Czech parliament votes for prime minister to go

The Czech government lost a confidence vote in parliament Tuesday, forcing the prime minister and his Cabinet to resign, Czech media reported. The center-right government of Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek lost the vote 96-101, the Czech daily Mlada fronta Dnes reported. Key votes against the government were cast by a member of the prime minister's ruling Civic Democratic Party (ODS), and three other members of the ODS' ruling coalition -- a former member of the party and two former Green Party members, the Czech News Agency (CTK) reported.

ODS deputies immediately moved to expel Vlastimil Tlusty from the ODS deputies' group for his vote of no confidence, group chairman Petr Tluchor said, according to CTK. Tluchor also said the group would expel deputy Jan Schwippel, who also voted against the government but left the ODS deputies' group on his own last year.

"The deputies' group considers voting along with the Communists and Socialists for a no-confidence in the government led by the ODS incompatible with membership in the ODS and recommends that the ODS executive council take all necessary steps to expel deputies Tlusty and Schwippel from the Civic Democratic Party," Tluchor said.

The Central European country currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, but the vote is not expected to affect that. According to a statement from the Czech presidency on the EU Web site, Topolanek accepted the result of the vote. "I will adhere to the constitutional order," the prime minister said.The Czech constitution requires Topolanek to submit his resignation to President Vaclav Klaus, who will then appoint someone else to form a new government. But Tluchor told CTK that the ODS expects Klaus to appoint Topolanek to form the new government, adding that the ODS would not support a non-political caretaker government. source cnn.com

Saudi girl in marriage case wins appeal

An appeals court in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, has rejected and refused to certify a court ruling allowing a 47-year-old man's marriage to an 8-year-old girl, said a relative of the girl with knowledge of the proceedings.Under the Saudi legal process, what the appeals court ruling means is that the controversial marriage is still in effect, but a challenge to the marriage by the girl's mother is still alive. Rights groups hailed this week's decision because it keeps the mother's challenge going.

"I think that it happened because of the mother, because she refused to accept the [original] verdict, because she challenged the court in and took it to the appeals court, said Saudi women's rights activist Wajeha Al-Huwaider. "I really admire the mother for this." The mother is extremely relieved, the family member told CNN. She also expressed her thanks to the head of the appeals court for the attention paid the case, according to the Saudi daily newspaper Al-Riyadh on Tuesday.

The appeals court action now sends the case back to the earlier judge, who will decide whether to stand by his original decision.

There in Onaiza, the judge will have a chance to either overturn or uphold his first verdict, the girl's relative said. If the judge upholds his verdict and refuses to annul the marriage, then the case will again go to the appeals court, the family member told CNN. If the judge changes his decision, then the case is effectively over, the relative added.

Al-Huwaider, co-founder of the Society of Defending Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia, warned that while this latest development should be considered a victory for women's and children's rights, this is only a first step.

"For our women's rights group, I feel this is the first real achievement we've had since we started," she said. "We are happy for the girl and her mother but this is just the first achievement. We want a law in Saudi Arabia that protects girls from early marriages -- a law that states that girls have to be at least 17 before they can marry and boys have to be at least 18. When that happens, we will really celebrate."

The case, which has garnered much criticism from rights groups within and outside Saudi Arabia, came to light in December when the Onaiza judge refused to annul the marriage on a legal technicality. Sheikh Habib Abdallah al-Habib's dismissal of the mother's petition for annulment sparked immediate outrage.

The mother's lawyer, Abdullah al-Jutaili, said the judge found that the mother -- who is separated from the girl's father -- is not the legal guardian and therefore could not represent her daughter. The judge also requested and received a pledge from the girl's husband, who was in court, not to allow the marriage to be consummated until the girl reaches puberty, al-Jutaili said.

The lawyer said the judge ruled that when the girl reaches puberty, she will have the right to request a divorce by filing a petition with the court. Al-Jutaili said the girl's father arranged the marriage in order to settle his debts with the man, "a close friend" of his. The judge's verdict was appealed. In a statement issued shortly after the original verdict, the Society of Defending Women's Rights in Saudi Arabia said the judge's decision went against children's "basic rights."

