Donald Trump’s travel ban on seven Muslim-majority nations marks an early defining moment for his presidency and an inflection point in America’s posture toward Islam and the outside world that could resonate in history. The move, which also temporarily bars refugees from entering the US, ushers in the first clash between Trump’s populist and proudly politically incorrect leadership style and what his critics see as bedrock values that define the nation. It also represents a pronounced shift in US counter-terrorism tactics and a sharp turn in the debate underpinning national security policy since the 9/11 attacks – how to best keep Americans safe and battle extremism at home and abroad without alienating Muslims in a way that could foster more radicalism. 134 million banned from USWhat the ban says: The full textWhat to know about the restrictionsLegal battle beginsThe ban’s Christian focusA family’s plight just got more complicatedBergen: Trump’s big mistake All of Trump’s executive orders, memos and proclamationsComparing Trump to previous presidents 134 million banned from USWhat the ban says: The full textWhat to know about the restrictionsLegal battle beginsThe ban’s Christian focusA family’s plight just got more complicatedBergen: Trump’s big mistake All of Trump’s executive orders, memos and proclamationsComparing Trump to previous presidents Meanwhile, legal challenges to Trump’s moves herald the start of a constitutional showdown between the president’s vision of an expansive activist presidency and the checks and balances built into the American political system meant to curb executive power. Legal stays issued by several judges against the measures are likely to be the first actions in a long, complicated legal challenge to the moves that seem almost inevitable to wind up at the Supreme Court. White House discussing asking foreign visitors for social media info and cell phone contacts Trump rejected the storm of criticism whipped up by his immigration measures, blaming long waits at the airport for detained travelers on Delta computer outages – which were confined to Sunday evening – as well “the tears of (Sen. Chuck) Schumer.” “There is nothing nice about searching for terrorists before they can enter our country. This was a big part of my campaign. Study the world!” he tweeted. Related video Wife separated from husband after Trump's ban The White House earlier made clear that Trump is deeply committed to the new policy, despite the raging controversy. CNN’s Jake Tapper reported that Stephen Miller, a senior policy adviser to Trump, urged officials in the Departments of State, Homeland Security and others to disregard what he described as hysteria on television over the order. Related article Trump travel ban: Here's what you need to know Other Trump supporters argued that the president has a mandate following a campaign in which he made his immigration views clear. “I believe that President Trump is doing exactly what he campaigned on. He was elected President and now he is delivering the goods. People in America want to be safe,” former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” One senior administration official noted that the immigration move is another promise kept by Trump to his supporters following a week in which the president also addressed trade and health care through executive measures. “It should come as no surprise to anybody that the first week went exactly as he said it would,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the White House’s tactics. The official argued that the temporary suspensions of entry to visitors from Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya and Yemen are a reasonable measure to allow time for a new system of vetting to be introduced. The White House dismisses the idea that the measures amount to a ban on Muslims. But the targeting of nations that are overwhelmingly Muslim recalls some of the darker moments of American history when individuals or groups were singled out for special scrutiny. Only time will tell if Trump’s travel ban comes to be regarded in the same light as the Alien and Sedition Acts signed into law by President John Adams in the late 18th century, which made it easier to deport foreigners and imposed restrictions on new immigrants. Other historic parallels could include the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II and the witch hunts by Senator Joseph McCarthy against alleged communists in politics and the arts in the 1950s. Related video 5-year-old detained at airport The order’s indefinite ban on Syrian refugee entries – on the grounds that it is impossible to vet people from the shattered nation for terrorism links – also means the United States is in effect turning its back on the victims of the world’s worst current humanitarian crisis. Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama took great care to avoid the idea that the United States was stigmatizing all Muslims while they pursued ruthless anti-terrorism campaigns against Islamic radicals. That led critics, especially of Obama, to argue that US policy was handicapped by nuance and political correctness and an unwillingness to admit there was a threat posed by “radical Islamic terrorism.” Inside the confusion of the Trump executive order and travel ban Trump’s actions obliterate that approach. “‘Extreme vetting’ is just a euphemism for discriminating against Muslims,” said Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in a statement. “Identifying specific countries with Muslim majorities and carving out exceptions for minority religions flies in the face of the constitutional principle that bans the government from either favoring or discriminating against particular religions,” he said. Related article What immigrants need to know about Trump's order Senior Democrats also say Trump’s measures conflict with core American values and will be ineffective as a device in cracking down on terrorism. “This order contravenes the principles of religious liberty, equality, and compassion that our nation was founded upon in its discriminatory impact of Muslims,” said Adam Schiff, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. “It also plays into the Al Qaeda and ISIS narrative that the West is no place for Muslims and that we are engaged in a war of civilizations.” As the day wore on Sunday, a number of Republicans added their voices to the criticism of the content of Trump’s executive order and the way it was rolled out. Nebraska GOP Sen. Ben Sasse, a frequent Trump critic, said Trump was right to reject the notion that terrorism had no connection to Islam or certain countries, but argued the travel ban was too broad. “If we send a signal to the Middle East that the US sees all Muslims as jihadis, the terrorist recruiters win by telling kids that America is banning Muslims and that this is America versus one religion,” Sasse said. Related article 'It will tear our family apart': Voices of the immigration ban Significantly, Sen. Bob Corker, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also weighed in, saying the program had been poorly implemented, especially with regard to green card holders. “The administration should immediately make appropriate revisions,” Corker said. The travel bans were also criticized by Republican senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Cory Gardner. One of the few lawmakers to back Trump’s move, GOP Rep. Devin Nunes, who chairs the House intelligence Committee, described it as a “useful” temporary measure to help authorities verify who was coming into the US. The speed with which Trump instituted the travel ban has fundamentally reshaped America’s course in the world and speaks to the profound political change unfolding early in his presidency. His approach towards Muslim nations appears to be a direct repudiation of Obama’s warning in a farewell speech about the new president’s instincts. “Democracy can buckle when it gives into fear. So just as we as citizens must remain vigilant against external aggression, we must guard against a weakening of the values that make us who we are,” Obama said in Chicago earlier this month, arguing he had put the war on terror on a firmer legal footing. The immigration measures could also damage the image of the United States around the world and expose allied foreign leaders to significant political pressure when they cooperate with Trump. German Chancellor Angela Merkel told Trump in a telephone call Saturday that the halt to refugee entries from Syria infringed on the Geneva Conventions, her spokesman said.British Prime Minister Theresa May, who was pictured holding hands with Trump at the White House hours before he signed the executive order on Friday, faced a backlash at home. While Trump’s action raises philosophical questions, it is also focuses attention on the new administration’s approach to countering terrorism and its basic competence after the orders triggered chaos. It is, for instance, arguable whether the orders cover the gravest threats to US security. Most of the attacks on US soil since 9/11 have been the work of American citizens or legal permanent residents who had no formal training by groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda. NYC mayor: Trump travel ban ‘sends a horrible message’ For example, the mass killing at a gay nightclub in Orlando last June was carried out by Omar Mateen, who was born in New York to parents who immigrated to the US from Afghanistan. Foreigners who apply for permanent residency already have to undergo a rigorous screening process. Related article Trump's travel ban hits hospitals hard Trump’s executive order on immigration warned of the need to learn the lessons of the September 11, 2001, attacks. Yet the 9/11 hijackers were citizens of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Lebanon and Egypt – nations not covered by the order. Other countries where terrorism is a simmering problem, like Pakistan, were also missing. Many terrorism experts believe the most serious threat posed by foreigners intending to conduct terrorism on US soil could come from fighters who waged war in Syria and have European Union passports and could enter America without a visa. The order does nothing to address that issue. Related article The endless wait: A day at Dulles amid hope, despair and lawyers In practical terms, the sudden change to US policy on immigrants and refugees also provoked chaos and confusion, with airport staff uncertain about what the orders meant, and some travelers detained or refused entry to the US. It is not clear that relevant departments of government were consulted or informed about the implications of the order or if senior administration appointees had any input into the decision. That scenario casts light on the way the White House is already imposing its power on the rest of the administration. The result on Saturday was administrative chaos and a sense of uncertainty about what Trump’s executive orders mean or how they will be implemented that is becoming a trend for the young administration. “This was an extreme vetting program that wasn’t properly vetted,” Ohio Republican Sen. Rob Portman told CNN’s “State of the Union.”


