One Morning In The Office Take 5

One Morning In The Office

@realdonaldtrump

"Vlad?"
"Don! How are you? Sacked any more Directors yet?"
"Give me time."
"I've told you time is of the essence don't give them time to think,
change continuously."
"I know, I know... Is that why you sent me the guide?"
"Yes I've updated from last year Kim Sung made some amendments."
"I admire him for one so young."
"He had good training, like Assad, you really should meet up."
"I can't with Assad I just bombed his base."
"I know still nothing damaged and you did warn us first so
I could tell him."
"Shhhh the FBI may be listening?"
"So what you have dealt with them now."
"No, not quite the temporary one is being nasty about me in congress
implying I was wrong."
"Then fire him too, or really terminate - its what the rest of us do."
"That reminds me, on page two of the guide it says
I should assassinate some journalists after I have removed the heads
of police."
"Yes you need to adapt for your own terminology but get rid
of a few journo's and the rest come into line."
"I noticed and Erdogan recommended the same."
"He's following the same programme, we'll soon have it all sorted."
"Shame about Marie."
"Yes and after the Dutch fiasco."
"The hack was too late."
"I've had the head of the team shot for the timing."
"If only I had your control."
"Back to the FBI, send them in armed and have accidental
shooting with terrorism connections always works.
Schools, cinemas, underground stations, all works and adds up."
"I know you are right. What's next on the agenda."
"Germany."
"Is she the short fat one?"
"Yes, but don't worry about her we still have the Stasi files."
"What did she do?"
"Nothing you have to worry about Don. Not as bad as the hotel..."
"You said you would not mention those again."
"Ha Ha just winding you up old friend. Xi says Hi by the way."
"I owe him a call need to coordinate message when
Kim does his next test."
"Will it fail?"
"We have not agreed yet. Now South Korea is coming on line
maybe we should postpone."
"No don't do that we need to keep the tension up.
I wish Kim had agreed to that limited strike idea."
"He needs to learn from Assad too.
Got to keep some world opinion on side."
"You are too soft Don, I'll get Ivanka to give you a rub down."
"Will she?"
"Anything for you Don you know that but
ease off on Twitter it makes you look silly."
"OK Vlad and thanks for the guide."