Marrying children makes them "lose their sense of security and safety," the group said. "Also, it destroys their feeling of being loved and nurtured. It causes them a lifetime of psychological problems and severe depression."

Zuhair al-Harithi, a spokesman for the Saudi Human Rights Commission, a government-run human rights group, said that his organization was fighting child marriages. "Child marriages violate international agreements that have been signed by Saudi Arabia and should not be allowed," al-Harithi said.

Child marriage is not unusual, said Christoph Wilcke, a Saudi Arabian researcher for the international group Human Rights Watch, after the initial verdict. "We've been hearing about these types of cases once every four or five months because the Saudi public is now able to express this kind of anger, especially so when girls are traded off to older men," Wilcke told CNN. source cnn.com

One million people at risk in Darfur, U.N. says

UNITED NATIONS - More than one million people in Darfur are at risk of losing food, water and shelter in coming months, following the expulsion of international aid groups by Sudan's government, the United Nations' chief humanitarian coordinator said Tuesday. The statement by coordinator John Holmes comes after a joint U.N.-Sudanese assessment of the situation. The information was gathered from March 11-18 in hopes of stemming further troubles in Darfur after Sudan's government expelled 13 international relief organizations from the wartorn region. The announcement came on the same day that President Omar al-Bashir, now an indicted war criminal, ignored the threat of arrest by traveling abroad to Eritrea. Also Tuesday, a Sudanese staffer working for a Canadian relief group was shot dead in Darfur. A full report of the assessment will be released soon, according to the U.N., but an executive summary and recommendations were made available on Tuesday.

"While a significant effort is being made by the government, by the U.N., by the NGOs [nongovernmental organizations] which are left, to plug some of the immediate gaps in these areas, these are at the same time, 'Band-Aid' solutions, not long term solutions," Holmes said.The U.N. estimates that 1.5 million people in Darfur are dependent on healthcare support, 1.1 million need regular food aid, and another 1 million are in need of clean drinking water. source cnn.com .

Obama defends his budget as essential to recovery

President Obama presented a sober assessment of the state of the economy in his prime time news conference Tuesday, but he insisted his administration has a strategy in place to "attack this crisis on all fronts." "It took many years and many failures to lead us here. And it will take many months and many different solutions to lead us out. There are no quick fixes, and there are no silver bullets," he said. "We'll recover from this recession, but it will take time, it will take patience, and it will take an understanding that, when we all work together, when each of us looks beyond our own short-term interest to the wider set of obligations we have towards each other, that's when we succeed," he said.

The president defended his budget, which has come under criticism for its hefty price, saying the plan he proposed is "inseparable" from the overall strategy for economic recovery. Watch Obama say the U.S. will recover »

"We've got to make some tough budgetary choices," the president said in his second prime time news conference. "What we can't do, though, is sacrifice long-term growth, investments that are critical to the future, and that's why my budget focuses on health care, energy, education, the kinds of things that can build a foundation for long-term economic growth, as opposed to the fleeting prosperity that we've seen over the last several years."

The president brushed off skeptics of the scope of his investments, saying, "We haven't seen an alternative budget out of them." He also reiterated his pledge to cut the deficit in half over the next five years. Asked whether he would sign a budget that doesn't include a middle-class tax cut, Obama said he has "emphasized repeatedly" what his expectations are. "I haven't seen yet what provisions are in there," Obama said. "The bottom line is that I want to see health care, energy, education and serious efforts to reduce our budget deficit. And there are going to be details that still need to be worked out." Obama's appearance came on the heels of the unveiling of the Treasury Department's new bank rescue plan.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday announced a plan to remove troubled assets from banks' books by partnering with private investors. The goal is to buy at least $500 billion of existing assets and loans, such as subprime mortgages that are now in danger of default. After the announcement of the plan, the stock market rallied, posting the biggest gains in months.