Editor’s Note: Errol Louis is the host of “Inside City Hall,” a nightly political show on NY1, a New York all-news channel. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. Errol Louis: Hillary Clinton criticized for passing blame to others in her 2016 loss -- but she has a good point on one score He says Obama's buildup of his own political organization starved national Democratic Party of resources to help Clinton win To the consternation of Democratic foot soldiers everywhere – the men and women who gave time, toil, sweat and tears, trying mightily to make Hillary Clinton president last year – the candidate has examined the most serious problems that doomed her campaign … and concluded that none were of her own making. “I take responsibility for every decision I made, but that’s not why I lost,” Clinton told listeners at Recode’s Code Conference.  She then went on to name and analyze a list of people and factors that led to her defeat last November, from ex-FBI Director James Comey to Vladimir Putin. An ever-expanding set of investigations by Congress and the Justice Department’s special counsel will reveal whether any connections between the Russian government and members of the Trump campaign may have tilted the race against Clinton. Such actions, in any event, would have been beyond the control of Clinton and the Democrats. Related video People and things Clinton blames for her loss But when it comes to Clinton’s touchy accusation that former President Barack Obama and the Democratic National Committee were less than helpful, the awkward but important truth is that Clinton is right. For years, local Democratic groups have complained that Obama poured resources into a political organization, Obama for America (later renamed Organizing for Action) at the expense of building the party. The evidence suggests that warnings from the grassroots were ignored – and came back to haunt and bedevil the party in 2016. “[With] all due respect to President Obama, OFA was created as a shadow party because Obama operatives had no faith in state parties,” Nebraska Democratic Party Chair Jane Kleeb told Politico earlier this year. “OFA had no faith or confidence in the state parties so they created a whole separate organization, they took money away and centralized it in D.C. They gave us a great president for eight years, but we lost everywhere else.” Related video Clinton: Americans likely 'guided' Russian interference That sentiment is backed up by Jaime Harrison, a former chair of the South Carolina Democratic Party. OFA, he says, “created a shadow organization that was recruiting the same volunteers [as the DNC], using resources from a very limited number of donors, and therefore, as a result it weakened the DNC and the impact that the DNC and state parties could have on politics during [Obama’s] tenure.” As Clinton ruefully recounted at the Code conference, by 2016 the national party apparatus was broken and starved of resources. “So I’m now the nominee of the Democratic Party. I inherit nothing from the Democratic Party,” she said. “I mean, it was bankrupt. It was on the verge of insolvency. Its data was mediocre to poor, nonexistent, wrong. I had to inject money into it.” Harsh words, but true. Ex-Gov. Jennifer Granholm of Michigan – one of the traditionally Democratic Midwestern states that Trump won – advises a reuniting of Democratic efforts and energy. “OFA should fold into the DNC. Having two organizations is redundant, and dilutes and confuses the mission,” she says. “Given the urgency of the moment, we need laser-like focus, with clear lanes and cohesion, not duplication.” Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook That’s easier said than done, considering that Democrats face a crisis of identity and purpose. “This is a partywide failure, and it will require more than just banishing the Clintons from politics,” is how Nathan Robinson, the editor of Current Affairs puts it. “If the Democrats are to have a future, they must offer something better, more honest, and more inspiring.” And beyond that, they need to put together a unified party with active, effective chapters in every one of America’s 3,000 counties, led by activists with the training and resources to recruit candidates, register new voters and get them to turn out on Election Day. The longer Democrats put off this crucial task, the more we’ll see a party that, like Clinton, appears to be lost in a debilitating sense of denial.


US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson promised stern action against China in January 2017 But since President Trump took power, no freedom of navigation exercises have taken place The Trump administration appears to be easing up on Beijing in the South China Sea, in what is being seen as another concession to China by the new US president who hopes for a solution in North Korea. Since Trump took office, the sole request by US military to sail a warship close to artificial islands China has built in the contested waters has been turned down by the Pentagon, a senior defense official told CNN Wednesday. Freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea were regularly authorized by the Obama administration, with US Navy vessels sailing within 12 nautical miles of China’s artificial islands at least three times in the past year-and-a-half. The official said the denial – first reported by the New York Times – was partly due to an effort inside the Pentagon to turn down the temperature of operations that could be viewed as antagonizing China or North Korea. Analysts say it’s the latest in a series of efforts by President Trump to appease China, whose help he wants in restraining North Korea’s nuclear ambitions. China has described the operations as a serious breach of law and an intentional provocation. The last publicly announced freedom of navigation operation was in October 2016, four months before Trump took power. Prior to his inauguration, Trump’s point man on foreign policy promised stern action in the South China Sea against China’s island building and militarization. Related article South China Sea: Aircraft hangars, radar installed on artificial islands At his confirmation hearing, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the Trump administration might take a more aggressive approach to the South China Sea. “Building islands and then putting military assets on those islands is akin to Russia’s taking of Crimea. It’s taking of territory that others lay claim to,” Tillerson said in January. He even hinted that Chinese access to the artificial islands could be restricted by US vessels. But as relations between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping have improved, with the US prioritizing tensions in the Korean Peninsula, the South China Sea has fallen out of the spotlight. Trump backed down on his pledge to label China as a currency manipulator on his first day in office, while early in his presidency he quickly agreed to honor the “one China” policy that Beijing considers a necessity. In the past week, Trump even said he’d call Xi for permission before he spoke to Taiwan’s leader over the phone again. Mike Chinoy, non-resident senior fellow at the University of Southern California’s US China Institute, told CNN that Beijing would be thrilled by the administration’s apparent decision to hold off testing China in the South China Sea. “I think if you’re sitting in Beijing you have to be very pleased that Donald Trump is in the White House because he is ceding to China a great deal in terms of clout and advantage,” Chinoy said. “In the meantime, countries in Asia that have not wanted a US-China clash but have wanted substantial American presence to counterbalance the growing clout of China … are going to calculate that they can’t count on the US in the way they did before.” The recalculation has started for some countries. At the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) leader summit in Manila in April, China scored a major victory when the joint statement seriously watered down the denunciation of its island-building in the South China Sea. “ASEAN cannot maintain its position in dealing with China … unless the pressure is on China by the maritime powers,” Carl Thayer, regional security analyst and emeritus professor at the University of New South Wales, told CNN. A US State Department official told CNN that freedom of navigation operations in the South China sea “won’t be stopping.” “They demonstrate a very core principle that the United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever this international law allows,” said Patrick Murphy, Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs. “So this is not about any one country. And I can assure you that (the operations) will continue. I’m not in a position to offer any more specifics.” On Wednesday, Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis told CNN that US forces operated in the Asia-Pacific region on a daily basis, “including in the South China Sea.” Related video US starts 'routine' patrols in South China Sea “All operations are conducted in accordance with international law and demonstrate that the United States will fly, sail, and operate wherever international law allows,” he said. The Pentagon said the US military will continue with regular freedom of navigation operations but in the future, Davis said, “these operations will be released publicly in the annual FONOPS report, and not sooner.” This would mark a significant change from the Obama administration, which publicly discussed South China Sea operations on a routine basis.


"Old Master Q" is one of Asia's best-known comic strips Alfonso Wong started the series in the 1960s; one of his sons now pens it Alfonso Wong, the creator of Asia’s iconic “Old Master Q” comic strip, has died, according to the comic’s publishing company. He passed away Sunday of organ failure. He was 93. Wong’s comics were well-known for their witty and lampooning portrayals on a broad range of topics – from current affairs to the minutiae of daily life in Hong Kong – and eventually became a hit across Asia. “My life is like a comic strip, I will make ‘Old Master Q’ captivate my audience as much as I can,” Wong once said, according to OMQ Comics. Wong started the series in the 1960s under the pen name of Wong Chak, the name of his eldest son. Cartoon Heroes: Blur soar over Hong Kong in a futuristic ice cream truck But the characters personified Wong, his son Joseph said in an interview with the South China Morning Post in December before the opening of an exhibit in Hong Kong on the comic series. “He actually drew himself into the comics,” the younger Wong said. “The way Old Master behaved, the way that he (thinks), the way that he acts to other people, like his neighbors. That’s pretty much my father.” Mr. Wong, your work and humor will be remembered and loved for generations to come. #RIP pic.twitter.com/WxgO9lqM0q The cartoonist was born in the Chinese city of Tianjin but moved to Hong Kong in 1956. He got his start drawing for a French Catholic missionary before creating “Old Master Q,” which first appeared in newspapers in 1962. Fan and Electric Fan (1982) by beloved comic artist Alphonso Wong. #RIP pic.twitter.com/biT9aQCinJ It’s now considered “a collective memory of Chinese-speaking communities around the world,” said the Hong Kong Arts Centre, which is currently hosting an exhibition on Wong. “The comics’ unique nature and sense of (humor) have punctuated generations, ages, and geographical and cultural differences to touch the readers.” Original pieces of his work have been exhibited by Sotheby’s and Christie’s. Wong retired in the 1990s, but Joseph Wong took over the family business and began drawing the series. “I didn’t realize he was a great comic artist until much later,” the younger Wong said.

