Kushner Kiboshed

There was never much doubt about who would win - General John Kelly, former four-star Marine Corps commander and someone used to getting his own way, and Jared Kushner whose biggest claim to fame is that he is the son-in-law of Donald Trump. Why it was thought appropriate to give him temporary top security clearance when the FBI was struggling to check him out, I don't know. But after enjoying access to the most secret stuff landing on his father-in-law's desk, he has now been humiliated after being told his clearance has been downgraded to not-very-interesting-stuff. He remains, I think, Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, so at some point he is going to have to see intelligence higher up the clearance chain, but General Kelly will no doubt decide that on a case by case basis. It's all about need-to-know. If Jared doesn't need to know, he won't be told, but of course he won't know what he doesn't need to know which will be pretty frustrating for him. Trump now has another reason for not liking Kelly. But the besieged chief of staff must have told the president that there was no way his son-in-law could be treated as an equal to his father-in-law when it came to America's most closely guarded secrets. But I wonder how much Trump himself is actually told. He gets his daily presidential intelligence brief compiled by the CIA and others, but although that sounds like a daily dose of the Crown Jewels, the presidential briefing is sanitised by the intelligence agencies. Trump who has shown he is not interested in poring over intelligence, is in some ways like his son-in-law. He knows what he is told but he doesn't know what he is not told unless he is particularly astute and asks a pertinent question that forces the CIA to tell him what he hadn't been told before in his briefing. For example, is Trump aware of all the black ops being carried out by US special forces and the CIA's special activities division? I doubt it. He will be informed if some vital intelligence gleaned from black ops requires a presidential decision or if something goes seriously wrong. But even the president and commander-in-chief doesn't need to know everything. If he was shown raw intelligence every day - that's unprocessed, non-analysed intel - Trump would have to spend every hour of every day reading it all, and the president is not a great reader of anything we have been told. But if he really wants to know what's going on in some part of the world that's top top secret, he, as commander-in-chief, is entitled to be told. Jared Kushner won't get anywhere near this sort of stuff. Very humiliating for a man who until now enjoyed special access.

Brexit is good for you. No it's not.

Brexit is now like everything else in life. Butter is good for you, say experts. No it's not, say experts. Red wine is good for you, say experts. No it's not, say experts. Climate change is nonsense, say experts. Climate change is the most dangerous threat facing the world, say experts. Jogging will extend your life by ten years, say experts. No it won't, say experts. Peanut butter is the elixir of life, say experts. No it isn't, say experts. Excessive exercise ten minutes a day will prevent a heart attack, say experts. No it won't and doesn't, say experts. There's an endless supply of examples of things which experts say will do you good that are then denied by other types of experts. Brexit is like a glorified advertising campaign by both sides of the debate. No one can work out which side is telling the truth or which side actually knows what the hell it is talking about. Today is a classic case. Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the fast-left-moving Labour Party and would-be prime minister, has come out with a spectacularly brilliant political idea. Let's stay in the EU Customs Union, he says, then we will be guaranteed our fair share of the lovely trade deals that go on every day of the week. Well, that concept has been around ever since Brexit was first invented. But never mind, Corbyn has suddenly come to this conclusion because he realises that if he can persuade Tory rebel Remainers to join him, he could oust Theresa May and her divided cabinet. I don't suppose Corbyn and his merry Lefties have thought through the implications of this new policy but it's a clever political move to put more pressure on May. The timing is good, too, because the Government is currently in the middle of a period of Big Speeches by the Big Players. Today it's the turn of Liam Fox, the International Trade Secretary, who is going to tell us - because he has leaked his speech to be made tonight - that it would be daft to stay in the EU Customs Union because then we won't be able to grab amazingly wonderful trade deals with countries outside the EU. Better to break free and launch Glorious Britain into a whirlpool of trade partnerships with everyone from the United States to Nicaragua. But before poor Liam has stepped up to the microphone to reveal his brilliant understanding of Brexit, out of the woodwork comes a fellow called Sir Martin Donnelly who tells us that the Fox argument is fantasy. The phrase he uses is "fairy godmother" stuff. Sir Martin was a top civil servant, serving as permanent secretary at....Fox's department until he resigned last year. He referred on radio to a speech HE is going to make which will argue that what we lose by leaving the Customs Union will never be replaced or bettered by acting alone and struggling to reach new trade deals with the EU or with countries outside. In other words, he can guarantee that Britain will be worse off outside the Customs Union and anyone who thinks differently must believe in fairies. Ergo, Liam Fox believes in fairies. Ooops Sir Martin, a former top civil servant speaks his mind. No wonder he resigned. The point of all this is we lesser mortals haven't a clue whether Fox's dream of a new era of multiple trade deals for Britain is based on sound intellect and judgment or is just another flimsy-flamsy hope-for-the-best piece of political hype. Nor do we know whether smartypants Donnelly knows what he is talking about. He once worked in Brussels, so he is a Brussels bureaucrat at heart who beieves the EU is the best place for us. Well, that's what I believe, too, but everything is now so political that it's impossible to feel convinced by arguments from either side. The British voters opted in the referendum for a full pull-out, including from the Single Market and Customs Union. At least, I think they thought they did. Since then we've had Soft Brexit and Hard Brexit and No-deal Brexit. So the waters have been muddied to such an extent that it no longer matters what the so-called Big Players, such as Boris Johnson, David Davis, Liam Fox, oh and Theresa May, say about the implications of staying, leaving or running away, there isn't a reputable financial crystal-ball-gazer in the universe who, hand on heart, can say where exactly Britain will be in, say, ten years' time. Today, Fox has been outfoxed by Donnelly but it really hasn't helped one bit!

