Fukushima -- A Global Threat

‘                                       

 By Reginald Johnson

  This week, an event will take place at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan that could have grave consequences for the health and well-being of hundreds of millions of people around the world.

  Engineers from the Tokyo Electric Power Corporation, which owns the plant, will attempt to remove more than 1500 highly-radioactive spent fuel rods from a damaged containment building at the plant’s reactor number 4. It is critical to remove the rods and put them in a safe building, given the possibility that another earthquake could strike the area of the plant and bring the existing building down, which could lead to a massive explosion and fire, setting off waves of lethal radiation.

  A powerful earthquake and tsunami already struck the plant in March 2011, creating widespread damage to the complex.

  The problem is that a number of nuclear experts and observers are skeptical of TEPCO’s technical capabilities to perform the removal operation safely. Many of the rods at the reactor 4 building are bent and in a brittle condition, and there is doubt that the company  on its own will be able to extract each one (they’ll be using a 273-foot crane for the operation) without one or several rods breaking. The rods could explode or catch on fire, setting off large doses of radiation, depending on how many rods are involved.

  The amount of radioactivity in the fuel rods at unit 4 is staggering. According to long-time anti-nuclear activist Harvey Wasserman, the amount of cesium 137 in the fuel rods in reactor 4 is equal to 14,000 times the amount released by the dropping of the atomic bomb at Hiroshima.

  Making the situation even more worrisome is that another 6,000 spent fuel rods sit in a cooling pool only 50 meters away from reactor 4. Should those rods somehow get involved during an accident, the consequences are unthinkable, say Wasserman and others.

 “The potential radiation releases in this situation can only be described as apocalyptic,” Wasserman commented in an article in Common Dreams on October 24 (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/24-3).

 Despite the difficulty of the task and the dangers involved, TEPCO is planning on going ahead with the removal operation sometime later this week. The Japanese government has reportedly raised no objections to the plan

  But Wasserman and others, such as nuclear engineer and activist Arnie Gundersen, are trying desperately to get the UN and leading countries like the U.S. to intervene and not allow the operation to go ahead until a team of the world’s best nuclear engineers are assembled and sent to Japan to assist in this project.

  “The bring-down of the fuel rods from Fukushima Unit 4 may be the most dangerous engineering task ever undertaken. Every indication is that TEPCO is completely incapable of doing it safely, or of reliably informing the global community as to what’s actually happening,” said Wasserman. “This is a job that should only be undertaken by a dedicated team of the world’s very best scientists and engineers, with access to all the funding that could be needed.”

  On Thursday, activists will go to UN headquarters in New York City to present a petition with the names of more than 100,000 people asking UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon to initiate a global takeover of the Fukushima operation. Prior to the presentation, people will gather at 1 p.m. at Dag Hammerskjold Plaza outside the UN.

  (Just as this blog was being written, TEPCO reportedly announced on its website that U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz had met with company officials about Fukushima and offered Washington’s assistance in the fuel rod removal operation and decommissioning of the plant. The nature of the assistance was not described.)

 It is urgently important that the UN get involved in the Fukushima crisis, as this clearly has world-wide implications. A massive release of radiation into the air, in the event of an accident, affects not only Japan, but everywhere --- just as radiation from the Chernobyl nuclear accident in the Ukraine in 1986 spread around the world. By all estimates, there is real danger of a radiation accident far worse than Chernobyl taking place at Fukushima.

 The problems at Fukushima’s unit 4 are by no means the only serious issues at the plant. Some reactors at other units have apparently sunk into the earth, due to the earthquake, posing incalculable health and environmental dangers. Hundreds of tons of water contaminated with radioactive elements, are continuing to leak into the Pacific Ocean, affecting fish and seafood. Bluefin tuna caught off the coast of California have been found to contain radioactive elements, most likely picked up when the migratory fish were in waters close to Japan.

   To Wasserman, the situation at Fukushima is beyond dire.  “This is a question that transcends being anti-nuclear. The fate of the earth is at stake here and the whole world must be watching every move at that site from now on. With 11,000 fuel rods scattered around the place, as a ceaseless flow of contaminated water poisons our oceans, our very survival is at stake.”