Alfonso Wong and his comic series 'Old Master Q'


'On issue of impeachment, I am doing my homework,' Gabbard said. 'He's about as hawkish as they come,' Gabbard said of Vice President Mike Pence Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard said at a town hall this week that she is studying more about the impeachment process amid the investigations into whether any aides to President Donald Trump’s campaign were involved in Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Gabbard cautioned though that getting rid of Trump would mean a President Mike Pence, who she argued would be more effective in pushing a conservative agenda through Congress. “On issue of impeachment, I am doing my homework,” Gabbard said at a town hall Wednesday in Hilo, Hawaii. “I am studying more about the impeachment process. I will just say I understand the calls for impeachment, but what I am being cautious about and what I give you food for thought about is that if President Trump is impeached, the problems don’t go away, because then you have a Vice President Pence who becomes President Pence.” Gabbard continued, “If you do your research on his positions on many of the issues we’ve talked, many of the issues that I get phone calls about from people all across the state, the issue of war and peace, he’s about as hawkish as they come,” Gabbard said of Pence. “Issues relating to the environment, education, healthcare – I disagree with so many of the positions that he has. In some ways given the fact that he’s a former member of Congress and very well connected within the Republican establishment in Washington, he’d be able to, I believe, be far more effective in furthering his agenda than we have seen so far in President Trump’s first 100 days.” Gabbard met with then-President-elect Trump in November to discuss foreign policy issues, specifically Syria and ISIS. More recently, she has been critical of his military actions in Syria.


Since “American Sniper,” Hollywood has been searching for another breakthrough war story, with decidedly mixed results. “12 Strong,” a harrowing fact-based tale of heroism set in the immediate wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, would appear to have the right armament, but this by-the-numbers movie ultimately falls short of completing that mission. Produced by Jerry Bruckheimer, and directed by Nicolai Fuglsig, a Danish director and photojournalist making his feature debut, the story opens with a video montage leading up to Sept. 11, racing through the key characters’ goodbyes to their families in roughly 10 minutes. After that, Capt. Mitch Nelson (“Thor’s” Chris Hemsworth) and his Special Forces team, codenamed Task Force Dagger, are quickly dropped in northern Afghanistan. There, the foul-mouthed dozen link up with a local general, Abdul Rashid Dostum (Navid Negahban), in an orchestrated assault on the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Vastly outnumbered, Nelson – heading up what’s described as the military’s “most venomous snake” – must rely on helping target U.S. air power to level the playing field. Just to ratchet up the tension, he tells his commander (William Fichtner) that he intends to complete the perilous assignment in a mere three weeks, before the weather can thwart their plan. What follows, in the script adapted from Doug Stanton’s book by Ted Tally and Peter Craig, is essentially a tick-tock of that stretch, with a series of bloody battles in a march toward the strategically vital town of Mazar-i-Sharif. Although Michael Shannon, Michael Pena and Trevante Rhodes (fresh off “Moonlight”) are part of Nelson’s unit, the fundamental relationship is between the captain and Dostum, whose initial wariness of his American ally is only one of the several beats in the film that, true story or not, feel like war-movie clichés. The same largely applies to the bravado of these elite soldiers, who literally sing “Ballad of the Green Berets” as the fly into the unknown. As for the Taliban, the film depicts just enough of their evil to underscore the righteousness of the fight, while the general – who leads his men on horseback – regales Nelson with sober lessons about the region’s history to foreshadow the troubles that will follow even a triumphant campaign. Hemsworth brings a dose of humanity to the central role, successfully shedding the shackles of his mythical comic-book exploits. But the characterizations remain sketchy and the drama relatively flat, despite an abundance of battle sequences and a musical score that seemingly swells to a crescendo at the slightest provocation. Part of the movie’s pitch is that this mission was previously classified, meaning the heroism of Nelson and his men went unreported for years. It is, from that perspective, a stirring reminder of the united sense of purpose and can-do spirit that emerged in the wake of Sept. 11. Still, “12 Strong’s” most memorable moment comes in the crawl that runs at the end detailing what transpired. Until then, the filmmakers mostly manage to turn a daring military operation into a studiously risk-free movie. “12 Strong” opens Jan. 19 in the U.S. It’s rated R.


Muhammad Dakhlalla is serving an eight-year sentence for trying to join and help ISIS He and his partner were arrested last year trying to board a plane to Turkey His friends know him as “Mo.” And he is the most unlikely ISIS recruit you will ever meet. In fact, in virtually every way Mo, whose real name is Muhammad Dakhlalla, was an ordinary and typical American college student. But he was arrested with a fellow Mississippi State University student just over a year ago, trying to board a plane to go join the notorious terrorist organization. How did that happen? “Where do you want me to start exactly?” he said, laughing somewhat nervously, as he sat recently for the first extensive, tell-all interview with CNN in a federal prison. Today, Mo, just 24, is at the start of an eight-year prison sentence for trying to join and help ISIS. But he is hardly a radical Muslim extremist. Remarkably, he said he got into this whole mess because he fell in love. Born and raised in Mississippi, Mo is the youngest of four brothers and has both Muslim and non-Muslim friends. He dated very little and had few girlfriends until his senior year at Mississippi State. There, he met and fell for Jaelyn Young, a sophomore studying chemistry who in high school was an honors student and cheerleader. “In the beginning of my senior year I met this lady,” Mo said, recalling his strong feelings for her. “She was beautiful and things like that,” he said, “but also another thing that I find attractive in a woman is one who’s, you know, bright, intelligent, open-minded. And that’s how I got to know her a bit. We started hanging out. She not only was interested in me, but she had told me prior to us being together that she was interested in Islam.” Islam is the religion in which Mo grew up. His father, Oda, is an imam, who originally hailed from Bethlehem in the West Bank before settling decades ago in Mississippi. Mo’s father, along with his mother, Lisa, a New Jersey-born woman who converted to Islam, helped found and build the Islamic Center of Mississippi in Starkville. Not long after they became a couple, Jaelyn converted to Islam, and it was a complete surprise to Mo. “At one point, you know, she told me that she’s very serious about Islam, and she wanted to become a Muslim,” he said. “Then on that day when she did, actually it was a big surprise for me. My parents actually found out first that she became a Muslim. I was actually at the mosque at that time, saying my prayers. And I came back to find out that she had become Muslim, and I had no idea.” Then came another surprise, he said. “A few weeks later, and I never said anything to her about this, or, like, tried to, you know, force her … she decided to wear the full hijab or niqab by herself. Like, it was on her own – her own choice. You know, she was wearing it from her head and full robe that you typically see of Muslim women.” The niqab she wore covered every part of her in a black shroud, leaving only slits for her eyes visible, according to Mo’s family. Jaelyn was changing fast, he said, becoming stricter and more conservative in all parts of her life. “As far as, like, the rapid stages that she was going through, I may have, should have been, like, scratching my head a little bit. I should have had … a skeptical, like, analysis of, like, ‘OK, maybe we’ve gone a little too fast,’ ” he said laughing. But, he said, he was deeply in love. “And, you know, that love can ultimately … blind out your intelligence, your reasoning. I believe that. I mean, without that love there, I don’t believe I would be here today, with my charge and talking to you today. … I wouldn’t have even considered it at all.” The Federal Bureau of Prisons rarely grants access to convicted felons such as Mo. CNN’s interview was an exception, an agreement between the Department of Justice, CNN and Mo. His words shed light on just how powerful ISIS’ online propaganda can be for American youths. Jaelyn, who was also convicted in the case, has refused to speak to CNN. Pursuing her conversion and new religion, Jaelyn went to the Internet. And there, she found ISIS. Jaelyn merely showed Mo the videos – the clips did the rest. “It started out with when … she first became Muslim, you know, she wanted to learn more. … I’m not sure how she came across some of the videos that she did at first, but I remember, like, some of them. Like, one of the first ones I remember seeing, a video that how ISIS came to be. And it was basically mentioning … historical struggles in the Middle East. And then somehow it ties that back into, you know, everything is, like, the Western society’s fault. You would see a lot of non-Muslims using like, vulgar language, and a whole lot of slander on top of that.” Mo followed Jaelyn’s lead. “When she showed me that video, I think it’s just kind of like – brought a tenseness in her and … really strong anger in her. And she expressed those things to me. And, you know, me being in love with her, I felt those same things I guess, just because she was feeling it.” Related article Feds: Mississippi couple planned honeymoon to join ISIS in Syria Mo said the goal was never to take part in jihad or commit violence – but rather to help out as fellow Muslims in the newly forming Muslim state. “When she first looked at these videos, she had  … a strong belief that, ‘OK, this is the group to really help out, you know, the Muslims.’ “ “What really, like, stuck out for me were well, what I thought from the videos were people helping rebuild towns – people helping the needy –  what we consider humanitarian.” Crazy as it sounds, the young lover said he did what his partner did. “Throughout the time she convinced me of that … I don’t know exactly how, you know, it came to be, but I know that she knew I loved her at that time, and I was just going to follow whatever she said, and I felt like she knew that, like, I was going to follow anything that she said.” They began communicating through the Internet with people they thought were in ISIS, in Syria. In one note, Mo wrote: “I’m good with computers, I’m good with I.T., I can help here.” According to the FBI, Jaelyn reached out to a contact she thought would help her and Mo travel to Turkey, cross the border into Syria and join ISIS. The two secretly married, began an intensive preparation period and bought one-way plane tickets to Istanbul. And on August 8, 2015, Mo and Jaelyn packed their bags. He wrote a touching goodbye letter to his parents. The first lines read: “I’m sorry. I love you. I’ve decided to leave and I won’t be coming back.” A small heart is scrawled at the bottom of the page. Then the couple went to the airport near Columbus, Mississippi. They got as far as the boarding gate, and then they were arrested. At that moment, Mo said, everything changed. “Oh, my heart sank,” he said. “I felt like my whole body shut down. Just because, I was thinking to myself, ‘It’s, like, what now, what the heck are we doing?’ “ The FBI said both Jaelyn and Mo confessed at that moment. But they didn’t have to. It turns out the online ISIS recruiter who had been helping make arrangements for the couple was in fact an FBI employee. This past spring they both pleaded guilty, and they were sentenced in August. Mo was given a lighter sentence, citing his cooperation with authorities. Jaelyn, considered by authorities to be the mastermind, was sentenced to 12 years. Throughout the interview, Mo never once mentioned Jaelyn’s name. He also finds it difficult to speak about the other woman in his life – his mother. She was suffering from cancer when he was arrested, and she died earlier this year. “It is one of the biggest regrets that I have in my life – still haunts me to this day,” he said. “That I would prefer this woman that I’ve only been together with for under a year, and lie to my mother about where I was going. And my mother’s always been supportive throughout my life, you know, I never felt like, you know, I needed to do anything behind her back. I could always be full-front honest to her. But all it took was getting caught up for love of a lady, and that I threw – throw your life away.” He also regrets that during this time of confusion, especially about religion, he failed to reach out to his dad, an imam who would have never taught his son to kill or hurt anyone. “I wish I’d reached out to the Muslim community. I wish I’d just reached out to my dad, because my dad’s very knowledgeable in this stuff. Not only in Islam, but the Middle Eastern politics. You know, if I had just asked him, he would just illuminate me on what was really happening with this group.” Asked about homegrown terrorists, or those in ISIS who have viciously killed innocents across Europe and in Syria, Mo said he would never wish to be part of anything like that. “They have a lack of understanding of Islam, because the main focus of Islam is peace, you know. Submit your will to God,” he said. “ISIS, you know, kind of twists that to say that, you know, ‘If we’re doing things for the will of God, you know, you gotta come and join us as, you know, because we’re the real Muslim community.’ ” “I feel like that I should owe people back to say, ‘Hey, don’t do what I did.’ That’s not what they are doing over there. What ISIS is doing over there – that’s not Islam. … If you ever feel like you’re thinking about doing this, contact the Muslim community. They’re going tell you, ‘No, this is a whole terrible idea.’” Today, Mo is not bitter; in fact, he said he is relieved he was caught. He knows that had he made it to Syria there is a good chance he would be dead. He remains a devout Muslim. He will be 32 when he leaves prison.