President for life

I think the United States better be very careful. President Trump must be looking with envy at his counterpart in Beijing. President Xi Zinping has been enjoying power so much that he now wants to be president for life, and because it's China all he has to do is arrange for legislation to be rewritten to allow him to stay "on the throne" until his last words are uttered on this Earth. President Putin has pretty much done the same. He extended the previously limited term for an individual Russian president and no one wll be surprised if he doesn't stick out around in the Kremlin for another 20 years or so. Trump, poor chap, has a maximum of eight years in the White House under the constitution. But perhaps he will get his legal boys to come up with a brilliant idea so that he can do many more four-year terms to rival crafty Xi and KGB-cunning Putin. That's if Trump is not impeached or forced to resign or just loses the 2020 election. But there are ways round that too maybe. Of course, Trump might decide after four or eight years that he wants to hang up his red baseball cap and spend the rest of his days playing golf in Florida. But somehow I don't see that scenario. Even now he will be thinking to himelf, "For the sake of America First I must be allowed to stay on as president for ever." Xi and Putin are going to be the big big players for the next 10-20 years. As the law stands now, Trump will be gone one way or the other. He will be SO frustrated and angry that his two great rivals will be laughing their heads off as he departs from the White House and hands over to.....well, who knows but probably some Democratic Party upstart with a vision. By then, Theresa May will be gone (politically), Merkel too, probably Macron, that chap in Delhi, hopefully Kim Jong-un. Xi and Putin together as presidents for life. I can hear Trump shouting at someone, anyone, in the Oval Office right now. Probably at General John Kelly or Lieutenant-General HR McMaster. "I WILL BE PRESIDENT FOR LIFE!!!"

Trump leaps in

Donald Trump just cannot resist thrusting into every news item to stamp his mark. It didn't take him long to describe Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed security officer at Parkland school, as a coward. He heard what we all heard and read what we all read and then decided to make an instant judgment. Whether he is proven to be accurate or not, I don't think it's the job of the president of the United States to pass judgment on a story like this. Had he been a president with any human feeling he would have said something like this: "It's not for me to make any judgment on why Deputy Peterson did not enter the school to confront the gunman. That's a matter for the sheriff. I wish to make no comment other than to say how desperately sad I am about this terrible incident. Let the police carry out their investigation as the law requires." That would have been fine. But Trump is not that sort of president. Instead, he branded Peterson a coward who had failed to do his job, and as a consequence created big headlines for himself. I don't think such comments help anyone and undoubtedly added immeasurably to the general castigation of Scot Peterson. Another sorry presidential episode.

Parkland security man's hesitation

The Parkland security man Deputy Scot Peterson is being villified for his failure to leap with his gun in his hand into the slaughterhouse to confront and kill the accused shooter Nikolas Cruz. The media is going crazy after the local sheriff declared at a press conference that Deputy Peterson had waited outside for four minutes as gunfire raged inside the school. Seventeen people were killed and others injured in a six-minute hail of bullets. But wait just a minute before this poor man is crucified. He had a responsibiity to protect the students. That was his job. That was why he was armed. But not every police officer, security officer and soldier is naturally equipped mentally to rush into a war zone-type situation, separate the gunman from the students at risk and calmly shoot him dead. It would have taken instinctive courage, unbelievable determination, immaculate training and incredible skill. Citations for a top bravery award given to a soldier in combat always say that the awardee took action "without thought for his own safety". Perhaps Deputy Peterson did not have that kind of courage. Probably he had never been trained for dealing with such a horrendous life-risking situation. Perhaps he really didn't know what to do. Should he have gone in immediately the first shot was fired and run straight at the gunman? Would he have killed him or would he have fired out of fear and killed one of the students or teachers? Then what would have been said? It was one security officer armed with a pistol against a crazy gunman armed with a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle that can spray deadly rounds almost without stopping. Sheriff Scott Israel at the press conference was merciless: "I am devastated, sick to my stomach, he never went in." He should have "went in, addressed the killer, killed the killer." Would the sheriff have done that had he been the lone security officer facing a man with an assault rifle? All I'm saying is, Deputy Peterson should have rushed in and should have been prepared to sacrifice his life, but the sheer terror of doing precisely that, knowing that he could be dead in a matter of seconds, made him hesitate. No one who has not faced this sort of life and death decision should criticise him. Normally when there is a dangerous hostage situation or a bank robbery or whatever, a lone police officer at the scene would be told to wait for back-up. I have no idea but maybe Deputy Peterson judged it would be suicidal to go in on his own and he was waiting for more armed police to arrive. In the end no one can know whether his intervention would have saved lives or just added one more to the death toll - the death of Deputy Peterson.

Ivanka and the North Korean general

The Winter Olympic Games was supposed to be about snow, ice and also warm and cuddly stuff, the latter being about improving relations between North and South Korea. North and South Korean ice hockey players and other Games participants from both sides of the border got on pretty well, and the general atmosphere was good, raising hopes that from hockey players you could go on to better relations and sweetness and light and an end to the nuclear crisis. That was always a false hope. But for a time the tension on the Korean Peninsula was definitely lowered. However, that was all slightly ruined by the frosty non-relationship between Mike Pence, the US Vice President, and Kim Jong-un´s sister, Kim Yo Jong. They sat near to each other in the VIP box but never met eyes and their planned meeting in which no doubt hands would have been shaken, didn´t happen. That´s because Pence who seems to me to be totally dreary, uninspiring and boring, never moved an inch. He made it clear that the only thing he was interested in was a conversation about North Korea getting rid of its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Ok fair enough!! But diplomacy is all about nuance and suggestion and hints and a sort of friendliness. Obviously too subtle for Pence who sat there in his huge anorak and seemed immovable, a bit like one of those stoney-faced Soviet Politburo leaders on the high dais in Red Square watching the military parade go by. What was he going to say to Kim Yo Jong? “Maam, unless you speak nuclear to me you can go hang and go back to your Fatty Brother and tell him we´re going to annihilate you.” Ha!! You don´t have to concede anything, Mr Vice-President, but a touch of human give and take in the name of diplomacy wouldn´t have harmed. Anyway, Pence might as well have not been there. He achieved nothing. North Korea called off the meeting and he went back to his office in the White House. But now there is a new opportunity for some clever chatting. Trump is sending his daughter Ivanka to attend the closing ceremony, and North Korea is sending General Kim Yong-choi who used to head up the Reconnaissance General Bureau, a wonderfully quaint name for North Korea´s spying agency. Now that, I grant you, is not a perfect match, Ivanka and Kim Jong-un´s ex-spymaster, but who knows, perhaps they will get along, if they are allowed actually to meet. They probably won´t but it´s fun to imagine. I quite like Ivanka. She has a bit of style, a helluva lot more than Mike Pence at any rate. The general doesn´t look as if he has much personality but he might be charmed by Trump´s daughter. Give it a go, I say. But the bureaucrats on both sides will never allow it to happen. More`s the pity!