Obama said he supports Geithner's push to seize financial institutions whose failure would pose serious risks to the U.S. financial system.

"Keep in mind that it is precisely because of the lack of this authority that the AIG situation has gotten worse," Obama said, referring to the troubled insurance giant.

It was revealed last week that AIG doled out massive bonuses to executives after receiving more than $170 billion in bailout funds.

Pressed about why he waited three days to publicly speak out against AIG paying the bonuses, Obama told reporters, "It took us a couple of days because I like to know what I'm talking about before I speak."

While most of the news conference focused on the economy, Obama faced a handful of questions on other topics.

Obama defended his executive order repealing a Bush-era policy that limited federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research, saying that signing the order earlier this month "was the right thing to do and ethical thing to do."

"I am glad to see progress has been made in adult stem cells, and if the science determines that we can completely avoid a set of ethical questions or political dispute -- then that's great. I have no investment in causing controversy," Obama said, adding, "What I don't want to do is predetermine this based on a very rigid ideological approach, and that's what I think is reflected in the executive order that I signed."

Asked about the violence in Mexico and the risk of spillover to the United States, Obama vowed to invest the resources needed to address the situation.

"If the steps we have taken do not get the job done, then we will do more," he said. Earlier Tuesday, Obama's administration announced plans to send hundreds more federal agents and new crime-fighting equipment to the border as the United States struggles to roll back a tide of drug-related violence.

Asked if race has affected the way he has been perceived in any policy debates since taking office, Obama said, "The last 64 days has been dominated by me trying to figure out how we're going to fix the economy, and that affects black, brown and white." iReport: Your reaction to the news conference

"Obviously, at the inauguration, I think that there was justifiable pride on the part of the country that we had taken a step to move us beyond some of the searing legacies of racial discrimination in this country, but that lasted about a day."

Right now, he said, the American people are judging him as they should: "Are we taking the steps to improve liquidity in the financial markets, create jobs, get businesses to reopen, keep America safe? And that's what I've been spending my time thinking about."

In his more than 50-minute appearance, Obama mentioned Afghanistan and Iraq only in response to a question about trimming the Defense and Veterans Administration's budget.

There were no questions specifically about the Iraq War, which entered its sixth year last week. Osama bin Laden and terrorism also were not mentioned.

During the news conference, Obama called on three news outlets not typically called on at a prime time event: Univision, Ebony Magazine and Stars and Stripes.

Obama's news conference comes after he made the rounds on television this past week, with an appearance on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," and an interview on CBS's "60 Minutes."

In his first prime time news conference, the president used the national platform to make the case for his economic stimulus plan, which has since been passed by Congress and signed into law. source cnn.com

Obama to beef up Mexico border policy

WASHINGTON- President Obama on Tuesday vowed to invest the resources needed to address the threat posed by drug traffickers in Mexico. "We are going to continue to monitor the situation, and if the steps we have taken do not get the job done, then we will do more," he told reporters Tuesday night. He praised the efforts of Mexican President Felipe Calderon to counter drug cartels, which "have gotten completely out of hand," but said the United States must take further steps, such as ensuring that illegal guns and cash do not flow from north of the Rio Grande to the cartels in Mexico.

"That's what makes them so dangerous," he said. Obama's remarks came hours after Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced that the United States is sending hundreds of federal agents and crime-fighting equipment to the border. The renewed push for stronger law-enforcement presence along the border comes as the administration tries to help the Mexican government break up drug cartels blamed for killing some 6,500 people in Mexico last year, Napolitano said.

"Our role is to assist in this battle because we have our own security interests in its success," Napolitano said at the White House. In an interview with CNN later Tuesday, she said, "It's all about border safety and security and making sure that spillover violence does not erupt in our own country." The new federal plan, developed by the departments of Justice and Homeland Security, calls for doubling the number of border security task force teams and moving a significant number of other federal agents, equipment and resources to the border. It also involves greater intelligence sharing aimed at cracking down on the flow of money and weapons into Mexico that helps fuel the drug trade, senior administration officials said.