Presidential statement calls coup "imaginary" Gunfire heard near national radio and TV stations People seen celebrating on streets of the capital Amid mounting fears of ethnic violence, a Burundian African Union official told CNN on Wednesday that a military coup attempt is underway in Burundi. The government denied it was under threat. But a Western diplomat told CNN that gunfire could be heard in Bujumbura, the capital of the African nation. President Pierre Nkurunziza is out of the country, attending a crisis summit with other East African leaders in Tanzania. When contacted by CNN, Burundian government spokesman Willy Nyamitwe said reports of a coup were “a joke.” A statement from the President’s office said some soldiers had mutinied and declared an “imaginary” coup. The statement appealed for calm, said the coup attempt had been foiled, and added that those responsible “are being sought by defense and security forces so that they are brought to justice.” According to Reuters, Army Gen. Godefroid Niyombareh announced on radio earlier in the day that Nkurunziza has been “dismissed” and that a national salvation committee had been set up to run the country. CNN has not been able to independently confirm whether the coup attempt has been successful or has been foiled. Niyombareh is the former head of Burundian intelligence. He was fired by the President in February. The news that Nkurunziza might have been deposed is being greeted with jubiliation, Nsengiyumva Pierre Claver, a former member of an EU electoral monitoring team, told CNN by phone from Bujumbura. “We have observed many people just shouting of joy and dancing in the streets,” Claver said. People had come from areas in the hills surrounding the capital to join in the celebrations, he said. And soldiers had been able to reopen two private radio stations that had been closed by the government, he said. But Claver, too, had heard reports of gunfire – near the national radio and TV stations, he said – and he warned it was too soon to conclude that the coup attempt had been successful. Nkurunziza has been seeking a third term, something prohibited by the agreement that ended the country’s 1993-2003 civil war. Protesters determined to prevent his candidacy have demonstrated in Bujumbura, the capital, and have been met with deadly force by police. About 300,000 people died in Burundi’s 10-year, ethnically driven civil war. And Burundi is a neighbor of Rwanda, where in 1994 an estimated 800,000 minority Tutsis and moderate Hutus were slaughtered in an ethnic genocide. Burundi, like Rwanda, has a Hutu majority and a Tutsi minority. While the current crisis is rooted in politics, some observers have feared that the government might try to stoke ethnic animosities in a last-ditch effort to retain power.


Sen. Lindsey Graham is not pleased with President Barack Obama’s strategy – or what he considers the lack thereof – when it comes to fighting ISIS. “I would fire everybody,” Graham said to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room,” referring to Obama administration decision-makers. The Republican presidential candidate expressed his concerns over the current state of both Iraq and Syria, stating that he met with Gen. Joseph Dunford on Wednesday who warned of a potential “tsunami of ISIL fighters” coming to the United States. The South Carolina senator laid out his own plan to contain and destroy ISIS in the region. Related video Trump takes aim at Bush's suit, Rubio's hair RELATED: Donald Trump jumps in “I think if you had more American troops it would help the Iraqi Army fight, it would take the fight to ISIL more effectively,” Graham said. Graham’s words came shortly after it was announced Wednesday that the U.S. military received significantly fewer Iraqi recruits than originally anticipated. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said the count of potential trainees went from 24,000 expected to 7,000 in reality. “I don’t blame anybody for not joining us after we cut and ran on them,” Graham said. Graham also discussed the new Iraqi prime minister’s relationship with Iran, stating the only effective thing standing between ISIS and Iraq is the Iranian-controlled Shia militia. “I said when we pulled out in 2011 that the Iranians would be dancing in the street if they believed in dancing … Iran is clearly the biggest winner,” Graham said. Graham, who is running for president, is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

President Barack Obama’s strategy to fight ISIS


Russian combat ships do not need escort services, the country's Defense Ministry says UK Defense Secretary brands Russia's aircraft carrier "a ship of shame" over its Syria role Russia’s Defense Ministry on Thursday slammed comments by UK Defense Secretary Michael Fallon calling Russia’s flagship aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov “a ship of shame.” Fallon’s remarks were made Wednesday as UK warships and warplanes tracked Russia’s only aircraft carrier through the English Channel. The carrier and its escort, the guided missile cruiser Petr Velikiy, are on their way back to Russia after participating in airstrikes in Syria. They left the Mediterranean Sea earlier this month. “We are keeping a close eye on the Admiral Kuznetsov as it skulks back to Russia, a ship of shame whose mission has only extended the suffering of the Syrian people,” Fallon said. The Russian Defense Ministry said in a statement it had “paid attention” to Fallon’s remarks on the carrier group. “The Russian combat ships do not need escort services,” the statement said. “They know the fairway and the course.” The ministry also suggested Fallon should be “paying more attention to the British fleet.” UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson struck a slightly different tone to his defense counterpart Thursday, noting Moscow’s role in bringing about Syrian peace talks in Astana, Kazakhstan, this week, following on from its military involvement. Related article Syrian peace talks: A lot of posturing -- some signs of hope “To the extent that the Russians are capable of getting a ceasefire and stopping suffering, that must be rated a plus,” Johnson told a House of Lords committee. “That comes, of course, after a pretty brutal and barbaric bombardment of Aleppo and other places which they facilitated – or, I’m sure, perhaps even participated in,” he said. Johnson said Russia had intervened in Syria “to considerable effect” by preserving the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and described its involvement there as a “fact of life” after other powers, such as Britain, had declined to step in. Russia’s airstrikes in support of Assad’s forces have been crucial in helping them gain the upper hand in the long-running conflict. In December, they succeeded in pushing rebel fighters from the key city of Aleppo. Syria’s brutal civil war has raged on for nearly six years and killed an estimated 400,000 people. British forces also shadowed the Russian carrier group in October on its way to Syria. Related video Russian warships pass by England on way to Syria At the time, Russia said the Kuznetsov’s voyage was “to ensure naval presence in the important areas of the world ocean. Special focus will be made on safeguarding security of maritime traffic and other types of Russian maritime economic activity and also responding to new kinds of modern threats such as piracy and international terrorism.” But others took a different view. “It’s a show of force and a show of capabilities,” Peter Felstead, editor of Jane’s Defence Weekly, told CNN in October. “In terms of strike missions, they (the Russians) could just as easily have conducted them with the land-based aircraft they already have in Syria.” CNN’s Simon Cullen and Radina Gigova contributed to this report.