Does Trump have a red line in Syria?

Obama had a red line in Syria but let it be crossed without doing anything. On the question of Bashar Assad using chemical weapons against his people, Obama was saved by the Russians who came up with their idea of persuading Assad to give up his chemical and biological weapons. Thinking back, especially with the current antagonism between the US and Russia, it is quite bizarre that it was Russia that came to Obama's rescue. But does Trump have a red line for Syria? Does he really care that the Syrians and Russians are currently bombing the rebel-held Damascus suburban enclave of eastern Ghouta to a pile of rubbish and killing hundreds of civilians? Does Trump feel any sense of outrage? The only red line that Trump has shown interest in is to stop North Korea from acquiring a long-enough range missile with a nuclear warhead capable of hitting the US. But even that red line seems somewhat uncertain. The CIA director Mike Pompeo has said that North Korea is just a handful of months away from achieving this "dream". So the red line will come this year. Will Trump act or prevaricate? And will Trump do anything about Syria? No one is stopping the Syrian regime and its Russian backers from slaughtering men, women and children on a daily basis. The UN pleads for the killing to stop but no one is listening. When this sort of rampant murder is going on, it needs a western leader of exceptional quality to intervene. Trump has so far shown no interest in stopping the bombing. He has no red line. It would be highly dangerous but if Obama considered bombing the Syrian airbase from where chemical weapons were stored, why should not Trump tell Assad: "If you don't stop bombing Ghouta I'm going to take out your airbases." Of course the risks are huge. What would Russia do? But the United States needs to become once again the leader of the western world. Trump's America First policy is a disaster because it has given the impression to the rest of the world that he doesn't care about standing up for human values elsewhere. So Putin gets away literally with murder. It's time for Trump to speak out for the women and children being killed and wounded in Ghouta. And to act!

Big power war in Syria on the brink

As every day goes by in Syria the danger of a big-power war gets closer and closer. It could be the US against Russia, or Turkey against Syria or Iran against the US or even, heaven forfend, Turkey versus the US. The risks are getting greater by the day, by the hour. The new confrontation is at Afrin, which the Turkish army is determined to cleanse of Kurdish "terrorists" for which read militia who are now bizarrely being backed by pro-Syrian regime forces who want to keep out the Turks. President Erdogan is acting like an Ottoman emperor, ruthlessly attacking anyone who he believes is linked to the PKK, the Kurdish separatists who have been at war with Turkey for 40 years. To Erdogan all Kurds are PKK and therefore Turkey's enemy. His army began attacking Afrin in January in Operation Olive Tree but now faces Assad's troops as well as Kurdish forces. Well, this is Syrian territory and the Turks have "invaded", so you could argue that the Turks are out of order. But in Syria there is no order, so Erdogan launched his offensive in order to protect his borders from "PKK" militia. Erdogan is now warning the Syrian regime to back off, just like he warned the US two weeks ago to back off from the town of Manbij which he wants to return to its "rightful owner" (you got it - Turkey). A bust-up between the two Nato partners now seems unlikely after an intervention by Jim Mattis in Brussels when he talked to his Turkish counterpart, but you never know with Erdogan. However, the incident on February 7 when 100 pro-regime Syrian forces including dozens of Russian "freelance contractors/mercenaries" were killed by US airstrikes and artillery has reminded everyone, Erdogan too one assumes, that when the Americans fire in anger they don't mess around. Moscow has definitely got the message. Putin and co are so desperate to absolve themselves of any knowledge of or responsibility for the deaths of Russian citizens that it's obvious the blast from the sky and from the ground will make the Ruskies think twice before contemplating a similar venture where the Americans are involved. But with Russian fighter jets and Spetnaz special forces around, there is always the danger of a huge miscalculation. Then suddenly it's official Russian forces against the Americans. Then what? As for Iran and its trained and armed Hezbollah accolytes, there is always the risk of a bloody confrontation, even though the US is insistent that its sole purpose in Syria is to rid the place of Isis. Nothing else matters, except when it does of course, like on February 7 when, for no logical reason, the pro-regime, Russian infested, 300-500-troop battle group turned up near a stronghold occupied by the US-trained Syrian Democratic Forces with their American advisers in tow and opened fire with everything they had. Putin, Assad, Erdogan, and everyone else with ambitions in Syria's future took due note. Not a bad thing in this crazy world.

Trump in 2020

What will the world view of Donald Trump be in 2020, after he has completed his first (and last?) four-year term of office? But first of all, is it fair to judge the president on his first year in office and make an asssumption that this is what we're going to get in the next three years? The answer, in my view, is yes and yes. Trump is never going to change because that's the way he is. He dislikes compromise, he dismisses anyone who has opposite views to his and he believes that he is always right. So the next three years will be the same as the first year. In other words, confrontation, anger, division and the occasional success. So by 2020 I think the American people and the world will be exhausted. By then Trump will have produced a million tweets, each one getting slightly more angry or vexacious or downright rude. By 2020 the Robert Mueller Russia collusion investigation will have been completed and the consequences will have impacted on the whole administration. Trump will survive but the trials of Mike Flynn et al and the incredible amount of dirt that Mueller will have dredged up about Trump's business deals in Russia will have cast such a shadow over his presidency that the Republican Party will plot to bring forward a replacement candidate for the 2020 election. Step forward Mitt Romney, reelected to the Senate. Trump will go down screaming. Well, this is one scenario. The other scenario is that a Big Event in the next three years will be the decisive factor in whether Trump goes on to win a second term. It could be North Korea or Russia or Iran. One of those three. I don't think China is yet ready to put the screws on the US or confront the US Navy in a battle in the South China Sea. That time will come but China has a lot of building and expanding and developing to do before it risks taking on the US. If forced to choose I would say North Korea is the key to Trump's second term if he is to make it for another four years. What the Big Event will be precisely I hardly dare predict but it will unquestionably involve a Trump decision to go on the offensive against Kim Jong-un's nuclear arsenal - not a military strike as such but a major covert operation to bring down Kim and his regime. If Trump succeeds in removing from this world the nuclear threat from North Korea, he will walk away with a second term, and Mitt Romney will be gone for good as a potential presidential candidate. We will see.