One Morning In The Office Take 4

One Morning In The Office

@realdonaldtrump

"Morning Mr. President"
"Morning Sean"
"Here's the list Rex sent"
"What list?"
"The one you asked for with the countries you haven't insulted or accused yet."
"But there's only one sheet of paper and there's only two countries listed that's if Burkina Faso is a country?"
"I'm told it is Sir."
"Who by?"
"The State Department."
"And you believed them, you sure their not making it up?"
"I checked with Andrew Napolitano at Fox, he say's he's heard of it. South America he thinks."
"We didn't campaign there."
"No Mr. President, South America the continent not south of the USA even though it is, south of the USA I mean."
"Are you trying to hoodwink me?"
"No Sir, I do need to check because I thought it was in Africa."
"You mean we don't know where the country is, what sort of state did Obama let this country get into.
Find it out immediately we can't just lose the location of a country!"
"I don't think it's moved at all."
"Why not? It can move if I want it too. I'm President, Vlad moves bits of countries all the time."
"He does not move them Sir he just annexes bits of territory. In Georgia and the Ukraine."
"He can't have Georgia we have the Masters there."
"The nation Sir not the US State."
"There's a difference?"
"Sir?"
"Never mind, so what do we do with this Faso?"
"We can accuse them of harbouring a GCHQ listening post that was used to bug Trump Tower, maybe expel some diplomats."
"Sounds good, get to it."
"I can't I mean we can't Sir."
"Why not?"
"We promised the Brits we would not mention GCHQ again or accuse them of spying on you, you told Theresa May you would not nor the NSA."
"Remind me, is Theresa the one I met this week the short dumpy one who spoke a foreign language?"
"No Sir, that was Angela Merkel the German Chancellor, she wanted to hold your hand like Theresa did."
"But she was foreign and somehow she got in the country despite my Immigration order."
"Germany is not on the order Sir."
"But she is foreign?"
"Most people are Sir."
"Not Americans."
"We best not get into that."
"Now Sir I have your daily security briefing, do you want the one from the NSA or your usual one from Fox News."
"Can't believe the NSA one its all fake news and tell them I'm upset by them failing to confirm Andrew's story."
"I have Sir."
"Good, I'll look at it after Sesame Street, who is left on the list? What's the USSR?"
"Oh that's just Vlad, he suggested he bring back the old name, a traditional branding opportunity his marketing folk have said."
"Clever, I like it so we don't have to insult the USSR."
"No Sir, we do not Russia but the USSR that justifies us increasing defence spending."
"BUt if the USSR doesn't exist we're insulting no one?"
"Exactly Sir."
"How are we gonna pay for it all, I mean we don't get enough in tax."
"No Sir some people have not paid tax in decades."
"It's the American way Sean, I'm not stupid."
"No Sir, very clever. I may have a way out."
"What?"
"Well according to the State Department Briefing Burkina Faso get some US Aid, we can withdraw it."
"Great and we have an excuse as they have been spying on us, we can call it unnamed agencies used the
place to coordinate spying activity. That won't upset the Angela."
"That's Theresa and very good Sir."
"What can we spend the money on instead."
"A missile."
"How many?"
"Just one Sir a Hellfire I think. we only gave them a couple of million last year."
"Too much, I paid more than that in tax."
"No you didn't Sir."
"That's because I'm clever."
"Yes you are Sir."

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/17/white-house-will-not-be-repeat-claims-gchq-spied-trump-

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2017/mar/17/donald-trump-angela-merkel-no-handshake-video

http://us-foreign-aid.insidegov.com/q/26/1590/How-much-money-does-the-U-S-give-to-Burkina-Faso

The Demise Trilogy

Out today on Kindle

Demise Trilogy Cover

The Complete Demise Trilogy
This is a complex thriller based on the lead up to and aftermath of the second Iraq war. A conspiracy to cover up the associated activities of parts of the intelligence services. Now available as a complete trilogy.

An Agent’s Demise
Intelligence analysts and agents have gone missing, some may have been killed. The press and the police suspect there is a serial killer on the loose. John Slater was near the latest victim, he is evasive, appears to have no history, and he might be the killer. The second Iraq war and the intelligence network may link the victims and so The Metropolitan Police’s Special Branch investigates, with the help or hindrance of the Intelligence Agencies. The mistakes made in creating the dossiers used to support going to war are supposed to stay buried on both sides of the Atlantic, but still a killer strikes and is everybody telling the truth?

An Agent’s Rise
The Demise operation was shut down the killer allowed to disappear. But the conspirators have not all been caught and the efforts of MI6 and the CIA to cover up the dirty deeds of the security services only results in more deaths and destruction. Slater returns to tidy up, but how can he reconcile his new life with what he is asked to do?

What happens to Jess and Michael? Will the newly promoted Detective Chief Inspector Hooper really allow the suspected killer to go free?

Can the authorities continue to cover up the plot to alter the Iraqi Dossiers on both sides of the Atlantic?

Can the killer stop killing?

An Agent’s Prize
The conspiracy is over, the mistakes and cover up are hidden and buried for good. Both sides of the Atlantic can concentrate on the threats from Islamic Terrorism. That is what they all hope. They want to enlist a hidden black asset in the chase, but there are risks to that approach.

Meanwhile the FBI is still investigating what really happened. Is the conspiracy really over?

Al Qaeda plan new atrocities and MI6 with Homeland Security will try to stop them.

The newlywed Michael Johnson can help but his wife is still recovering from her injuries and she is suspicious of her husband and the authorities. From the streets of San Francisco to the suburban towns of England the terrorists are plotting an outrage.