NEW: Israel rejects Palestinian Authority's membership in the ICC, says it is not eligible to join the body Membership gives the ICC jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed in Palestinian territories since last June Israel and the United States opposed the move, which could open the door to war crimes investigations against Israelis The Palestinian Authority officially became the 123rd member of the International Criminal Court on Wednesday, a step that gives the court jurisdiction over alleged crimes in Palestinian territories. The formal accession was marked with a ceremony at The Hague, in the Netherlands, where the court is based. The Palestinians signed the ICC’s founding Rome Statute in January, when they also accepted its jurisdiction over alleged crimes committed “in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, since June 13, 2014.” Later that month, the ICC opened a preliminary examination into the situation in Palestinian territories, paving the way for possible war crimes investigations against Israelis. As members of the court, Palestinians may be subject to counter-charges as well. The war between Israel and Hamas militants in Gaza last summer left more than 2,000 people dead, the vast majority of them Palestinians. Israel, which is not an ICC member, has opposed the Palestinians’ efforts to join the body. “The Israeli position – like the position of the U.S., Canada and others – is that the Palestinians are not eligible to join the ICC and the court does not have jurisdiction in this instance, first and foremost, because there is no Palestinian State in international law,” Israel’s Foreign Ministry said in a statement Wednesday. “The decision of the Palestinians to join the ICC as an attempt to move ‘processes’ against Israel is political, cynical and hypocritical.” The Palestinian Authority, which is allied to the “murderous” militant group Hamas, “is the last one that can threaten to present a case to the ICC in the Hague,” the ministry added, saying that the Palestinians’ membership violated the founding principles of the ICC and risked politicizing  the body. But Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki, speaking at Wednesday’s ceremony, said joining the ICC was a move toward greater justice. “As Palestine formally becomes a State Party to the Rome Statute today, the world is also a step closer to ending a long era of impunity and injustice,” he said, according to an ICC news release. “Indeed, today brings us closer to our shared goals of justice and peace.” Judge Kuniko Ozaki, a vice president of the ICC, said acceding to the treaty was just the first step for the Palestinians. “As the Rome Statute today enters into force for the State of Palestine, Palestine acquires all the rights as well as responsibilities that come with being a State Party to the Statute. These are substantive commitments, which cannot be taken lightly,” she said. Rights group Human Rights Watch welcomed the development. “Governments seeking to penalize Palestine for joining the ICC should immediately end their pressure, and countries that support universal acceptance of the court’s treaty should speak out to welcome its membership,” said Balkees Jarrah, international justice counsel for the group. “What’s objectionable is the attempts to undermine international justice, not Palestine’s decision to join a treaty to which over 100 countries around the world are members.” In January, when the preliminary ICC examination was opened, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described it as an outrage, saying the court was overstepping its boundaries. Related video Palestinian Authority bids to join the ICC The United States also said it “strongly” disagreed with the court’s decision. “As we have said repeatedly, we do not believe that Palestine is a state and therefore we do not believe that it is eligible to join the ICC,” the State Department said in a statement. It urged the warring sides to resolve their differences through direct negotiations. “We will continue to oppose actions against Israel at the ICC as counterproductive to the cause of peace,” it said. But the ICC begs to differ with the definition of a state for its purposes and refers to the territories as “Palestine.” While a preliminary examination is not a formal investigation, it allows the court to review evidence and determine whether to investigate suspects on both sides. Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda said her office would “conduct its analysis in full independence and impartiality.” The inquiry will include alleged war crimes committed since June. The International Criminal Court was set up in 2002 to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. CNN’s Vasco Cotovio, Kareem Khadder, Michael Schwartz and Faith Karimi contributed to this report.


Trilateral war games being conducted by South Korea, Australia and the US Drills focus on stopping North Korea's WMD capability The US, Australian and South Korean navies are conducting joint exercises off South Korea intended to simulate the interception of shipments of nuclear material meant for North Korea. The drills, held Monday and Tuesday off South Korea’s Jeju Island, come as US President Donald Trump visits the region for talks which are expected to be dominated by discussion of North Korea. Pyongyang is regularly angered by co-ordinated drills in the region, which it sees as practice for an invasion, but which the US and its allies say is necessary to counter North Korean aggression. These ones are likely to be no different. “This drill is to stop the shipment of North Korea’s nuclear and WMD (weapons of mass destruction) materials in and out through combined navy drill between allies, and to carry out the UNSC (United Nations Security Council) resolution against North Korea’s illegal actions of provocation,” South Korean navy Rear Adm. Choi Sung-mok, chief of staff for the South Korean fleet said. He added that “through this training, the Navy will continue to strengthen the capability to carry out the joint drill as a preparation against various threats that can happen in the sea.” Four surface vessels from the three countries – South Korea’s King Sejong Aegis destroyer, the US Navy’s USS Chafee Aegis destroyer as well as the Australian Navy’s escort ships Melbourne and Parramatta – are taking part in the drills, with South Korean and US P-3 aircraft providing support and training on searching and tracking vessels carrying WMD. North Korean government officials told CNN’s Will Ripley that Pyongyang is “watching Trump’s Asia visit closely,” and was monitoring the three carrier strike groups that are now on the waters off the Korean Peninsula as well as the recent bomber flyovers on the peninsula. “They are not only threatening in words, but they are switching over into action to ignite another Korean War,” they said, referring to US rhetoric. The officials added: “Nobody knows when and how the ‘war maniac’ Trump will ignite the ‘wick of war’.” They said Trump is thinking of these strategic assets as a gift to his allies in the region, but North Korea finds that to be absurd. The officials told CNN that if Trump does anything “crazy,” North Korea will stop him by “responding powerfully.” “This is a touch and go situation and we are on the brink of a major explosion.” During a joint press conference with Trump on Monday, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Japan and the US are in “complete agreement” as to the way forward in dealing with North Korea. Abe said he agreed that now is not the time for direct talks with North Korea, but rather for a strengthening of sanctions against Pyongyang. “For more than 20 some years, the international community attempted dialogue with North Korea,” Abe said. “Now is the time not for dialogue but for applying a maximum level of pressure on North Korea.” Trump declared that the “era of strategic patience is over” when it comes to the United States’ stance toward North Korea. “Some people said that my rhetoric is very strong,” he said during remarks at a press conference in Tokyo. “But look at what’s happened with very weak rhetoric over the last 25 years. Look where we are now.” He also advocated a more militaristic Japan, saying Tokyo should begin purchasing American-made military equipment to better protect itself against threats from North Korea. US, China divided over how to deal with new North Korean ICBM threat South Korea has been a long-term ally of the United States, since the two states fought together during the Korean War in the 1950s. With its large US military presence, Seoul has long participated in joint military exercises with its ally since the Korean War ended in an armistice and ceasefire in 1953. In August the two nations undertook the Ulchi Freedom Guardian exercises, one of two annual cooperative drills that the two countries conduct. To critics, they’re a needless provocation, but to advocates, an essential way to get troops combat ready. While the joint military drills between the US and South Korea that both sides say are defensive in nature they enrage South Korea’s neighbor to the north – Pyongyang views them as practice for an eventual invasion. The exercises, according to US Forces Korea, are designed to “highlight the longstanding military partnership” between the two countries and improve stability and security on the Korean Peninsula. The US Navy and marines also recently concluded landing drills, known as Blue Chromite 18, in Okinawa. CNN’s Jeremy Diamond, Jake Kwon and Will Ripley contributed to this report.