Yemen, the target for everyone's bombs

Nikki Hayley, the impressive US ambassador to the United Nations, has highlighted the appalling situation in Yemen in an article in the New York Times. But she is guilty of omission on one crucial issue. She has picked out Iran for breaching the arms embargo by selling bombs and missiles to the Houthi rebels. She is right of course, it is a fact that Iran, stirring up trouble wherever it goes in its foreign ventures, IS arming the Houthi rebels who are trying to overthrow the government of President Abdrabbuh Monsour Hadi, and as a consequence hundreds of Yemeni citizens are being killed or made homeless. As Nikki Hayley points out, Yemen is suffering the worst humanitarian disaster in the world right now. But it is also true to say that the Americans and British are providing missiles and bombs to Saudi Arabia which is leading a coalition attacking the Houthi rebels....and as a consequence hundreds of Yemeni citizens are being killed or made homeless. Ok, the aim of the arms embargo is to prevent the Houthis from getting their hands on weapons. But Saudi Arabia has been ruthless in its airstrike campaign and has devoted far less time and energy in avoiding civilian casualties as the Americans and Brits would if they were engaged in targeting the Houthi rebels. And because of that. the providers of the bombs and missiles have to take some responsibility for where they are landing. Yemen is a hellhole for its people, just as Syria has been and still is a hellhole for those who have had little relief from war despite the defeat of Isis. Yemen is one of those countries that seems to be a target for everyone. With so much chaos going on and so much death and destruction, the most dangerous branch of al-Qaeda is flourishing in Yemen. Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's training camps are bombed by the US Air Force, and individuals targeted by American Reaper drones. Al-Qaeda, like other terrorist groups, hides among the population. So bombing raids always have the risk of collateral damage, as the military like to call civilian casualties. Hitting al-Qaeda in Yemen is a totally legitimate, justified and necessary strategy. But it is a tragedy for the Yemeni people that powerful nations a long way away are devoting so much time to dropping bombs over their country. Nikki Hayley should spend more time trying to solve this seemingly unsolvable conflict than selecting out Iran for condemnation. In this war, everyone, except for the Yemeni people trying to live their lives, are guilty one way or the other.

Mass shooting generation

This headline appeared in the New York Times today, a terrible comment on the dangers faced by the current generation of American students. Schools and colleges across the US are now thinking to themselves, could they be the next target? It's a question that every teacher and school administrator need to ask. The students under their care deserve to be able to go to school each day without the fear of having a rebellious or vengeful ex-student coming to visit them with a bagful of weapons. There's litle point in having one or two more security guards to be on the lookout. It's obviously too easy for people who look like students to mingle with the crowds and then open fire. But more security is at the top of the list. But most important of all, every school should draw up a list of past students or expelled students who have shown even the slightest tendency towards violence, and then have their pictures and details up on a prominent wall near the front of the building so that everyone can be on the lookout. Would such a system have stopped the accused Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz from opening fire with his AR-15 semi-automatic rifle? Possibly, if he knew that his face and name were on the list of bad people to watch out for. Just maybe that would have put him off. The trouble is, schools cannot be turned into fortresses, but the very fact that one of the major American newspapers is now referring to the "mass shooting generation" makes it imperative for children to be given added protection. But first, ban guns for anyone under the age of 40. That would be a start.

The FBI under fire

The FBI could have prevented the appalling massacre of 17 people at the Parkland school in Florida if only they had taken seriously all the warning signs and tip-offs that the self-confessed killer Nikolas Cruz was a potential school murderer in the making. The law enforcement agency has come clean. They have admitted they failed to carry out their normal protocols, as they said. The trouble is, there are so many warnings and tipoffs about dodgy neigbours or unpleasant family members or weird strangers that it is not surprising that "protocols" are not always followed properly. The temptation is to say: "Oh not another nutter who wants to carry out a massacre at a school. How many of those calls did we get last week?" This, I'm afraid, is the reality of a country that allows almost anyone to buy a gun, pistol, rifle, pump-action shotgn etc etc. But in the Cruz case, it was more that just hearsay or rumour. First, there was a tipoff from someone who knew him well that Cruz had actually boasted he wanted to shoot up a school on Instagram. Second, the police knew all about him from past bad behaviour. Third, if they had bothered to check his old school they would have discovered that students feared him because he was obssessed with guns. And fourth, he had an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle in a cupboard at home. What more do you need to put two and two together and take this guy off the streets or mount a surveillance operation on him? But then, it's also about priorities. The FBI has to decide, do they pull out all the stops on this one guy or do they worry more about someone else in another state who has shown murderous tendencies? It's like all intelligence assessments whether about suspected terrorists or suspected would-be killers or suspected nutters. Which ones get the full FBI treatment and which ones are placed on file and forgotten about? It's never easy. But Cruz, by all accounts, stood out like a volcano about the explode. This time I'm afraid the FBI got their assessments all wrong. They failed to act or react. Seventeen people died. The responsibility lies totally with the shooter. But he could have been stopped.

