Editor’s Note: Muddassar Ahmed is writing in his capacity as a patron of the Faiths Forum for London, an NGO dedicated to helping religious communities live and work together. He is also a partner at Unitas Communications, a media consultancy company representing governments, corporations and NGOs, which has worked with the U.S. State Department, the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), the UK and the EU. The views expressed in the commentary are solely the author’s. Over five days in 1995, Serb forces slaughtered 8,000 Muslims in the town of Srebrenica Muddassar Ahmed says as a UK Muslim he wondered then if he too could become "other" With anti-Muslim sentiment growing, Europe must tackle its history of religious hate, he says I’m not sure what worries me more: That Europe failed, or that Europe is forgetting the lessons of that failure. Twenty years ago, Serb forces seized control of Srebrenica, a Bosnian town overflowing with refugees who were promised the protection of the international community. Nevertheless, over the following five days, 8,000 Muslims were killed simply for having the wrong religion. The questions we were forced to confront in the aftermath of that massacre are as pertinent today as they were then. How could genocide take place in the heart of Europe, a mere four decades after the Holocaust? What made one group of people hate another enough to justify to themselves the slaughtering 8,000 in cold blood? And was there really a place for Islam and Muslims in Europe? As a young British Muslim searching for identity at the time, seeing the plight of Bosnian Muslims led to my own crisis of identity. Could we in Britain become the “other” that the Bosnian Muslims had become. Today those notions of the “other” are once more rearing their ugly head across Europe, becoming not just acceptable, but politically beneficial. From Germany’s Pegida to England’s EDL, and on to Greece and Denmark, Holland and France, anti-Muslim bigotry is on the march. While Bosnia now has peace, the world around it is increasingly more divisive than two decades ago. Bosnians were framed as the enemy, which made them easier to kill, and for years we stood by, despite our moral obligation to act. Muddassar Ahmed Here in Britain, prominent pundits argue Islamophobia is made-up, severely exaggerated, a justifiable response to a real threat, or a ruse by which to divert attention from the real problem of Islamic extremism. Yet many of their arguments are the disturbingly similar to those used to justify the ethnic cleansing of Bosnians. Bosnians were labeled “Turks,” foreigners who didn’t belong, secretly radicals and intent on establishing an Islamic state, or Shari’ah. Bosnians were framed as the enemy, which made them easier to kill, and for years we stood by, despite our moral obligation to act. So what lessons can Europe learn from this? First, Europeans should consider recognizing July 11, 1995, as a day of shared remembrance, in solidarity with Bosnians and in condemnation of anti-religious hatred. It should act as a reminder that if we do not remain vigilant against the same pervasive hate that two decades ago broke up a nation, it could one day creep up on us again. Related video Dutch liable for Srebrenica massacres Remembrance of Srebrenica would also be an emphatic message that Europe’s Muslims belong to Europe, and that though we allowed anti-Muslim hatred to spiral out of control in the past, we will not permit it do so again. Second, Europe must accept its unfortunate history of religious hatred. Europe’s worst humanitarian crimes have too often involved religious hatred, ranging from centuries of Protestant/Catholic violence, to the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, and the more recent Srebrenica genocide. In each instance, hate speech was used to dehumanize a religious group to such an extent that attempts to exterminate them became acceptable. Huge increases in anti-Semitic and Islamophobic hate crimes in Britain in recent years further underlines why more must be done to tackle religious intolerance and hate crimes. This is why the EU’s commitment to implementing U.N. Human Rights Resolution 16/18 on tackling religious intolerance and hate crimes, is so important. Supported by three of the world’s regional powerhouses, the European Union, OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and the United States, the resolution offers a unique opportunity to establish a common international policy framework to combat religious intolerance. Persisting with the Istanbul Process, a series of meetings between EU, OIC and U.S. officials, to flesh out an implementation plan acceptable to all parties, whilst slow and challenging, is nonetheless worth such a result. Third, Bosnia could, and should, become a valuable symbol of the compatibility of Muslim and European identities. This, amongst other reasons, is why we must commit to EU membership for Bosnia. During my visit to Bosnia a year ago, I found that young Bosnians, Muslim, Catholic and Orthodox, secular and religious, atheist and agnostic, overwhelmingly desired a deepening of their democracy and membership in the European Union. Related video Srebrenica's first interfaith couple While we are losing faith in the European project, they are not. In their actions, words and hopes, Bosnians refuted Islamophobic arguments from top to bottom. In 1995, the Srebrenica genocide led me and other British Muslims around me to question whether you could really be both Muslim and European. Today it is the Bosnians who have themselves answered that question. Having gone through a conflict that denied Muslims a space in Europe, Bosnians never let go of their identity – that they are both European and Muslim, and they refuse to choose between the two. At an unpredictable juncture in Europe’s history, theirs is a lesson that young European Muslims struggling with their identity – like me two decades ago – can take inspiration from. Srebrenica: Worst European atrocity since WWII


ISIS in control of ancient city, state media reports Militant group in 2015 blew up ancient treasures there ISIS forces have retaken the ancient city of Palmyra in Syria, according to Syrian government media, the ISIS media wing and a human rights monitor. Syrian news agency SANA reported that over 4,000 militants swarmed the city from “various directions,” despite having suffered heavy losses from bombardments by the Syrian air force. The Russian Defense Ministry had earlier reported that its aircraft had also taken part in the air campaign. The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) confirmed that Palmyra had fallen to ISIS on Sunday after Syrian armed forces pulled out from the desert city, the organization said. Related video See Palmyra ruins from the ground “Despite the ongoing air raids, IS retook all of Palmyra after the Syrian army withdrew south of the city,” said Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman, using another acronym for the group. ISIS’ own media wing, the Amaq news agency, also reported that the jihadist group’s forces had regained “full control” of the city. How to rebuild a war zone: The vision of a young architect in Syria ISIS first seized control of Palmyra, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, in May 2015. Syrian government forces recaptured it in March this year. But on Saturday, ISIS had made new inroads in the city, taking neighborhoods and key sites as Syrian troops focused on a ground operation in the city of Aleppo, SOHR said. Sana added that the jihadist group had transported troops in from Raqqa, its de facto capital in northern Syria, and the city of Deir Ezzor in the country’s east. ISIS fighters had seized almost the entire city Saturday before Russian warplanes began an intense bombardment, forcing the militants to withdraw to orchards and towns on Palmyra’s outskirts. Russia’s Defense Ministry said its jets had delivered 64 airstrikes overnight and claimed to have killed 300 militants in the raid. “During the night, Syrian government forces, actively supported by the Russian Aerospace Forces, repelled all attacks by terrorists on Palmyra. The attacking side actively used car bombs, armor and rocket artillery systems,” the ministry told the state-run Sputnik news agency. “Eleven battle tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, 31 cars with heavy machine guns, and over 300 militants were destroyed.” Related video U.N.: ISIS destroys 1st-century temple ISIS demolished many of the city’s ancient treasures, including the 1,800-year-old Arch of Triumph and the nearly 2,000-year-old Temple of Baalshamin, as well as the Temple of Bel. The group beheaded the antiquities expert who looked after the ruins. Syria said ISIS also destroyed two Muslim holy sites: a 500-year-old shrine and a tomb where a descendant of the Prophet Mohammed’s cousin was reportedly buried. Palmyra was a caravan oasis when the Romans overtook it in the middle of the first century. In the centuries that followed, the area “stood at the crossroads of several civilizations,” with its art and architecture mixing Greek, Roman and Persian influences, according to UNESCO, the UN agency that documents the world’s most important cultural and natural sites. The woman documenting the ‘Humans of Damascus’ CNN’s Marilia Brocchetto, Fred Pleitgen and Mohammed Tawfeeq contributed to this report.


Here is a look at the life of the late Kim Jong Il, former Leader of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Details of his life were mysterious and varied from source to source. Personal:Birth date: February 16, 1942 (some sources say 1941) Death date: December 17, 2011 Birth place: Sources vary between Khabarovsk, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics/Siberia and Mount Paektu, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Father: Kim Il Sung, former president of Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Mother: Kim Jung Suk Marriages: Kim Ok (July 2006-December 17, 2011, his death); Ko Yong Hui (1977-2004, her death); Kim Yong Suk (1974-December 17, 2011, his death); according to some sources - Hong Il Chon (1966-1969, divorced) Children: with Ko Yong Hui: Kim Jong-chul, Kim Yo-jong, Kim Jong Un; with Kim Yong Suk: Kim Sul-song, 1974; with Song Hye-rim: Kim Jong Nam (1971-February 13, 2017); according to some sources - with Hong Il Chon: Kim Hye-kyung Education: Kim Il Sung University, Pyongyang, degree in political economy, 1960s Other Facts:Was sometimes called the “Dear Leader.” Scholars and historians believe he was born in Russia, but that his birth place has been altered in many sources to Mount Paektu because legend has it that this is where Korea was founded. Timeline:1973 - Is elected to the Central Committee of the Korean Workers’ Party and is appointed party secretary. 1980s-1990s - Holds important positions on the Central Committee, in the Politburo and in the Party Secretariat. 1991 - Is named commander in chief of North Korea’s military. July 8, 1994-December 17, 2011 - Becomes the leader of North Korea when his father dies. October 8, 1997 - Is named leader of the Worker’s Party of Korea. September 1998 - Is re-elected as chairman of the National Defense Commission, the nation’s highest position. (The term “president” is reserved for his late father.) May 2000 - Makes a secret visit to China. June 2000 - Meets with South Korean leader Kim Dae Jung, the first meeting between the leaders of the two countries. October 2000 - US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visits North Korea, the first US Secretary of State to do so. June 17, 2005 - Personally meets with Chung Dong Young, South Korean Unification Minister, to discuss the possibility of renewed six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. October 2, 2007 - Roh Moo Hyun, President of South Korea, meets with Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang. December 5, 2007 - Receives a personal letter from US President George W. Bush requesting compliance with North Korea’s pledge to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs. The letter, written and hand-signed by Bush, is delivered by US Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, and it provides additional encouragement for North Korea to dismantle its nuclear program, a pledge North Korea made after the six-party talks held in Geneva earlier in the year. September 9, 2008 - According to US and South Korean intelligence, Kim Jong Il has been suffering from severe health problems and may have had a stroke. January 2009 - Reports from South Korea say Kim Jong Il plans on naming as successor Kim Jong Un, 25, his third and youngest son. April 9, 2009 - Is re-elected for third term as chairman of the National Defense Commission, the nation’s highest position. August 4, 2009 - Meets with former president Bill Clinton, pardons and releases captured American journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling. September 29, 2010 - Is re-elected as general secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea. He promotes both his youngest son, Kim Jong Un, and his sister, Kim Kyong Hui, to the rank of general. Kim Jong Un is also named as vice chairman of the party’s central military commission. August 20, 2011 - Kim Jong Il travels to eastern Russia. He meets with President Dmitry Medvedev in Buryatia. December 17, 2011 - Dies at the age of 69, reportedly of a heart attack. December 28, 2011 - A three-hour state funeral takes place in Pyongyang for Kim, with a memorial service scheduled for the next day.


