Pope Francis is visiting Cuba until Tuesday when he heads to the United States. CNN will have full coverage online and on CNN TV. Pope Francis will visit Cuba and the United States September 19-27 The trip will test the pontiff's pastoral and political acumen The Pope plans to address Congress and the U.N. General Assembly Pope Francis has not commented on the crowded field of U.S. presidential candidates. But after a similar situation arose in Argentina, he was not amused. In 2007, when the future pope was archbishop of Buenos Aires, 18 Argentines ran for president. “So we are either a fantastic nation with 18 geniuses who can lead the country,” he told two journalists, “or we are a nation of fools who can’t agree.” Francis is no fan of dictatorships, either. He has called on Cuba and other nations to scrap their “corrupt” regimes and give the people a voice in government. Too many politicians. Too few. The Pope will soon get an up-close and personal look at both political dynamics. Don’t miss live coverage of Pope Francis’ trips to Cuba and the U.S. on CNN and CNNgo, and see the people and places that shaped Pope Francis in a CNN special report, “The People’s Pope,” Tuesday at 9 p.m. ET. On Saturday, he will land in Cuba, a communist nation controlled by the Castro brothers for nearly six decades. On Tuesday, Francis will fly to the United States, a country holding a fierce and freewheeling presidential campaign, with at least 20 candidates contending for the White House. In both countries, Francis will attempt to stay above the partisan fray, according to Catholic officials. But they acknowledge the probability that his every word will be parsed and spun for political advantage. “He’s coming as a pastor of souls and a prophet, not a politician,” said Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. At the same time, the Pope will likely encourage Catholics to put their faith into action, Kurtz added. Politician or not, this Pope holds sharply political opinions on everything from campaign finance reform to climate change. Francis has also been open about his aims, saying he wants to influence upcoming summits at the United Nations on sustainable development and care for the environment. Pope Francis’ schedule for U.S., Cuba Related gallery Pope Francis In the United States, meanwhile, the Pope’s popularity has slipped, perhaps because of his political activism. Fewer than half of American conservatives say they hold a favorable image of Francis, according to a recent Gallup Poll. The pontiff’s fiery denunciations of the “idolatry of money” and his linking of climate change to human activity could be partly to blame, Gallup said. In general, it seems, liberals love it when the Pope gets political, while many conservatives would rather he stick to traditional religious subjects. Rep. Paul Gosar, a Republican – and Catholic – from Arizona, plans to boycott the Pope’s speech to Congress because of reports that the pontiff will focus on climate change. “When the Pope chooses to act and talk like a leftist politician,” Gosar says, “then he can expect to be treated like one.” With the tensions between the Pope’s political and pastoral roles in mind, here are the five toughest challenges he will face on his trip to the United States and Cuba, September 19-27. President Raul Castro has granted Cubans more religious freedom in recent months, and even said that Pope Francis has inspired him to consider joining the Catholic Church. Castro is expected to attend the Pope’s public Masses in Cuba, and Vatican officials have hinted that Francis may meet privately with Castro’s brother, Fidel. If so, the pontiff should take care not to appear too chummy with the Castros, conservative Americans say. “The Castro brothers are mass murderers,” said Rep. Chris Smith, a Republican from New Jersey. “They have tortured and imprisoned thousands of dissidents.” Smith said he expects the Castros to attempt to manipulate the Pope’s message, just as they tried to do during previous papal visits to Cuba in 1998 and 2012. The congressman also said he is concerned that the diplomatic thaw between Cuba and the United States – a détente aided and encouraged by Pope Francis – does not require the release of political dissidents. Pope heads to Cuba after months of secret diplomacy On September 11, Cuba announced that it would pardon 3,522 prisoners ahead of the Pope’s arrival, but none had committed crimes against state security, according to the government. The Pope’s advisers say he is unlikely to make provocative political statements in Cuba. He is going to confirm and encourage the faith of Cuban Catholics, not condemn the Castros. But after hearing Francis rail against runaway capitalism, some American conservatives are hoping he will now put communism in his rhetorical crosshairs. Key question: Will the Pope publicly condemn the Castros’ repressive style of communism? Nobody knows the proper protocol for a pope addressing a joint meeting of Congress. It’s never been done before. Will Francis shake hands as he walks to the lectern? Should Congress clap for political points? Would anyone dare be caught on camera not applauding the Pope? “I would prefer that no one gets up and cheers, claps or shows any response during the whole speech until the very end,” Rep. Dan Lipinski, an Illinois Democrat, told National Catholic Reporter. “Whether or not that would hold, I am not sure.” Beyond the political theater, Vatican officials know the audience for Francis’ congressional address will likely extend far beyond Capitol Hill. Many poor nations will be watching to see whether he takes Congress to task. “When Pope Francis speaks to slums in South America, he’s talking to the footprint,” a church source told CNN. “When he speaks to the United States, he’s talking to the boot.” Pope Francis criticizes ‘dictators’ and ‘tyrants’ Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles and other Hispanics have encouraged the pontiff to address immigration reform, an issue that resonates personally with the first Pope from Latin America. Initially, Francis had wanted to enter the United States through its border with Mexico to highlight the plight of immigrants. The Pope is likely to make a similar point about Latinos’ influence on the United States when he canonizes Junipero Serra, a Spanish missionary, in Washington on September 23. Conservatives, meanwhile, are encouraging the Pope to condemn abortion, noting that his speech to Congress comes just as some members have threatened to shut down the government over federal funding of Planned Parenthood. Key question: Will the Pope’s speech to Congress be a pep talk or a stern lecture? On September 25, Francis will address world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly. The stated subject is peace, but the Pope’s advisers expect him to range widely, given the rare opportunity to speak to so many world leaders at one time. Guzman Carriquiry Lecour, secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, said Francis could speak about persecuted Christians in the Middle East, refugees on the run in Europe, climate change, the drug trade, gun-running, poverty, “ideological colonization,” reckless financial speculation and the technology gap between rich and poor nations. “It can be expected that the Pope will draw attention to the serious responsibility the United States has within the international community,” Carriquiry said, “and to lead the common work of nations toward more humane solutions.” The Pope’s 10 commandments on climate change In his encyclical on the environment, “Laudato Si,” the Pope criticized the failure of international organizations to confront global crises like climate change. “It is remarkable how weak international responses have been,” Francis said. Meanwhile, “the Earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth.” Key question: Can the Pope actually push countries to make tough choices on political issues? American Catholics are divided on almost every culture war issue, from abortion to same-sex marriage to climate change. The gap is widest, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey, between conservatives who attend Mass weekly and “cultural Catholics” who rarely darken a church’s door. Catholics who attend Mass more often are much more likely to call abortion a sin, say children should not be raised by same-sex couples and believe that the church should not allow remarried Catholics to receive Communion. While not changing church teaching on key doctrinal issues, Pope Francis has tried to make his church appear more merciful, especially to those on the margins of church life. ‘The face of our church is changing’ Earlier this month, he announced that all priests around the world will be authorized to forgive the “sin of abortion” when the church begins a “Year of Mercy” this December. And on September 8,  Francis radically revised the process by which Catholics may annul their marriages, streamlining steps that many in the church considered too cumbersome and costly. While church progressives praised both moves, conservatives accused Francis of “vandalizing marriage” by scrapping centuries of Catholic teachings and tradition. Key question: Can the Pope build a bridge between the liberal and conservative factions of his American flock? When Francis arrives in the United States, he will find nearly half of the population connected in some way to Catholicism, according to the Pew survey. But just one-fifth currently call themselves Catholics, and 1 in 10 Americans say they have fallen away from the faith. There are so many former Catholics in the United States, in fact, that if they formed their own church, they’d be the country’s second-largest religion, after only the Catholic Church itself. To see that exodus in action, look no further than Philadelphia – the final stop on the Pope’s trip to the United States. At one time, the city teemed with Catholics, with more than 250,000 students in the church’s schools and people identifying their neighborhood by the local Catholic parish. But in the last decade, two scathing grand jury reports accused Catholic leaders of covering up the crimes of pedophile priests. Declining funds led to the closure of dozens of Catholic schools and the merging of many parishes. Archbishop Charles Chaput said that when he was appointed to Philadelphia in 2011, the archdiocese was $17 million in debt. The Pope: Not just for Catholics anymore The situation was so bad, Chaput said recently, that he was reluctant to host the World Meeting of Families, the huge Catholic conference that’s expected to draw 700,000 people – including the Pope – to Philadelphia next weekend. Now, Chaput said, he’s hoping Francis can perform a Philadelphia miracle. “We’re going to make the church younger and fresher and more enthusiastic,” the archbishop told CNN. “If that happens, it’s going to be worth all the work and all the money that’s gone into preparing for this visit.” Key question: Can Pope Francis bring lapsed Catholics back into the fold?