The plan commits $700 million to bolster Mexican law enforcement and crime prevention efforts. The funds will provide, among other things, five new helicopters to increase mobility for the Mexican army and air force as well as new surveillance aircraft for the Mexican navy. The funds also will support enhanced communications technology for Mexican prosecutors, law enforcement and immigration officials.

The $700 million allocation, meant to assist what administration officials described as an "anti-smuggling effort," will complement ongoing U.S. aid to Mexico under the Merida initiative: a three-year, $1.4 billion package aimed at helping Mexico fight the drug cartels with law enforcement training, military equipment and improved intelligence cooperation.

The money was allocated last year, but Tuesday's announcement brought the first details of how some of that money will be spent.

On the U.S. side of the border, more funding will support "prosecutor-led, intelligence-based task forces" that bring together the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies to dismantle drug cartels through investigation and extradition and the seizure and forfeiture of assets, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden said.

"As we've found with other large criminal groups, if you take their money and lock up their leaders, you can loosen their grip on the vast organizations that are used to carry out their criminal activities."

To help strengthen the U.S. side of the border further, the administration also plans to triple the number of Department of Homeland Security intelligence analysts dedicated to stopping Mexican-related violence.

It also will increase the number of immigration officials working in Mexico, double the number of "violent criminal alien" teams on the border, strengthen the presence of border canine units and quadruple the number of border liaison officers working with Mexican law enforcement.

It also will make an additional $59 million in federal funds available to support state, local and tribal border law enforcement operations.

At the same time, more agents from the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives will be deployed to the border region. The agents will be given updated equipment and surveillance technology to help track the movement of cash, drugs and weapons.

At a congressional hearing in Washington on Tuesday, Phoenix, Arizona, Mayor Phil Gordon called the administration's initiative "a great first step," but added, "it's a drop in the bucket in terms of what is needed."

Phoenix finds itself at the center of a "perfect storm" of drug runners and human smugglers, he said. While most traditional crimes are down, crimes such as drug-related kidnappings and torturing are overwhelming Gordon's police department.

"Most nights we have over 60 Phoenix police officers (and) some federal agents rushing to rescue those on a reactive basis," Gordon said.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has also sought additional help for his state.

Last month, Perry said he asked Napolitano for aviation assistance and "1,000 more troops that we can commit to different parts of the border."

Perry said it didn't matter to him what kind of troops came.

"As long as they are boots on the ground that are properly trained to deal with the border region, I don't care whether they are military troops, or National Guard troops or whether they are customs agents."

Last week, a Perry spokeswoman said that federal border protection had been underfunded for some time and that the 1,000 extra troops Perry requested would fill in gaps that state and local agencies have been covering.

The announcement comes shortly ahead of planned trips by three Cabinet secretaries to Mexico before President Obama visits there next month. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton goes to Mexico City this week, to be followed next week by Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder.

Napolitano and Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg both emphasized the cooperation and "courage" of Calderon during the news conference announcing the policy changes. Calderon has been pushing back against U.S. criticism of drug cartel-related violence lately, arguing that the U.S. needs to take more responsibility for the outbreaks. In his speeches and other public remarks, Calderon repeatedly has pointed out that much of the demand for drugs and most of the weapons used by narco-traffickers comes from the United States. A prominent Washington-based gun control advocacy group released a report Tuesday backing Calderon's assertions regarding weapons trafficking. The report from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence asserts that Mexican drug gangs have exploited weak American gun laws and corrupt gun dealers "to amass arsenals of high-powered guns that have killed thousands and pose an increasingly grave security threat to Mexico and the U.S.," according to a statement from the organization. source cnn.com

'Hillary: The Movie' gets high court attention

WASHINGTON - The star of the show did not appear -- and the film in question was not shown -- but Hillary Clinton's big-screen moment was all the talk Tuesday at the Supreme Court. The justices heard arguments in a free-speech case over a 2008 documentary, shown in theaters, that was sharply critical of the onetime presidential candidate and current secretary of state.