The fourth round of negotiations on NAFTA are getting underway Trump pledged to end or renegotiate NAFTA during the 2016 campaign Trump administration negotiators are bringing an aggressive position on trade to the North America Free Trade Agreement negotiating table, demanding several provisions that some worry will sink the deal and give President Donald Trump a reason to scrap the agreement entirely, business leaders and sources with knowledge of the proceedings tell CNN, With the fourth round of negotiations on NAFTA getting underway and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau meeting Trump at the White House on Wednesday, sources say the Trump administration will propose tightening rules on the origins of car parts, push to implement a sunset provision on the deal and urge an end to the process used to resolve conflicts between nations and businesses. Related article Donald Trump's art of undoing the deal White House aides declined to confirm that these proposals were on the table, noting that negotiations are far from over, but representatives from the business community are worried that such demands will make it impossible for Mexico and Canada to agree to a revamped deal. If they walk away, sources say, the lack of an agreement could give Trump a reason to end the trade deal entirely. Tom Donohue, president of the US Chamber of Commerce, said on Tuesday in Mexico City that he worried about the “several poison pill proposals still on the table that could doom the entire deal.” Negotiators led by United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Donohue said, have pushed for a sunset clause that would allow any country to terminate the deal after five years and tighten rules on where parts that eventually go into finished products can be purchased. The Chamber of Commerce, a reliably Republican organization, has vehemently opposed significant changes to NAFTA, leading a public campaign against any changes. That position puts the group at odds with the Republican President, setting up a showdown between the heavyweight political group and the White House. “All of these proposals,” Donohue said in Mexico, “are unnecessary and unacceptable.” Trudeau and Trump did not have a traditional press conference when the Canadian Prime Minister visits the White House on Wednesday. But the two did speak briefly with reporters before their formal meeting in the Oval Office, which Trump said would include a discussion about the trade deal. “If we cannot make a deal, it will be terminated and that will be fine,” Trump said about NAFTA, nodding to his belief that the United States and Canada will look out for their best interests and help each other when they can. Trudeau also spoke about NAFTA during a meeting with members of the House Ways and Means Committee on Wednesday morning, telling reporters that while there may be small issues, the larger US-Canada relationship is what matters. “The relationship between Canada and the United State is unlike the relationship between any other countries anywhere in the world,” Trudeau said. “Overall with the little challenges that come up, we will be able to talk through and work through, but the overall picture is what we can’t lose sight of.” NAFTA, implemented by former President Bill Clinton in 1994, has drawn considerable political ire in recent years because of working class job losses, many of which have been blamed on free trade. Trump pledged to end or renegotiate NAFTA during the 2016 campaign, using the plan to invigorate working class voters in Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin. “Personally, I don’t think we can make a deal because we have been so badly taken advantage of,” Trump said in Arizona earlier this year. “I think we’ll end up probably terminating NAFTA at some point.” Trump, though, agreed not to immediately terminate the deal shortly after taking office and instead entered negotiations with Canada and Mexico. Related article Canada's wake-up call to the US on NAFTA Ending NAFTA would be a “pretty big shock to the system,” he said at the time, but warned that it still could happen. By demanding too much in negotiations, business leaders like Donohue think Trump will eventually get what he wants and be able to blame Mexico and Canada for walking away. Possible changes to NAFTA have worried even pro-Trump voters and groups. According to the American Farm Bureau, a group that is leading a campaign against NAFTA changes, agriculture exports have increased from $8.9 billion in 1993 to $38.1 billion in 2016 because of NAFTA. And some farmers who voted for Trump have publicly worried the man they voted for could hurt their business by toying with NAFTA. “Trade got a bad rap in the campaign,” Bob Hemseath, an Iowa corn farmer, told CNN earlier this year. “Mexico is extremely important to my farm and to corn farmers in general because they are one of our top consumers of corn. It is very important to have access to the market.” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders dodged questions about NAFTA on Tuesday. “The President wants to continue the conversation. But the President’s ultimate goal is to make sure that we get the best deal for Americans as possible, and certainly for American workers,” she said. “He’s been clear that he doesn’t think the current structure is a good one, and he wants a better deal.”


Editor’s Note: Jane Merrick is a British political journalist and former political editor of the Independent on Sunday newspaper. The opinions expressed in this commentary are hers. After months of negotiations, fraught phone calls and middle of the night flights to Brussels, British Prime Minister Theresa May received the news she wanted in a simple tweet Friday. Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, wrote: “EU leaders agree to move on to the second phase of #Brexit talks. Congratulations PM @theresa_may.” As May headed home from Belgium on Thursday night, she would have been confident that her terrible year was about to end on a positive note. Related article EU leaders agree to second stage of Brexit talks This would be some achievement after a 2017 in which she lost her government’s majority in an election she didn’t need to call and when Brexit talks seemed to be forever stuck at first base. May had just been applauded by fellow European leaders at a dinner designed to back the deal on the first stage of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. The dinner was a prelude to the formal approval of the deal Friday by the remaining 27 EU countries – agreeing on Britain’s proposed financial settlement with the bloc, a tentative arrangement on the future of the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and the rights of European citizens living in the UK. As May must know by now, however, a success one day can be overturned the next. Tusk’s tweet gives the green light to the next stage – but a lot could still happen in the final days of 2017. However genuine Thursday evening’s applause in Brussels might have been for the Prime Minister – and it was “not very enthusiastic,” according to Austrian Chancellor Christian Kern – she is increasingly weak at home. On Wednesday evening, lawmakers from her own side defeated May on a key vote on her government’s Brexit legislation. A second rebellion on a measure to enshrine in law the date of leaving the EU looms next week – and there have been reports in the British media that May is considering backing down on this, rather than suffering a second defeat. In the last six weeks, the Prime Minister has lost two Cabinet ministers, and an official investigation hangs over a third. These events are unrelated to Brexit but have nevertheless added to the sense of crisis in Downing Street. For May, the deal approved Friday was hard-fought and hard-won. It almost fell apart earlier this month when Arlene Foster, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland on whom May’s Conservative government relies on for a working majority in the British Parliament, withdrew support for a draft that would have seen Northern Ireland be subject to different customs arrangements than the rest of the UK. Frantic phone calls between the two women averted a disaster, and a new deal was struck a week ago. After six months of wrangling over the first phase of negotiations, not helped by conflicting comments from May’s Brexit minister, David Davis, getting this deal is a real achievement. Yet this is only phase one: The more contentious issues will arise in the next one when Britain and the EU wrangle over post-Brexit trading arrangements. Talks on how long the transition period – designed to avoid a cliff edge for British businesses after Brexit happens – could begin as early as next week, and then discussions over trade will likely start in March. Related article Brexit is keeping the EU united -- for now Yet not even May’s Cabinet is in agreement on what a British-EU trade deal should look like, so the mood on both sides of the channel is far from jubilant. As Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, said Friday morning: “The second phase will be significantly harder than the first and the first was very difficult.” Whether Brexit will happen “depends on the British Parliament and British people.” In a sign that EU leaders have finally reached the business end of Brexit negotiations, May held informal talks over apéritifs with key European power brokers – German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron – before the formal dinner began Thursday evening. Merkel sounded a note of caution Friday morning, saying there was “much more work to be done and time is of the essence.” The year may end on a high for the Prime Minister, but there are plenty more hurdles for her to jump over in 2018. She knows it, her colleagues – and opponents – in the UK know it and crucially, so do her European counterparts.