Monica Lewinsky, the former White House intern at the center of President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial, will continue her reentry into public life with a TED talk in late March. Lewinsky’s remarks will focus on making “a safer and more compassionate social media environment, drawing from her unique experiences at the epicenter of a media maelstrom in 1998,” the TED website said. The speech will come during the TED 2015 Truth and Dare meeting in Vancouver, Canada on March 19. Lewinsky has become an activist against cyber bullying. She first reentered public life last year when she penned a Vanity Fair essay about life after her affair with Clinton and how she saw similarities between her case and high profile cases of cyber bullying. in the Vanity Fair piece, Lewinsky cited the 2010 Tyler Clementi case as the reason she was going public with her cause. Clementi was a freshman at Rutgers who committed suicide after his roommate secretly used a webcam to stream his sexual encounter. “My own suffering took on a different meaning,” Lewinsky wrote about her reaction to the Clementi case. “Perhaps by sharing my story, I reasoned, I might be able to help others in their darkest moments of humiliation. The question became: How do I find and give a purpose to my past?” Lewinsky is now a Vanity Fair contributor, and her essay was nominated for a National Magazine Award. In October, Lewinsky gave a much watched speech where she said her new mission in life was to end cyberbullying. “Having survived myself, what I want to do now is help other victims of the shame game survive, too,” she told the audience at Forbes’ 30 Under 30 summit. “I want to put my suffering to good use and give purpose to my past.”


Editor’s Note: Luigi Scazzieri is a research fellow at the Centre for European Reform think tank. The opinions in this article belong to the author. European leaders are set to discuss the increasingly difficult issue of Turkey at a summit this week in Brussels amid the deepest freeze in bilateral relations in years. Criticism of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s crackdown following last year’s failed coup and diplomatic bust-ups with Germany and the United States have taken their toll. Last month, German Chancellor Angela Merkel called for a suspension of talks to bring Turkey into the European Union. But if the EU ends accession negotiations without an alternative in place, it will only deepen the rift. Turkey, which first applied to join the EU in 1987, has long been seen as an important partner for Europe on security and migration. EU nations have remained committed to granting Turkey membership, partly in the hope the process would help foster reform, although some – such as Germany – have been wary of the challenges of assimilating such a large nation. Related article Erdogan must stop picking fights with Turkey's friends Despite a pledge to revive accession talks as part of a migration deal with Ankara in 2016, bilateral relations have deteriorated to a crisis point. Erdogan’s crackdown, which included the arrest of 40,000 people, has fueled concerns about human rights and political freedoms in Turkey. Relations with Berlin in particular have soured dramatically. Germany’s decision to block Turkish politicians from campaigning on German soil ahead of an April referendum to give Erdogan more powers prompted the Turkish leader to accuse Germany of “Nazi” practices. Turkey’s detention of some German citizens over the summer was the straw that broke the camel’s back. In response, Berlin warned Germans traveling to Turkey that they risked arbitrary detention. And Merkel has said she now wants to call off Turkey’s accession negotiations as well as freeze pre-accession financial assistance and talks on deepening trade cooperation. The European Parliament has also passed a nonbinding resolution to end accession talks. The crisis in EU-Turkey relations is a symptom of Turkey’s drift away from the West, not only in terms of values but also in its foreign policy. US-Turkey relations soured following Barack Obama’s decision to back Syrian Kurds against ISIS in 2014. The Syrian Kurds are linked to the Turkish Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, which has fought a guerrilla conflict against the Turkish state since the 1980s. The Turkish government has accused the United States of being behind the failed coup and criticized its refusal to extradite Fethullah Gulen, the Muslim cleric exiled in the United States who is a former close ally-turned-leading critic of Erdogan. In July, Turkish state TV revealed the location of US secret positions in Syria, and earlier this month, Turkish authorities arrested some US Consulate employees in Turkey. That move prompted the United States to stop issuing visas to US citizens, and Turkey retaliated in tit-for-tat fashion. Warm words from President Donald Trump toward Erdogan have not helped, and relations are unlikely to thaw while the Washington continues to support the Kurds in Syria. Amid the antipathy with the West, Turkey has pivoted to Moscow. In September, it signed a deal to purchase an S-400 air defense system from Russia, rather than seek an alternative that was interoperable with its NATO allies. Against this backdrop, it is easy to see why it would be tempting for the EU to suspend accession negotiations with Turkey. But this would be counterproductive. The talks, which began in 2005, are already de facto frozen. Formally acknowledging this without putting an alternative framework in place would push Turkey even further away from the West. Keeping the negotiations alive maintains the hope that Turkey’s governance may one day return to a European path. Related article Erdogan: Turkey does not recognize US envoy after visa spat The EU should instead make Turkey an ambitious alternative offer of cooperation, including greater access to its market in both goods and services and increased labor mobility. The proposal should be tied to strict conditionality, as an original customs union arrangement was in the mid-1990s. Such a proposition would stand little chance if the accession process was simultaneously taken off the table, so it would initially have to run parallel to it. If at some stage negotiations on the new partnership made good progress, then the accession process could be terminated. Should the EU develop several tiers of membership, as some expect, Turkey could one day find a home in an outer ring, which would allow for valued cooperation on migration, counterterrorism and commerce. The EU has more leverage on Turkey than vice versa. Good diplomatic and economic relations with the EU are in Turkey’s self-interest – and Erdogan’s domestic popularity rests on Turkey’s economic success. A further deterioration of the rule of law and political instability is likely to unsettle international investors. Erdogan said this month that Turkey no longer needs to join the EU, but it won’t be the one to break off the accession talks. Ultimately, a constructive EU-Turkey agenda can only develop if Turkey alters its current course. Suspending accession talks will not help to heal the rift. Instead, the EU would do well to look past the stasis and attempt to develop new ways of working together.

European Union accession negotiations with Turkey


Last month, an attorney expressed his outrage with leaders of the House Intelligence Committee: He demanded to know why a committee official shared his client’s secret testimony with another lawyer, a blatant violation of the panel’s rules. Days later, the committee instead sent a subpoena signed by Chairman Devin Nunes demanding that the witness – an associate to Sen. John McCain who had met with ex-British agent Christopher Steele – reappear before the committee on short notice. News of the subpoena was reported by a conservative media outlet just 10 minutes after the witness received it. The episode, which was described to CNN by four sources from both parties with knowledge of the meeting and which has not been previously reported, underscores the aggressive tactics Nunes and several of his senior staffers have employed to undercut Steele’s dossier of allegations tying Donald Trump and his associates to Russia. Related article Republican investigations put Clinton associate Blumenthal in dossier spotlight While Nunes, R-California, has rallied Trump and many Republicans to his cause by going after the FBI and Steele dossier, Democrats say he’s stifled similar efforts to obtain more information on Russia and Trump, sitting on numerous requests for subpoenas, phone records and Democratic demands to schedule witness interviews. The committee, instead, has issued subpoenas to the McCain associate and the firm behind the Steele dossier, Fusion GPS. And led by Nunes, the panel fought a lawsuit to secure Fusion GPS’ bank records, quietly sent two aides to try to track down Steele in London and threatened to hold senior officials at the FBI and the Justice Department in contempt of Congress for not turning over documents. Nunes has wielded this considerable influence despite not attending classified hearings with witnesses after announcing last year he would temporarily step aside from the investigation and handing the reins to Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas. It all culminated in Nunes’ controversial memo alleging FBI and Justice Department misconduct in how it used the Steele dossier to obtain a warrant to conduct surveillance on a Trump adviser. Related article Judiciary chairman wants FISA judge to reveal more info on Page surveillance “The chairman’s efforts to put the government on trial, rather than conduct a credible Russia investigation, have made our work exponentially more difficult,” said California Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the panel. Republicans charge that Schiff and the committee’s Democrats are trying to extend the Russia investigation into the 2018 campaign season, and they have expressed their support of Nunes. “The Democrats are going to complain about everything we do. … But you know what, they don’t get to decide that – we do,” said Florida Rep. Tom Rooney, who is helping lead the committee’s Russia investigation. “Nunes hasn’t told us ‘no’ for anything we’ve asked for.” Things are so tense on the committee that Republican staff is weighing whether to install a physical barrier to separate GOP and Democratic aides, according to two sources familiar with the discussions. Related article White House officials expect Trump to OK Dem memo barring national security threat “They’re going to have to start installing a shower in the (committee) SCIF so we can feel normal after,” Rep. Mike Quigley, an Illinois Democrat, said after the committee’s vote last week to release the Republican memo. Approached this week, Nunes said he wouldn’t discuss committee business in the halls of the Capitol. His spokesman declined to comment. But a GOP source on the panel said, “It’s ironic that committee Democrats appear to have leaked information in order to accuse Republicans of leaking information.” The committee has long been plagued by accusations of leaks from both sides of the aisle. Related article Kelly says he expects Democratic memo recommendations by Thursday Rooney told CNN the Office of Congressional Ethics has sent letters to all of the Republican committee staff of the House Intelligence Committee related to leaks. A liberal advocacy group Campaign for Accountability filed a complaint with OCE against Nunes and his staff, accusing them of leaking information related to Fusion GPS. It’s not clear if the letters are tied to that complaint or if it will turn into a formal investigation, and OCE will not comment publicly on its investigations. The fight over the testimony of the McCain associate from January underscores the deepening tension. The witness, David Kramer, who went to work for McCain’s think tank at Arizona State University in 2014, has been in Nunes’ sights after revelations that he met with Steele in 2016. After the 2016 election, Kramer and McCain, R-Arizona, met with a former British ambassador to Russia who worked with Steele, according to court filings in the U.K. That contact helped Kramer meet with Steele to review the ex-agent’s work in late November 2016, then Kramer worked with Fusion to obtain hard copies of the dossier. Related article House GOP gives Trump leeway over whether to block Schiff memo But Kramer’s attorney, Larry Robbins, raised grave concerns that the committee was violating rules by disseminating private information about Kramer’s appearance before the panel. Robbins declined to comment for this story, as did Kramer, a former diplomat and assistant secretary of state. Schiff also declined to comment about Kramer’s testimony. But sources familiar with the matter recounted that Robbins raised serious concerns in a December 23 letter that another attorney whose client was a committee witness had contacted him for his assistance. That attorney recounted specific details from Kramer’s testimony, Robbins told the panel, according to a source with knowledge of the matter. After complaining about the matter, Kramer received a subpoena for his appearance before the panel four days later. And 10 minutes after receiving it, news broke in the conservative media that Kramer had been issued a subpoena to reappear in January. Related article 5 numbers to prove the GOP is sticking by Trump on Russia Compounding the problems, Robbins had a medical appointment that initially posed a conflict to meet the committee’s demand for his appearance. And Kramer, who had been in Florida, had to quickly catch a flight to Washington to meet with the committee. In the January 10 hearing, Robbins lashed out at the committee for roughly 30 minutes, accusing Nunes’ staff of conduct unbecoming of how attorneys treat one another, sources said. And members of both parties privately expressed alarmed at the situation. Conaway told Robbins he was sympathetic to the concerns he had raised, multiple sources said. Conaway acknowledged Robbins’ raised concerns but said that the committee needed to complete its interview process. “I’m not going to second guess our team,” Conaway said. “We got it done. And it was an inconvenience to the witness and to him but we got it done.” Conaway said he has confidence in Nunes as chairman. “We’re doing the Russia investigation – he’s got a lot of other committee business that’s going on,” Conaway said. CNN’s Katelyn Polantz contributed to this story.