 

 

Impeach Obama

By Reginald Johnson

    

   As the United States edges closer to war with Syria, one thing is clear --- President Barack Obama should be impeached.

     Like his predecessor, George Bush, Obama has no regard for international law or the United Nations. He also puts very little value in the views of the American people or their elected representatives in Congress.

   The oath that every new president takes upon entering office states that he will “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

    In planning an attack on Syria, carrying out the intervention in Libya two years ago and bombing Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia with drone strikes, Obama has violated the norms of international law, which put strict limitations on when it is permissible to attack another nation. These rules are spelled out in treaties and convenants, all or which have been signed onto by the United States and incorporated into our law.

   At home, he pushed for the passage of a repressive law contained in Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act, which allows the military to arbitrarily arrest and indefinitely detain anyone in the United States they deem to be terrorists or their associates.

  The NDAA seriously undermines rights guaranteed in the First and Sixth Amendments and in the habeas corpus provision of the Constitution. Critics believe the wording of the statute may open the door to the disappearing of activists and dissidents.

  Obama’s administration has waged a relentless campaign to stifle the free flow of information about government activity by prosecuting whistleblowers and hounding reporters. Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, who released classified information to expose U.S. war crimes, was brought up on charges, tried and sent to jail for 35 years. Computer specialist Edward Snowden, who also released secret documents to reveal a massive and secret system of phone wiretapping and Internet monitoring on millions of Americans by the National Security Agency, is being sought for arrest and is now living in exile.

  Reporters from the Associated Press have had their phones tapped.  James Risen, a New York Times investigative reporter and author, has been ordered to testify in a case involving a CIA analyst who gave him classified information about the agency’s role in disrupting Iran’s nuclear program.

   The government actions in these cases undermine the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

   Snowden’s revelations further show how the U.S. has become a surveillance state under the Obama administration, with the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of the right to privacy and protection against warrantless searches rendered almost a dead letter.

  In the case of Syria, the administration is planning to launch a military attack while disregarding the two requirements that must be met before a country can wage war.  The conditions are these: a nation must be acting in self-defense after it has been attacked, or that nation must get authorization for military action from the Security Council of the United Nations.

  If the attack on Syria takes place,  America will be totally flaunting international law as outlined in the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles, passed after World War II.

   The same kind of violations of law took place two years ago with Libya. The U.S. took part in an air invasion of that country, with a relentless bombing campaign that killed thousands of both military personnel and civilians. The Obama administration dubbed this campaign a “humanitarian intervention” aimed at removing the admittedly despotic Libyan leader, Mohamar Gaddafi. But Libya, a sovereign nation, had not attacked the United States. Further, the administration had no war authorization from Congress, as required by the Constitution, and no full approval from the UN to take part in this attack.

   With Syria, Obama is now seeking congressional approval for a bombing campaign aimed at punishing the Syrian government for the alleged use of chemical weapons. The administration claims that government forces killed over 1400 civilians in an August attack on rebels fighting in a civil war.

  But neither Obama nor Secretary of State John Kerry, who is testifying at congressional hearings, have pledged the U.S. will drop plans for military action if Congress fails to pass a war resolution.

  And again, Obama is making no moves to get UN approval for an intervention.

Prof. Francis Boyle, who teaches law at the University of Illinois College of Law, believes the U.S. has broken the rules of international law on numerous occasions under Obama. He believes it is imperative that the president be impeached immediately.

  “We need to fight back,” he said during an interview with Scott Harris on the show “Counterpoint” on WPKN radio. “He’s made it clear he’ll attack, no matter what Congress does.”

  Boyle thinks the Syrian situation is fraught with danger given the alliances involved --- Russia, China and Iran with Syria, the U.S., Israel, Turkey and Saudi Arabia with the Syrian rebels.

  “We have very little time to head off a regional catastrophe,” he said.

 Boyle, the author of numerous books, said an impeachment drive is the one thing that will make Obama stop and hold off on military action.

  The law scholar also maintained, as do many, that the claims that the Syrian government engaged in a chemical weapons attack --- only days after a UN team arrived to investigate previous claims of poison gas use --- are phony.