The semi-automatic assault rifle of choice

The last time there was a mass shooting at a school in the United States when an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle was used, I had very faint hopes that possibly someone somewhere with reasonable authority, such as a Congressman or a state governor or even the president might come to the conclusion that allowing American citizens, of whatever age, to walk into a shop and buy one of these deadly assault rifles should be STOPPED. But no one stepped forward. There was the usual talk about how banning guns was not the issue. An argument that I have never understood. Surely if there weren't shops selling military-style weapons over the counter, the shooting massacres at schools and churches and other public places would not happen any longer? I would have thought that sort of logic was unassailable. But no, the argument was still, "Ah but it's not the guns that kill people, it's the men/women/children pressing the trigger that kills people"! Well ok, even if we stick with that ridiculous answer, how come someone who has written on his social media stuff that he wants to do a shooting at a school is able to get his hands on this appalling weapon, the AR-15 rifle? The alleged shooter at the school in Parkland, Florida, had done just that and the FBI had even been tipped off. Yet this person walks to his former school, opens fire at anyone he spots and then calmly progresses into the school and continues shooting. With a high-powered semi-automatic rifle in your hands it's so easy. So, biq question for the day: will anyone now step forward and say: "AR-15 semi-automatic rifles are now prohibited, they are never to be sold to any civilian ever again." This won't end shootings in the future but it just might make a big difference. Will anyone do this? No they won't. So how long do we have to wait before the next school massacre? Three months?

New prison for 9/11 accused

Camp 7 is probably the most secret prison in the world. It is located somewhere on the southeast corner of Cuba inside the US-leased territory of Guantanamo Bay. I say "somewhere" because its precise location is classified top secret. It's part of the Guantanamo detention centre but visitors to Guantanamo, such as journalists like me, are never allowed to see it or go within sniffing distance of it. It houses just 15 detainees, five of whom are the accused 9/11 conspirators - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, self-confessed mastermind of the 2001 terrorist attacks, born in Kuwait to Pakistani parents, Ramzi Binalshibh, a Yemeni, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi, a Saudi, Abi Abd al-Aziz Ali, also known as Ammar al-Baluchi, a nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarek bin Attash, another Yemeni. They are guarded round the clock by specially trained troops from the Joint Task Force Guantanamo. But Camp 7, housing what the Pentagon considers to be the most dangerous al-Qaeda terrorists in detention, was built more than 15 years ago and it's in a poor condition, perhaps even a security risk. So in its latest defence budget request, for 2019, the Pentagon has allocated $69 million to replace the ramshackle Camp 7 structure with a new maximum-security prison block. It is said the Pentagon wants a building that will last for at least 40 years. Under Obama, of course, Guantanamo Bay, including Camp 7, was supposed to have been shut down, but he was foiled at every attempt. Congress made it clear that none of the Guantanamo detainees could ever be transferred to the US. Lots of countries agreed to take some of the detainees, in return for cash and whatever. So over the years the total inmate strength of around 780 was whittled down to the present 41, 15 of whom are the Camp 7 detainees. But no one wants Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and co, and anyway the US is committed to putting them on trial at the military tribunal courtroom in Guantanamo and to punish them, if convicted, with the death penalty if found to have been responsible for the murder of nearly 3,000 people on 9/11. So, with Trump, and his Justice Secretary, Jeff Sessions, determined to let Guantanamo run and run, I guess Congress, even if they hate Guantanamo, will approve the spending of $69 million to make sure that the five 9/11 alleged co-conspirators NEVER leave the island.

The risk of American/Russian clash in Syria

At some point in the disaster country of Syria there's going to be a firefight between US troops and Russian troops. It may have already happened. When the Syrian Democratic Forces backed by US airstrikes and artillery defended themselves very robustly after being attacked by pro-Syrian regime fighters near the Euphrates river last week, 100 of the attackers died. That is turkey shooting slaughter. No one knows why this regime force suddenly appeared with tanks and artillery and took on the SDF when they must have known that the Americans were around. But did this force have Russians amongst them? The chances are there were, but Moscow is being vey careful not to admit anything. There's casual talk about maybe some Russian mercenaries. That word has a multiplicity of meanings. In eastern Ukraine for example it means Russian Spetnaz special forces. In Syria it probably means fully-fledged Russian troops but never to be confirmed by Moscow because of the embarrassment of such a wholesale defeat. So far the American and Russian fighter jets filling the skies over Syria have miraculously managed to avoid crashing into each other or firing air-to-air missiles at each other. The daily deconfliction arrangement has worked. So well done the Pentagon and the Russian defence ministry. But we're entering a dangerous phase in the Syria conflict, with the big boys - the US, Russia, Syria, Turkey and Iran - trying to carve out their territory. A major clash between any of them could happen on the ground almost any day although last week's massive firefight must have been a terrifying lesson. They won't do that again in a hurry. Moscow should have been on the phone to Assad to say, "what the hell are you doing?" But if there WERE Russians among those killed, does that mean Putin and co knew about it beforehand and approved? Was this supposed to be a test for America's nerve? If so they badly miscalculated. Self defence is a basic right for the military whatever the circumstances, and I reckon whoever was in charge decided that as soon as the Syrian regime force appeared, a massive display of firepower was required. Jim Mattis, the US Defence Secretary, has denied last week's clash meant there was mission creep in Syria. His message was then made clear: "If we're attacked we have the right to defend ourselves." And didn't they just!

Isis foreign fighters - go home or go to Guantanamo?

There are now hundreds of foreign fighters who joined the Isis "caliphate" sitting in jails in Syria with an uncertain future. They were all captured by the supremely efficient Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces and they hail from all over the world, including the US, UK, Canada, Chechnya, Tunisia, Saudia Arabia etc etc. Great news that they have been taken off the battlefeld but now what to do with them? The obvious option is to send them back to their home countries and put them on trial. But here's the difficulty. To prosecute them, at least in places like the US, UK and Canada, there has got to be sufficient prosecutable evidence gathered from the battlefield to put them away for the rest of their lives. The UK government has very cleverly made stateless the two so-called members of the "Beatles" Isis execution squad, captured in January - cancelling their British passports. In other words, the Home Ofice doesn't want either of them back in the UK thank you, even though they were British when they left for Syria and turned into "alleged" monsters. This is a cowardly way of dealing with these people. They should be brought back and put on trial. My God, British and other newspapers have been writing about these individuals for years. There must be evidence around. What is not going to happen apparently is the Guantanamo option. The UK doesn't want them in Guantanamo, and the US doesn't want them in Guantanamo. So unless they spend the rest of their days in an SDP prison - without any guarantee that the SDP will be able to secure them properly - no one has a clue about where they should go. Not just the two ex-Britons but the rest of the bunch. In Iraq it was different because the Isis fighters captured there were all handed over to the Iraqi government authorities and thrown into prison where they will remain until they are put on trial and, I guess, face execution. The SDP is not a government, they are a well-trained militia. They can't be expected to keep foreign fighters in detention in perpetuity. And they can't hand them over to the Assad regime. The SDP and Assad don't communicate. Some decent legal brains need to get this one sorted out, otherwise I can see headlines in the future about Isis fighters escaping jail and disappearing. Meanwhile the UK govenment has to take responsibility for any of the British nationals now in an SDF jail, even if the Home Office has made them non-British passport holders.