Editor’s Note: Timothy Stanley is a historian and columnist for Britain’s Daily Telegraph. He is the author of “Citizen Hollywood: How the Collaboration Between L.A. and D.C. Revolutionized American Politics.” The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. Trump sounds like he understands the public's concerns. Clinton sounds bureaucratic The context to this election is terror in every meaning of the word. Trump has understood that from the very beginning There’s a tradition of not injecting political comment into terror incidents, out of deference to those affected. But let’s not be naïve. The wave of attacks that occurred over the weekend are the context to this presidential election. They are one of the reasons why Hillary Clinton’s politics seem out of date and Donald Trump’s seem more relevant. We still don’t know who was behind the bombing in New York, explosion and abandoned devices in New Jersey, or the stabbings in Minnesota – but even if officials have been reluctant to speculate, Americans will be connecting dots and arriving at their own conclusions. The attacks came just after the country marked the 15th anniversary of 9/11 and before a summit at the United Nations on the refugee crisis. An ISIS-linked news agency has already claimed that the man who stabbed nine people in Minnesota was one of theirs. In the murky world of Islamist terrorism, it’s hard to distinguish between trained operatives and lone wolves who act almost on impulse. But the intention is always the same: to create an atmosphere of tension in order to intimidate the West into withdrawal from the Middle East. It’s precisely because the terrorists want to cause panic that many officials choose to react with calm and precision. Compare and contrast the reactions of Clinton and Trump. Trump told supporters that a bomb had gone off in New York hours before any details were confirmed by the police. He added: “We better get tough folks. We better get very, very tough.” Clinton also referred to a bombing, but urged patience and discouraged speculation, saying: “I think it’s important to know the facts about any incident like this.” In a normal election, we might say that Trump failed a character test: he pre-empted expert analysis and riled the public up rather than calming them down. When he speaks off the cuff like this, he’s simply being negligent. Related video Hillary Clinton addresses NYC explosion But 2016 isn’t a normal election. America isn’t living through ordinary times. Before 9/11, the country had some experience of domestic terrorism but seen few foreign attacks on its own soil. In the last two years they have become increasingly common. And the tone of officialdom – once so reassuringly objective – now sounds anodyne. For instance, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio initially described the bombing in his city as “intentional” but was reluctant to go any further with regards to motive. The choice of words was odd. What kind of bomb isn’t “intentional”? And why, many Americans will be asking, be so reluctant to speculate that terrorists are involved when terrorists have been so active of late? It would be a little like the British government in the Second World War declaring that a bomb that fell on London appeared to have malicious intent but they were reluctant to link it to the German warplanes flying overhead. Related video Video shows man helping woman injured in NY blast In short, Trump sounds like he understands the public’s concerns. Clinton sounds bureaucratic. Worse, it’s the bureaucratic tone of a foreign policy establishment that has presided over the apparent decline in American security. Some voters feel that Clinton and her ilk put the US on the frontline of the terror conflict by voting for the Iraq War. That she helped expand that conflict with the bungled removal of Gaddafi from power in Libya. And that the US’s vacillating involvement in Syria both weakened dictator Bashar al-Assad yet failed to remove him, stoking a civil war that gave rise to ISIS. All of these readings of history are highly subjective and questionable. But they are believed verbatim by a significant rump of voters and have bled into wider public opinion. It can be summed up as: “Hillary’s been around ever since this trouble started. Trump wants to end it.” Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.Join us on Twitter and Facebook Security is his strongest issue. His economic protectionism appeals mostly to those affected by foreign competition in the declining rustbelt and won’t be what he wins on if he wins. His pledge to build a wall along the Mexican border, however, might be couched as a defence of American jobs and sound like xenophobia – but it subconsciously taps into concerns about security. A nation that can’t control who comes in or out isn’t a nation at all. Nativist campaigns against immigration in the past have often accused arrivals of importing foreign conflicts. Italians were thought to bring the mafia, for instance. So by linking the threat of Islamism to open borders, Trump is articulating ancient fears of “the other”. Liberals may condemn Trump for exploiting such worries, but they would be fools to dismiss the concern itself. It is real. It is justified by the Islamist campaign. And liberals might need to rethink how they articulate their own response to the situation. Technically, Clinton’s was correct – thoughtful, authoritative. But in the present circumstances, Trump’s was emotionally more apposite. The context to this election is terror in every meaning of the word. Trump has understood that from the very beginning.


Amy Dickman is the founder and director of Tanzania’s Ruaha Carnivore Project, part of Oxford University’s WildCRU. She has worked in African conservation for over 20 years. All views expressed belong to the author. For more about the debate over big game trophies, watch CNN Films’ “Trophy,” premiering Sunday, January 14, at 9pm ET/PT, on CNN. I am a lifelong animal lover and vegetarian for whom the idea of killing animals for fun is repellent, and have committed my career to African wildlife conservation. You might, therefore, expect that I would have been thrilled with Donald Trump’s suggestion – influenced apparently by media and animal rights pressures – that he could decide against the US importation of trophy-hunted elephants (and possibly other species such as lions). However, I am fearful that impulsive and emotional responses to trophy hunting – no matter how well-meaning – could in fact intensify the decline of species such as lions. Related article Two years after Cecil the lion's death, son Xanda killed by game hunter There is no doubt that iconic African species are in serious trouble – lion numbers have nearly halved in 20 years, and as we estimate that only around 24,000 remain, lions are now as rare as rhinos in Africa, and 15 times rarer than elephants . From the furore over trophy hunting, the public could be forgiven for thinking that it was the major threat facing lions. But in reality, the key issues are loss of habitat, prey loss from bushmeat poaching and conflict with local people . That conflict usually involves poisoning, shooting or spearing lions, either to retaliate for (or try to prevent) attacks on livestock or people. Some traditional killing of lions also still occurs, where young men spear them to gain wealth and status. It is unquestionable that poorly managed trophy hunting can negatively impact lion populations, and it is imperative that hunting is well managed. Systems have been established in places like Zimbabwe to regulate hunting, and while they will never be perfect, they are working relatively well. Furthermore, any negative impacts need to be set against the positives such a land use can offer. People may find it very strange that there can be any positive aspect to hunting threatened species – surely any additional mortality heaped on a declining species must unquestionably be a bad thing? The reality is more complicated. Of course, if trophy hunting is the main reason for the decline in an area’s lion population, then stopping it is entirely justified and desirable. However, in most places, this is not the case. And if trophy hunting diminishes those other threats – by protecting habitat, preventing poaching or acting as a buffer between parks and human populations – then overall the threatened species could be better off. People are often confused by the “benefit” of hunting, imagining it is about money going to local people. While that can be important, particularly in remote communal areas with few other revenue options, the most important benefit from an African conservation perspective is that trophy hunting maintains vast areas of land for wildlife, which is invaluable in an ever more human-dominated world. There is a risk that by banning trophy importation without considering  the alternative land uses, the headline-grabbing but usually small threat posed by trophy hunting could be replaced by the far more silent, deadly and larger threats of land conversion, poaching and conflict. Photo-tourism is often touted as a replacement – but in many remote, less attractive areas, it would not generate sufficient revenue to maintain that land as a wildlife area. If there are non-lethal alternatives to trophy hunting that could safeguard the same amount of land, then I would be the first to support them – but the reality is that no such alternatives currently exist for most hunting areas. People may hate the ethics around trophy hunting, but to a lion (and to a conservationist), the consequence is the same whether it is shot by a trophy hunter, poisoned by a local villager or starved from lack of prey, so the aim should be to reduce overall unsustainable mortality rather than focusing on one particular activity. Related article Inside the dark world of trophy hunting We should remember that the management of African wildlife is the right and responsibility of range states – who have managed to maintain populations of large, costly wildlife while in the Global North we have largely extirpated ours. The US-based calls to ban trophy hunting in Africa seem particularly hypocritical considering the scale of domestic US hunting – it would save far more animals if the activity was banned in-country, and would not impact the lives of rural Africans and their wildlife. Our ultimate goal should be to really understand the threats to each population and aim to reduce those, based on science rather than emotion. Otherwise we could be condemning far more of these magnificent animals to death, even if such deaths occur far beyond the gaze and hype of the media. It is a cause for celebration that so many people love lions, elephants and other wild animals – but we should be extremely wary of basing decisions on emotion alone, in case we worsen their conservation outlook, and effectively love them to death.