Pope Francis said Sunday that Christians owe apologies to gays and others who have been offended or exploited by the church, remarks that some Catholics hailed as a breakthrough in the church’s tone toward homosexuality. “I repeat what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: that they must not be discriminated against, that they must be respected and accompanied pastorally,” Francis said at a press conference aboard the papal plane returning from Armenia. “The Church must ask forgiveness for not behaving many times – when I say the Church, I mean Christians! The Church is holy, we are sinners!” As he often does during unscripted moments – particularly papal news conferences – the Pope spoke expansively, saying the church should seek forgiveness for a number of historical slights committed in its name. “I believe that the church not only should apologize to the person who is gay whom it has offended,” he added, “but has to apologize to the poor, to exploited women, to children exploited for labor; it has to ask forgiveness for having blessed many weapons.” The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and editor at large of America magazine, called the Pope’s apology to gays and lesbians “a groundbreaking moment.” “While St. John Paul II apologized to several groups in 2000 – the Jewish people, indigenous peoples, immigrants and women, among them – no pope has ever come close to apologizing to the LGBT community.  And the Pope is correct of course.  First, because forgiveness is an essential part of the Christian life.  And second, because no group feels more marginalized in the church today than LGBT people.” The Pope’s comments came in response to a question about a German Cardinal who said the Catholic Church should apologize for being “very negative” about gays. The Pope was also asked whether Christians bear some blame for hatred toward the LGBT community, as horrifically demonstrated in the Orlando massacre at a gay night club that killed 49 people on June 12. Sorrow. Dismay. Pain. #PopeFrancis, when I mentioned Orlando massacre. pic.twitter.com/1k6qL2En47 Repeating the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church about respecting and not discriminating against gays, Pope Francis said that one could condemn certain behavior. “One can condemn, but not for theological reasons, but for reasons of political behavior…Certain manifestations are a bit too offensive for others, no? “But these are things that have nothing to do with the problem. The problem is a person that has a condition, that has good will and who seeks God, who are we to judge? And we must accompany them well.” Francis first uttered that rhetorical question – Who am I to judge gay people? – in 2013, also during a news conference on the papal plane. His comments were hailed as a breakthrough for a church that has historically condemned homosexuality, often in harsh terms. Francis has not changed church doctrine that calls homosexual acts sinful, but he has shown a more merciful approach to people on the margins, including gays and lesbians. Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, a Catholic gay rights group, called the Pope’s remarks “an immense blessing of healing.” “No pope has said more welcoming words to LGBT people than when Pope Francis today offered his recommendation that the Church – indeed all Christians – should apologize for the harm religious traditions have caused to LGBT people. The pope’s statement was simple, yet powerful, and it fell from his lips so easily.” As is often the case, the Pope’s press conference encompassed a number of controversial questions. Here are the Pope’s answers about Brexit, former Pope Benedict XVI and why he used the word “genocide” to describe the murder of more than 1 million Armenians in the early 20th century. “For me, unity is always superior to conflict, but there are different forms of unity and also brotherhood. and here I come to the EU – brotherhood is better than enmity or distance and bridges are better than walls. “The step which the EU has to take to recover the strength of its roots is a step of creativity and healthy ‘separation;’ that is, to give more independence, more freedom to the countries of the EU, to think of another form of union, to be creative in jobs, in the economy…” “There is something that is not working in that unwieldy union, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater, let’s try to jump-start things, to recreate ..  today the two key words for the EU are creativity and fecundity.” Pope Francis said that while Turkey has, “a right to protest,” he has always used the word genocide, since his time in Argentina, and again last year quoting John Paul II so “it would have sounded very strange,” he said, not to use it again. “In Argentina, when you spoke about the extermination of Armenians, one always used the word genocide. I did not know another word … When I came to Rome, I heard the other words, ‘The Great Evil’ and the Armenian term which I do not know how to say, and they told me that … using ‘genocide’ is offensive, that you have to say something else. I have also spoken about three genocides of the last century, always three, first the Armenian, then Hitler, and the last one is Stalin.” “After I heard the tone of the President’s speech and also with my past with this word, which I uttered last year in St. Peter’s publicly, it would have sounded very strange not to say the same word.” In response to a question about whether there are two Popes in the Vatican, a story which had received headlines recently because of a comment by Pope Benedict’s personal secretary who said that the Pope Emeritus was part of an “expanded papacy,” Francis said, “There is only one Pope.” “[Benedict] is the Pope Emeritus, the wise grandpa. He is the man who guards my back with his prayers.”


The devastation wrought in Eastern Ghouta by a relentless bombardment by the Syrian regime has forced doctors to use expired drugs and scramble for water as the number of dead reached 300 in three days, medics and activists said. At least 260 people were killed and 500 injured in the rebel held-enclave between Monday and Tuesday evening, the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), said. Activists with the Damascus Media Center activist group said another 45 deaths had been reported on Wednesday. The intensified bombardment of Eastern Ghouta, an area outside Damascus that has been besieged by the regime of Bashar al-Assad for years, drew international condemnation. Amnesty International said “flagrant war crimes” were being committed on an “epic scale” there, and the UN children’s agency UNICEF published a symbolic blank statement, saying in a footnote there were “no words” to describe the suffering of children. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres described it as “hell on Earth.” The onslaught has prompted warnings that the Assad regime, which is backed by the Russian military, is preparing to crush the rebel-held enclave. In a statement condemning the attacks, the White House singled out Russia’s support for the Syrian regime. “Assad and his deplorable regime must stop committing additional atrocities and must not be further abetted by backers in Moscow and Tehran,” it said. The Russian military conceded that conditions on the ground were a “critical humanitarian” situation but claimed talks to resolve the conflict had been “derailed.” Syria says it is targeting terrorist groups in the area and Moscow said “illegal armed formations” had ignored calls “to stop fighting and lay down their arms.” It claimed they were preventing civilians from leaving the conflict zone. Nearly 400,000 people are trapped in Eastern Ghouta, many of them in desperate need of humanitarian aid, according to the United Nations.  Once described as the “breadbasket” for Damascus, Eastern Ghouta is the same area that was the target of an alleged chemical attack in 2013, which activists say killed about 1,400 people. In recent days, families have retreated to makeshift underground shelters with limited food and water as they try to shelter from the intense bombardment. Deliberate attacks on healthcare continue in East Ghouta. Over the past three days, 20 healthcare facilities have been attacked in #EastGhouta, with two of these facilities attacked on two separate occasions. #SaveGhouta #NotATarget Options are increasingly limited for those injured as the bombs, rockets and shells rain down. Twenty medical facilities have been targeted since Monday, according to SAMS, some of them with crude barrel bombs. Of those facilities, four were completely destroyed and two have temporarily suspended their activities. SAMS lost three of its health workers in the strikes, it said. A volunteer medical worker in Eastern Ghouta, who gave an assumed name, Adam Aslan, fearing retribution by regime forces, told CNN he worked in Dar al-Shifa field hospital, one of the 13 facilities hit since Sunday. He described a desperate situation where doctors were using expired drugs, including anesthetics, because they had no other option. Equipment in operating theaters and intensive care units is out of date and there are only about 105 doctors to care for all those trapped in Eastern Ghouta, he said. Related article There are no longer any words to describe Syria's horror Aslan, who was in his last year of high school when the civil war began nearly seven years ago, has been volunteering as a medical worker for the past six years. Asked about basic services and goods, Aslan said: “Water and electricity that we used to get from the Syrian side have not seen it in seven years. If we are lucky, we get water from natural aquifers and other water wells. As for electricity, we depend on generators and fuel.” These are now almost impossible to find, he added. “These are the worst days of our lives in Ghouta,” Eastern Ghouta hospital director and pediatrician Amani Ballour told CNN on Tuesday. “We in Ghouta have been getting hit by airstrikes for more than five years and this is not new to us … but we have never seen anything like this escalation.” Rebels have responded by firing into Damascus. Syrian state news agency SANA said two people were injured on Wednesday when armed groups fired two mortar shells on Bab al-Salam neighborhood in Old Damascus. Related video Eastern Ghouta's 15-year old "war reporter" At least 13 people were killed and 77 others were wounded a day earlier when 114 rockets and mortar rounds landed on several neighborhoods in Damascus. The Syrian army responded to those attacks with “precise strikes,” SANA said, destroying rocket launchers and fortified positions used by the armed groups. Eastern Ghouta is meant to be one of the so-called “de-escalation zones” agreed to in a deal struck by Russia, Turkey and Iran last year. In theory, such zones, also referred to as nonconflict or safe zones, are meant to be areas where civilians can live without being targeted by any party in Syria’s war. Nonetheless, since November, hundreds of civilians have been killed or injured in airstrikes and shelling across the country, according to the United Nations. Related article Help Syrians survive the conflict The International committee of the Red Cross called for “restraint and access to the wounded” in Eastern Ghouta. “The fighting appears likely to cause much more suffering in the days and weeks ahead, and our teams need to be allowed to enter Eastern Ghouta to aid the wounded,” said Marianne Gasser, head of the ICRC delegation in Syria. There are not enough medical supplies to cope with the number of injured, the ICRC said, especially after reported hits on medical facilities. “Wounded victims are dying only because they cannot be treated in time. In some areas of Ghouta, entire families have no safe place to go,” Gasser said. “On the other side of the front line, people in Damascus are in constant fear that their children will be hit by falling mortars. This is madness and it has to stop. Civilians must not be targeted.” A UN and Syrian Arab Red Crescent aid convoy arrived in Eastern Ghouta last Wednesday. It was the first convoy to enter the area since November, Reuters reported. UN Secretary-General Guterres called for an immediate halt to hostilities in Eastern Ghouta. “My appeal to all those involved Is for an immediate suspension of all war activities in Eastern Ghouta, allowing for humanitarian aid to reach all those in need,” Guterres said, adding, “I believe Eastern Ghouta cannot wait. “ US State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said Tuesday that the United States was “deeply concerned” by worsening violence in Eastern Ghouta, which has targeted hospitals and civilian infrastructure. Related article Pro-Syrian regime forces enter Afrin to support Kurdish fighters Nauert criticized the Assad regime, as well as its backers in Moscow. Russia, she said, “must end its support for the Assad regime and its allies,” and shares responsibility for the ongoing violence. UK Prime Minster Theresa May said she was appalled by the escalation of airstrikes in Eastern Ghouta and concerned by reports of “ongoing deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructures.” Calling for the violence to cease, she said: “It’s not just about the Syrian government, it’s about the backers of the Syrian government as well, and we call on all their backers, including Russia, to ensure that this violence stops and that those people who are in need of help are given that help.” Asked by reporters about claims that Russia is partially to blame for the deaths of hundreds of civilians in Eastern Ghouta, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov referred any questions to the Russian Defense Ministry. “These are unsubstantiated accusations. It is unclear what they are based on, no specific information was given, and this is how we assess such accusations [based on specific information],” Peskov said. “We do not agree with these accusations.” CNN’s Kareem Khadder, Ghazi Balkiz, Mary Ilyushina, Nada Bashir, Milena Veselinovic and Amir Vera contributed to this report.