An Agent’s Prize

Available for Pre-Order – The sequel to An Agent’s Rise and the climax and conclusion of the Demise Series which started with An Agent’s Demise

The conspiracy is over, the mistakes and cover up are hidden and buried for good. Both sides of the Atlantic can concentrate on the threats from Islamic Terrorism. That is what they all hope. They want to enlist a hidden black asset in the chase, but there are risks to that approach.

Meanwhile, the FBI is still investigating what really happened. Is the conspiracy really over?

Al Qaeda plan new atrocities and MI6 with Homeland Security will try to stop them.

The newly-wed Michael Johnson can help but his wife is still recovering from her injuries and she is suspicious of her husband and the authorities. From the streets of San Francisco to the suburban towns of England the terrorists are plotting an outrage.

Cover Plain

The book is also available from Amazon,  UK, USA, Canada, Australia and in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, and selected other Amazon sites.

In, Out or Shake It All About

I did not think I would return so quickly to the UK’s in out referendum as a blog topic but here I am. Once again I am heartily sick of this misinformation that is allowed to run across our media outlets without proper questioning.

This week much has been made of the legal status of the agreement with the Council of Europe and whether it is binding. Bottom line on this, in my view, is that the agreement is binding in intent but only becomes formalised after treaty change. As I explained in my previous post, this will require referendums in several other countries. If rejected by the constitutional process in those countries then what?

There continues to be a lack of clarity on many areas of our relationship with the EU regardless of the agreement negotiated. The in/out decision is really about this for most out campaigners. Regardless of the renegotiation details which appear almost to be a side show. I’ll focus on three elements Finance, Security, Rights and Trade.

Finance

The UK’s is the 4th largest contributor but the 2nd largest net contributor behind Germany. This net contribution is effectively a membership fee and that contribution is used by the EU organisations to subsidise and support other EU nations of which Poland, in 2013, was the largest recipient. In other words it is overseas aid for the EU.   This fee in 2015 was £9 billion based on £18b contribution, £5b rebate (Mrs T) and £4b in farming via Common Agricultural. As a comparison the UK currently pays £43b per year in interest on its National debt of £1.6 Trillion.

The UK is the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world depending on which source you site. G7 membership, G20 membership IMF etc are not dependent on EU membership.

Security

The In campaigners claim we are safer inside the EU. The Out disagree.  So facts:

Under Article 51 of the UN charter all nation states have the right to self defence. The UK is a permanent member of the UN Security Council – one of five. Under Article 51 NATO operates its collective defence policy of an attack against one is an attack against all. NATO is the same size as the EU in terms of members, but they do not align. Several EU countries are Neutral (Austria, Finland and Sweden. You can add Ireland based on non-belligerency) therefore they cannot help with that type of security. Of course the USA and Canada are not in the EU but help with security. In/Out this does not change.

Security has other forms. The UK is one of the so-called 5-eyes which share intelligence information this is (CIA, MI5, MI6 , NSA, GCHQ etc with Australia, New Zealand ,Canada and the USA).  No other member of the EU is; therefore, there is intelligence information that the UK does not share with those countries. There are separate agreements with some countries (France, Germany, Netherlands etc) and NATO shares some. So much for the contribution to the EU security.

Europol is put forward as  a good example of EU security. Norway is mentioned as European, non-EU member that shares information. What is Europol? It has 800 members of staff of which 145 are liaison officers from member police forces. Under 5-eyes MI5 which along with the Met Police has Counter-Terrorism responsibilities, can’t share info with Europol. In fact much activity in 5-eyes is spent spying on our EU partners. Mrs Merkel’s phone for example. Do we really believe that Europol cooperation would stop if the UK left, or would a Norway arrangement be made. Then there is Interpol which is in 190 countries with many of the same aims as Europol. We would still be a member of that.

