back in 2000. The reasons are embarrassingly obvious: Scandals, gridlock, endless political sniping, and pursuit of ridiculous legislation…like, uh, forcing a national college football playoff. What is harder to explain is how Congress has such a hard time grasping this concept.

A few months back Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri was at one of those uproarious town hall meetings. As the crowd seethed and shouted, she asked in a bewildered tone, “You don’t trust me?” They roared back, “No!” And she responded, “I don’t know what else I can do.”

Really? I suspect everyone except Congress knows what can be done to rebuild trust. Lawmakers could start working together a bit more; quit excusing each other’s misdeeds; and get serious about solving the many serious issues that are facing the country right now, offering voters fair and even-handed explanations of what’s on the table, instead of spin. Ha! Just kidding. While that would undoubtedly give them better numbers, it’s about as likely as Harry Reid kayaking down the Hudson with a Christmas fruit basket for Dick Cheney. Trust me.

Follow Tom on Twitter @tomforemancnn.

Editor's Note: Authorities have uncovered an underground tunnel between Tijuana, Mexico and San Diego, California. Anderson will be live from this new tunnel tonight at 10 p.m. ET.

Anderson Cooper | BIO
AC360° Anchor

Heading to San Diego, where once again an enormous tunnel has been discovered. It was being built to smuggle people and/or drugs from Tijuana into the US.

The level of sophistication of these tunnels is extraordinary. In addition to lighting, electrical, and ventilation systems, this new one even has an elevator on the Tijuana side. It was still being built when it was discovered, and authorities arrested more than a dozen men inside.

A few years ago we got an exclusive look at another tunnel U.S. authorities had just discovered that opened up into a warehouse on the U.S. side. It wasn't clear how long that one had been in operation. Watch our report from 2006 here.

Tonight we'll take you deep underground inside the new tunnel, and we'll update you on the war Mexico is fighting against drug traffickers - a war that has claimed more than 7,000 lives this year alone.

Editor's Note: This article continues our series excerpted from AC360°'s contributor David Gewirtz's upcoming book, How To Save Jobs, which will be available in December. Over the next few months, we'll be excerpting the first section of the book, which answers the question, "How did we get here?" Last time, we looked at the failure of the H-1B visa program. This time,we look at how outsourcing is becoming a growing problem for American employees. To learn more about the book, follow David on Twitter @DavidGewirtz.

David Gewirtz | BIO
AC360° Contributor
Editor-in-Chief, ZATZ Publishing

Back in the dot-com boom, the dot-coms had a lot of work to be done, and not enough Americans were available to do it all. Many of the dot-com firms began to outsource much of their work to make up for the lack of available U.S. workers.

At about the same time, many companies were concerned about the so-called Y2K crisis. If you recall, this was the worry that many computer programs were built with only two-digit date codes, but once the year went from 1999 to 2000, all the date calculations in all those programs would fail.

American companies started to send work offshore.

The Internet, of course, made this much easier to do. Email and the Web, along with the rise in instant messaging, made communication across previously daunting distances virtually instantaneous (and dirt cheap). With the availability of high-speed broadband Internet and VOIP (Voice-over-IP), a telephone call from New York City to Bangalore often costs less than a call over the plain ol' copper telephone system from New York City to Albany.

And that's why, when your computer fails, you're probably going to wind up talking to someone in India instead of someone in Indiana. When you call a U.S. number for support, your call is routed over the Internet (for free) to a call center located across the ocean. Call centers no longer have to absorb extreme telephony charges.

Your rant about your inability to get your computer to work so that you can order that fancy new $200 pair of shoes is likely to be responded to by someone in India who, if she's lucky, might own one pair of 10-year old shoes and makes less than $200 for an entire month's work.

The information technology research firm Forrester estimates that 400,000 jobs were lost in the first four years of the new century and up to 3.3 million jobs will be of-fhored by 2015. A McKinsey report published in 2004 predicted that up to 4 million IT worker and back-office jobs would be outsourced to India alone by 2008 - and that prediction was made well before the 2008/2009 financial crisis.