At issue was whether the 90-minute "Hillary: The Movie" and television ads to promote it should have been subject to strict campaign finance laws on political advocacy or should have been seen as a constitutionally protected form of commercial speech.

The high court's decision will determine whether politically charged documentaries can be regulated by the government in the same way as traditional campaign commercials.

A ruling is expect by late June.

A conservative group behind the movie wanted to promote it during the heat of the presidential primary season last year, but a federal court had blocked any ads, as well as airings on cable TV video-on-demand.

The film later aired in several theaters and was released on DVD, outlets that were not subject to federal regulation.

The Supreme Court justices appeared divided on how to find balance between Congress' expressed desire to control the power of well-financed private groups to spread their political messages and concerns over the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech.

"This is targeted at a specific candidate for a specific office to be shown on a channel that says 'Election '08'," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. "Now if that isn't an appeal to voters, I can't imagine what is."

"There's a possibility," said Justice Antonin Scalia, "that the First Amendment interest is greater when what the government is trying to stifle is not just a speaker who wants to say something, but also a listener who wants to hear what the speaker has to say," noting that viewers would have paid to see the film on cable television.

On its Web site, Citizens United promoted its film as featuring 40 interviews.as well as a "cast to end all casts." It promised, "If you want to hear about the Clinton scandals of the past and present, you have it here! 'Hillary: The Movie' is the first and last word in what the Clintons want America to forget!"

The group, a Washington-based nonprofit corporation and advocacy organization, had balked at campaign finance rules that would have required them to disclose their financial backers and would have restricted when the film could air. The film was partially financed with corporate funds.

A three-judge U.S. District Court panel last spring rejected the group's arguments that the documentary was more akin to news or information programs such as PBS' "Nova" or CBS' "60 Minutes."

During Tuesday's oral arguments, the justices seemed uneasy about arguments from both sides.

"This sounds to me like campaign advocacy," said Justice David Souter.

But attorney Theodore Olson, representing Citizens United, said the law "smothered" free speech. He said groups like General Electric (which owns NBC News), National Public Radio and progressive financier George Soros (who often privately funds his political projects) could air such films in the name of informing the American people, but not his clients because of the film's perceived negative tone.

"If it's all negative it can be prohibited, and it's a felony. Or if it's all favorable, you can go to jail. But if you did half and half, you couldn't" be convicted, said Olson, criticizing the law's "incomprehensible" regulations.

Several on the court wondered whether a 90-minute message was different than a 30-second commercial.

"It seems to me you can make the argument that 90 minutes is much more powerful in support or in opposition to a candidate," said Justice Anthony Kennedy.

"We have no choice, really, but to say this is not issue advocacy, this is express advocacy saying don't vote for this person," which is subject to regulation," Souter said. "The difference between 90 minutes and one minute is a distinction that I just can't follow."

The comprehensive 2002 McCain-Feingold law bans broadcast of "electioneering communication" by corporations, unions and advocacy groups if it would be aired close to election dates and would identify candidates by name or image. The law also requires an on-screen notice of the groups financing such ads, as well as public disclosure of all donors to the sponsoring organizations.

Lawyers representing the Federal Election Commission urged the justices to subject the ads to the disclosure law, arguing that without it, voters would be "unable to know who's funding the ads." Justice Department attorney Malcolm Stewart called it "an easy case."

Some on the bench were not sure, probing the limits of the definition of candidate advocacy.

"So if Wal-Mart airs an advertisement that says we have candidate action figures for sale, come buy them, that counts as an electioneering communication," asked Chief Justice John Roberts.

Justice Samuel Alito wondered about the differences between broadcast or cable TV, where the film could not be run, and the Internet or theaters where it could.

When Stewart implied "additional media" could also be subject to future regulation, the newest justice replied, "That's pretty incredible. You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?" Most book publishers are corporations subject to campaign finance restrictions, he noted.

Legal observers say Alito and Roberts' votes could be key to the case's outcome.