Rights

We are protected by the UN, Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. Both predate and are separate from the EU. The European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution, nor is the War Crimes unit nor the International Court. The EU does have the CJEU or the European Court of Justice which arbitrates on EU law i.e. the rights and wrongs under the treaty. This was the argument on legality disputed by the two sides this week. In effect they are both right. The CJEU could over turn but it has never done so so it will not or might not but could.

Some rights I believe the EU has done a much better job on then the UK authorities. Data protection is one are where the UK’s Information Commissioner has been an abject failure primarily due to the powers granted to the ICO. The EU has been much stronger striking down the pathetic Safe Harbor agreement with the USA as offering no protection. Whether the UK alone would stand up to the USA in these matters is doubtful, given 5-eyes its unlikely. This might mean that in event of an exit the EU may not be able to exchange data with the UK. That will be a major impediment to trade so would need to be addressed. In this case EU protection offers more than just UK.

Trade

Following the letter from several major companies promoting stay in the airwaves and print were full of disagreements on what exit might mean. I return to World Trade Organisation, G7, G20 and other agreements. Based on import export the EU needs us in a free trade area more than we need them especially as the EFTA agreements have not fully supported the trade in services.  BMW and Audi will not want to lose access to the market. Any hint of trade tariffs or protectionism would just escalate on both sides. The actions of the Eurozone will make this more and more difficult for those members

In or Out

I still don’t know but I want to see much stronger reasons for staying in then I have seen so far. The new agreement does not change that as I cannot see anything fundamental changing. Removing ever closer union from a treaty (if approved) means nothing when the Eurozone is doing just that and has to do that to make the Euro work.

 

Spying and Oversight

As a relatively new author, I watched with interest the appearance of the UK’s Spy Chiefs in front of the Parliamentary Committee that is established to hold them to account. My first book published – An Agent’s Demise – had as a backdrop how the Iraqi Dossier might have been manipulated to lead the politicians to decide to go to war. I have started a sequel – An Agent’s Rise and I have another story underway another thriller about revolution. These tales are all triggered by a keen interest in what the spies might get up to, but just as importantly what the politicians and the spy’s bosses know. Plausible deniability is often used to cover tracks both by spies, their managers and the politicians.

The revelations from Edward Snowden a former American computer specialist who apparently worked as a CIA employee and NSA contractor, provided information to the press, some of which has been published, about classified operations by the USA, Israel, and the UK security services. From what little we know these mass surveillance operations have added to some of our knowledge as to what happens, but has concentrated on the technicalities of the programmes rather than what is done with the information.

The appearance of the UK’s spy chiefs in front of the Committee is a regular occurrence but this was the first with all three chiefs (Security Service, Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ) in public. You can watch the proceedings from the BBC here. Not mentioned but notable by his absence was the Chief of Defence Intelligence (DI) who’s task is to act as “the main provider of strategic defence intelligence to the department (Ministry of Defence) and the Armed Forces.” Apparently the actual strategic defence of the UK is not as important so his attendance at the committee was not called for. Fighting the terrorist war on the ground in Afghanistan is a military operation which GCHQ supports, when their resources are not diverted by the NSA to help monitor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone in the interests of commercial advantage National Security.

So what did we learn from the evidence? Very little; the media made a big deal of the admission by the head of GCHQ that monitored terrorist groups had been observed/heard/monitored discussing how to change their methods of communication in the light of Snowden’s published revelations. If GCHQ bothered to notice the discussion about Internet security has been a constant trend on technical forums for at least 15 years, where methods of encryption, monitoring, obfuscation and a whole host of techniques have been freely discussed. If the UK’s enemies (terrorist or other) were not aware of the techniques then they are either more stupid than we think or perhaps it was a good line to feed the media. Admitting that we have overheard such a discussion is also telling them exactly what Snowden told them, so Sir Iain Lobban (Head of GCHQ) haven’t you just given away that little secret, perhaps your passport should be removed.