  “This is nothing more than a pretext,” he said.

   Boyle didn’t get into the prospects for actually gaining a successful impeachment vote. So far, only Republicans, particularly tea party Republicans, have talked of impeachment, citing things of doubtful merit like the alleged mishandling of the Benghazi embassy attack or administration misuse of the IRS. But there’s also been talk of two areas that do have merit --- the illegality of drone strikes and the unconstitutional surveillance by the NSA.

  I don’t know of any liberal or progressive groups, except for Veterans for Peace, who have advocated impeachment.

  It’s time to start talking about this. This administration has done too much to undermine domestic and international law and our Constitution to not talk about it.

    There has to be a break on an executive branch which is constantly getting this nation involved in illegal and costly wars abroad and at the same time restricting constitutionally-guaranteed civil liberties at home. 

skip to main | skip to sidebar

America Attacks, Again

 

                                 

 By Reginald Johnson

    Some years ago, I attended a rally and one of the chants went like this:

   “America attacks, the people fight back!”  “America attacks, the people fight back!”

 I thought of this chant yesterday, as news poured in that the United States was planning to launch a bombing strike against Syria in response to that nation’s alleged use of chemical weapons against insurgents in a civil war.

 Here we are again, on the precipice of yet another invasion into, incursion of, missile strike against, bombing campaign of, bludgeoning of, another country. Some other country has gone too far, someone is threatening someone else, someone has done something wrong, and we, the land of the pure and the righteous, have to set things straight. Others can’t do it, we have to do it.

  As former President George W. Bush might say, we have to smite the evil doers.

 So it is with Syria. That nation has, in the words of our current President Barack Obama, “crossed a  red line.”   There’s been a chemical weapons attack in the country, and the administration is maintaining it was perpetrated by the Syrian government. Hundreds have been killed. Syria has committed, in the words of our Secretary of State and former war protester John Kerry, a “moral obscenity.” It is an act, Kerry said, that demands a response.

  It is an absolute certainty, furthermore, according to Kerry and others, that forces loyal to Bashar Al-Assad, the Syrian leader, carried out this attack and not anyone else.  We know it for sure, because our “intelligence services” say so. Yes, we know the UN is investigating to get confirmation about the attack and who did it,  but we already know, they say.

  And just like with Iraq 10 years ago and the question of whether that nation had weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. is apparently not going to wait for the results of the UN investigation. No need to. We know. We’re going to send cruise missiles into Syria to hit “selected targets” and punish Syria.

 And hundreds, if not thousands, will die. Human beings, blown to bits in a massive carnage. Homes ruined, factories leveled, infrastructure destroyed. Of those who survive, many will be left with life-long, debilitating injuries.

   According to MSNBC commentator Chris Matthews, the bombing could come as early as Thursday.

   Just like ten years ago, no one in the press or in Congress seems particularly upset. It’s just kind of assumed that Assad is this really bad guy, and of course he’s used chemical weapons on his people. Reports of previous poison gas attacks by rebel forces are brushed away. Not many people are asking probing questions about what’s going on, and what American objectives really are with the planned attack.

  A few people in Congress are standing up and demanding answers, and insisting that Congress must give approval for the bombing. But this principled group is far from a majority. That’s very sad.

The fact is that Obama does have to get congressional approval before launching this intervention. The Constitution is clear: Congress must approve any move by this nation to engage in war. Dropping bombs on another country is surely an act of war.

 If Obama goes ahead without approval from Congress, he’s breaking the law and violating his constitutional oath of office. This is an impeachable offense.

  He and this nation will also be violating international law. The law is clear. One nation cannot just willy nilly strike another nation militarily because it wants to. They have to be acting in self-defense or get Security Council authorization to launch an attack. The U.S. right now would not be meeting either of those requirements.

 A U.S. president can’t say, ‘well these requirements of both national law and international law are annoying, and we’re just not bothering to fulfill them.’  Can’t do that.