At the time of the movie's premiere, Clinton was locked in a tough primary fight with then-Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for president.

Critics slammed her qualifications and character.

People say, "Well, she's flipping, she's flopping. No, she's not flipping and flopping, she's lying," Bay Buchanan, a political commentator and regular analyst for CNN, said in the film.

"We must never understate her chances of winning," warned Dick Morris, a former political adviser to President Clinton. "And we must never forget the fundamental danger that this woman poses to every value that we hold dear. You see, I know her."

Ads for the movie were available on the Internet, which is not subject to federal regulation.

"I've seen this movie," Justice Stephen Breyer wryly noted, "It's not a musical comedy."

David Bossie, head of Citizens United and producer of the "Hillary" film, was also behind several conservative documentaries, including a rebuttal to Michael Moore's anti-Bush film "Fahrenheit 9/11."

The case is Citizens United v. FEC (08-205). source cnn.com

Police eye suspect in newlywed's slaying

NEW YORK - Nicole Ganguzza was a newlywed in grad school at the University of Central Florida when she was dragged off a trail and strangled to death while jogging in a park in June. Ganguzza, 26, was close to earning her master's degree in marriage and family therapy. She was looking forward to having children of her own. She left class on June 10 at about 5:35 p.m. Ten minutes later, she called husband Brendan Ganguzza and told him she was going jogging at Jay Blanchard Park, not far from the university's campus in Orlando, Florida. Brendan Ganguzza became worried at about 7 p.m. when he couldn't reach his wife on her phone. He searched the park for two hours, calling police at about 9 p.m. Police combed the brush through the evening, and the search the next day grew to 60 people. Her body was found behind the post office, about two miles from where her Mitsubishi Eclipse was parked and just off the Econlockhatchee Trail where she'd been jogging.

Brendan Ganguzza became a widower at 30. He is working hard to keep her memory alive. "It's hard sometimes because you can feel very much in the dark about what is going on, wondering if you'll ever get answers," he told CNN. "We've started a foundation in Nicole's name to continue her dream of providing free counseling and therapy to those who can't afford it. She was studying to be a counselor," he added. Nicole Ganguzza was killed five days before toddler Caylee Anthony was reported missing. That case grabbed the headlines in Orlando -- and beyond.

Investigators wove a web of circumstantial evidence and charged the child's mother, Casey Anthony, the notorious "tot mom" whose wild party pictures became a cable news show staple. Writing recently about the charitable foundation established in Nicole Ganguzza's name, an Orlando Sentinel columnist described her as "the anti-Casey."

Police say her killer deliberately hid her body in the brush along the trail. Investigators believe the killer either is from the area or is very familiar with the park and nearby campus. The Orange County Medical Examiner characterized Ganguzza's death as a homicide by strangulation without elaborating. It is not publicly known whether she had been sexually assaulted. "We are keeping very quiet about this because this is information that only the killer would know," said Orange County sheriff's spokesman Carlos Padilla.

Last week, Ganguzza's family and friends asked anyone with information to come forward and help solve this cold case. They expressed relief that the police may have a break in the case and that an arrest could come soon. "I just hope they make an arrest soon in my wife's case, so they can get this dangerous guy off the streets," Brendan Ganguzza said.

Police executed a search warrant two weeks ago on the mobile home of a man who is considered a person of interest in the case. His home lies along the Econlockhatchee Trail. He is a former student and employee of the University of Central Florida. Police say that after reviewing tips and leads, they believe they have probable cause to investigate this individual further.

"The search warrant is sealed, and I can't say at this time what evidence was collected or what led us to this individual," said Cpl. Susan Soto, a spokeswoman for the Orange County sheriff. Police are being tight-lipped about whether Ganguzza's attacker left behind any DNA or other forensic evidence. Police are still asking for the public's help in solving this case. If anyone has any information please call Crime Line at 1-800-423-TIPS. A reward of up to $5,000 is being offered for information on the Nicole Ganguzza homicide case.