North and South Korea love-in

I'm all for detente. There is nothing more heartening than when bitter enemies, especially ones that share a border, get together and smile a lot. This is what's going on between North and South Korea. There's a distinct lowering of the tension in the region, Kim Jong-un's sister, looking very young, has a sympathetic, innocent demeanour as she watches the Winter Olympics in her role as Senior Representative of the Supreme Leader, athletes from both sides of the border are holding hands and waving flags, and the regime boss in Pyongyang has invited President Moon of South Korea to come and see him for an official visit. All is sweetness and light. But oh my goodness, beware the cunning plan behind it all. Kim Jong-un has not changed overnight, the nuclear weapons programme he has authorised and the ballistic missile project he watches over with such glee continue as before. Only the surface stuff, the public relations, has altered, and the danger is that South Korea will be so happy to have the chance to discuss reunification, even though it is out of the question, that President Moon will go blindfolded to Pyongyang and embrace his North Korean counterpart with a feeling of euphoria, imagining that he and only he will break the political deadlock and bring in a new era of peace and tranquility to the Korean peninsula. Assuming the visit to Pyongyang goes smoothly and President Moon comes away saying how nice and friendly Kim Jong-un is, then the danger is he will be on the phone to President Trump to say: "Don't worry, everything is going to be fine. Kim Jong-un promised he doesn't want to hurt anyone, so you can put away your military options, especially that 'bloody nose' one the Pentagon keeps on talking about." Kim Jong-un is playing a very clever game. He knows that if he is really really nice to President Moon, the South Korean leader will do his best to stop Trump pressing the military button. The plan is so transparently obvious. Meanwhile the nuclear and ballistc missile programme will accelerate and suddenly before you know it, as the North and South Korean ice hockey team celebrates its first victory, Pyongyang will declare that it has mastered the nuclear weaponisation of its longest range ballistic missile and if Trump so much as thinks about the bloody nose scenario, the Supreme Leader will press The Button. Even the US doesn't know for sure that the missile interceptors in Alaska and California and on board half a dozen warships will definitely work. The last intercept test failed. So, all in all, the charm offensive by Kim Jong-un needs to be recognised for what it is. It's a charm offensive with a grim purpose. Let us hope that President Moon doesn't get fooled.

End of the British execution squad

The capture of the two Britons who were the last of four to remain at large from the Isis execution squad, known as the Beatles, are now being interrogated by the US military and could end up in Guantanamo. The crimes these Britons are accused of committing are so appalling, so disgusting and so inhuman, I care less whether they are sent to Guantanamo or to some US federal prison or even to a UK maximum security jail, provided they remain incarcerated for the rest of their lives, if convicted. They deserve nothing less if they carried out the videoed beheading of foreign abductees, as is being claimed. I feel deeply sorry for Britain's most celebrated pop group for having their name besmirched by these revolting individuals. The two Britons, Alexanda Kotey and El Shafee Elsheikh, were captured by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in eastern Syria, not that far from Raqqa, in January. This Kurdish/Arab force has turned out to be a total success story for the Americans. US special operations troops trained and equipped them to be a fighting unit and although they were backed up by American airstrikes and artillery fire, they basically defeated Isis and drove them from their caliphate stronghold in Raqqa. Now they have rounded up one of the most despicable components of Isis, the fanatics - unbelievably, British - who allegedly enjoyed cutting people's heads off. Trump's instincts will be to send them to Guantanamo. He has already reinstated the detention centre in Cuba by overturning Obama's executive order to close the place down. There are still around 2,000 US troops guarding the camps but with only 41 detainees left. That's a lot of empty space. Trump will be tempted. But, judging by the noises from London, it doesn't sound as if the UK will be happy to see two Britons beng herded off in orange jumpsuits to Guantanamo. I've visited Guantanamo many times. The problem with sending them there is that they will enjoy the company of other non-human beings and might take pleasure in the notoriety of being held in the most controversial prison on the planet!

One cool general not in a funk

Just occasionally a general turns up in a foreign field and speaks it straight, never mind the politics back home. Don't you just love these guys? Let me introduce you to Lieutenant-General Paul Funk. He's a top guy in the Syria campaign and he arrived in the highly volatile and crucial town of Manbij with a pistol slung across his chest and a team of eager American reporters around him. Smart move that, bring the reporters and let them see what you're made of. Brilliant public relations. General Funk, a tall, tough-looking cookie, is the Commanding General, Combined Joint Task Force - Operation Inherent Resolve, US Central Command. Shorthand is big boss. There's only one question that is going to spoil his day - potentially - and that is: "Here we are in Manbij, controlled and guarded by the US-trained and equipped Syrian Democratic Forces with seriously impressive Kurdish fighters leading them, so what are you going to do if Turkish troops start attacking because they think the Kurds are terrorists, allied to Ankara's enemy, the PKK?" Manbij right now is in the trickiest of positions. Turkey's President Erdogan has told the US, "You've finished killing Isis in that area, so please leave Manbij, because my forces want to have control of the town for the safety of our borders and you are protecting PKK terrorists." For a lot of generals, the answer might have been, "Well, Turkey is a Nato ally but I'm afraid the answer to that question is above my pay grade, next question." But dear General Funk does not funk it, oh no sir. This is what he said to the reporters, "I don't worry, it's not in my job description to worry, my job is to fight." Brilliant! Then, aiming his words at Turkey, he went on, "You hit us, we will respond aggressively." There are several hundred US special operations troops in Manbij and there's also a deadly team of US Marines with 155mm artillery who have been firing more shells in the direction of Isis and anyone else opposing the Syrian Democratic Forces than were ever launched against Isis in Mosul in northern Iraq. General Funk, a veteran of the Iraq war, had another message for Turkey. "We prefer to maintain focus on the enemy in front and mow him down. That's much easier than having to look in multiple directions." Well done, General Funk, you tell 'em. If Turkish troops so much as dare appear on the horizon advancing towards Manbij, there's going to be hell to pay, and now Erdogan knows it. He'll carry on trying to kill Kurds in the enclave of Afrin on the border of Syria and Turkey to try and stop them from settling into the area, but heading for Manbij, once an Isis stronghold, could set off a real fight between Americans and Turks. Surely nobody wants that. But General Funk is ready for anything.