US-South Korea-Australia joint military drills


Editor’s Note: John D. Sutter is a columnist for CNN Opinion who focuses on climate change and social justice. Follow him on Snapchat, Twitter and Facebook or subscribe to his email newsletter. Sutter: Trump is lining up Cabinet appointees who deny or ignore basic realities of climate science It's clear there are serious costs to doing nothing about our warming planet, Sutter says It’s become a favorite joke of late-night comics. “You know, sometimes I think Trump is trolling us, people,” “Daily Show” host Trevor Noah said last week. “It’s like the ultimate troll! Because you realize, every single person he’s picked for his cabinet wants to destroy the thing that they’ve been put in charge of.” That last bit seems fair as it applies to climate change. Donald Trump is lining up a number of Cabinet appointees who deny or ignore basic realities of climate science and whose policies could push this country – already the world’s second-biggest climate polluter – back into the dirty fossil fuel era at exactly a time when science seems to mandate the opposite. Perhaps that’s no surprise given that the President-elect also is promoting misinformation. “Nobody really knows’ if climate change is real, Trump told Fox News this week. The fact remains: Climate change is real, and humans are causing it. But you’d be more than a little confused if you listened to Trump and the folks he’s picked to head the Environmental Protection Agency, State Department and Department of Energy. Here’s a look at their misguided – or just plain wrong – views on climate science. Donald Trump’s pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, does not seem to believe in environmental protection, at least as it applies to climate change. In fact, acting as attorney general of Oklahoma, Pruitt is suing the EPA – the agency he soon could head – over Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce pollution deaths, clean up the air and prevent catastrophic warming. That plan is now in legal limbo. And Pruitt has described it as “an unlawful attempt to expand federal bureaucrats’ authority over states’ energy economies in order to shutter coal-fired power plants and eventually other sources of fossil-fuel generated electricity,” according to the Tulsa World. He’s tried to make this a states’ rights issue. “When the EPA exceeds the constraints placed upon the agency by Congress, the relationship is thrown out of balance and the rule of law and state sovereignty is affected adversely,” Pruitt told a Senate subcommittee last year. There’s room for politicians to quibble over which policies are best to fight climate change, of course. But Pruitt also has a record of misrepresenting and ignoring climate science, which clearly shows we humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels and clearing rainforests. “[G]lobal warming has inspired one of the major policy debates of our time,” Pruitt said this year in a Tulsa World op-ed, which was co-written by Alabama’s attorney general, Luther Strange. “That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.” Scientists do not truly “disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.” On the first point, yes, there are reasonable disagreements about “how bad it will be and how soon its consequences will kick in,” as Robinson Meyer put it in The Atlantic. But there’s broad agreement it will be bad. The science of climate change, meanwhile, has been settled for some time. Depending on which study you cite, between 97% and 99.9% of actively publishing climate scientists – or their studies – agree the climate is warming and humans are largely responsible. Debate the best policies to get us off of fossil fuels and onto cleaner energy, sure. But there is no debate on the science. Efforts to inject one are both misleading and dangerous. Trump’s secretary of state pick, Rex Tillerson, is closer to the truth on his stated understanding of climate science. But it’s unclear whether he’d actually do anything about it. This matters because Tillerson – currently the CEO of ExxonMobil, one of the world’s biggest fossil fuel companies – would represent the US in international climate change negotiations. John Kerry, Obama’s outgoing secretary of state, negotiated the Paris Agreement, a landmark treaty aimed at limiting warming to 2 degrees Celsius. He forged new ties with China, now the biggest annual climate polluter, to help make that happen. The treaty basically sets the goal of ridding the world economy of fossil fuels this century, hopefully closer to 2050 than 2100. Now the CEO of a fossil fuel company could take Kerry’s place in those negotiations. Tillerson, thankfully, does acknowledge humans are causing climate change. “I’m not disputing that increasing CO2 emissions in the atmosphere is going to have an impact. It will have a warming impact,” he said at a Council of Foreign Relations event in 2012. In November, ExxonMobil also expressed belated support for the Paris climate accord. But ExxonMobil knew about the dangers of climate change in the 1970s and hid that information from investors and the public, according to an eight-month investigation by InsideClimate News, a Pulitzer prize-winning news organization. (ExxonMobil says on its website that it “completely rejects the allegations made in these reports”). And Tillerson hedges on the consequences of the warming he acknowledges fossil fuels are helping to cause. “[O]ur ability to predict, with any accuracy, what the future’s going to be is really pretty limited,” he said. While there are uncertainties about exactly how catastrophic unchecked climate change will be – and when, exactly, certain tipping points, such as the melting of Greenland, which could raise sea levels 7 meters, will be crossed – the crisis we face is clear. Based on the best available science, we reasonably can expect submerged cities, failing crops, super droughts, deadlier storms and mass extinction in the natural world if we continue burning fossil fuels at anything near the current rate. When it comes to planetary science, actions speak louder than words. And while Tillerson does acknowledge humanity’s role in climate change, his company continues to extract dirty fuels that are creating dangerous warming. According to a recent report in Science, which cites the work of Richard Heede, principal of Climate Mitigation Services, ExxonMobil was responsible for 555 million metric tons of CO2 entering the atmosphere in 2013, making it the fourth-biggest polluter that year. Look at emissions from 1885 to present and you’ll see the company is responsible for 3.11% of global CO2 emissions historically, according to the research, putting it behind only Saudi Aramco and Chevron in terms of its impact. Last in Trump’s dirty-fuel trifecta: Energy. Trump’s team announced on Wednesday that the president-elect is nominating Rick Perry, the former Texas governor, to head the Energy Department. As a candidate for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, Perry proposed eliminating the very department he is now tasked with leading. “The science is not settled,” Perry said during a Republican debate in 2011. “The idea that we would put Americans’ economy at jeopardy based on scientific theory that’s not settled yet to me is just nonsense.” I’ve addressed the not-settled point. Climate science is settled, as settled as science gets. And it’s been that way since well before Perry’s comment in 2011. (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a landmark report in 2007 stating that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and that “most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [greenhouse gas] concentrations.” If Perry has somehow evolved his views since 2011 he should say so.) But the second part of Perry’s statement is also worth dissecting. He appears to claim that doing something about climate change – abandoning fossil fuels in favor of cleaner energy, something he could help achieve if approved as the head of the US Energy Department – would somehow put the US economy in “jeopardy.” That’s surprising given that Perry is credited with bringing about a wind-power renaissance in Texas. And given the fact that doing nothing about climate change poses enormous financial risks. The International Monetary Fund estimates 3 degrees Celsius of warming – which about is where we’re headed even with the emissions cuts pledged in the Paris Agreement – would lead to a 2% loss in global GDP. And that estimate may undersell the real economic costs. Research published in 2015 in the journal Nature found that “unmitigated warming is expected to reshape the global economy by reducing average global incomes roughly 23% by 2100 and widening global income inequality, relative to scenarios without climate change.” That paper’s co-author, Marshall Burke, an assistant professor at Stanford University, told me US income losses are expected to be even greater: 30% to 35%. You can also look at these costs in a more piecemeal way. In the United States in 2100, for example, unchecked warming is expected to lead to 1.2 billion hours of lost labor, valued at $110 billion; $1.1 billion to $1.6 billion in avoidable bridge damages; $2.6 billion to $3.1 billion of losses to agriculture from avoidable droughts; and $940 million to $1.4 billion in avoidable costs associated with increased wildfire response, among other costs, according to a 2015 report from the Environmental Protection Agency. Then consider coastal flooding associated with seas that are rising as the oceans warm and ice sheets melts. A 2014 report called “Risky Business,” which was co-chaired by Michael Bloomberg, the billionaire, and Henry Paulson, former US treasury secretary, found that $238 billion to $507 billion worth of American real estate is expected to be underwater because of warming by 2100. There’s great variability in these estimates, to be sure. But it’s clear there are serious costs to doing nothing. And it’s clear that doing something about climate change may actually be far cheaper. Trump and his emerging Cabinet picks don’t seem to take these risks seriously. Their stated stances on climate indicate they would push these costs into the future and, importantly, onto the backs of future generations. They will inherit a crisis we helped create. And they may judge this moment harshly.


The three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a decisive rebuke to President Donald Trump’s Justice Department Thursday night, issuing a 29-page order rejecting almost every argument it made to reinstate his travel ban. Ruling maintains block on travel ban Threats made against judgesHow Trump lost: Views from all sidesKey lines from court rulingCourt ruling: FULL TEXT Ruling maintains block on travel ban Threats made against judgesHow Trump lost: Views from all sidesKey lines from court rulingCourt ruling: FULL TEXT Although the court was only ruling on whether the executive order should be reinstated, the language of the opinion is sweeping. Here are some key aspects from the ruling: 1) Most importantly, the broad ruling makes clear that the Trump administration failed to convince the court that national security concerns justified a reinstatement of the ban. “The Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.” In a footnote, the court added: “Although the Government points to the fact that Congress and the Executive identified the seven countries named in the Executive Order as countries of concern in 2015 and 2016, the Government has not offered any evidence or even an explanation of how the national security concerns that justified those designations, which triggered visa requirements, can be extrapolated to justify an urgent need for the Executive Order to be immediately reinstated.” 2) At oral arguments, the lawyer for the government said he thought the executive order was “unreviewable,” but the order eviscerates that notion. “In short, although courts owe considerable deference to the President’s policy determinations with respect to immigration and national security, it is beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.” 3) The government also argued that the states challenging the order – Washington and Minnesota – had not shown that they had the legal right, or standing, to bring the case in the first place. But the court pointed to the fact that public universities suffered because some of their visiting scholars were unable to enter the United States. “We therefore conclude that the States have alleged harms to their proprietary interests traceable to the Executive Order.” 4) After the executive order was issued, White House counsel Donald F. McGahn issued guidance saying that key parts of the order did not apply to lawful permanent residents. But the court said it could not rely upon that order. “The White House counsel is not the President, and he is not known to be in the chain of command of any of the Executive Departments. … We cannot rely upon the Government’s contention that the Executive Order no longer applies to lawful permanent residents.” 5) Finally, the court said it needed to balance the interests of the public. It acknowledged the importance of national security but finally sided with the states. “The public also has an interest in free flow of travel, in avoiding separation of families, and in freedom from discrimination.”