Hillary Clinton's performance at the Democratic debate Saturday night was aimed at the general election more so than the primary She gave her rivals -- including Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders -- a pass over a dispute considering improperly obtained voter data Hillary Clinton believes, finally, that the force is with her. The former secretary of state’s tactics and performance in Saturday’s Democratic debate suggested that she thinks that though her campaign struggled out of the gate following a series of personal missteps, the nomination may be finally within her grasp as voting in first-in-the-nation states looms. Sometimes, the fights politicians chose to skip reveal as much about them as the ones they decide to wage. And Clinton sent a clear signal in New Hampshire about where her real targets lie in the 2016 presidential race. She gave her rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a pass on a voting data controversy that sparked bitter disputes between their campaigns over the previous 24 hours. Instead, she opted to lacerate Donald Trump and sought to tar the Republican Party brand with his antics. Clinton has no desire to fuel an internal Democratic brushfire that could offer supporters of Sanders, already skeptical of her positions on issues from war to Wall Street, new reasons to fulminate against her campaign. RELATED: Democratic debate: Clinton, Sanders spar over ISIS, taxes and Wall Street And less than seven weeks before the Iowa caucuses herald the start of voting in the Democratic nomination contest, Clinton has succeeded in blunting the Sanders surge that threatened her White House hopes during the summer – allowing her to focus on arguments she would make in a general election campaign. “She has nothing to gain from an ongoing dispute with Bernie Sanders; she has got bigger things in mind,” said CNN senior political analyst David Axelrod. Indeed, Clinton made clear that – on the debate stage at least – she wanted to focus elsewhere. “I don’t think the American people are all that interested in this,” said Clinton on the data flap, returning a favor to Sanders after he used an earlier debate to grant her cover on the scandal over her use of a private email server while secretary of state then threatening to consume her campaign. Sanders opened the debate by apologizing to Clinton after it emerged that a now fired staffer on his campaign had accessed data about her voting lists during a security glitch affecting a firewall on a third-party server hosting Democratic voting statistics. “Not only do I apologize to Secretary Clinton … I want to apologize to my supporters. This is not the type of campaign that we run,” Sanders said. The tone of comity was a departure from the spiky ideological clashes that rumbled through the latest GOP debate on Tuesday. In that and previous GOP debates, a vast field of candidates have struggled to fit on a single camera shot, throwing punches in multiple directions. The three Democratic candidates, in contrast, looked dwarfed by a huge stage at St. Anselm College in Manchester, New Hampshire – and despite differences between candidates, particularly on national security, Republicans would argue that the more intense atmosphere of their debates is a sign of a much more engaged political base than is the case for Democrats. Either way, the absence of telling blows from Clinton’s opponents allowed the former secretary of state to lash out at Republicans, furthering an impression that she is already more concerned about a general election fight than the party nominating race. She particularly took aim at Donald Trump, whom Democrats hope to paint not as an outlier from Republican Party orthodoxy but as a representative of a party that could alienate more moderate Americans. “I worry greatly that the rhetoric coming from the Republicans, particularly Donald Trump, is sending a message to Muslims here in the United States and literally around the world that there is a ‘clash of civilizations,’” Clinton said, one of many points where she sought to draw the real estate mogul into the Democrats’ debate. She added that GOP positions, which have included a call by Trump to bar Muslim immigrants from entering the United States in the wake of terror attacks in Paris and California, were fanning “the flames of radicalization.” “We also need to make sure that the really discriminatory messages that Trump is sending around the world don’t fall on receptive ears,” Clinton said. “He is becoming ISIS’s best recruiter. They are going to people showing videos of Donald Trump insulting Islam and Muslims in order to recruit more radical jihadists,” she continued, though her contention is disputed. RELATED: Democratic debate: CNN’s Reality Check team inspects the claims She also took stances on national security at odds with her Democratic competitors. While her rivals Sanders and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley were keen to portray themselves as much closer to the dovish Democratic base on U.S. intervention abroad, she felt comfortable laying out a robust program to tackle ISIS – including a no-fly zone in Syria – which would include a tougher military component than that favored by President Barack Obama. Her willingness to sketch out such aggressive policies suggested that Clinton feels that she’s in a strong position in the Democratic Party even if many activists are to her left on national security. Clinton’s decision to lay out a detailed policy on ISIS amounted to an appeal to undecided and independent voters in the presidential race, amid polls showing that the public has lost confidence in Obama on these issues. She also risked angering parts of the Democratic base on taxes, with a George H.W. Bush-like vow not to raise taxes on the middle class. “That is a pledge that I’m making,” Clinton said, staking out a position that also seemed geared more to a general election than a primary in which some progressives would prefer higher taxes to finance more government programs. While Clinton sailed through the debate without significant political damage, the event did point to potential vulnerabilities on national security that Republicans will be sure to exploit should they face her in a general election. “We now finally are where we need to be. We have a strategy and a commitment to go after ISIS,” Clinton said, in a statement that appeared to put her at odds with public opinion. Her comment drew an immediate response from Republican candidate Jeb Bush. “No @HillaryClinton - We are not “where we need to be” in fight against ISIS,” Bush said on Twitter. Clinton also again struggled to explain her role in advocating military action in Libya in 2011 that resulted in the overthrow of longtime dictator Moammar Gadhafi but left behind a failed state, parts of which have become a haven for ISIS. That issue is sure to be a key exhibit in the Republican case that her record as secretary of state and what GOP candidates see as a disastrous period of U.S. confusion and retreat abroad should disqualify her from being president. And although her answer to a question on how her husband Bill Clinton would fit into the role of presidential spouse should she win the White House was lighthearted, her response that “I am probably still going to pick the flowers and the china for state dinners and stuff like that” could perhaps be seized on by GOP opponents as a sign that she is already metaphorically measuring the drapes in the White House. But for now, Clinton appears to be well positioned to ease through the Democratic primary and take the fight to her preferred targets in the Republican Party. “You know, everybody says every election’s important, and there’s truth to that. This is a watershed election. I know how important it is that we have a Democrat succeed President Obama in the White House,” Clinton said in her closing statement, before making a quip which suggested that the restoration of tried-and-tested franchises from another era – be it in movies like Star Wars or in politics – could work. “Thank you, good night and may the force be with you.”


CNN will host Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka for a live town hall event at 9 p.m. ET on August 17. Both Stein and her running mate, Ajamu Baraka, dismissed concerns raised by the WikiLeaks disclosures Assange also addressed the convention Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein hailed Julian Assange as a hero Saturday, saying the WikiLeaks founder’s disclosure of Democratic National Committee emails exposed the American electorate to important information. Stein’s comments to CNN were made shortly before she was named the progressive party’s official 2016 presidential nominee, with human rights activist Ajamu Baraka tapped as her running mate. “Any time that we have efforts to bring information to the American people, to the world, is something worth supporting,” Baraka said in a separate interview with CNN. Last month, WikiLeaks released nearly 20,000 emails that appeared to show the committee favoring presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton over progressive challenger Bernie Sanders – an admired figure among many Green Party supporters – during the primary season. The disclosure led to the resignation of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the ouster of several top DNC officials. WikiLeaks walks back Assange claim on hacking Trump tax returns The suspicion that Russia could have been behind the hacking has raised concerns of a foreign state or actor meddling in the US presidential election. But both Stein and Baraka dismissed those anxieties. “This is routine,” said Stein, who added that there was “no question” Assange is a hero. “This is what state departments do to one another.” Added Baraka: “I’m concerned that people are more concerned with the source than the revelations.” He said the focus on Russia was a “diversionary” tactic. Assange, who has been granted asylum at the Ecuadorian embassy in London amid sexual assault allegations, also addressed the Green Party’s convention on Saturday via satellite, telling supporters at the University of Houston that being told one has to vote for Clinton because the only alternative is Donald Trump is “a form of extortion.” As Assange was introduced, Stein, along with many in the audience, waved their arms in the air and wiggled their fingers, an expression of approval by progressive protesters. The convention came at a focal point for the Green Party, which has received renewed attention following Clinton’s victory in the Democratic primary and the vocal protests of many hardline Sanders supporters. Sanders wholeheartedly endorsed Clinton last month and has pledged to do everything he can to get her elected. In an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times published Friday morning entitled “I support Hillary Clinton. So should everyone who voted for me,” Sanders went as far as calling Clinton’s campaign a continuation of his “revolution.” Stein, however, has repeatedly pledged to be the “revolutionary” home for disaffected Sanders supporters. Her steady criticism of Clinton reached new heights when she joined the protests outside of the Democratic National Convention last month, and her campaign has recently launched ads telling voters they shouldn’t feel compelled to vote for Clinton as the “lesser evil.” But so far, those who backed Sanders haven’t signaled that they’ll flee the Democratic Party in November. A CNN/ORC poll taken after the Democratic convention found Democrats and independents who said they would have preferred Sanders to Clinton going 69% for Clinton, 13% for Stein, 10% for Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and 3% for Trump. Overall, the poll found Stein netting 5% of the vote. Still, Stein – who garnered just .36% of the popular vote as the Green Party’s nominee in 2012 – pointed to her current polling as an indication of “which way the wind is blowing” and said that as she gained more exposure, “all bets are off.” Stein said since Sanders endorsed Clinton, the floodgates have opened for her campaign. They have received enough funds to purchase television spots at a level she said they never had before. “We’re now a party with a fundraising base,” Stein said. “Suddenly, we have access to bigger things.” Amid technical difficulties, Assange summarized the DNC leaks and their fallout as well as alleged corruption within the DNC and the media. He also warned about the rising influence of Silicon Valley titans such as Google and cast their goals as dystopian. “(They have) a very strange, quasi-religious vision of the future,” Assange said. “This vision of the singularity … It’s very disturbing what they believe in Silicon Valley. They believe they can create a massive artificial intelligence more powerful than any human being.” Assange warned of too much overlapping power between a Clinton White House, the Pentagon and Google. “This triangle is extremely worrying,” he said, urging Green Party supporters, as well as those of Johnson and Sanders, to build lasting movements against this kind of collusion. Outside of Assange’s appearance via satellite, the convention saw many in-person speakers take the stage touting the party’s liberal policy positions and appealing to Sanders supporters. Most prominent among the speakers was scholar and activist Cornel West. He served as one of Sanders’ representatives on the Democratic platform committee, but he has since offered his support of the Green Party. Speaking at the convention Saturday, West gave a rousing speech about the “issues of integrity” ranging from human rights abroad to the history of the civil rights movement in the US, citing W.E.B. duBois in particular. “We live in an age of mendacity and criminality,” West said. “The truth means cutting against the grain.” In that theme, he commended Assange with his signature passion. “That’s what we love about Julian. He’s not perfect,” West said. “That brother is honest. He’s willing to disclose the truth about the American empire.”