Trump and his big guns

The president of the United States wants to hold a grand military parade, Kremlinesque-style, with troops and tanks going down Pennsylvania Avenue and who knows what else: perhaps a couple of ICBMs on low-loaders, some Tomahawk cruise missiles, Reaper drones, one secret "black pogramme" super secret weapon under heavy tarpaulin, and all the service chiefs in their finest. Trump of course would be standing on a very high dais saluting with Mike Pence looking uncomfortable and Jim Mattis, looking Jim Mattis, standing either side of him. Poor Mattis, the guy never smiles at the best of times but when he got the latest missive from his commander-in-chief to draw up plans for a massive parade, he must have bellowed with anger and frustration. As if he doesn't have enough to do with trying to keep the US armed forces up to scratch to fight Russia, China, North Korea Iran, al-Qaeda, Isis, Nusra Front, Turkey (possiby), Syria, Yemen, Somalia, etc etc. It'll take months and millions of dollars to sort out a parade and for what? For the glory of Donald Trump so that he can invite his new best friend, Emmanuel Macron, to witness an even bigger and better military parade than the one the French president put on display on Bastille Day. This ego stuff is truly gob-smacking. Ok, if the next world war ends in victory, then by all means, let's have a victory parade as a form of thanksgiving. But right now, the US military are not in a celebratory mood. They've had 16 years of non-stop warfighting and there is very little chance of that coming to an end. Afghanistan will go on for ever. Congress is so mixed up and angry it can't agree on giving the Pentagon more money. So all in all it's not a good time to go around waving flags and showing off a lot of metal in the streets of Washington DC. But Trump wants to feel the power in his bones, he wants to remind everyone that he is the commander-in-cief and how better to do that than stand upright in front of the crowds as thousands of troops march by and salute him. It's all very un-American.

Can the US president be above the law?

This could be the shortest blog ever. For the answer to the question in the heading is simply "NO". How can the president of a western democratic country be immune from the law? If he or she was above the law, it would make a mockery of democracy. So Donald Trump, whether he has violated the rule of law or not, he has to be judged based on all the relevant facts. He can't just fire Robert Mueller, the special counsel, and expect to carry on as normal as if nothing has happened. Whether or not he has obstructed justice in the Russia collusion inquiry, it's a matter for the Justice Department and Congress, not the White House. Richard Nixon literally broke the law by sending in his "plumbers" to burgle the Watergate offices of the Democratic party. He had to go, either by resignation, the method he chose, or by impeachment. It's possible that Mueller will come to the realisation that there's no evidence to be laid against Trump. But if he does find something that needs to be examined for potential prosecution by the Justice Department, then Trump must be like any other American citizen under the law, and of course must be assumed to be innoent unless proven guilty. The constitution does not exempt the sitting president from prosecution nor absolve him of any crime. No president can be above the law, and Trump will have to face whatever is coming his way.

Compromise? Non says EU

This fellow Michel Barnier, chief EU negotiator for the Brexit negotiations, is a bundle of laughs. There are some words not in his vocabulary. Compromise is one of them. It's like he and the UK negotiator David Davis are working and talking in parallel universes. Barnier who looks about as companionable as an 8ft python says if the UK wants trade deals with the EU without steep tariffs, it HAS to remain in the single market and the customs union. If the UK wants trade deals outside the single market and customs union, then the UK will pay high tariffs on everything. Just like that. One or the other!! Voila!! The reply from our lounging David Davis who daily seems to becoming more and more relaxed and bored was simple: "We will get a good trade deal for Britain." Eh!? Did you not hear what Fishface Barnier said? High Tariffs or single market. For the poor Theresa May government, this is a disaster. But Davis, sitting in his parallel universe, is oblivious of the chasm before him. Like Alice in Wonderland, he thinks there's a tea party coming any moment but he's definitely the dormouse stuffed in the teapot. Monsieur Barnier is not in the mood for games, let alone Lewis Carroll scenarios. But Davis is not listening. Like a believer in eternal life he has his faith. The UK WILL get what it wants, never mind that s... Barnier and his EU lackeys. I fear Davis is deluded. Barnier of course is exploiting to the full Theresa May's perceived weakness as prime minister. If she had a huge majority in parliament, Barnier would be begging for a decent trade deal. But he has all the cards because Theresa is not only in a weak position but she has a bunch of rebellious "colleagues" in the Cabinet who want to see the back of her. Never mind the fate of this country, never mind the perilous state of the economy. It's all dirty politics. Shame on them all, Barnier included.

Syria is a total mess!

Syria right now is a total disaster. Turkey is waging its own war to kill as many Kurds as possible close to the Turkish/Syrian border, Russia is totally entrenched, waiting for its moment to move in as the big power in the region, the US has several hundred troops still in the country but no obvious political influence, Turkey and the US are at loggerheads over the attacks on American-trained Kurdish forces, Iran's malign influence is as strong as ever, al Qaeda is still around, the Nusra Front, now renamed but still the same well-trained and equipped fighters, are never going to leave, some Isis fighters remain and the civil war has not ended. Pehaps it never will. The only real winner is Bashar Assad who looks like surviving as Syrian leader. As for the Syrian people, none of them have won anything. Citizens returning to Raqqa and to their homes have found utter destruction. There is very little hope that their lives will change for the better for the next five to ten years. The Isis caliphate has been eliminated which is one positive achievement. But at what terrible cost for the Syrian people, and the reason why the rebellion against Assad began in the first place has not been resolved one jot. It is easy to forget that the war began because the people rose up against Assad. Isis came later. For terrorists, wars open up opportunities for exploitation because when anarchy takes over, there is always a vacuum ready to be filled by evil people. Does anyone in power in the rest of the world seriously have a plan to bring unity to this God-forsaken country? I'm afraid the answer is no.