Russian warplanes bombed U.S.-backed Syrian rebels near the Jordanian border The U.S. diverted armed FA-18s to the area after the first round of two strikes Russia’s Defense Ministry denied bombing U.S.-backed Syrian opposition forces in a recent military operation near the Jordania border, according to a statement released on Sunday. The Kremlin response comes after U.S. and Russian military officials held a video conference to discuss Thursday’s strikes. “The object which had suffered bombardment was located more than 300 km far from borders of territories claimed by the American party as ones controlled by the opposition joined the ceasefire regime,” the Russian Defense Ministry said in the statement. And Russian forces “forewarned member states of the U.S.-led coalition about the ground targets to strike on,” the statement added. In recent months, the Russian Defense Ministry has suggested “compiling a joint map with actual information about location of forces active in Syria,” according to the statement. “However, there has been no significant progress reached.” The video conference addressing the Russian airstrikes was convened under the auspices of the Safety of Flight Memorandum of Understanding, an arrangement between the counter-ISIL coalition and Russian Federation to maintain safety in the air space over Syria. The discussion was unusual, because that communications channel was not established for such a purpose. “Department officials expressed strong concerns about the attack on the coalition-supported counter-ISIL forces at the At-Tanf garrison, which included forces that are participants in the cessation of hostilities in Syria, and emphasized that those concerns would be addressed through ongoing diplomatic discussions on the cessation of hostilities,” Pentagon press secretary Peter Cook said Saturday. “Regarding safety, department officials conveyed that Russia’s continued strikes at At-Tanf, even after U.S. attempts to inform Russian forces through proper channels of on-going coalition air support to the counter-ISIL forces, created safety concerns for U.S. and coalition forces,” Cook added. The strikes, which the U.S. says killed some New Syrian Army troops, occurred about six miles from the Jordanian border, according to a U.S. defense official. The U.S. diverted armed FA-18s to the area after the first round of two strikes, and the pilots then tried to call the Russians on a previously agreed-upon pilot-to-pilot communications channel but did not receive an answer. As soon as the U.S. jets left the area to refuel, the Russians came back for another round of bombing, the defense official said. “Russian aircraft conducted a series of airstrikes near al-Tanf against Syrian counter-ISIL forces that included individuals who have received U.S. support. Russian aircraft have not been active in this area of Southern Syria for some time, and there were no Syrian regime or Russian ground forces in the vicinity,” a senior defense official said. “Russia’s latest actions raise serious concern about Russian intentions. We will seek an explanation from Russia on why it took this action and assurances this will not happen again.” The first two bombing runs by the Russians were carried out by two SU-24 Russian jets coming out of their base near Latakia. The jets dropped what is believed to be the equivalent of U.S. 500-pound bombs and possibly cluster munitions, according to the U.S. defense official. U.S. officials are watching the situation closely. Asked about the strikes Friday, Defense Secretary Ash Carter said it raised questions about whether the Russians were actually in Syria to fight Islamic extremists. “Here’s a case where they actually attacked forces that were fighting ISIL. And if that was their intention, that’s the opposite of what they said they were going to do,” Carter said. “If not, then it says something about the quality of the information upon which they make airstrikes.” U.S. and Russian forces in Syria have had tense relations since the country devolved into civil war. The U.S. has backed rebel groups while the Russians have supported Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. CNN’s Jamie Crawford and Azadeh Ansari contributed to this report.


Editor’s Note: Nic Robertson is CNN’s international diplomatic editor. The opinions in this article belong to the author. Theresa May does have a propensity for picking a pretty backdrop for her big Brexit pronouncements. Along with dozens of diplomats, ambassadors and a neat line of docile British government ministers, I sat in the dazzling Louis XIV style splendor of Lancaster House in January, taking in not just her long-awaited Brexit vision, but a full on whiff of the mansion’s grandeur. For the next installment, May has picked Florence: a sparkling jewel of a city by any measure. In choosing Florence’s historic beauty over the more drab backdrop of Brussels to break the Brexit logjam, Britain’s PM may be succumbing to the perennial end-of-summer lure that Chianti country holds over many Europhile Brits. Or, she may have picked central Italy in order to remind the often self-important EU officials of the continent’s soft underbelly. Niccolo Machiavelli – Florence’s infamous diplomat, politician and master of duplicity – might have factored into May’s thinking when selecting a location for speech. Related article Juncker pulls Europe away from Brexit Britain Europe’s troubles are more exposed in Florence’s gracefully aging architecture than in the glass and concrete HQ construct that is the European Union’s headquarters. Less than a year ago, all the talk in this part of the world was of Italy being on a crash course to follow the UK out of the EU. Its young, amiable Prime Minister Matteo Renzi had bet his political career against the need of the nation to reform its economy. Anti-EU populists – in the guise of both nationalists and leftists – helped end his gamble. In short, for May, Italy is a simple cypher for Europe’s ills: A rich North riven with nationalism and a poor South struggling to cope with waves of refugees. Florence has its feet and pockets in the prosperous north, but many vineyards and olive groves in the rolling hills surrounding the city struggle to pay their way. A speech here sucks oxygen from Brussels’ inflated vision of one Europe fitting all. But May won’t be the only leader revealing their view of a future Europe this weekend. Early next week, France’s energetic President Emmanuel Macron will put his shoulder to the Sisyphean challenge of shifting the EU towards the path he prefers. And at elections this weekend, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is expected to handily secure a fourth term in office. Once liberated from the constraining shackles of fighting a domestic campaign, Europe’s most powerful leader can let herself loose on her vision for Europe’s destiny. Merkel’s aims may be more circumspect than Macron’s more vaulting vision, but then for Germany – Europe’s economic power house – the EU is working. Change will likely come cautiously. Brussels, to this point, has brushed off Britain’s advances much as a frustrated shopper might whoosh away wasps between them and their choice of fruit. In Florence, May will hope to drown out the EU’s increasingly angry buzz and steer Brexit discussion back toward a more mutually agreeable, diplomatic drone. One where the worker bees of Brexit known as sherpas can focus on facts and figures and ignore the emotions in both Brussels and London. Brussles has become an increasingly implacable wall to May and her Brexit secretary David Davis’s demands for a speedy EU divorce. She is desperate, ahead of her party conference in a few weeks, to part the gathering clouds of discontent that threaten her leadership with some sign of success in Europe – be it from a solid kick to the EU’s sensitive nether regions – as some in her party want – or a caressing of its ego. Or, a combination of both of the above. Something to improve the odds of a quicker agreement, reduce the risk of failure and cast herself in a better light – if only in the short term. Florence might be just the ticket: plenty of history, not just the political dark arts of Machiavelli, for a crafty speechwriter to weave into her own narrative for the future of Europe. The city’s charm is like butter on hot toast: it soaks into every pore, a richness of flavour that lasts long after the swallow. If May can emulate these qualities then she might finally break the Brexit logjam. Related article Brexit: EU chief Juncker warns UK 'will regret it' She will be hoping her words convince the EU27 that she is a serious negotiator and does have a vision for Brexit that she can deliver on and finally get trade talks between the EU and the UK going. EU negotiators are telling their UK counterparts to table substantive plans on rights of EU citizens, on Northern Ireland and on settling the exit bill. Until May’s foreign secretary – and in the eyes of many, leadership rival – Boris Johnson penned his own 4,000-word Brexit vision last week, the mood music in the run up to Florence was vaguely in May’s favour. Leaks that the UK could offer to pay around £20 billion over two years to plug would-be holes in the EU’s budget and two or more years of transition after the talks deadline March 2019, perhaps keeping the UK inside the single market and EU Customs Union, might go some way to cooling the EU’s perceived anger towards the manner in which Britain has gone about these negotiations so far. But this kind of fudge wouldn’t please everyone. Johnson and others have bridled at Britain paying a hefty bill that the EU has said could ultimately be around €100 billion. So something for everyone maybe: the EU gets commitment from the UK that it will continue to meet its EU budget obligations until the end of this period (2020). The UK gets the transition that it wants. And the thorny issue of the final bill gets kicked down the road – at least for a bit. It wouldn’t thaw the Brexit talks overnight, but might just hint that the winter of Brussels’ discontent is less chilly than before. Johnson’s intervention though, what ever it does to May’s calculus, will have reminded the EU that they may want to keep their thermals to hand a little longer. May has plenty more discontent awaiting her at the Conservative party conference. Not for the first time, Johnson has soured the scene in Europe, and also not for the first time he says again he really is in lockstep behind May’s leadership.