President Donald Trump suggested Saturday night that Russian President Vladimir Putin might have directed a Russian lawyer who met with Trump campaign associates in 2016 to disclose ties to Moscow recently in order to sow chaos for him in retaliation for aggressive actions he has taken against Russia. The Russian lawyer, Natalia Veselnitskaya, said in an NBC News interview that aired Friday that she is both a lawyer and “an informant” after newly surfaced emails indicated she once worked with Russia’s chief legal office in an attempt to thwart a request from the Justice Department. At a rally in Michigan on Saturday, Trump said, “I guarantee you, I’m tougher on Russia. Nobody ever thought. In fact, have you heard about the lawyer? For a year, a woman lawyer, she was like, ‘Oh, I know nothing.’ … Now all of a sudden she supposedly is involved with government. You know why? If she did that, because Putin and the groups said, ‘you know this Trump is killing us. Why don’t you say that you’re involved with government so that we could go and make their life in the United States even more chaotic.’ Look at what’s happened. Look at how these politicians have fallen for this junk. Russian collusion. Give me a break.” Veselnitskaya has previously denied having worked for the Russian government, and in a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee last year she said that she “operate(s) independently of any governmental bodies.” In June 2016, Veselnitskaya met at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr., then-campaign manager Paul Manafort, and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, among others. Emails released by Trump Jr. show that he agreed to a meeting with Veselnitskaya after being told  the “crown prosecutor of Russia” wanted to give the Trump campaign incriminating information about Hillary Clinton. Instead, Veselnitskaya focused on the repeal of the Magnitsky Act, the 2012 Russian sanctions the US enacted over human rights abuses. Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told CNN’s Jim Sciutto on Friday that Veselnitskaya reached out to the Trump family after the election with a request to follow up on efforts to repeal the Magnitsky Act. Trump’s team has denied there was any follow up after the Trump Tower meeting. It’s not clear that there was any response from the Trump team to the request from Veselnitskaya. The Trump administration has not moved to roll back the Russian sanctions, and, in fact, new sanctions against Russia have been enacted. Special counsel Robert Mueller is investigating the Trump Tower meeting as part of his probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort, who has since been indicted in the special counsel investigation on charges that include money laundering and filing false foreign lobbying reports, all denied participating in any collusion with Russia. Trump himself has repeatedly said there was no collusion between his campaign and the Russian government and has repeatedly called the special counsel investigation a “witch hunt.” Bill Browder, a main proponent of the Magnitsky Act and Putin critic, told CNN’s Erin Burnett on Friday that Veselnitskaya is “an agent of the Russian government. She’s an agent of Vladimir Putin, and when she went to Trump Tower, she went there on behalf of Vladimir Putin.” The Kremlin has denied the allegations of ties between Veselnitskaya and the Russian government. CNN’s Sophie Tatum and Alessia Grunberger contributed to this report


Editor’s Note: Guy Ziv is an assistant professor of international relations at American University’s School of International Service. He is the author of “Why Hawks Become Doves: Shimon Peres and Foreign Policy Change in Israel.” You can follow him @ZivGuy. The views expressed are his own. Guy Ziv: Growing number of Israelis and Palestinians giving up on pursuing independent Palestinian state To hundreds of former senior Israeli security officials, a two-state solution is vital, he says Last week, Israel’s opposition leader, Zionist Union Chair Isaac Herzog, caused a stir in his party by arguing that right now, a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was not realistic. In echoing the sentiments of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – the man he seeks to replace – the center-left leader was adopting a more hawkish position at a time when an increasing number of Israelis and Palestinians are giving up altogether on the idea of pursuing an independent Palestinian state. At least one notable group of Israelis, however, does not count itself among the naysayers: veterans of the Israeli security establishment. To hundreds of former senior Israeli security officials, a two-state solution is not just possible, it’s vital. With tensions between Israelis and Palestinians at an all-time high, and a “knife intifada” underway, Israeli-Palestinian peace seems farther away today than at any time in the past decade. There is also a growing concern that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority is on the brink of collapse, an event that would likely plunge the West Bank into chaos. To the ex-generals, the unrest stems from the lack of a diplomatic horizon. As they see it, Palestinian despair serves as a breeding ground for radicalization. In contrast, the establishment of a Palestinian state would give Palestinians hope for a better future, marginalize the radicals, and preserve Israel as a Jewish state. The veterans are particularly concerned about studies by Israeli demographers, statisticians, and geographers that show Israel as on the cusp of losing its Jewish majority if it continues to hold onto the West Bank and East Jerusalem. They fear that the day is fast approaching when Israel will be forced to choose between its Jewish identity and its democracy. Israel’s growing international isolation, meanwhile, is an additional concern that that the Israeli security community sees as adding to the urgency of a two-state deal. Related article Oren: How President Obama can aid Israel's security Many of these security figures are members of the decades-old Peace and Security Association or the around a year-old Commanders for Israel’s Security, both non-partisan organizations composed of veterans of the IDF, Mossad, Shin Bet and the Israeli Police who advocate a two-state solution as a vital Israeli interest. Both groups have taken Netanyahu to task for his status quo orientation and lack of initiative with respect to peace diplomacy with the Palestinians. Critics of the two-state solution point to the sheer number of settlers in the West Bank as rendering an independent Palestinian state no longer viable. The veterans concur that time is running out for a two-state solution, but believe that it is not too late. Retired Brig.-Gen. Shlomo Brom, a senior research associate at the Institute for National Security Studies, the prestigious Israeli think tank affiliated with Tel Aviv University, argues that the issue is not the number of settlers, but how they are dispersed in the West Bank. Brom told me that the vast majority of settlers live in urban settlements close to the Green Line, the demarcation lines established in the aftermath of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, rather than deep in the heart of the West Bank. He also noted that the majority of settlers are not ideological, but “settlers of convenience” – ultra-Orthodox, Russian Jews, and other financially-strapped families for whom government subsidies led them to live in the West Bank but who would “gladly leave” if compensated. The ex-generals and former intelligence chiefs believe that even the most intractable sticking points, such as the fate of Jerusalem, are resolvable. Indeed, a number of them, including Brom, have endorsed the Geneva Initiative, a blueprint for a permanent status agreement between Israel and a future Palestinian state that was negotiated by senior Israeli and Palestinian officials. Where there is less consensus in the security community concerns the question of whether Abbas is an appropriate partner for peace. In the past 15 years, the notion that there is “no peace partner” in the Palestinian camp has become an axiom for many Israelis, who recall that during the 2000 Camp David Summit, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak was rebuffed by Yasser Arafat, Abbas’ predecessor, following the most generous offer ever made by an Israeli leader up until that point. Today, Netanyahu and his ministers routinely accuse Abbas of inciting violence, conveying the message that there is nobody on the Palestinian side with whom Israel can negotiate a deal. Yoram Cohen, the current Shin Bet chief, has publicly contradicted Netanyahu’s claims about Abbas, as has Israel’s current head of Military Intelligence, Maj. General Herzl Halevi, who has pointed to Palestinian frustration and despair, rather than incitement, as the reason for the current wave of terrorism. Nevertheless, Abbas is widely perceived as weak and perhaps incapable of delivering a deal. Consequently, some supporters of a two-state solution advocate constructive unilateral moves that will create the conditions necessary for such a solution. For example, former Shin Bet chief Ami Ayalon and retired Col. Gilead Sher of Blue White Future, another non-partisan organization that promotes a two-state solution, propose a series of unilateral steps like halting construction east of the barrier and relocating settlers from isolated settlements. Related article Barack and Bibi: Unhappy partners meet again Other veterans of the security establishment are wary of unilateralism given Israel’s problematic experience with unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza. Brom, for example, proposes limited steps, such as the transfer of additional territory in the West Bank to the Palestinians from Area C, which comprises roughly 60% of the West Bank territory that Israel controls. The idea underlying these competing plans is to keep the two-state solution alive. Of course, since the Israeli political establishment has shown no discernible interest in altering the status quo, this debate is a largely theoretical one for now. Yet the wave of violence, which has shown no sign of abating, demonstrates the failure of Netanyahu’s strategy of “managing the conflict.” With Israelis and Palestinians turning their backs on the two-state solution, Israel’s top warriors and spymasters are facing their greatest challenge to date in trying to rescue what they see as the key to their nation’s long-term security. They will almost certainly need the assistance of President Obama’s successor – whoever he or she will be – to bring the two sides back to the table, if that is even an option next year. The clock is ticking. Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion. Read CNNOpinion’s Flipboard magazine.


