Iran Deal and Lack of Transparency
Just finished reading an excellent article by National Review in regards to the current Iran Deal that waits for congressional voting. Daily we learn that this congressman or that congresswoman has agreed to sign and most likely the bill will go forward and become enacted.
However, after reading the article (link provided below) I've learned that at least legally and constitutionally, the bill cannot go forward, regardless of how many pundits as well as legislators are saying it can.
Why not?
Because it conveniently does not give full transparency about exactly what's in the deal, details about inspections, lifting sanctions, etc. and/or any side deals. So how can anyone vote on it, if they don't really know what's in the bill? Of course as soon as I wrote the last sentence, I remembered Nancy Pelosi's quote in regards to ObamaCare 'you have to vote for the bill first to see what's in it.'
Has congress become so dumbed down, so afraid to take a stand against the powers that be that it won't take the obvious steps to fully know what's in a bill before they say yay or nay? Especially one that is so important to our national security and also our economy?
In any case, here's a few paragraphs from the article clarifying the above:
"The Corker legislation — formally known as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 — is crystal clear. In its very first section, the act requires the president to transmit to Congress “the agreement. . . . including all related materials and annexes." It is too late to do that now: the act dictates that it was to have been done “not later than five days after reaching the agreement” — meaning July 19, since the agreement was finalized on July 14."
"Underscoring the mandate that all relevant understandings in the Iran deal — including, of course, the essential understandings — must be provided to lawmakers, the act explicitly spells out a definition of the “Agreement” in subsection (h)(1)."
"Under it, this is what the administration was required to give Congress over six weeks ago in order to trigger the afore-described Corker review process: The term ‘agreement’ means an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran . . . regardless of the form it takes, . . . including any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any other parties, and any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future."
"The act could not be more emphatic: To get the advantage of the favorable Corker formula that allows him to lift the anti-nuclear sanctions with only one-third congressional support, the president was required to supply Congress with every scintilla of information regarding verification. In particular, the act expressly demands disclosure of the terms pertinent to whether the IAEA is capable of executing aggressive inspections in Iran and has a plausible, enforceable plan to do so. That is why, in conjunction with providing Congress the entire agreement, including any and all “side deals” between Iran and the IAEA, the act mandates that Secretary Kerry provide a “verification assessment report.”
"In it, the Obama administration must demonstrate not only how it (i) “will be able to verify that Iran is complying with its obligations and commitments” and (ii) will ensure the “adequacy of the safeguards and other control mechanisms” to ensure that Iran cannot “further any nuclear-related military or nuclear explosive purpose.” The administration must further explain:
However, after reading the article (link provided below) I've learned that at least legally and constitutionally, the bill cannot go forward, regardless of how many pundits as well as legislators are saying it can.
Why not?
Because it conveniently does not give full transparency about exactly what's in the deal, details about inspections, lifting sanctions, etc. and/or any side deals. So how can anyone vote on it, if they don't really know what's in the bill? Of course as soon as I wrote the last sentence, I remembered Nancy Pelosi's quote in regards to ObamaCare 'you have to vote for the bill first to see what's in it.'
Has congress become so dumbed down, so afraid to take a stand against the powers that be that it won't take the obvious steps to fully know what's in a bill before they say yay or nay? Especially one that is so important to our national security and also our economy?
In any case, here's a few paragraphs from the article clarifying the above:
"The Corker legislation — formally known as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 — is crystal clear. In its very first section, the act requires the president to transmit to Congress “the agreement. . . . including all related materials and annexes." It is too late to do that now: the act dictates that it was to have been done “not later than five days after reaching the agreement” — meaning July 19, since the agreement was finalized on July 14."
"Underscoring the mandate that all relevant understandings in the Iran deal — including, of course, the essential understandings — must be provided to lawmakers, the act explicitly spells out a definition of the “Agreement” in subsection (h)(1)."
"Under it, this is what the administration was required to give Congress over six weeks ago in order to trigger the afore-described Corker review process: The term ‘agreement’ means an agreement related to the nuclear program of Iran . . . regardless of the form it takes, . . . including any joint comprehensive plan of action entered into or made between Iran and any other parties, and any additional materials related thereto, including annexes, appendices, codicils, side agreements, implementing materials, documents, and guidance, technical or other understandings, and any related agreements, whether entered into or implemented prior to the agreement or to be entered into or implemented in the future."
"The act could not be more emphatic: To get the advantage of the favorable Corker formula that allows him to lift the anti-nuclear sanctions with only one-third congressional support, the president was required to supply Congress with every scintilla of information regarding verification. In particular, the act expressly demands disclosure of the terms pertinent to whether the IAEA is capable of executing aggressive inspections in Iran and has a plausible, enforceable plan to do so. That is why, in conjunction with providing Congress the entire agreement, including any and all “side deals” between Iran and the IAEA, the act mandates that Secretary Kerry provide a “verification assessment report.”
"In it, the Obama administration must demonstrate not only how it (i) “will be able to verify that Iran is complying with its obligations and commitments” and (ii) will ensure the “adequacy of the safeguards and other control mechanisms” to ensure that Iran cannot “further any nuclear-related military or nuclear explosive purpose.” The administration must further explain:
"the capacity and capability of the International Atomic Energy Agency to effectively implement the verification regime required by or related to the agreement, including whether the International Atomic Energy Agency will have sufficient access to investigate suspicious sites or allegations of covert nuclear-related activities and whether it has the required funding, manpower, and authority to undertake the verification regime required by or related to the agreement."
Bottom line is that there is a way to contest or prevent the bill from passing as provided above and do it legally. However, will any of our representatives actually step forward and take the stand pointing the above out?
That is the million dollar question. My guess is no. And if I'm right and no one comes forward and points out the flaws and illegalities, then it'll pass and we'll pay the price down the road. I hope I'm wrong.
Here's the link promised so you can read the full article for yourself:
posted by Candle in the Wind at
7:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home