Trump has taken positions at odds with military pronouncements Clinton and the military differ on a no-fly zone for Syria Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton share at least one thing in common: Each of them would become commander in chief despite having disagreed at points with military leaders during the presidential campaign. The Republican nominee, in particular, would enter office having backed a number of positions contrary to the Pentagon and having leveled harsh critiques of military policy and strategy. Though the military is duty-bound to serve its top commander, and officials have refrained from naming the candidate in comments they’ve made over the past year, analysts predicted a complicated relationship should Trump assume the Oval Office. “I think there has been a lot of angst about what a Trump administration would look like,” Seth Jones, a former adviser to US Special Operations Command, told CNN Wednesday. “His learning curve will be immense.” The former dean of the Army War College, retired Army Col. Jeff McCausland, told CNN’s Chris Cuomo Tuesday that “the brain trust of the Republican Party and national security affairs” have all chosen to “repudiate Trump and say he is, in fact, not qualified to be president of the United States.” During an earlier interview with ABC, Trump had said of McCausland: “I’ll sit down and I’ll teach him a couple of things.” The GOP candidate also has more broadly criticized the US strategy toward ISIS; suggested bringing back torture; called for a drastic rethinking of American military alliances; and floated the possibility of shifting America’s nuclear policy to allow for greater proliferation. “I know more about ISIS than the generals do, believe me,” Trump said in November of 2015. Asked in June he still thinks he knows more about ISIS than Americans generals, Trump told CBS’ “Face the Nation,” “Well, they don`t know much, because they’re not winning.” “What’s not clear is whether he actually means what he has said,” noted Jones, now with RAND Corp. “If he tries to jam through some of the statements on torture, if he tries to jam through the rethinking of the US relationship with European allies and Pacific allies, I think he is going to face a lot of resistance.” Clinton, too, has taken positions that appear at odds with some of the public positions of the military, particularly regarding the imposition of a no-fly zone in Syria. “I’m going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria not only to help protect the Syrians and prevent the constant outflow of refugees, but to, frankly, gain some leverage on both the Syrian government and the Russians,” Clinton said at the third presidential debate. Not only has President Barack Obama opposed such a move, military leaders have also expressed concerns. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford told Congress in September, “For us to control all of the airspace in Syria, it would require us to go to war against Syria and Russia. That’s a pretty fundamental decision that certainly I’m not going make.” However, his perspective on some of Trump’s proposals has been even harsher. Asked about the practice of waterboarding suspects and targeting the families of terrorists, Dunford called such actions illegal, “inconsistent with the values of our nation” and warned they “would have an adverse effect on troop morale.” Trump has said that US allies need to pay more for the deployment of US troops in their territory. But Gen. Vincent Brooks, commander of US forces in South Korea, told Congress that it was actually cheaper to station American troops in Korea than back in the US due to financial contributions from the host country – though Trump was quick to dismiss the general’s argument, saying the US should compel allies to pay for the entirety. More recently, the GOP nominee has butted heads with the military over the Iraqi-led campaign to reclaim the city of Mosul from ISIS. For weeks, Trump has lambasted the coalition effort, calling the undertaking a “total disaster” and saying the US and its allies were “bogged-down” there even as defense officials say they are encouraged by the progress being made. Trump’s repeated criticisms have concentrated largely on the amount of information made public about the Mosul fight. “Did we give Mosul enough advanced notice?” he asked rhetorically during a Monday rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “Whatever happened to the element of surprise?” But the commander of the US-led coalition fighting ISIS, Lt. Gen. Stephen Townsend, pushed back on the assessment, albeit without mentioning Trump directly. “I don’t see any evidence that it’s bogged down at all,” Townsend told CNN’s Michael Holmes. “Whoever is saying that I don’t know where they’re getting it, I don’t see that.” Townsend was also doubtful whether complete secrecy could be maintained during a campaign as big as Mosul. “It’s just really hard to move 40,000 troops into position from you know, from middle Iraq to northern Iraq, and maintain complete secrecy. It’s almost next to impossible,” he said. “I would tell you I know this: The enemy was surprised.” Despite the differences, though, Trump has maintained that he enjoys widespread support from the military and showed little sign of concern about his relationship with military brass should he become their boss. “I have been endorsed largely, conceptually at least, by the military,” Trump told a local Florida TV station last month. The military, however, does not endorse candidates. Trump also hinted that he might replace a significant number of senior military leaders not to his liking. Asked in September if he would seek a plan for fighting ISIS from generals who he has already claimed to know more than, Trump told NBC, “They’ll probably be different generals, to be honest with you.”