European countries have carried out less than 10% of promised refugee relocations Malta and Finland are the only EU member states on track to meet their resettling targets The European Commission warned EU member states on Thursday that “there are no more excuses” for not delivering on promises to take on refugees. Overall, 13,546 people have been relocated so far – less than 10% of the 160,000 asylum seekers European countries committed to resettle from overcrowded camps in Italy and Greece in 2015, the commission said. To date, 3,936 people from Italy and 9,610 from Greece have been moved to safety – 8% of the total European Union target. And so far just two member states, Malta and Finland, are on track to meet their resettling obligations. Hungary, Austria and Poland are still refusing to participate in the resettlement plan, due to end in September. Other Eastern European countries, such as the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Croatia and Slovakia, are only doing so on a limited basis, the commission said. Related article How some European countries are tightening their refugee policies Speaking at a press conference Thursday in Brussels, Belgium, Dimitris Avramopoulos, the EU commissioner of migration, home affairs and citizenship, cautioned that countries failing to meet their commitments would face fines extending beyond the end of the resettlement plan in September, describing it as an “outstanding bill.” “There are no more excuses for the member states not to deliver. It is possible and feasible to relocate all those who are eligible from Italy and Greece by September,” Avramopoulos said. “It entirely depends on the political will and perseverance of member states to make it happen.” Despite February setting a new monthly record with around 1,940 relocations, the current pace remains well below the European Council targets of at least 3,000 a month from Greece and 1,500 from Italy. “Responsibility cannot be fairly shared without solidarity. All our measures are interlinked, and member states cannot cherry-pick what they deliver on,” Avramopoulos said, adding that the commission could launch proceedings leading to possible fines. Conversely, the commission welcomed progress on resettlement by European countries. According to a commission statement, member states have “provided safe and legal pathways to 14,422 persons so far, over half of the agreed 22,504 under the EU resettlement scheme.” That number includes 3,565 Syrians resettled through the EU-Turkey deal, a controversial agreement aimed at stemming the tide of migrants and refugees making their way from Turkey into Europe. Under the deal, the EU accepts one Syrian living in a Turkish camp for each migrant returned to Turkey in a “one-for-one” exchange. “To improve our management of migration we need to continue to implement our comprehensive approach – from relocation and resettlement, to the operationalization of the European Border and Coast Guard and through continued engagement with Turkey,” said Frans Timmermans, the European Commission’s first vice president. Now, one year since the EU-Turkey deal was signed, average daily arrivals of refugees to the Greek islands are down to 43, from around 1,740 in 2016. At the height of the refugee crisis in October 2015, daily crossings from Turkey to the Greek islands reached a staggering 10,000 in a single day.


The case was brought by Syrian and Afghan nationals who were part of a mass influx of migrants into Europe The ECJ ruling upholds a law requiring refugees to seek asylum in the first EU country they reach The European Union’s top court has ruled that refugees must continue to seek asylum in the first European country they reach, even in exceptional circumstances like the migrant crisis of 2015. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled Wednesday that Austria and Slovenia were entitled to deport two Afghan families and a Syrian who applied for asylum to Croatia, the first EU nation they entered. The court’s decision opens up the possibility of a deportation of hundreds of asylum seekers who arrived in Europe in 2015 and early 2016. An EU law known as the Dublin regulation typically requires asylum seekers to apply in the first European country they enter. But in 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel suspended the regulation for Syrian refugees in the face of the migrant crisis. Related article Merkel rules out limiting number of refugees in Germany Hundreds of thousands of people followed the so-called western Balkan route – an overland path taking migrants from Turkey through Greece and other southern European nations toward more prosperous northern “destination countries” such as Germany – before it was closed off in 2016. In 2016, Afghan sisters Khadija and Zainab Jafari, with their respective families, and the Syrian national crossed the border between Croatia and Serbia even though they did not have appropriate visas. They were transported onward to the Croatia-Slovenia border by Croatian authorities with the aim of helping them to seek asylum in other EU states, the court said. The Syrian national subsequently made an asylum application in Slovenia, while the two Afghan families did so in Austria. Austria and Slovenia argued that it was up to Croatia to examine the applications of the Afghan families and the Syrian national since they had entered its territory unlawfully first. But the applicants challenged their decision before the courts, contending that their entry to Croatia should not be considered irregular and that the Austrian and Slovenian authorities should consider their requests for asylum. The ECJ on Wednesday supported the argument of Austria and Slovenia over that of the Syrian and Afghan nationals. It ruled that their crossing of the Croatian border had to be considered irregular under the Dublin rule. While one EU member state can permit the entry of an asylum seeker on humanitarian grounds, this is “not tantamount to the issuing of a visa even if the admission is explained by exceptional circumstances characterised by a mass influx of displaced people into the EU,” a court statement said. Related article Report: EU mission tackling migrant smuggling 'has failed' Under the Dublin III Regulation, the first country of entry retains responsibility for considering the non-EU citizen’s application for asylum even if it allows the person to transit to another member state under exceptional circumstances, it said. “A Member State which has decided on humanitarian grounds to authorise the entry on its territory of a non-EU national who does not have a visa and is not entitled to waiver of a visa cannot be absolved of that responsibility,” the statement said. The court added, however, that an asylum applicant must not be transferred to the member state responsible “if, following the arrival of an unusually large number of non-EU nationals seeking international protection, there is a genuine risk that the person concerned may suffer inhuman or degrading treatment if transferred.” Separately, the advocate general for the ECJ has recommended that a case brought by Hungary and Slovakia against the mandatory relocation of asylum seekers be dismissed, according to a press release Wednesday. The case was brought against the Council of the European Union’s decision to assist Italy and Greece in tackling the inflow of migrants in 2015. That decision meant EU member states had to take in 120,000 people in clear need of international protection over two years. “That mechanism is actually a proportionate means of enabling Greece and Italy to deal with the impact of the 2015 migration crisis,” Advocate General Yves Bot’s statement read. The advocate general’s opinion is not binding on the Court of Justice; a legal judgment will be given at a later date. CNN’s James Gray, Katie Polglase and Lindsay Isaac contributed to this report.

European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling on asylum seekers


London's Metropolitan Police says it is dropping its 24-hour guard of Julian Assange The WikLeaks founder has been holed up in Ecuador's Embassy in London since July 2012 Sweden wants to extradite Assange so he can be questioned over rape allegations Police are no longer guarding WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange around the clock, London’s Metropolitan Police said Monday, but are deploying “a number of overt and covert tactics to arrest him.” Assange has been holed up in London’s Ecuadorian Embassy for more than three years to avoid extradition to Sweden, where prosecutors want to question him over 2010 rape allegations. The Australian has not been charged and denies the allegations. Assange has said he fears Sweden would extradite him to the United States, where he could face the death penalty if he is charged and convicted of publishing government secrets through WikiLeaks. The Metropolitan Police Service said it remained “committed to executing the arrest warrant and presenting Julian Assange before the court,” but that it continually reviewed its policing operation. “As a result of this continual review the MPS has today Monday, 12 October withdrawn the physical presence of officers from outside the Embassy,” it said in a statement. “The operation to arrest Julian Assange does however continue and should he leave the Embassy the MPS will make every effort to arrest him. However it is no longer proportionate to commit officers to a permanent presence.” The force said it had discussed its decision with Britain’s Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. “Like all public services, MPS resources are finite. With so many different criminal, and other, threats to the city it protects, the current deployment of officers is no longer believed proportionate.” In August, prosecutors announced they were dropping allegations involving sexual molestation and coercion as statutes of limitations in the investigation were running out. Assange can still be investigated on suspicion of rape until 2020, they said. In May, the Swedish Supreme Court denied Assange’s latest appeal to dismiss an arrest warrant over the allegations. Prosecutors have agreed to look into conducting interviews in London to move the investigation forward, but the court sees “no reason” to lift the arrest warrant, the Supreme Court said then.


In the clip, Louis-Dreyfus not only urges voters to support Clinton but all Democrats down the ballot The former "Seinfeld" star then takes a shot at Trump A fictional president of the United States is urging climate-conscious voters to make Hillary Clinton president. Julia Louis-Dreyfus, who plays President Selina Meyer on the HBO show “Veep,” cut a short video for progressive group NextGen Climate urging voters to support “Hillary Clinton and climate champions.” In the clip, Louis-Dreyfus not only urges voters to support Clinton but all Democrats down the ballot in order to elect environmentally-friendly leaders. “I play a bombastic, woman-hating, narcissistic politician on my show and it’s really super fun to watch,” says Louis-Dreyfus, who then emphasizes, “but it’s not a reality what any of us really wants.” The former “Seinfeld” star then takes a shot at the GOP presidential nominee and his lewd comments about women. “Donald Trump talks a lot about building a wall, his pervy love for (Vladimir) Putin, and fake colleges that he can make for profit. But not a lot about climate change. That’s because he doesn’t believe in it and it doesn’t have a grabbable p—-.” Pivoting to the Democratic nominee, Louis-Dreyfus says Clinton not only believes that climate change is real but “understands its disastrous consequences.” But Louis-Dreyfus also says Clinton will need help on Capitol Hill. “Voting for Hillary isn’t enough” Louis-Dreyfus says, highlighting the importance of voting for Democrats in congressional races, saying, “Senate Republicans have already vowed to stop her at every turn. It’s a congressional co-blockade.”