I think it'll be a lot worse. A lot worse. As you'll see in the coming chapters, there are a lot of people outside the United States willing to work for a very small fraction of what Americans need (and that's before our cost of health care). With dwindling profits, I think it's going to be almost irresistible for larger American companies - and an almost unimaginable numbers of jobs will be sent to where the labor is dirt cheap. Unless, of course, we do something.

American firms got their feet wet sending work overseas during the dot-com boom, got comfortable with the idea, and when they suddenly needed to save a lot of money, decided that off-shoring would be a key business strategy.

And that's where off-shoring becomes compelling to companies in today's economy. A U.S. International Trade Commission report estimates that outsourcing to India can save American companies 30 to 70 percent on labor costs.

Off-shoring also allows U.S. companies to avoid paying ever-increasing health benefits. And off-shoring allows U.S. companies to convert a payroll expense into a fixed cost, making it far easier to budget and analyze production expenses.

Consider IBM. The global technology company began American layoffs in early 2009, dropping more than 5,000 workers. To make up the slack, according to the Wall Street Journal, many of those jobs were created in India. "IBM can pay an engineer in the U.S. $120,000 or an engineer in India $25,000, like the Indian providers do," says Ben Pring, research vice president at Gartner.

Next week: why outsourcing is a national security risk.

Follow David on Twitter at http://www.Twitter.com/DavidGewirtz.

Editor’s note: David Gewirtz is Editor-in-Chief, ZATZ Magazines, including OutlookPower Magazine. He is a leading Presidential scholar specializing in White House email. He is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is a faculty member at the University of California, Berkeley extension, a recipient of the Sigma Xi Research Award in Engineering and was a candidate for the 2008 Pulitzer Prize in Letters.

Editor's Note: Five people arrested in Pakistan had been reported missing in the United States, and police are confident they were planning terrorist acts, a Pakistani police official told CNN. Tune in tonight to hear more about the increasing amount of homegrown terrorism on AC360° at 10 p.m. ET.

David Headley, a Chicago, Illinois, man is accused of involvement in terror plots in India and Denmark.

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and Laura Grossman
The Center for Terrorism Research

This study, Homegrown Terrorists in the U.S. and U.K.: An Empirical Study of the Radicalization Process, is a product of over a year and half of research into the phenomenon of homegrown terrorists–Westerners who have chosen to take up arms against the society in which they were born or raised.

Homegrown Terrorists in the U.S. and U.K. examines six different steps are particularly significant as homegrown terrorists radicalize: the adoption of a legalistic interpretation of Islam, coming to trust only a select and ideologically rigid group of religious authorities, viewing the West and Islam and irreconcilably opposed, manifesting a low tolerance for perceived religious deviance, attempting to impose religious beliefs on others, and the expression of radical political views.

These steps have recurred frequently among homegrown terrorists, and they help to provide insight into these individuals’ state of mind as they hurtle toward the embrace of violence again innocents.

Read the full report here...

Andrew Torgan
CNN Financial News Producer

The Obama Administration is expected to slash the estimated cost of the Troubled Asset Relief Program by $200 billion, effectively paving the way for a massive federal jobs program.

The latest projection, which will be officially unveiled by the White House this week, would cut TARP's price tag by $200 billion to $141 billion, according to a Treasury Department official.

And officials tell CNN that President Obama will recommend using the $200 billion to fund a series of projects - including building bridges and roads and weatherizing homes, as well as providing further aid to the unemployed and to small businesses. That’s expected to come in a speech on Tuesday.

Such a move is certain to draw fire from Republican lawmakers, who have railed against using any leftover bailout funds or money that has been paid back by banks for any new projects.

Many have not only proposed shutting down the program altogether, but argued that any unallocated TARP funds should go toward cutting the nation's bloated deficit. The Treasury Dept. currently estimates that the annual deficit for fiscal year 2010 will hit a record $1.5 trillion.