Memo muddies the waters

It has been difficult ever since the Russia collusion thing began to decipher truth from lies, fact from fiction and reality from fantasy. The Nunes memo doesn't help clarify anything other than to underline that this whole investigation has become encrusted with political deviousness. Nunes was always devious and the way the memo has been exploited to boost the case that Trump and his team are Innocent OK doesn't at all make it so. I didn't read anything in the memo which provided material to show that all the allegations of Russia collusion are false and fanciful. It's full of innuendo but no fact facts. Rather, the memo shows that the FBI possibly wasn't as forthcoming as it should have been when it applied for a wiretap approval from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to bug Carter Page, Trump's former campaign adviser. It seems that the main source of "evidence" to justify a wire tap was the infamous dossier on Trump written by Christopher Steele, the former MI6 intelligence officer with a spying career in Moscow. Christopher Steele is now the best known former MI6 officer on the planet. He must be seriously regretting getting involved in putting together political dirt on Trump. He probably thought he was on a winner because nearly everyone in the universe wanted Trump to fail to become president. Apart from the 63 million Americans who voted for him of course. He and his firm were paid a lot of money - about $160,000 - to dredge up as much sex and financial filth as possible to destroy Trump. But hey, Trump won anyway, so Steele lost. Now the Steele dossier is at the heart of the latest row over the memo. If, as Nunes is saying, the dossier was all the FBI had to get the wiretap on Carter Page, then more fool the FBI. They knew the dossier was dodgy because Steele's "investigation" (not a Pulitzer prize-winner) was partly financed by a lawyer linked to the Hillary Clinton campaign. But surely that can't be true? The FBI falling for that dossier just like that? The trouble is, everything the FBI now says sounds like a group of naughty boys caught with their hand in the till. Jack Comey tweeted with outrage that the Nunes memo was a disgraceful example of a politician walking all over previously sacred classified procedures. Well who knows who is telling the truth? The fact is, the memo does not under any circumstances clear Trump or any of his compatriots of collusion with Russia. It just makes the claim that the FBI was part of a political conspiracy to make sure Hillary Clinton won the election. I don't believe that. I don't trust conspiracy theories. But Trump is not yet in the clear. Sorry, Mr President.

Tillerson talks of coup in Caracas

Rex Tillerson hasn't had an easy time as secretary of state. But occasionally he says something which makes you sit up. Setting off for a tour of Latin America, he casually suggested that President Maduro, the appalling leader of Venezuela who has converted his rich nation into a basket case of poverty, looting and protest, could be overthrown in a military coup. Unless the CIA briefed him prior to his depature on up-to-date intelligence of a coup in the making, Tillerson's remark was off the cuff and not based on any knowledge of anything. Which, for an American secretary of state, is unusually mischievous. But with any luck it might sow some seeds in some Venezuelan generals' minds that it might not be such a bad idea. The police officer Oscar Perez who had a go, dropping grenades onto the Supreme Court building in Caracas from a helicopter last month, was soon tracked down and slaughtered in a volley of gunfire. But his attempt was never going to get very far. It would have been comical had he not been cornered and killed. But now Rex Tillerson himself has effectively called on the military to oust Maduro, perhaps someone with more planning and backing might try. It would be fraught with danger and I can't see the CIA offering to help. Ventures of this kind in Latin America tend to go wrong. But there is no question that Venezuela needs help. More than half a million of its citizens have fled the country for the safety of neighbouring Colombia. Thousands more will follow because Venezuela is running out of food. But they can take nothing with them. They are leaving homes and jobs in order to try and find a better life. During Tillerson's Latin America tour, Venezuela is going to be high on the list of topics to discuss. Perhaps he will mention the word "coup" once again in the earshot of Venezuela's neighbours. The problem is, can the military in Venezuela, even if they realise Maduro has to be removed from power, be trusted to give the Venezuelan people their lives back?

Intelligence and politics

Playing politics with intelligence is a dangerous game. That's what's going on in Washington at the moment. The Republican-chaired House Intelligence Committee has produced this memo which outlines how the Justice Department (under Obama) and the FBI (under Jack Comey) carried out a surveillance operation against a Trump campaign aide during the 2016 presidential election after seeing the extraordinary dossier drawn up by former MI6 intelligence officer Christopher Steele which detailed a mass of allegations against Trump, including the notorious Golden Shower moment in a hotel in Moscow way back. The dossier had been partly financed by the Hillary Clinton lot. First of all, it is pretty amazing that the FBI should launch an investigation of this kind during an actual presidential election campaign based on such a controversial dossier. But, be that as it may, the point now is whether this Intelligence Committee memo should be made public. The committee, including its Democrat members, agreed it should. But then it turned out that the devious chairman, Republican Devin Nunes, changed some of the wording of the memo AFTER the committee had approved the text. What's that all about? Now the Democrats don't want it published after all. This memo is dynamite. If it's published, the aim of the Republicans is to show the FBI was engaged in abusing its surveillance powers. The FBI said the memo must not be published because it would be damaging to national security. Trump of course who has the right to authorise its publication, wants it out in the open because it will undermine the continuing Russia collusion investigation led by Robert Mueller. It's a huge issue. Personally I think it's always best to be transparent, and the memo should be published, provided every word in it is approved by every member of the House Intelligence Committee. So, Congressman Nunes, get your act together and stop fiddling with the memo. Then let it be published. We do need to know what the FBI was up to in the presidential election just as we need to know what the Russians were doing during the election. But mixing intelligence with politics is always going to have its risks.