The House Intelligence Committee is investigating whether President Donald Trump was wiretapped Its chairman said Wednesday Trump's communication might have been part of 'incidental collection' House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes set off a stunning new political controversy Wednesday by revealing that communications of President Donald Trump and associates may have been picked up after the election by intelligence agencies conducting surveillance of foreign targets. Nunes hurried to the White House to personally brief Trump on the revelations, after talking to the press but without sharing the information with Democrats. His Democratic counterpart on the committee – Rep. Adam Schiff of California – warned that his colleague had cast a “profound cloud” over their effort to investigate Russian attempts to interfere in the election. A Republican source with knowledge of the situation claimed the information that Nunes talked about was from the intelligence community and not the White House. The source said Nunes was “steaming” about what he read. That source said Nunes met with Republican members of the Intelligence Committee before his news conference, and several tried to convince him not to do it before he spoke with Schiff. But Nunes didn’t take the advice, with the news conference already called by the time he met with the GOP committee members. Nunes was too mad, the source said. The comments by Nunes do not appear to support Trump’s claims, debunked by FBI Director James Comey, that he was wiretapped by his predecessor President Barack Obama. Rather, they appear to relate to conversations between Trump or associates and people who were targeted by FISA warrants – that Nunes said did not appear to be illegal. But the President was asked by reporters if he feels vindicated by the visit from Nunes and answered: “I somewhat do. I must tell you I somewhat do, I very much appreciated the fact that they found what they found.” Another day of shocking drama intensified the intrigue and uncertainty sparked by Trump’s feud with intelligence agencies, his accusations of shady practices by his predecessor and the wider question of the Trump campaign’s links with Russia that are currently the focus of an investigation by the FBI. Nunes told reporters the conversations were “incidentally” collected as part of intelligence sweeps focusing on other people and implied that Trump was not the target of the surveillance operation. He said he discovered accounts of conversations related to Trump and his associates when he was reviewing intelligence reports brought to him by an unidentified person – and said the information was not related to Russia. “This is a normal, incidental collection, based on what I could collect,” Nunes said. “This appears to be all legally collected foreign intelligence under” the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Nevertheless, Nunes said he alerted House Speaker Paul Ryan about the collection before he headed to the White House, adding: “I’m actually alarmed by it.” Democrats on the committee said they were not informed of Nunes’ finding before he spoke with the media. Generally, American citizens who are caught up in surveillance of foreign targets are not identified by name in intelligence reports. But Nunes’ announcement raises the question of whether the President-elect or associates were identified in intelligence reports circulating in the covert community. A House member on the Intelligence Committee told CNN the communications in question were senior-level people talking about Trump, not Trump himself. Nunes later told CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” that “President-elect Trump and his team were put into intelligence reports.” “Clearly there is a lot of information in the reports that I’ve seen, which were dozens, that would lead me to believe that the last administration and numerous agencies had a pretty good idea of what President-elect Trump was up to and what his transition team was up to and who they were meeting with,” Nunes told Tapper. In a news conference, Schiff expressed deep concern that committee members were not told by Nunes about the revelations before he briefed the press or went to the White House. “If the chairman is going to continue to go to the White House instead of his own committee, there is no way we can continue to conduct this investigation,” he said. “It does underscore the importance of establishing an independent commission,” Schiff said. Schiff said that he and other members of the committee had still not seen the documents that Nunes was referring to. He also said from a conversation with Nunes that there did not appear to have been any “unmasking” of any of the US people mentioned in the intercepts. “All of us are in the dark.” Nunes defended rushing to brief the President because the reports he read have nothing to do with Russia, but he said the investigation he is conducting into Russian interference in the election would look at how Trump’s name got into the intelligence reports. “Because what I saw has nothing to do with Russia and has nothing to do with the Russian investigations, (and) has everything to do with possible surveillance activities … the President needs to know these intelligence reports are out there and I have a duty to tell him that,” Nunes said. But in an interview with CNN’s Kate Bolduan on “Erin Burnett OutFront,” Democratic Rep. Jackie Speier slammed Nunes as a “presidential whisperer” undermining the committee’s investigation and accused the White House of planning the day’s events. “This was pure theater,” Speier said. “I think in many respects it was probably orchestrated by the White House.” Two weeks ago, Trump asked Congress to investigate whether Trump Tower was wiretapped by his predecessor. On Monday, Nunes’ committee held a hearing featuring Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers. At that hearing, Comey confirmed for the first time that his agency is investigating possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign and whether any crimes may have been committed during last year’s election campaign as part of a wider probe into the hacking of Democratic servers and the Clinton campaign. Also at that hearing, Comey said he had seen no evidence so far of the specific allegation of wiretapping Trump Tower. RELATED: Actually, Mr. President, wiretapping doesn’t cover a lot of things Nunes at his news conference said he did not know whether the “incidental collection” happened at Trump Tower, and could not say for certain whether Trump’s communications were directly collected. He said the collection included Trump transition officials and that it happened after the election. UPDATED CORRECTION: A previous version of this story misstated whom Nunes met with before his news conference. He met Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee. CNN’s Gloria Borger, Dana Bash and Eli Watkins contributed to this report.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes


Waves of asylum seekers continue to cross into Canada from the United States, drawing concerns that the numbers will only rise as the weather gets warmer. Over the last year, Canada has seen what has been called an “unprecedented” surge of asylum seekers, with more than 25,000 people intercepted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as they crossed from the US since January 2017 to March 2018. And this year, the rate appears to be growing. The number of people intercepted in the first three months of 2018 more than doubled those in the same time period last year. And in 2017, the number of people intercepted at the border escalated in the summer. Many of the asylum seekers take buses or taxis to a US border town, and walk over to the other side of the border, where they are intercepted by Canadian officials. Asylum seekers have pointed to their growing unease about the Trump administration’s attitudes toward immigrants for leaving the US. Related article His greatest hope at freedom is escaping the US and being arrested But in recent months, the cohort of who has been crossing into Canada has changed. Many of those crossing now are Nigerian asylum seekers, who legally come to the US on a visa, stay briefly in the US and then cross the border into Canada, officials say. “There is a small number that is abusing the US visa system. They don’t have a desire to visit the United States. Their intention is to come to Canada and claim asylum,” Canada’s Immigration Minister Ahmed Hussen said in an interview with CNN partner CBC. In an effort to stem those growing numbers, three Canadian officials have been stationed to work with US visa officials in Lagos, Nigeria, to prevent the abuse of US travel documents. And Hussen is scheduled to travel to Nigeria this month to meet with its officials there. “Coming across the border in a way that seeks to circumvent our procedures is no free ticket to Canada,” said Ralph Goodale, Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, in a statement. “We will continue to work with the United States to deter the misuse of travel documents that has helped drive the influx.” Related article Montreal stadium turns into shelter for asylum-seekers who've left US Last year, many of those coming into Canada were Haitians, who were concerned that they would lose their Temporary Protected Status or TPS, in the US, which allowed them to work and shielded them from deportation. In November, the Trump Administration announced that it would end TPS for Haitians by July 2019 In response to the arrival of Haitians, the Canadian government organized outreach in places like Miami and New York with large Haitian communities to counter social media rumors that asylum seekers would get a free pass in Canada. They translated government messages in Creole. Related article The other border “I believe because of our outreach efforts into the Haitian population in the United States, this year you don’t see that number,” said Hussen told the CBC. “We had one solution that worked for one population. Now we’re faced with a different group of nationals,” he said, regarding the Nigerians. In response, Canadian officials are working closely with their US counterparts to make sure they’re aware of the people who are abusing their visa systems, Hussen said. He said it has resulted in a 10% increase in visa refusals by the US, in recent weeks. Most of the illegal border crossings are occurring in Quebec. Half of Canada’s 49,775 asylum claims in 2017 were made in that province. The top five birth countries of asylum seekers in Quebec are Haiti, Nigeria, the United States, India and Saudi Arabia. Related article Fleeing America: Why refugees are risking life and limb to escape to Canada Hussen said the government is open to possible changes to its border pact with the US, but no “formal negotiations” are happening at this stage, reported the CBC. The pact known as the Safe Third Country Agreement between Canada and the United States requires people to apply for refugee protection in the first safe country they arrive in – under which, the US is considered a safe country. Because of this, people who seek refugee status in Canada from the US will be turned away at official border crossings. As a result, people are skipping official ports of entry and crossing over unofficially – sometimes going through treacherous journeys to do so.