And what of the categorical claims by intelligence officials that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons?  Didn’t we go through this before? Remember CIA Director George Tenet’s remark, prior to the U.S. attack on Iraq, that it was a “slam dunk” about the certainty that Iraq had WMDs? Months after that statement, and after the war had begun, a UN team found no WMDs. Zero.

 Is there a possibility the story about chemical weapons use by Syria has been falsified, that someone else used the weapons and the act is being falsely linked to Assad, so as to provide a pretext for invasion? Yes. It’s happened before. They’re called “false flag” operations. See the bombing of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor prior to the Spanish-American War or the Gulf of Tonkin incident prior to the Vietnam War as examples.

  When the U.S. really wants to do something, like intervene in another country, sometimes these things happen. America has wanted to intervene on behalf of Assad’s opponents in Syria for a long time, badly. This despite the fact that some of the opposition forces are terrorists, including al-Qaeda.

  The real objective here is Iran, a country loaded with oil --- just like Iraq was. Knock over Assad’s regime, and knock out a friend of Iran’s. Then outflank Iran, and depose that regime as well. That’s the game plan. We will gain control of Iran’s oil, keep it away from the Russians and Chinese, and eliminate an arch enemy of Israel as well.

  This whole affair with Syria has nothing to do with human rights, or the suffering caused by chemical weapons. If the U.S. was concerned about mass suffering, it wouldn’t have aided an Egyptian regime which has just killed hundreds.

  Maybe my analysis of events in Syria is wrong. Maybe for once, U.S. reports on an awful act by another government are correct. I’m willing to look at the evidence. But let’s allow the UN team to do their job --- to do a full investigation. Then, if the chemical attack by Syria is confirmed,  go before the UN and decide on a course of action.

  Don’t act unilaterally, or act with one or two allies in a bombing campaign before the evidence is in. This is morally and legally wrong.

  A bombing campaign now also puts the world in danger. Given the alliances involved, Syria with Iran, Russia and China with Syria and Iran, an American intervention could spark a wider and deadly Middle East war.

  It is shameful and quite frankly mind-boggling that on the 50^th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech in Washington, President Obama will today give a speech honoring King, and then go back to his office and prepare for war with Syria. King was a man of peace, who stressed non-violence. In 1967, he spoke out against the Vietnam War.

  

  If President Obama really wanted to honor King, he would stop all plans for attacking Syria, and work for peace.

  Let’s hope he does.

 In the meantime, people have to raise their voices and say No to bombing Syria. Call your congressperson and senator, and demand they make sure Obama gets congressional approval for any intervention and that the U.S. works through the UN.

  As the chant I heard years go said, the people have to fight back.

 

   

Keeping WBAI Alive

 By Reginald Johnson

                              

 

     For over 50 years, WBAI-FM in New York has been a mecca for people seeking real news and information about major social and governmental issues.

    While commercial stations up and down the radio dial bombard their listeners with news about fire, crime, sex and celebrities, or subject them to endless blather by right-wing commentators or hours of mindless “sports talk,”  listener-supported WBAI does something else --- it educates people.

   Whether it’s the acclaimed investigative news show, Democracy Now, or Law and Disorder, Economic Update, Guns and Butter, the Gary Null health show, Where We Live, or Building Bridges, WBAI does so much to help people better understand a range of vital issues.

   Now however, that beacon of light in a media wasteland is threatened with extinction. WBAI is in serious financial distress, and it’s an open question whether the station can survive.

   On August 10^th, Summer Reese, the interim executive director of the Pacifica Foundation, which owns the station, said in an emotional report to listeners that due to the station’s substantial debt, a majority of the paid staff at WBAI had to be laid off.  In the process, most of the existing day-time programming  would be dropped. Only a skeleton crew would be kept on to maintain operations, she said.

    “We didn’t have the ability to continue the payroll at this station without making these layoffs,” said Reese.

 In addition to the day-time cuts, WBAI’s award-winning nightly news cast was knocked out, with long time news staffers such as Jose Santiago and Andrea Sears laid off.

  The reductions will save WBAI about $900,000 a year. The operating budget for WBAI runs about $2 million a year, said Reese. The station accepts no advertising and survives largely on donations from listeners.