Also on the bailout front, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke says he's confident the central bank will make money on the trillions of dollars it’s pumped into the economy since the start of 2008.

“I think we're in very good shape,” Bernanke said, answering questions following a speech at the Economic Club of Washington. “I do believe we're going to get back all the money, and indeed we'll be showing for the taxpayers fairly significant extra income.”

But most of Bernanke's speech was focused on the outlook for the economy, and he repeated his earlier forecasts of moderate growth through next year, dogged by continued high unemployment.

He said the economy continues to face “formidable headwinds” that are likely to result in only a moderate recovery.

Stocks kicked off the new week with a choppy session - driven by a strong dollar, falling oil and gold prices and those comments from Bernanke that cooled worries about higher interest rates.

At the close of trading, the Dow gained just a single point to close at 10,390.11. The Nasdaq and the S&P 500 both ended fractionally lower.

The week ahead brings a modest array of economic reports. Highlights include readings on retail sales, weekly jobless claims, consumer sentiment and the trade gap.

Finally, the new “must-have” accessory in your wallet or purse next season might be your pay stub.

The Federal Reserve is proposing new rules that would make it harder for retailers to offer you a credit card at the cash register by dangling a discount.

You know the drill: get 20% off or no interest payments for 18 months if you apply for a store’s credit card on the spot.

The new restrictions would make retailers collect more detailed financial information from customers - including how much money you make - before giving your so-called “instant credit.”

But the National Retail Federation is pushing back, and is asking the Fed to reconsider the proposed rules. The NRF says the current practices are quote, “safe, valued and desired by both retailers and customers.”

Many retailers have actually sold off their credit card units to banks in recent years, but still use the cards to track spending habits and reward customer loyalty.

For its part, the Fed wants the new, tougher rules to protect consumers from being lured into taking on debt they ultimately can't afford to pay off. After all, we know where that got us, don’t we?

Follow the money… on Twitter: @AndrewTorganCNN

Editor's Note: After Friday's AC360°, many of you sent in comments about the verdict in the Amanda Knox murder trial. Opinions were split about whether or not Knox is guilty. What do you think?
_________________________________________________________________________________________

I think it is pathetic how we have been potraying Amanda Knox as an innocent beautiful American girl. What about the victim's family? What about their beautiful girl who was brutally murdered? I don't see an innocent girl here, she does not care, coming into the courtroom all American because we always have it our way. I even heard her parents say that the sec.of state was going to get involved. Really? I think as Americans we should be ashamed. This girl deserves life in prison without parole. Young peole have taken the meaning of fun to a whole new level including killing for pleasure. We have even deemed the Italian justice system as incompetent. It's time for America to respect other countries and let justice be served. Let us at least have some decency to acknowledge that Amanda is not the victim in this case.

Your coverage is excellent in trying to portray different sides of an issue, but you have totally failed to do so in the Amanda Knox case by not covering the "victim's side". It seems like you are criticizing the Italian legal system. Who are we to judge? no one really knows if she is guilty or not, but her original comments and behavior contributed to the verdict. Maybe justice was indeed served.

RE: your story on Amanda Knox. It never ceases to amaze me how willing you are to decide that trial in a European court is somehow inferior to that of an American court, European courts are as fair or more fair than the courts in this country. Quit defending Americans who are tried and convicted in European courts, simply because they are American. Amanda Knox was convicted based on evidence, If she had been tried and found guilty in a U.S. court, based on the same evidence, she probably would have been sentenced to life in prison. She and her family should consider it lucky that she only received 26 years.

I believe Amanda Knox has been convicted on bad evidence and a prosecutor trying to hide his own problems. I call on a boycott of Italy until justice is served.

CNN

Amanda Knox is accused of murdering her roommate, British student Meredith Kercher, on November 2, 2007, in Italy. She faces life in prison if found guilty.

Go here and scroll down to view the evidence in the Knox trial.