There have been some very clever uses of words in the USA and UK to describe the activities like PRSIM and why they are considered legal, under political scrutiny. Effectively the NSA can trawl the data on UK citizens given to it by GCHQ without a warrant and GCHQ can trawl the USA data given to it by NSA without a warrant. Both agencies may legally spy on foreigners without warrants. There is not a handover of a database. It’s the same systems in use just different access permissions. Both agencies can then report to their oversight representatives that they are operating within the law.

Then we have the testimony, not under oath by the way, that multiple terrorist operations have been prevented in the last few years. In Parliament the Head of the Secret Service said 34 operations had been disrupted but provided no evidence for this statement. In the USA General Alexander, head of the NSA, accompanied by the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, stated in testimony to Congress that 54 operations had been prevented since 9th September 2011, again no details provided. He did admit that the use of the surveillance systems had not necessarily contributed to any of these operations.

So what do we know, in the UK there were the attacks of 7th July 2005. Several of the suicide bombers and their wider circle were known to the authorities – result 52 dead over 700 injured. That was four years after 9/11 and that attack was after Embassy bombings and attacks around the globe. This was followed by failed attacks two weeks later when the security authorities managed to kill an innocent Brazilian on a tube train after he had got on that tube train. I won’t list all the attacks Wikipedia has a comprehensive list, but please note the IRA ones over 30 years and yet Al-Qa’eda are considered a bigger threat?  The former head of the Metropolitan Police, Sir Ian Blair, stated in December 2006 that

Al-Qa’eda poses a greater threat to civilian life than the Nazis did during the Second World War.

Sir Ian had clearly never researched The Blitz, which killed over 40,000 civilians in one 57-day period from September 1940. He may have been exaggerating a little but is this the mind set, or just a bad history education?

So returning to Parliament and the serious damage that Snowden is alleged to have done. It has been quoted that Snowden’s leaks are the greatest threat to UK Intelligence operations. Like Sir Ian Blair methinks they doth protest too much. They clearly have forgotten or would like us to forget about Blunt, Philby, McClean, Burgess, possibly Cairncross, often reffered to as The Cambridge Four/Five or how about the Profumo scandal when the then Minister of State for War (now the MoD) John Profumo shared a mistress with the Soviet Naval Attaché. Before our American friends get all clever about the British problem what about the Rosenburgs or John Walker.

According to reports Snowden shared access to the information he attained with nearly 1 million others, clearly this secret is not quite as secret as some might think. The fact he could leave the high security office with all this data is the security scandal and out security chiefs on both sides of the Atlantic seem hell bent on avoiding how Snowden got the information instead concentrating, as ever, on the messenger. Snowden did not hand the information to Al-Qa’eda, he may have been in China and now Russia but the security services have failed to demonstrate that the information is in the hands of the Russian or Chinese intelligence services. Stopping the partner of the journalist who was allegedly carrying a written down password to a USB stick does not mean that the stick has been accessed; in fact we are then told that the security services were unable to access the data or were they? So why mention the password at all, maybe it was his bank PIN? Maybe the current court case investigating his detention at Heathrow airport on suspicion of terrorism might shed some light?

As a would be author I have so many possible plot lines for a fictional story left by this mess I don’t know where to start. How much of the story and information that is in the public eye is disinformation or real, is impossible to guess. From what I have seen of our democratic institutions their lack of oversight, technological knowledge, and willingness to believe what the spy chiefs tell them, is not encouraging. After all Sir Malcolm Rifkind the head of the Parliamentary Committee former Foreign Secretary (responsible for the Secret Intelligence Service) has never explained why he claimed expenses for constituency flights to Scotland when his constituency is in London, all within the rules, all submitted with proper Government oversight. He was by no means the worst of the MP expenses scandal but… I haven’t commented on the lack of questions about torture, extraordinary rendition, or any of the other things that maybe we should know about being done in our name, after all the hounding of one, perhaps misguided, whistle-blower is so much better TV than asking a proper question or getting a proper answer.