  Already-produced programs from other stations at Pacifica, as well as FSRN news, have been slotted in to fill the gaps created by the cuts.

  The Pacifica Network has five main stations in New York, Los Angeles, Berkeley, Houston and Washington, D.C. and 200 affiliates.

  Reese said WBAI has run a deficit of “hundreds of thousands of dollars a year” for each of the last ten years. A number of factors have led to the shortfalls --- sky-high rental costs the station incurred while it was housed in offices on Wall Street; damage from Super Storm Sandy last fall; and in some cases, lackluster programs which failed to attract new listeners.

   To date, the Pacifica national office has subsidized WBAI to cover the station’s debt. But that’s no longer possible because Pacifica’s resources are now dried up.

  “There is no money,” Reese said.

To right the ship at WBAI, Reese has brought in Andrew Phillips to be interim program director. Phillips was recently the program director at KPFA in Berkeley, and 20 years ago, the program director at WBAI. Both Reese and Phillips said it is imperative to upgrade the programming in a number of time slots and expand the audience.

 Currently, that audience is not very big. WBAI has just 15,000 paid subscribers, despite being in a metropolitan area with 19 million people and a 50,000 watt antenna sitting on top of the Empire State Building.

  “This is a huge market. We have to adapt and change,” said Phillips in his remarks during the listener report.

  “We have to move forward. I don’t have to tell you why. NSA. Edward Snowden. Bradley Manning. Drones flying overhead, scaring the hell out of people in Pakistan and around the world….You all know what I am talking about. You all know other stations don’t carry these stories like Pacifica carries them,” said Phillips.

    Phillips called WBAI “the most important progressive radio station in the country.”

Reese expressed her determination to preserve WBAI with its current powerful signal --- coming from a transmitter which costs $50,000 a month to rent --- instead of selling the station’s lucrative licenses, and becoming a smaller operation.

  The next few months will be critical as changes take place at the station, and hopefully, there’s a positive response from listeners. Reese said there’s no margin for error.

  “The fate of this radio station, honestly, is in the balance as to whether it will continue to exist,” she said.

  She also noted that if that if the situation at WBAI is not stabilized, “it could pull down the whole network with it.”

  The threat to WBAI and Pacifica couldn’t come at a worse time for progressives and really anyone who values quality journalism.

  The vehicles for providing good, hard hitting journalism are disappearing. On the print side, well-regarded newspapers have either folded up or been sharply reduced in size. Others are being taken over by billionaire businessmen intent on using the publications to gain political advantage in Congress or with the White House. The objectivity of those papers and the credibility of their reporting could be undermined.

  As for commercial radio and television, with a few exceptions on cable TV, coverage of important news is a joke.

  At the same time, the need for strong reporting and for providing a forum for the discussion of key issues has never been greater. As Phillips noted, America is becoming a surveillance state, with privacy rights going out the window; the Obama administration is attacking people’s first amendment rights and the rights of journalists themselves to practice their craft; global warming grows worse by the day; the economy remains mired in a recession and an increasing number of Americans see their economic fortunes declining while a tiny minority live like kings; and racial injustice persists.

   It is critical to preserve WBAI, the Pacifica Network and all community radio stations, as they provide the space where vital news about their region, the nation and the world can be heard, and where issues can be analyzed and discussed in a free and open manner. 

   

   

WBAI in Crisis

By Reginald Johnson




Progressive radio station WBAI in New York is in dire financial straits, and sweeping layoffs are planned.

A majority of the 28-member staff at the station have received layoff notices from the Pacifica Foundation, which owns WBAI and four other listener-supported, non-commercial outlets around the country. Layoffs were supposed to go through July 15, but were delayed until Wednesday, July 31.

Details on what program cutbacks would take place as a result of the layoffs and what the future holds for WBAI is unclear as neither Pacifica officials, station management, Local Station Board members or the union representing staff, could be reached for comment.

WBAI has been struggling in recent years with high rental costs and major damage to the station from Hurricane Sandy. Additionally, fundraising drives have fallen short of their goal.

At certain times this year staff has gone without pay and the station came close to losing its 50,000 watt antenna on the Empire State Building due to unpaid rent.