In targeting Obama's legacy on health care and Iran, Trump faces his own judgment with history Obama powerless to protect his most cherished achievements Republicans for years failed to gut the legacy of their nemesis Barack Obama: Now they can do so within a matter of days. President Donald Trump and GOP lawmakers have the chance to shred the signature achievements of the 44th President’s two terms – Obamacare and the nuclear deal with Iran. Trump has often given the impression that overturning his predecessor’s imprint on America and the world from the environment to health care, from foreign policy to Wall Street is the most compelling rationale of his presidency. “Obamacare is a disaster, it is failing badly,” Trump said Wednesday. Hours earlier, he said he’d already decided whether to stick to a nuclear pact he blasted on Tuesday as an “embarrassment to the United States.” Related article This is global Trumpism The retired commander in chief meanwhile, is discovering the frustrations experienced by presidents when they transition from being the most powerful man in the world to having little say in the preservation of their legacies. He said Wednesday it was “aggravating” for Democrats to keep having to save a law designed that protects people with pre-existing conditions and cancer survivors and is intended to provide affordable coverage to anyone. But he also said that progress can come in fits and starts, perhaps steeling his supporters for tough days to come. “Many you are young and maybe have only seen forward momentum, and may not have seen backward momentum yet,” he said at a Gates Foundation event in New York. “Many of you may confront hurdles and roadblocks and disappointments in the future. And when that happens, that’s the test.” Related article Here's what would happen to Jimmy Kimmel's son if Graham-Cassidy passes But while they are in peril, Obama’s achievements are not dead yet. Obamacare after all, has been the law that refuses to die, surviving two Supreme Court challenges and thwarting previous attempts by the GOP monopoly on Washington power to kill it. And the ramifications of ending the nuclear deal may yet weigh on the President’s mind as he contemplates the prospect of traumatizing relations with key US allies and the prospect of another nuclear crisis to add to the showdown with North Korea if Iran then races for the bomb. Some of the consequences of repealing Obamacare and dumping the Iran deal are also impossible to calculate before Trump and Republicans take the leap. That means that even if Obama’s legacy takes a hit in the days to come – history may judge the current debates with a different eye. Still, it would sicken Obama’s supporters to see both legacy prizes swept away because both are central to the former president’s concept of politics. Obamacare was the centerpiece of his ambition to revive Democratic activist government and social reform to an extent not seen since the 1960s. The Iran deal was the ultimate validation of his conviction that the United States should talk to its enemies in pursuit of audacious foreign policy goals. But presidential legacies are seasoned over decades and centuries, not in the few months after a presidency ends. And Obama and Trump are fated to be judged against one for ever, and this is just an early historical skirmish. Read Obama’s Inauguration Day letter to Trump Should Republicans for instance trigger chaos in insurance markets and put the US on a path to war with Iran, Obama’s achievements may look more significant in retrospect. However, if Republican alternatives prosper over the long term and deliver results, Obama’s presidency could seem less successful in hindsight. Related article Trump's 'decided' on the Iran deal but won't reveal it The fresh attempt to repeal Obamacare is taking place in the Senate, and involves some of the former president’s consistent antagonists, including Sen. Lindsey Graham and Majority leader Mitch McConnell. But the race to beat a deadline to pass a repeal bill before the end of the month that eliminates federal funding for Medicaid subsidies and elevates the role of the states in health care is not a guaranteed long term winner for Republicans. That’s one reason why the 11th-hour effort by Republicans is hanging by a thread, with holdouts including Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Arizona’s John McCain under fearsome pressure to sign on. Trump, however, said Wednesday he thinks Republicans can finally get it done – though his optimism has often been misplaced before. “I think it has a very good chance,” Trump said. While he is rooting for health care action, Trump also appears to be moving closer to fulfilling a campaign promise to pull out of a deal that froze Iran’s nuclear program in return for a lifting of international sanctions. The fact he has the power to do so reflects the agreement’s political Achilles’ heel. Because of Republican opposition Obama could not get Congress to ratify it as a treaty, so billed it an executive agreement, meaning it could be overturned by a successor. But pulling out of the deal could be as perilous for Trump as disrupting the health care system. To begin with, Trump’s antipathy to the agreement seems as much motivated by personal inclination as by a provable rationale that Iran is breaching it. The administration’s case is also weakened by its failure so far to show how it would stop Tehran resuming uranium enrichment that could lead to a push to make a bomb – if Trump trashes the deal. Iran tugged at the vulnerability of the President’s position own Wednesday. “I declare to you the Islamic Republic of Iran will not be the first country to violate the agreement, but it will respond decisively and resolutely to its violation by any party,” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani told the United Nations. America’s closest allies have also warned against pulling out of the deal – raising the prospect of a rupture that could have long term consequences for Trump’s presidency. “If we simply throw out this agreement, it can’t be replaced. There’s nothing to replace it,” said French President Emmanuel Macron on Tuesday. His warning highlights a dilemma that Trump may or may not wish to consider: As he sets about diminishing Obama’s legacy – he is taking substantial risks with his own.


The lower house of parliament passes new security legislation Thousands of people protest outside in pouring rain Prime Minister Shinzo Abe wants Japan to take a greater role in overseas conflicts Japan on Thursday moved closer to enabling its military to take a more active role in conflicts overseas as lawmakers passed legislation that has stirred strong resistance after seven decades of pacifism. Thousands of people protesting the change gathered in pouring rain outside parliament, where members of the lower house voted to approve a set of bills backed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Opposition parties boycotted the vote. The bills will now move to the upper house of parliament, where Abe’s coalition holds a majority. The Prime Minister has been trying to make Japan, a key U.S. ally, more assertive militarily. Last year, he sanctioned a reinterpretation of the country’s pacifist post-World War II constitution, drawing widespread protests. The bills going through parliament at the moment will allow the Japanese military, known as the Self-Defense Forces, to join its allies in a limited role in conflicts abroad. The United States has supported Abe’s push. “We certainly welcome, as we’ve said before, Japan’s ongoing efforts to strengthen the alliance and to play a more active role in regional and international security activities,” U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said Wednesday. In April, the two countries announced significant changes to the guidelines that govern their defense relationship, saying Japan would be able to defend allies that come under attack. Japanese troops operating overseas had previously been limited to humanitarian roles. But many Japanese people are fearful of the consequences of taking a tougher military stance, worrying it could draw Japan into wars by allies and put soldiers and citizens at risk. The country was shaken this year by the beheadings of two of its citizens by ISIS, which linked the killings to the Japanese government’s pledge to provide funds to help people affected by the terrorist group. The security bills have drawn criticism from high-profile figures, including the renowned animator and director Hayao Miyazaki. Opposition lawmaker Yukihisa Fujita told CNN this week that the change will “damage the way Japanese people and country is viewed. It will damage the view of Japanese as a diplomatic nation.” China and South Korea have also expressed concern about Japan’s shifting military stance. CNN’s Yoko Wakatsuki reported from Tokyo, and CNN’s Jethro Mullen wrote from Hong Kong. CNN’s Will Ripley and Euan McKirdy contributed to this report.