Here is a look at the life of musician Paul McCartney, former member of the Beatles. Birth date: June 18, 1942 Birth place: Liverpool, England Birth name: James Paul McCartney Father: James McCartney, salesman and musician Mother: Mary (Mohin) McCartney, nurse and midwife Marriages: Nancy Shevell (October 9, 2011-present); Heather Mills McCartney (June 11, 2002-March 17, 2008, divorced); Linda (Eastman) McCartney (March 12, 1969-April 17, 1998, her death) Children: with Heather Mills McCartney: Beatrice, 2003; with Linda (Eastman) McCartney: James, 1977, Stella, 1971, Mary, 1969, Heather, 1963 (Linda’s daughter from a previous relationship, adopted by McCartney) Nominated for 81 and winner of 18 Grammy Awards for his material with the Beatles, Wings and his solo work. He has also received two honorary Lifetime Achievement awards, one as part of the Beatles and one as a solo artist. Nominated for three Academy Awards with one win. Long-time vegetarian and animal rights activist. McCartney has appeared on several of former Beatle Ringo Starr’s solo albums, including “Vertical Man” (1998) and “Y Not” (2010). Did not ask second wife Heather Mills to sign a pre-nuptial agreement because he thought it was “unromantic.” An urban legend in the late 1960s purported that McCartney was dead and had been replaced by a double. 1957 - McCartney meets John Lennon at a church picnic in Liverpool, England. He later joins Lennon’s group, The Quarrymen. 1960 - After several name changes, the group becomes known as the Beatles. November 9, 1961 - Brian Epstein sees the Beatles play at the Cavern Club in Liverpool and becomes their manager. 1962 - The Beatles are signed by EMI-Parlaphone and release their first record. 1963 - Beatlemania hits England as the group has four number one hits. January 3, 1964 - US television debut, in a film clip on “The Jack Paar Show.” February 9, 1964 - The Beatles appear live on “The Ed Sullivan Show.” April 13, 1965 - The Beatles win two Grammy Awards, one for Best Performance by a Vocal Group and one for Best New Artist of 1964. August 15, 1965 - They play for a crowd of 55,000 people at Shea Stadium in New York. October 26, 1965 - Queen Elizabeth II names the Beatles members of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire. August 29, 1966 - Last scheduled concert, at Candlestick Park in San Francisco. March 2, 1967 - McCartney wins a Grammy for Best Contemporary (R&R) Solo Vocal Performance for “Eleanor Rigby.” Also, McCartney and Lennon win a Song of the Year Grammy for “Michelle.” February 29, 1968 - The Beatles win two Grammy Awards for “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band:” Album of the Year and Best Contemporary Album. May 14, 1968 - Apple Corps Ltd. is formed to manage their business affairs. January 31, 1969 - The Beatles play an impromptu concert on the roof of the Apple building in London, it is their last public performance together. April 10, 1970 - McCartney announces that the Beatles have broken up and releases his first solo album, “McCartney,” a week later. March 16, 1971 - The Beatles win the Grammy for Best Original Score Written for a Motion Picture or a Television Special for “Let it Be.” April 15, 1971 - The Beatles win the Academy Award for Best Original Score for “Let it Be.” 1972 - Paul and Linda McCartney form the band Wings. March 15, 1972 - Wins a Grammy for Best Arrangement Accompanying Volcalist(s) for “Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey.” March 1, 1975 - McCartney and Wings win a Grammy Award for Best Pop Vocal Performance by A Duo, Group or Chorus, for “Band on the Run.” January 16, 1980 - Arrested for marijuana possession at the Tokyo Airport, and spends 10 days in jail. February 27, 1980 - Wins a Grammy Award for Best Rock Instrumental Performance for “Rockestra Theme.” July 13, 1985 - Performs at Live Aid, a concert for Ethiopian famine relief. January 20, 1988 - The Beatles are inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but McCartney does not attend the ceremony. April 20, 1990 - Sets a new world record for the largest stadium crowd in rock history, when he plays to 184,000 in Rio de Janeiro. February 20, 1991 - Is presented with the Lifetime Achievement Award at the 33rd annual Grammy Awards. November 1995 - “Anthology,” containing demos, rare material and outtakes of the Beatles, is released, in conjunction with a five-hour miniseries on the group. December 1995 - The Beatles release a new single, “Free as a Bird,” their first new song in 25 years. Lennon started it before his death in 1980. February 26, 1997 - “Free as a Bird” wins two Grammy Awards for Best Pop Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal and Best Music Video-Short Form, and “Anthology” wins one for Best Music Video, Long Form. March 11, 1997 - McCartney is formally invested as a knight by Queen Elizabeth II. He is now called Sir Paul McCartney. April 17, 1998 - Wife, Linda McCartney, dies of breast cancer. March 15, 1999 - McCartney is inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a solo artist. October 20, 2001 - Headlines the “Concert for New York,” a benefit for 9/11 victims. David Bowie, Elton John, Billy Joel and Mick Jagger also perform, and the concert is broadcast live on VH-1. March 17, 2008 - A British judge announces the divorce settlement between McCartney and second wife, Heather Mills. She is awarded 24.3 million British pounds, approximately $50 million dollars US. June 3, 2010 - Accepts the Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song from President Barack Obama in the East Room of the White House. During the evening McCartney performs the song “Michelle” for First Lady Michelle Obama. September 22, 2010 - HP and McCartney Productions Limited (MPL) announce an agreement to digitize and deliver McCartney’s library via a private cloud. December 5, 2010 - McCartney is honored at the Kennedy Center as part of the 33rd annual Kennedy Center Honors gala. February 13, 2011 - Wins the Grammy for Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance for “Helter Skelter.” November 27, 2011 - PETA announces US postage stamp campaign of famous vegetarians to include McCartney. February 12, 2012 - Wins the Grammy for Best Historical Album for “Band on the Run” (Paul McCartney Archive Collection - Deluxe Edition). September 8, 2012 - Is awarded France’s Legion of Honour, by President Francois Hollande, for his contributions to music. February 10, 2013 - Wins the Grammy for Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album for “Kisses on the Bottom.” January 26, 2014 - Wins the Grammy for Best Music Film for “Live Kisses” and Best Rock Song for “Cut Me Some Slack” with the former members of Nirvana. He is also the recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award as a member of the Beatles. December 31, 2014 - Kayne West releases the song “Only One,” co-written and co-produced with McCartney. May 23, 2015 - McCartney receives a special award from PRS for Music to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the composition of the Beatles’ song “Yesterday.” September 16, 2016 - “The Beatles: Eight Days A Week - The Touring Years,” a documentary film directed by Ron Howard, is released in theaters. The film includes rare and exclusive footage of the Beatles touring experience between 1963-1966. The film goes on to win the Grammy Award for Best Music Film. March 24, 2018 - McCartney attends the March for Our Lives event in New York saying, “One of my best friends was killed in gun violence right around here so it’s important to me.” July 18, 2019 - McCartney announces that he is working on his first Broadway play, a musical adaptation of the 1946 film “It’s a Wonderful Life.” September 18, 2019 - McCartney’s new album “Egypt Station” debuts at number one on the Billboard 200 chart. The album is McCartney’s first album to top the charts in more than 36 years. April 10, 2020 - Julien’s Auctions sells nearly 250 items as part of a Beatles auction, including guitars, rare vinyl and autographed items. Lyrics to The Beatles’ song “Hey Jude,” handwritten by McCartney, sells for $910,000. December 18, 2020 - McCartney releases “McCartney III”, an album that he recorded in quarantine during the coronavirus pandemic. July 16, 2021 - “McCartney 3,2,1,” a six-part docuseries in which McCartney and music producer Rick Rubin discuss the creation of Beatles songs, is released on Hulu. November 2, 2021 - “The Lyrics: 1956 to the Present,” a memoir through the lens of McCartney’s songs, is released. The book tops the New York Times nonfiction best sellers list for the week of November 21. November 25, 2021 - “The Beatles: Get Back,” a documentary series from director Peter Jackson, premieres on Disney+. The documentary features previously unseen footage of the band in January 1969 as the Beatles prepared for their last public performance and their final album, “Let it Be.” As a co-producer of the film, McCartney receives an award for Outstanding Producer of Non-Fiction Television from the Producers Guild of America. February 22, 2023 - A representative for the Rolling Stones confirms that McCartney plays bass on one track of the Rolling Stones’ new album. May 17, 2024 – The Sunday Times reports that McCartney is the United Kingdom’s first billionaire musician.


Editor’s Note: Mike Rogers is a former chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, a host of the Westwood One radio program “Something to Think About” and a CNN national security commentator. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. Mike Rogers: ISIS is far more opaque and decentralized, it is a network of influence; al Qaeda is a network of command Where al Qaeda has been focused on achieving spectacular attacks like 9/11, ISIS fights with small scale attacks Since the horrific terrorist attacks in Paris, much has come to light about who carried them out and where did they came from. We also learned on Tuesday from French officials that they believe a suicide attack was planned against the financial district in Paris. After the police raids in Europe slow down, we will begin to analyze what took place to figure out how these awful things could happen and how they can be prevented. Here is what we know so far: – The alleged mastermind of the attack, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, was able to evade capture and remain at large despite being one of Belgium’s most wanted terrorists. Abaaoud was also believed to be linked to the failed train attack in August and an attack on a Jewish museum in 2014.  He was killed in a French raid on Wednesday while planning suicide attacks.  He also visited scenes of the attacks in Paris on Friday November 13 while first responders and police were still present. – One of the attackers, Ismael Mostefai, returned to France even after authorities in Turkey warned that he had disappeared while there, possibly traveling to Syria. – Another attacker, Salah Abdeslam, was stopped at the French-Belgian border the morning following the attack but was released. How do you stop someone who’s a terrorist if you don’t know if he or she is a terrorist? The Irish Republican Army once said, “…remember we only have to be lucky once – you will have to be lucky always.” This quote is apt for the Paris attacks. Intelligence and security services must be perfect all the time – a single failure can result in tragedy. It is likely that an intelligence gap occurred in Paris, given the level of radicalization in certain neighborhoods in Brussels and Paris, coupled with ISIS propaganda campaigns and the deluge of refugees coming into the European Union. Some of the attackers were known to French and Belgian authorities before November 13, which begs the question: At which point do you intervene? Just as in America, the European Union tries to balance privacy, security and the freedom of expression. Even more sobering still is the idea that some attackers were unknown to the security services. Opinion: The hardest questions about fighting ISIS It is clear that some connections were not made or insufficient information was available for the security services to act at the time.  Since the attack, we have seen hundreds of raids on suspects with ties to the attack, or possessing radical and violent beliefs.  Such operations are impossible without existing data, so the French services have at least some knowledge of many of these people. Part of the problem is the way the adversary has evolved. ISIS represents not a new threat, but the latest incarnation of the continuing threat of militant Islam. Whereas al Qaeda operates as a traditional terrorist network with cells reporting to an established hierarchy, ISIS is far more opaque and decentralized.  ISIS is a network of influence; al Qaeda is a network of command. Where al Qaeda has been focused on achieving spectacular attacks such as 9/11, ISIS is happy to have a handful of terrorists grab guns and murder people at random.  Large-scale attacks that al Qaeda prefers take months to plan, between dozens of people and cost large amounts of money. As a result, each of their operational pieces present a chance for Western intelligence services to identify and disrupt.  ISIS plans have less of a footprint. This difference makes combating ISIS all the more difficult. ISIS terrorists are using the fabric of Western society against it: open borders, freedom of travel and technological innovations. How can you keep track of all of the individuals entering and exiting Syria with such massive borders? How can you identify domestic passport holders who have trained in Syria and are returning home? How do you find and interdict self-radicalized individuals who access ISIS propaganda in the comfort of their own homes? Opinion: Beating ISIS will take an army – and an end game Combating al Qaeda was challenging enough and required the development of a whole new approach to national security – sustained domestic counterterrorism efforts and aggressive kinetic campaigns overseas. But now the model is being inverted – kinetic action alone overseas is insufficient.  Where al Qaeda militants often were “different” enough to stand out, ISIS has embedded itself in the West through the use of our own citizens and technology platforms.  And despite 33 successful attacks outside of Syria and Iraq, we still do not have an adequate strategy to address the threat posed by ISIS. The analysis of the intelligence gaps will continue in the coming days, but Western intelligence will need to re-examine what it knew and didn’t. These small-scale, high-impact attacks are very difficult to prevent. What you can do is apply constant, unyielding pressure on the terrorists where they live, plan and train for these attacks. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.Read CNNOpinion’s Flipboard magazine.


Reform proposal would give Hong Kongers right to vote for their next leader in 2017 But candidates would have to be approved by a mostly pro-Beijing committee Pro-democracy legislators have vowed to veto proposal Four months after the end of the massive Occupy protests that clogged Hong Kong’s streets in a bid for greater voting rights, another confrontation is heating up in the former British colony. The flashpoint? A controversial Beijing-backed election proposal tabled Wednesday that pro-democracy legislators have already sworn to veto, describing it as “ridiculous.” In a speech before the city’s legislature, Chief Secretary Carrie Lam said that if approved, the proposal would give Hong Kongers the right to vote for their next leader in 2017. The catch, of course, is candidates would have to be approved by a mostly pro-China committee. Dissenting pro-democracy legislators wearing black marched from the chamber as soon as Lam’s speech ended. Some legislators raised yellow umbrellas, a symbol of the Occupy movement. “Their fake universal suffrage is an insult to everybody’s intelligence; that’s why we refused to stay in the chamber.” Hong Kong Democratic Party chairwoman Emily Lau told CNN. Lau said that she and other pro-democracy candidates would cast votes to ensure it does not become law. Hong Kong has become increasingly polarized over the last few years as the city fights over what kind of political system it should have as a Special Administrative Region of China. According to the agreement signed by the United Kingdom that returned the city to Chinese control in 1997, Hong Kong would receive 50 years of “high autonomy” under an arrangement called “One Country, Two Systems.” Part of that deal included establishing an election system based on the principles of universal suffrage. Related video On China: Hong Kong's Umbrella Movement But nearly eighteen years after the handover, the city continues to fight over what universal suffrage really means. Hong Kong’s leaders argue its latest proposal fulfills the long-awaited promise of universal suffrage by giving each resident the right to cast a vote. All that’s left is for the legislature to approve the proposal, and then everyone can go home happy, they say. Pro-democracy Hong Kongers beg to differ. “If it is a genuine election, people should be free to stand and people should be free to vote,” said Lau. “Now all you have is a vote, and the candidates must be vetted by a committee consisting of business and political elites. It’s horrendous. “To say the majority of Hong Kongers want to support this nonsensical package is a blatant lie.. If nothing is changed, we will definitely vote it down.” To become law, the proposal must receive the support of two thirds of Hong Kong’s 70 legislators. But Lau and 26 other pro-democracy legislators make up more than a third of the chamber, meaning they can veto the bill. If they do, then the city’s electoral reform process will effectively return to square one. Hong Kong’s leadership has warned pro-democracy legislators against the veto, saying the city might never again receive a chance for political reform. “We must strive for consensus,” Lam told legislators. “We sincerely hope the pan-democrats abandon their passive attitude.” But consensus seems unlikely. Hong Kong and Chinese leaders have repeatedly said there is no room for the proposal to change. In response, Lau and other pro-democracy legislators will launch a citywide campaign this weekend to rally public opinion against the proposal. And she did not rule out the possibility of a repeat of last year’s massive street protests. “Should people decide to resort to civil disobedience again, its up to them,” she said. “Whatever we do, our struggle must be peaceful, orderly, nonviolent. And we will do our best.” Wayne Chang and CNN’s Vivian Kam contributed reporting.


Jazz was dismissed as bourgeois western music in China during the Cultural Revolution Liu Yuan, father of Beijing's jazz scene, founded the city first and only jazz bar in the 1990s The city has witnessed an increase in jazz talent and fans in recent decade New York's renowned Blue Note club is set to open an outpost in Beijing in 2016 When Liu Yuan started playing the sax in the mid-1980s, few people in China knew what jazz was. “There were only four or five professional jazz musicians in Beijing,” Liu recalls. “It was brutal.” Bars and clubs were rare in the city. Liu says he had to “beg” the few bars that existed to let them perform. But the music that originated in the U.S. African-American communities in the late-19th century as an emotional reaction to racial oppression has taken root in China’s capital over the past two decades and there’s now a vibrant and fast-developing jazz scene. Seeing the potential in the market, New York’s Blue Note Jazz Club, one of the world’s most renowned jazz clubs, is set to open a branch in Beijing in March 2016. Steven Li, who manages the Blue Note Beijing project, told CNN that the new club aims to bring in top-level international artists, targeting China’s ever-growing middle class and overseas returnees. Jazz was regarded in China as bourgeois Western music in the 1960s and 1970s during the turmoil of the country’s Cultural Revolution. As young hipster Chinese embraced more personal freedom the 1980s, Liu, then a folk-musician in his twenties, learned to play the saxophone through tapes that his Western friends brought back from overseas, while performing rock ‘n’ roll with Chinese rock legend Cui Jian. “It was a really fascinating time,” says Liu. “The young people simply were in love with jazz and played hard, and nobody cared about return.” It was mid-1990s, when he became dedicated to jazz, and determined to build a scene in Beijing. He recruited talent from music schools and he and his new jazz scenesters began teaching, learning, and jamming together. Liu, now 55, doesn’t play as much as used to. Now he co-manages Beijing’s only venue dedicated for jazz – East Shore Live Jazz Cafe. Every day, jazz fans come to this wood-paneled bar with floor-to-ceiling windows near Beijing’s Houhai Lake, enjoying all kinds of jazz, from funk to fusion, avant-garde to experimental, standards to original compositions. Since 2000, Beijing’s ranks of jazz musicians have expanded quickly, Liu says. Thanks to the Internet, local musicians are cmore losely connected to the international jazz community. Influential musicians like Stefan Karlsson, Rafal Sarnecki, Antonio Hart and David Binney have all performed in Beijing, some playing with local artists. “Today’s Beijing jazz scene is a world of difference from the ’90s,” Liu says. “Many of the kids have won international jazz awards, and are able to play with world class musicians on the same stage.” Over the last decade, Beijing has also become home to many foreign jazz musicians who have influenced the local scene. Nathaniel Gao, a 31-year-old Chinese American saxophonist and teacher, came to Beijing in 2012 from New York. He’s a familiar face on the Beijing jazz scene. The son of a Chinese father and an American mother, he enjoys playing in a smaller jazz scene in Beijing, and believes he can make more of a contribution here rather than in New York, where competition is tough. As China’s man cultural hub, Beijing has a diverse music scene, which has a positive influence on jazz, Gao says. “There is a lot of interaction between musicians from different scenes, more so than in a place like New York, which is so big that everything is huge, so you really are just in your own scene,” he says. “Whereas in Beijing, everything is a bit smaller, but it’s a big city, so there’s a lot going on.” The audience is always new – and young. “Most of the people who come to our concerts I’ve never seen in my life,” he says. “Even though a lot of them might listen to it once or might not get into it, there is always gonna be some new people who are exposed to it and might come back. “That’s exciting because you are exposed to a newer, less ripe audience. “Unlike the U.S., which is piled up with people in their 50s, 60s and up, you go to a jazz show and everybody in the audience has gray hair.”


Thanks to rapid development over the past decade, Asia has become synonymous with futuristic architecture and cloud-piercing skyscrapers. It makes sense: After all, seven of the top 10 tallest buildings in the world are in Asia. And inside those towers? Many of the region’s skyscrapers contain lofty bars, pairing classy cocktails and unparalleled views. For a sky-high experience coupled with spectacular sights, here are a few of the tallest bars in Asia. Where: Bangkok, Thailand The recently opened Alfresco 64 - A Chivas Bar, atop Tower Club at Lebua hotel in Bangkok, has claimed the title of world’s highest alfresco whisky bar. Located on the 64th floor, the bar is the latest addition to The Dome, a popular restaurant and bar destination atop Lebua hotel. Travelers will also find Sky Bar (which made an appearance in “The Hangover Part II”) and  Flute, A Perrier Jouët Bar (the world’s highest Champagne bar). Focusing on exclusive nips, Alfresco 64 is powered by Chivas Regal. The Scottish whisky brand has even produced a special Lebua blend for the bar. Even if you don’t care for whisky, it’s hard to argue with the views, which showcase the Bangkok skyline and Chao Phraya River from a bird’s eye vantage, 800 feet above the city streets. Tower Club at Lebua, 64/F, Tower Club at Lebua, 1055 Silom Road, Bangrak, Bangkok 10500; +66 2624 9555 In Bangkok, the world's highest outdoor whisky bar Where: Hong Kong You can’t round up a list of sky bars without Ozone – the highest hotel bar in the world on the 118th floor of The Ritz-Carlton, Hong Kong. Set atop the International Commerce Centre (ICC) on Hong Kong’s Kowloon Peninsula, the ultra-modern space is a popular stop on the tourist trail. To reach the bar, travelers take a special elevator which gradually dims its lights as it ascends to the 118th floor. From there, a moody blue-lit room comes into view – picture contemporary geometric decor, a white marble bar and lounge-like seating. The spacious terrace offers the best views, where guests can sip on a meticulously made martini while admiring 180-degree views of the city’s iconic skyline and Victoria Harbour. During Hong Kong’s humid summers, reach for one of the chilled signature cocktails – the Basilic is especially refreshing with gin, basil, green apple, lime and yuzu foam. Ozone, 118/F, International Commerce Centre, 1 Austin Rd West, Kowloon, Hong Kong; +852 2263 2270 Where: Singapore As the highest bar in Singapore – and the highest alfresco bar in the world – 1-Altitude crowns One Raffles Place tower in the center of town. It’s actually more than just a bar, with several levels of dining and drinking venues stretching from the 61st to 63rd floors – the highlight being the rooftop. Sporting 360-degree views, there’s nothing but a slender glass panel to impede the vista below. Of course, Marina Bay Sands and the Singapore Flyer dominate the view, but it’s also possible to see smaller neighborhoods and quays. If the neon lighting doesn’t give it away, the bar is best known for its swanky parties, live music and DJ nights – getting progressively clubbier as the night goes on. It’s also a top spot for sunsets, though it’s best to make reservations in advance to ensure a table. 1-Altitude, 63/F, One Raffles Place Shopping Mall, 1 Raffles Place, Singapore, 048616; +65 6438 0410 Where: Seoul, South Korea The moment Bar 81 opened on the 81st floor of the Signiel Seoul hotel – inside the new Lotte World Tower – it instantly became the highest bar in the country. At least, the highest bar that’s accessible to the general public. The hotel also has a secret restaurant and bar, called Signiel Club, on the 107th floor – but that’s members and VIPs only. The title was basically a given, considering that the 555-meter-tall Lotte World Tower is the highest building in South Korea and the fifth tallest tower in the world. But a postal code in the clouds isn’t the only thing Bar 81 has going for it. This sophisticated spot specializes in Champagne, with more than 80 labels on offer – the largest menu in South Korea. To drive the point home, there’s a glitzy glass art installation overhead, meant to resemble the bubbles in your glass. Bar 81, 81/F, Signiel Seoul, Lotte World Tower, 300 Olympic-ro, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Korea; +82 2 3213 1000 Where: Shanghai, China The most iconic bar in China’s futuristic commercial capital, Cloud 9 at the Grand Hyatt Shanghai is a sophisticated spot to savor the city’s neon-lit skyline. Decked out in mahogany and chrome, the posh bar wraps around the 87th floor with intimate nooks, terraced levels, and dividing columns that offer a bit more privacy than your typical open-plan rooftop. From the western side of the building, the bar seems to hover over the Bund – from everywhere else, it’s urban sprawl in all directions. If you’re celebrating something, this is the place – there’s an impressive Champagne collection, as well as classic cocktails and bar snacks. Cloud 9, 87/F, Grand Hyatt Shanghai, Jin Mao Tower, 88 Century Avenue, Pudong, Shanghai, China, 200121; +86 21 5047 8838 Where: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia One of Malaysia’s highest bars can be found in the capital of Kuala Lumpur, in a precarious position on the 28th floor of the GTower Hotel. The Bridge Bar features floor-to-ceiling windows and a few glass floor panels – so you won’t need three martinis to feel like you’re walking on air. By day, the place has a retro-chic atmosphere with winged leather chairs, saddle benches and intimate table arrangements. But come nightfall, blue lighting ricochets around the mirrored ceilings for a trippy, energetic vibe. Looking for the highest bar in Malaysia? On the 57th floor of Petronas Tower 3, travelers will find Marini’s on 57 – an Italian address with a dining room, lounge and terrace. Bridge Bar, 199, Jalan Tun Razak, 50400 Kuala Lumpur; +603 2168 1919 Kuala Lumpur nightlife: A guide to the city's best bars Where: Bali, Indonesia Rock Bar Bali at Ayana may not be set atop a skyscraper, but the bar still provides a gravity-defying experiences. Located on the edge of a cliff along Jimbaran Bay, in central Bali, Indonesia, travelers reach the bar via cable car, with dramatic cliffs on either side. At 46 feet above the crashing waves of the Indian Ocean, the bar is the island’s premier sunset spot. Come 5 p.m., the place is usually full of stylish couples who’ve come for the sunset drinks and signature popcorn-fried chicken. As the night goes on, Rock Bar turns into a dance club with performances from a rotating roster of international DJs who perform from a booth that’s been carved directly into the rock face. Rock Bar Bali at Ayana, Ayana Resort and Spa, Jl. Karang Mas Estate, Jimbaran, Bali 80364, Indonesia; +62 361 702 222 Where: Tokyo, Japan Already checked off the Park Hyatt Tokyo’s New York Bar, of “Lost in Translation” fame? There’s another show-stopping skybar in town that’s worth a visit. Atop the 52nd floor of Toranomon Hills tower, the Rooftop Bar at the Andaz Tokyo hotel is the highest bar in the city. The terrace has a retro-Zen design – all very polished and elegant, with white couches and a few bird’s nest hanging chairs – while floor-to-ceiling windows frame Tokyo Bay on one side, and the dense city streets on the other. The specialties here are tea- and fruit-based cocktails, but classic cocktails, Champagnes and sakes are also on hand should you prefer to keep it simple. Rooftop Bar, 52/F, Andaz Hotel, 1-23-4, Toranomon, Minato-ku; +81 03 6830 7739 15 sights that make Tokyo so fascinating Where: Melbourne, Australia Decked out in retro-chic furniture and polished chrome, 28 Skybar Lounge in Melbourne is one of the most sophisticated bars in the city. On the top floor of Crown Melbourne Hotel, just steps from the Yarra River downtown, the lounge bar brings together spectacular city views, a cosmopolitan vibe and locally sourced wines. The cocktail menu is worth a look too, with signatures including the Sky High Royal – a triple threat with Blue Curacao, peach schnapps and sparkling wine. While the sleek interiors scream fine dining, the bar menu is actually relatively approachable, featuring mini wagyu sliders, BBQ pulled pork buns, and bruschetta. 28 Skybar Lounge, 8 Whiteman St, Melbourne, Southbank, VIC 3006, Australia; +61 3 9292 8384 Where: Bangkok, Thailand Home to one of the best rooftops in Bangkok, the Banyan Tree hotel provides two distinct rooftop experiences – both on the 61st floor. A popular after-work spot for the city’s stylish set, Moon Bar provides a glamorous alfresco lounge with soft blue lighting, panoramic views, live jazz and fresh cocktails to take the edge off Thailand’s omnipresent heat. Just a few steps down, romantic Vertigo restaurant offers wining and dining for those who plan to linger. Complete with crisp white tablecloths, the restaurant is best known for surf ‘n’ turf, so expect barbecued seafood and massive steaks. The signature sundowner? A Vertigo Sunset Malibu – essentially, pineapple, cranberry, lime and a hit of Malibu rum. It’s advised to arrive early, around 5 p.m., in order to stake out a spot and watch the sun set. Vertigo and Moon Bar, 61/F, 21/100 South Sathon Road, Sathon, Bangkok 10120, Thailand; +66 2679 1200 Thailand's new tallest building: A sneak peek from atop Bangkok's mighty MahaNakhon


Russia has admitted for the first time that it suffered heavy casualties in an ill-fated operation against US-backed forces in Syria earlier this month. The Foreign Ministry said “several dozen” Russians were injured and an unspecified number died in US airstrikes during the clashes on the night of February 7. The Kremlin had previously played down reports of mass casualties, saying only that five people may have died. Moscow insisted the casualties were not Russian troops, saying “servicemen of the Russian Federation did not participate in any way” in the clash. It did not say what the Russians were doing there, but families of the victims say they were military contractors working for a Russian company, Wagner. Related article The oil field carnage that Moscow doesn't want to talk about The casualties were sustained when a force numbering several hundreds, largely made up of the Russian contractors and a Christian militia loyal to the Syrian regime, advanced on an oil field held by US-backed militias who have been fighting ISIS in Syria. According to accounts relayed to family members, the forces did not seem prepared for the ferocity of the response. The Kremlin, which prefers to portray its intervention in Syria as largely an air war with few ground troops, had previously tried to downplay the story. In its statement on Tuesday, the Foreign Ministry acknowledged that “several dozen” injured Russians were brought back to Russia where they were undergoing treatment at various medical facilities. Russians and other citizens of former Soviet Union countries were also killed in the attack, the ministry added, without providing numbers. It insisted the contractors were working independently. “There are Russian citizens present in Syria who went there on their own,” the statement said. Moscow has provided no details of what the mercenaries were doing, but accounts of the operation have emerged in interviews with family members. The force crossed the Euphrates river near Deir Ezzor, a Syrian city held by ISIS until the end of last year, and advanced on the oil field controlled by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). But when the pro-regime forces began shelling an SDF base, the US responded with heavy airstrikes and artillery fire that lasted for about three hours. Related video Russia flexes its military muscle in Syria US commanders tried to warn their Russian counterparts through protocols known as deconfliction channels. But the counterattack was underway by the time communications were established. US defense secretary James Mattis has appeared to cast doubt on Russian claims that it had nothing to do with the contractors working on the ground. “I doubt that 257 people all just decided on their individual own selves to suddenly cross the river into enemy territory and start shelling a location and maneuvering tanks against it,” Mattis told reporters on a flight back to Washington from Europe at the weekend. But Mattis said the US did not know who had given the orders. “Was it local direction? Was it from external sources? Don’t ask me. I don’t know,” he said, according to a Pentagon transcript. Families of the dead men have demanded an explanation for what happened. Farkhanur Gavrilova, 67, from the central Russian village of Kedrovoye, said she only learned of her son’s death from an acquaintance. She contrasted the fate of the Wagner men with state media coverage of Roman Filipov, the pilot shot down by rebels in Syria last month. “Are they not people too? They obviously went to fight, to help, even if it’s for the money it’s because of poverty, because there are no jobs,” Gavrilova told Current Time, a Russian-language TV network run by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. CNN’s Mary Ilyushina reported from Moscow. Sheena McKenzie wrote in London. Tim Lister contributed reporting from Moscow.