An article in Current.org, a website about public media news on July 1 quoted Pacifica Interim Executive Director Summer Reese as saying that the station’s difficulties in meeting payroll go back years. Pacifica’s national office has been subsidizing WBAI to cover its shortfalls.

“We have stripped every resource available (at the national office) rather than deal with the situation,” Reese was quoted as saying.

The cuts to WBAI’s staff would save $900,000, the article indicated.

Reese also said the station’s programming would have to be evaluated. “We wouldn’t be in this state if the programming were reaching a wider audience,” she said.

That comment is in line with many critics who claim that programming at WBAI is not diverse or dynamic enough to attract a larger audience. Presently WBAI has 15,000 paid subscribers, a number that many feel should be much higher given the power of the station’s signal and the population of the New York City area.

Berthold Reimers, general manager of WBAI indicated in a July newsletter to listeners that the station’s financial woes mean a downsizing of operations.

“WBAI as it exists right now will not be preserved because it cannot survive under the current financial model. However, WBAI will continue to exist as a local NY metropolitan area radio station,” he said.

WBAI - 99.5 FM has been one of the most important progressive media outlets in the country for over 50 years. The Pacifica Radio Network’s flagship show, “Democracy Now,” began at WBAI. Other shows on the station, many of which are picked up by other stations are “Law and Disorder,” “The Gary Null Show,” “Where We Live,” “Economic Update,” and the “Radio Unnameable,” with Bob Fass.

Restore the Fourth!

By Reginald Johnson            


     A grassroots movement has formed to fight back against the dragnet government surveillance exposed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden.

    “Restore the Fourth” recently organized protests against the spying, which involves government monitoring of both phone and Internet communications.

   On Independence Day, July 4^th, the group held rallies around the country targeting the surveillance begun under former President George W. Bush and expanded under President Barack Obama.

   “Restore the Fourth” takes its name from the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which says  “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

   Members of “Restore the Fourth” maintain that the sweeping NSA surveillance of phone and Internet records of millions of Americans violates the Fourth Amendment and must be ended.

   President Obama has defended the spying, saying it’s been approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court and is a vital tool in stopping terrorist acts.

   A majority of both Republicans and Democrats have also supported the need for spying on citizens, citing the war on terror.

   The administration has launched an intensive effort to capture Snowden, a former private contractor with the NSA, and bring him up on charges of having violated the Espionage Act due to his release of classified information. Snowden fled first to Hong Kong, and then to Russia. He is believed now to be in the Moscow Airport, where he is attempting to gain asylum to another country, possibly in Latin America.

   The “Restore the Fourth” campaign is supported by other privacy groups, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Stop Watching Us and the Internet Defense League.

  The rallies on the 4^th brought out people from both the left and right.  A demonstration at the courthouse in Louisville, Ky. saw conservatives join with liberal Democrats carrying signs like “Privacy is our right” and “No Spying on Americans,”  according a story in the Courier-Journal.

  Fred Gittner of Southern Indiana, who was wearing a tea-party shirt, held a sign next to self-described liberal Democrat Patty Call, of Crestwood, Ky.

  “At least we can agree on this,” she said. “Basically, spying on everyone, without a warrant, is going too far.”

 

Making War on Syria

By Reginald Johnson



In a sickening reminder of what happened during the lead-up to the Iraq War, reporters and members of Congress are failing to ask the tough questions about why the U.S. is getting involved in the Syrian conflict.

The administration of President Barack Obama announced Thursday that the U.S. is planning on sending military weapons to the opposition forces fighting a bloody civil war against the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.

The administration claims that it has determined that Syria used chemical weapons against the “rebel” forces, and crossed a “red line” which the U.S. finds unacceptable.

“The president has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has,” said Benjamin J. Rhodes, Obama’s deputy national security adviser, as reported in The Washington Post. Rhodes said U.S. intelligence had determined with “high certainty” that Syrian government forces have “used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year.”

Intelligence agencies estimate that 100 to 150 people have died as a result of chemical weapons use, he said.

Soon after the administration announcement, members of Congress from both political parties rushed to show support for the decision to send arms, and even push for bolder action.

”The U.S. should move swiftly to shift the balance on the ground in Syria by considering grounding the Syrian air force with stand-off weapons and protecting a safe zone in northern Syria with Patriot missiles in Turkey,” said Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa. as quoted in the Post.

Media coverage has been soft, with reporters steering away from asking uncomfortable questions of the administration about links between the rebels and al-Qaeda and the illegality of sending arms to opposition forces.

So the bandwagon has started rolling towards another war for the U.S.  First we’re sending military aid, then possibly impose a no-fly zone, and then who knows? Boots on the ground? The thought of another war in the Middle East involving American forces is mind numbing, after the utter disaster of Iraq. And a war in Syria could quickly get much larger, involving Iran and Russia on one side and America, Britain, France and Israel on the other side. Scary.

We better start asking questions and demand good answers, before this gets out of hand.

Question Number 1: Just who is the opposition in Syria and why should we side with them? Are they simply “freedom-loving rebels” (as Ronald Reagan once called the drug-running contra fighters in Nicaragua) who just want the Syrian people to be free of the dictator Assad? Or are they something else, not so glorious?

The truth is that the opposition forces today are dominated by two groups --- a faction called al-Nusra which is openly affiliated with al-Qaeda, and Islamic-Sunni extremists. In the beginning of the Syrian revolt, there were genuine independence fighters, trying to free the country of the despotic Assad. But those people are no longer in the forefront of the opposition. Al Nusra and the Sunni extremists are.

Al-Qaeda is supposedly our sworn enemy. They caused 911, according to the official account. Why would we send arms to a coalition that includes an al-Qaeda affiliated group, as well as other Islamic fundamentalists?

Moreover, UN investigators on a commission of inquiry have said that while it appears chemical weapons have been used in the Syrian conflict, it’s not clear by whom. It may be that both sides have used sarin gas. In fact, one member of the UN commission of inquiry on Syria said in May, prior to the full commission report, she believed the rebels had used sarin gas.

I’d like to know why it is that American intelligence can be so categorical in saying that the government used poison gas, while a UN team has said it’s an open question? It brings to mind former CIA Director George Tenet’s famous line about whether there was enough evidence to prove there were WMDs in Iraq --- “it’s a slam dunk.” Of course WMDs were ultimately never found, but we had already gone to war anyway.

Speaking of the UN, this brings up Question Number 2. Doesn’t the UN Charter, a treaty which the U.S. signed and is bound by, prohibit one country from making war on another country, unless it is acting in self-defense or have Security Council authorization? The answer is, yes, it does. We will be breaking international law by sending military aid to a group trying to overthrow a foreign government. It won’t make it any more legal if the aid is filtered through allies like Turkey, or done in conjunction with NATO allies like Britain and France (former colonial powers in the Middle East). We will be war criminals.

If the U.S. is so concerned about the oppression of the Assad regime over the Syrian people, and the government’s use of chemical weapons, then America should take its case to the United Nations. The U.S. should lay out the crimes of the Assad regime, and argue for collective action to remove him. Even if one assumes Russia would veto any UN move, couldn’t we make a very powerful case? Wouldn’t we at least shame the Assad regime, and possibly trigger some changes?

But making that case would rest on proving Assad’s crimes, his use of chemical weapons and atrocities committed by his military. There’s a lot of evidence of all that, but there’s also evidence of war crimes by the opposition, so the picture gets complicated. It becomes a situation of ‘a plague on both houses.’

Finally, reporters need to ask, is the U.S. intervening because it is really worried about Iran? Are we trying to install a friendly regime in Damascus, to take away a key ally of Iran and ultimately topple the Iranian regime as well? And why are we so worried about Iran? Is it really because of their alleged nuclear bomb-making program (there’s no verification of such a program yet) or is it because, like Iraq, Iran holds such a large supply of oil?

I’m hoping that reporters and members of Congress will start asking some pointed questions about what’s going on with the Syria policy. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I’m not holding my breath.

And that’s a shame, because after Iraq and Afghanistan, we don’t need more loss of blood and treasure.