Ukrainian government and rebel forces swap prisoners U.S. Secretary of State says Russian actions are unacceptable, warns of new sanctions A senior Ukrainian official says at least 179 soldiers died in siege of Debaltseve U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry had strong words Saturday for Russia over what he called its unacceptable actions in Ukraine – and threatened additional sanctions against Russian interests. Speaking in London alongside UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, Kerry said Russia was “continuing to do land-grabbing in Ukraine” even as it professed to support peace efforts. Russia’s actions are “just simply unacceptable, so we are talking about additional sanctions, additional efforts,” Kerry said. Related gallery Crisis in Ukraine “We are confident that over the next few days we are going to make it clear that we are not going to play this game, not going to sit here and be part of this extraordinarily craven behavior at the expense of the sovereignty and integrity of a nation. “This is behavior that is completely counter to everything that the global community has worked to achieve and put in place ever since World War II, and I’m confident that the United Kingdom, the United States and others are prepared to stand up to it.” He blasted Moscow’s repeated denials that it is involved in arming the separatists and sending its own troops over the border. In this age of technology and satellites, Kerry said, “there is no secret” over what is taking place. “We know to a certainty what Russia has been providing to the separatists, how Russia is involved with the separatists,” he said. Kiev and a number of Western leaders have steadfastly accused Russia of failing to rein in separatists and of continuing to arm, supply and train them. European nations, the United States and others have imposed financial sanctions on Russian interests in hopes of pressuring President Vladimir Putin to help end the hostilities. Russia, which seized Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula in March, denies any direct involvement in Ukraine and says any Russian soldiers in Ukraine are volunteers fighting during their vacation time Kerry’s remarks come as a ceasefire which came into effect last Sunday remains in serious doubt. A fierce separatist offensive to take the key strategic town of Debaltseve ended only Wednesday, when Ukrainian soldiers were forced to retreat. Yuriy Biryukov, a presidential adviser and assistant to Ukraine’s defense minister, said Saturday that 179 soldiers had died in the Debaltseve area between January 18 and February 18. An additional 110 soldiers were captured and 81 are missing, Biryukov posted on Facebook. Some of the missing are still on their way out of Debaltseve, he said, while others have died. Late Saturday, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko said 139 Ukrainian soldiers had been released from captivity. The release was part of a prisoner swap between Ukrainian and rebel forces in the eastern Donbass region; 52 pro-Russian separatists were also freed, according to Russian state news agency Itar Tass. The toll makes the siege of Debaltseve – a town now shattered by heavy shelling – the Ukrainian military’s deadliest single incident over the past 10 turbulent months. Shelling has also picked up this week in Donetsk city and clashes are reported around the southern port city of Mariupol. Ukraine’s National Defense and Security Council said Friday there had been 300 instances in which this latest truce has been violated. The ceasefire agreement – signed February 12 in Minsk, Belarus, among the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, France and Germany – aimed to curb this violence. It is supposed to be followed by the withdrawal of heavy weaponry to create a buffer zone, the release of prisoners and steps toward new elections. Months of devastating fighting has left nearly 5,700 people dead as of February 18, the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights reported Friday. More than 1 million people have been displaced. On Friday, Ukraine marked one year since the bloodiest day of protests in Kiev’s Maidan, or Independence Square, against the country’s then Russian-leaning leader and in favor of closer ties to Europe. Related video One year since violent day on Kiev's Maidan Square Some 49 people died on February 20, 2014, and close to 100 more suffered gunshot wounds when, according to protesters, government snipers opened fire on them. Two days later, President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country, prompting Ukrainian activists to declare “victory in the Maidan” and promise a new day for a country long torn between its neighbors, Europe to the west and Russia to the east. Related video Day of remembrance, reflection in Ukraine How things have changed. Today, the country is a powder keg driving spiraling tensions between the West and Moscow. In Moscow, thousands of Kremlin supporters gathered Saturday for a demonstration to counter the Ukrainian commemorations. Related video Thousands mark Maidan crackdown anniversary Many waved flags and banners as they marched near Moscow’s Red Square, while others chanted slogans including, “We won’t give our country to the enemy” and “No Maidan in Russia.” In remarks Friday, Poroshenko claimed Russia had been working toward the breakup of Ukraine since before Yanukovych was ousted. “Moscow was preparing to the liquidation and tearing Ukraine apart long before the victory of Maidan. They were expecting the fall of Yanukovych and accelerated the course of events,” Poroshenko said to the families of protesters who died a year ago. According to Ukrainian prosecutors, 77 people died in total during the 2014 protests, which were sparked by Yanukovych’s decision to scrap a trade deal with the European Union and instead turn toward Russia. The ensuing ouster of Yanukovych triggered more turbulence and violence. By March, Russia had annexed Crimea. Weeks later, in April, pro-Russian separatist forces launched their bid to carve off the more Russian-leaning eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions from the rest of Ukraine. In a speech to a London-based defense think-tank, the Royal United Services Institute, Britain’s senior officer in NATO warned that Russia’s expansionist ambitions could pose an “existential threat” to the world. Related video Gen. Clark: Advantages to leaking plan to attack ISIS Russia is currently employing a “hybrid combination” of “coercion through rapidly generated conventional forces and subversion, through a number of means, both military and non-military,” said Gen. Adrian Bradshaw, NATO’s Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe. This hybrid strategy can be used to set the scene for a “subversive takeover of territory,” as seen in its takeover of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula last year shortly after large-scale military exercises by Russia on its side of the border, he said. “We are today seeing conventional forces employed, albeit subject to continued brazen denials by the Kremlin, in eastern Ukraine,” he added. Russia’s new strategy holds particular dangers for NATO, he said. Firstly, the use of subversive tactics initially makes it difficult to identify clearly “the hand of a hostile state government” in destabilization of a country, making collective decisions harder. Secondly, its ability rapidly to generate large scale forces “could in future be used not only for intimidation and coercion but potentially to seize NATO territory, after which the threat of escalation might be used to prevent reestablishment of territorial integrity,” he said. And, Bradshaw pointed out,  Russia is not the only threat to NATO states, citing also the danger posed by terror groups such as ISIS, also known as ISIL. “Whilst the threat from Russia, together with the risk it brings of a miscalculation resulting in a slide into strategic conflict, however unlikely we see that as being right now, represents an obvious existential threat to our whole being, we of course face threats from ISIL and other instabilities to our way of life and the security of our loved ones.” CNN’s Nick Paton Walsh in Donetsk, Frederik Pleitgen in Kiev and Erin McLaughlin in Moscow contributed to this report. CNN’s Michael Pearson and Ben Brumfield, and journalist Victoria Butenko also contributed.


Trump's unilateral moves reflect the President's desire to quickly make good on his campaign promises But they also encapsulate the pitfalls of an administration largely operated by officials with scant federal experience The White House overruled DHS regarding allowing green card holders to enter the country When President Donald Trump declared at the Pentagon Friday he was enacting strict new measures to prevent domestic terror attacks, there were few within his government who knew exactly what he meant. Administration officials weren’t immediately sure which countries’ citizens would be barred from entering the United States. The Department of Homeland Security was left making a legal analysis on the order after Trump signed it. A Border Patrol agent, confronted with arriving refugees, referred questions only to the President himself, according to court filings. IranIraqSyriaSudanLibyaYemenSomalia IranIraqSyriaSudanLibyaYemenSomalia Saturday night, a federal judge granted an emergency stay for citizens of the affected countries who had already arrived in the US and those who are in transit and hold valid visas, ruling they can legally enter the US. Trump’s unilateral moves, which have drawn the ire of human rights groups and prompted protests at US airports, reflect the President’s desire to quickly make good on his campaign promises. But they also encapsulate the pitfalls of an administration largely operated by officials with scant federal experience. Related article More protests against Trump's immigration policies planned It wasn’t until Friday – the day Trump signed the order banning travel from seven Muslim-majority countries for 90 days and suspending all refugee admission for 120 days – that career homeland security staff were allowed to see the final details of the order, a person familiar with the matter said. The result was widespread confusion across the country on Saturday as airports struggled to adjust to the new directives. In New York, two Iraqi nationals sued the federal government after they were detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport, and 10 others were detained as well. 134 million banned from USWhat the ban says: The full textWhat to know about the restrictionsLegal battle beginsThe ban’s Christian focusA family’s plight just got more complicatedBergen: Trump’s big mistake All of Trump’s executive orders, memos and proclamationsComparing Trump to previous presidents 134 million banned from USWhat the ban says: The full textWhat to know about the restrictionsLegal battle beginsThe ban’s Christian focusA family’s plight just got more complicatedBergen: Trump’s big mistake All of Trump’s executive orders, memos and proclamationsComparing Trump to previous presidents In Philadelphia, a Syrian family of six who had a visa through a family connection in the US was placed on a return flight to Doha, Qatar, and Department of Homeland Security officials said others who were in the air would be detained upon arrival and put back on a plane to their home country. Asked during a photo opportunity in the Oval Office Saturday afternoon about the rollout, Trump said his government was “totally prepared.” “It’s working out very nicely,” Trump told reporters. “You see it at the airports. You see it all over. It’s working out very nicely and we’re going to have a very, very strict ban, and we’re going to have extreme vetting, which we should have had in this country for many years.” Related article Trump's immigration ban sends shockwaves The policy team at the White House developed the executive order on refugees and visas, and largely avoided the traditional interagency process that would have allowed the Justice Department and homeland security agencies to provide operational guidance, according to numerous officials who spoke to CNN on Saturday. Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Department of Homeland Security leadership saw the final details shortly before the order was finalized, government officials said. Friday night, DHS arrived at the legal interpretation that the executive order restrictions applying to seven countries – Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan and Yemen – did not apply to people with lawful permanent residence, generally referred to as green card holders. Related video Travel ban affects citizens of 7 Muslim-majority nations The White House overruled that guidance overnight, according to officials familiar with the rollout. That order came from the President’s inner circle, led by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon. Their decision held that, on a case by case basis, DHS could allow green card holders to enter the US. There had been some debate whether green card holders should be even allowed to board international flights. It was decided by the Department of Homeland Security they could fly to the US and would be considered on a case-by-case basis after passing a secondary screening. But the guidance sent to airlines on Friday night, obtained by CNN, said clearly, “lawful permanent residents are not included and may continue to travel to the USA.” Related video Iran says it will ban US citizens As of Saturday afternoon, Customs and Border Protection continued to issue the same guidance to airlines as it did Friday, telling airlines that fly to the US that green card holders can board planes to the US but they may get extra scrutiny on arrival, according to an airline official. Before the President issued the order, the White House did not seek the legal guidance of the Office of Legal Counsel, the Justice Department office that interprets the law for the executive branch, according to a source familiar with the process. White House officials disputed that Sunday morning, saying that OLC signed off and agency review was performed. A source said the creation of the executive order did not follow the standard agency review process that’s typically overseen by the National Security Council. Related video Trump: Travel ban working out very nicely Separately, a person familiar with the matter said career officials in charge of enforcing the executive order were not fully briefed on the specifics until Friday. The officials were caught off guard by some of the specifics and raised questions about how to handle the new banned passengers on US-bound planes. Regarding the green card holders and some of the confusion about whether they were impacted, the person familiar with the matter said if career officials had known more about the executive order earlier, some of the confusion could have been avoided and a better plan could be in place. Administration officials also defended the process Saturday. They said the people who needed to be briefed ahead of time on the plane were briefed and that people at the State Department and DHS who were involved in the process were able to make decisions about who to talk and inform about this. All of Trump’s executive orders, memos and proclamationsWill the orders and actions stick?How Trump’s actions stack up against previous presidentsWhat Trump can and cannot doWhat’s the difference between and order and action? All of Trump’s executive orders, memos and proclamationsWill the orders and actions stick?How Trump’s actions stack up against previous presidentsWhat Trump can and cannot doWhat’s the difference between and order and action? Bannon and Miller were running point on this order and giving directives regarding green cards, according to a Republican close to the White House. But even after the Friday afternoon announcement, administration officials at the White House took several hours to produce text of the action until several hours after it was signed. Adviser Kellyanne Conway even said at one point it was not going to be released before eventually it did get sent out. Administration officials also seemed unsure at first who was covered in the action, and a list of impacted countries was only produced later on Friday night, hours after the President signed the document at the Pentagon. This story has been updated to include the White House’s response on the issue of Justice Department review. CNN’s Rene Marsh and Athena Jones contributed to this report.