Pollard was released on parole Friday after spending 30 years behind bars on espionage charges The White House's refusal to alter the terms of Pollard's parole comes despite repeated entreaties from the Israeli government The Obama administration indicated Friday that it has no plans to loosen the parole restrictions on Jonathan Pollard, convicted of spying for Israel, to allow him to move to the Jewish state. Pollard was released on parole Friday after spending 30 years behind bars on espionage charges, but he cannot leave the country to join his wife in Israel under the terms of his early release. “The President has no plans to alter the forms of his parole. The Department of Justice is best positioned to speak to the terms of his parole, although obviously the one at issue is the requirement that he remain in the United States,” said Ben Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser. “But again, the President doesn’t have any plans to alter the terms of terms of his parole.” State Department Spokesman John Kirby added that he was “not aware of any such conversations” that would ease Pollard’s parole, noting that the Justice Department would handle Pollard’s parole “according to standard procedures.” Related video Who is Jonathan Pollard? READ: Will Israeli spy’s release help Obama and Netanyahu get along? The White House’s refusal to alter the terms of Pollard’s parole comes despite repeated entreaties from the Israeli government, which first advocated for Pollard’s release and now in recent months – as it became clear Pollard would soon be freed from prison – advocated for him to be allowed move to Israel. Rhodes acknowledged Friday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has “regularly raised” the conditions of Pollard’s parole in conversations with Obama, whom he last sat down with at the White House earlier this month. Pollard’s imprisonment has been a constant subject of Israeli diplomatic efforts throughout the American-born spy’s imprisonment, with Israeli prime ministers raising the issue with successive American administrations. Pollard had reportedly been used as a bargaining chip in past U.S. efforts to bring Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians or to draw concessions from Israeli officials, but his early release never came to fruition. Many in the American intelligence establishment opposed any leniency for the former U.S. naval intelligence officer who passed sensitive information to Jerusalem. Pollard was ultimately released through the regular parole process.


Boubaker Hakim is a French-Tunisian ISIS operative The Pentagon says Saturday he was killed A French ISIS operative suspected of enabling a terrorist attack on a tourist beach in Tunisia was killed by a US drone strike in late November, according to the Pentagon. Boubaker Hakim, 33, a veteran French-Tunisian ISIS operative who had gained a reputation as one of the most notorious and ruthless figures in global jihad – was targeted in Raqqa, Syria, on November 26, Pentagon spokesman Peter Cook said. “His removal degrades ISIL’s ability to conduct further attacks in the West and denies ISIL a veteran extremist with extensive ties,” he said, using a different acronym for ISIS. CNN reported Friday than Hakim was targeted, citing a source briefed by French intelligence. Intelligence indicated that Hakim was connected to the Tunisian cell behind the June 2015 Sousse attack via an intermediary in Libya, a senior British counterterrorism source told CNN. Thirty-eight people, including 30 British tourists, were killed. According to the source, the same ISIS-linked cell also carried out a deadly attack on the Bardo museum in Tunis in March 2015. Investigators believe the plotters were in touch with ISIS operatives in the group’s safe-haven spanning parts of Syria and Iraq, but the source described the Tunisian plots as “ISIS-enabled” rather than “ISIS-directed.” Unlike the Paris attacks, the Sousse plot did not involve a cell recruited, trained and dispatched by the senior leadership of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Rather, it was a homegrown cell that developed ties to the core organization. Those involved in the attacks all trained in Libya, the source said. The Tunisian cell exhibited an impressive level of operational trade craft, and at the time of the Sousse attack it was also plotting to attack the French consulate in Tunis, the source disclosed. Those plans were thwarted after Tunisian security services moved against the group after that attack. Hakim, also known by his fighting name Abu Muqatil, was also a person of interest in the probe of links between the November 2015 Paris attacks and overseas terrorists, according to Jean Charles Brisard, the director of the Center for the Analysis of Terrorism in Paris. Several months before the attacks, he issued a call from Syria for jihadis inside France to launch gun attacks. Hakim was born in Paris and ran in the same extremist circles as the Kouachi brothers, who attacked the Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine in Paris in January 2015. Hakim later traveled to join jihadi efforts in Iraq during the Iraqi insurgency and was handed a seven-year sentence for terrorism offenses on his return. Soon after being released, he traveled to Tunisia, where he joined a terrorist cell allegedly responsible for the killing of two secularist-leaning politicians. Hakim then traveled to join ISIS. In December 2014, he appeared in an ISIS video claiming responsibility for the assassination of the Tunisian politicians. The US State Department designated him a global terrorist in September 2015. Hakim’s targeting in a US drone strike was first reported by the French newspaper Le Monde. CNN’s Tim Lister and Steve Almasy contributed to this report


The comments are the most direct the White House has made on the incident Some had called on the Trump administration to condemn the crime A White House spokeswoman condemned on Tuesday the shooting of two Indian men in Kansas that gained international attention over the weekend, telling reporters that the shooting appears to be “an act of racially motivated hatred.” The comments are the most direct the White House has been on the shooting, which killed Srinivas Kuchibhotla, a 32-year old employee at GPS company Garmin, and left Alok Madasani, 32, and Ian Grillot, 24, in the hospital. “As more facts come to light and it begins to look like this was an act of racially motivated hatred,” said Sarah Sanders, a White House spokeswoman. “I want to reiterate the President condemns these or any other racially or religiously motivated attacks in the strongest terms. They have no place in our country.” Kansas City shooting hero: Trump should address hate The comments come as some have called for a more forceful response from President Donald Trump and his administration. “I wouldn’t be surprised if that was mentioned in the speech tonight,” Sanders added. Sanders said the President is “keeping the family of the victim who was senselessly killed in his thoughts and prayers and praying for the full and speedy recovery for those who were wounded.” Adam Purinton, 51, was charged with one count of premeditated first-degree murder and two counts of attempted premeditated first-degree murder for the shooting last Wednesday at Austins Bar and Grill in Olathe. Purinton allegedly grew agitated with the two Indian men, before Grillot, a regular at the bar, approached the man and asked him to leave, according to CNN affiliate KMBC. 911 calls reveal the Kansas suspect thought he’d shot ‘two Iranians’ Purinton then allegedly left the bar before returning and opening fire, according to prosecutors. The Kansas City Star reports that one witness said the shooter yelled “Get out of my country” before shooting. Purinton was arrested an hour later at an Applebee’s restaurant 70 miles away in Clinton, Missouri. In 911 calls released by CNN affiliate KSHB, an Applebee’s bartender told police that a man had admitted to shooting two “Iranian” people in Olathe and was looking for a place to hide. The FBI is investigating to determine whether it was a hate crime. CORRECTION: This story has been updated to reflect the timing of the shooting. CNN’s Eric Levenson contributed to this report.


"The President is very committed to the Middle East peace process," Tillerson told reporters Tillerson faced the international backlash against the decision directly Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Wednesday there is still “a very good opportunity for peace to be achieved” in the Middle East, despite the Trump administration’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the US embassy to that city. “The President is very committed to the Middle East peace process,” Tillerson told reporters at a news conference from NATO headquarters in Brussels. “He has a team that he put in place almost immediately upon entering the White House.” Early in the administration, President Donald Trump tasked his son-in-law Jared Kushner, along with attorney Jason Greenblatt, with developing an Israel-Palestinian peace process. But critics and US allies alike have voiced concerns that Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital could jeopardize that effort by damaging US relationships in the region and potentially driving the Palestinians away from the process. Related article Jordan's King joins criticism over Trump's Jerusalem decision In his news conference Wednesday, Tillerson insisted the process is alive. “We continue to believe there is a very good opportunity for peace to be achieved,” he said, “and the President has a team that is devoted to that entirely.” But Tillerson, who was in Brussels for a NATO ministerial, faced the international backlash against the decision directly. Turkey’s foreign minister, Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, told reporters immediately ahead of his meeting with Tillerson that the move is “a grave mistake.” “It would not bring any stability, peace but rather chaos and instability,” he said, adding that he’s relayed his position on the matter to Tillerson, and planned to do so again. Related article Trump's Jerusalem decision promises upheaval Asked later Wednesday morning how discussions on the future of Jerusalem were going, Tillerson said, “We haven’t had a lot of talks about that,” insisting his discussions have centered on other agenda items. Meanwhile, Tillerson’s British counterpart, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, said his country would wait and see what Trump announces. “But clearly this is a decision that makes it more important than ever that the long-awaited American proposals on the Middle East peace process are now brought forward and I would say that that should happen as a matter of priority,” he noted.

Trump administration's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital