Why keeping text of Iran nuclear deal 'secret'?
The White House released a public "summary" of the interim nuclear deal. But Fox News has learned that the actual text was delivered to Congress with major caveats and as a member of the pro-democracy opposition to the Islamic Republic tyranny I, and the people of Iran, have every right to ask why? What do they mean by keeping it 'secret'?
One Republican aide said the administration is keeping the document in a secret facility inside the Capitol where sensitive documents are stored. Only lawmakers and staffers with security clearances can go look at it -- and they cannot bring copies outside the secure room, though the document in question is "Unclassified".
This has fueled lawmakers' and Iranian opposition parties' suspicions, which already are high as Khamnei's regime boasts about its supposed gains in nuclear talks. President Hassan Rouhani said on Twitter that world powers "surrendered" to the Islamic regime with the agreement. The tweet, though, was later removed, and the White House has argued that Rouhani merely was playing to his domestic audience.
The document in question supposed to pertain to the implementation of a six-month deal that will rein in parts of Islamist regime's nuclear program, bring about respect for human rights, release of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in exchange for what the administration describes as "modest" sanctions relief.
Asked about the latest document at Thursday's press briefing, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney explained it was the "preference" of the International Atomic Energy Agency that "certain technical aspects" remain confidential. And I cannot help but ask why? Why and what is it that IAEA would like to keep it secret?
These types of documents are not always made public," Carney noted. But he said the administration is committed to releasing "as much information in the text as possible". But when?
The summary, released Thursday afternoon, included dozens of bullet points on what each side has committed to do. It said the regime would halt production of near-20 percent enriched uranium; not construct any more enrichment facilities; and not fuel its Arak reactor, among other steps, and it is these 'other steps' that has not been explained. But those other steps such as respect for human rights, release of all political prisoners, and prisoners of conscience are far more important for the people of Iran than the alleged nuclear program but no mention of these critical issues!
The summary also laid out the timetable for freeing up $4.2 billion in restricted Iranian funds, starting with a $550 million installment on Feb. 1, 2014 yet, we have seen no release of any political prisoners, no change on the attitude of the regime's treatment of political prisoners and relaxation of the tense security environment. People of Iran have suffered tremendous pain as a result of sanctions and endured the harsh sanctions in the hope of sanctions bringing down the regime and end in a national referendum on what the people of Iran want in regards to type of political system which is certainly not an Islamist tyranny.
"The regime will not have access to the final installment of the $4.2 billion until the last day of the six-month period," the summary said. But both the American People and the Iranian people have every right to know the full text of the agreement.
Meanwhile, the administration continues to battle with senators who are pushing for legislation that would trigger further sanctions if Iran runs afoul of the agreement. The White House argues that the bill has the potential to scuttle the diplomatic progress they've made.
Fox News has confirmed that the administration's top Iran negotiator, Wendy Sherman, was scheduled to speak with senators in a 'classified' briefing Thursday afternoon -- as part of the effort to stave off sanctions legislation. Again, why classified? What is being agreed with the tyrannical regime behind the backs of the people of Iran?
As John F Kennedy said over 50 years ago, "The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, secret deals, secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know".
And he went on to ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.
But today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. American way of life and Iranian civil liberties are under attack. Those who make themselves the enemy of freedom are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired. The history have shown us that 'secrecy' bre3eds corruption and suspicion while transparency and openness yield trust.