CIA declassifies Harman’s tape destruction letter.
CIA declassifies Harman’s tape destruction letter.
Last month after the CIA admitted that it had destroyed videotapes of interrogations, Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) — formerly the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee — said that she had urged the CIA in writing not to destroy the tapes. Today, Harman’s office released the Feb. 10, 2003 letter after the CIA finally declassified it. In the letter, she urges the CIA to “reconsider” destroying the tapes:
You discussed [in a briefing the previous week] the fact that there is videotape of Abu Zubaydah following his capture that will be destroyed after the Inspector General finishes his inquiry. I would urge the Agency to reconsider that plan. Even if the videotape does not constitute an official record that must be preserved under the law, the videotape would be the best proof that the written record is accurate, if such record is called into question in the future. The fact of destruction would reflect badly on the Agency.
Read the full letter here
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
18 Responses to “CIA declassifies Harman’s tape destruction letter.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I would destroy any incriminating video tapes too. If it isn’t documented, it never happened.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:54 pmRuh-roh…
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:55 pmWhy the hell would this LETTER be classified in the first place?
Oh, right, this is BushitCo we’re talking about.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:58 pmThe letter was classified because it disclosed the fact that the interrogations had been recorded in the first place.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:06 pmBut why is Harmon only objecting to the demolition of the tapes? Why isn’t she objecting to the torture?
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:08 pmYeah, they declassify it now ….. now that Mukasey has started his own investigation whereby the Bush Administration is investigating itself, where no special outside prosecutor has been assigned, and where the Congress can no longer subpoena documents because there is an on-going Justice Department investigation. And we all know what the Bush Administration’s Department of Justice will determine.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:08 pm“the videotape does not constitute an official record that must be preserved under the law”
Jane Harman
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:14 pmUnfortunately, Starve a Bush, I believe you are correct.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:16 pmAll the bluster, all the pronouncements, all the letter-writing and press conferences will amount to little, if anything. We have a “bulldog” attorney in charge of the investigation (which most believe will lead to Bush), but he answers to Mukasey who answers to Bush. The parties will be preoccupied with the election; this will be another C-span event, if at all, that no one reports.
This has opened up quite the can of worms and here is some further info to continue the speculation:
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:17 pmhttp://www.atimes.com/ atimes/ Front_Page/ EI17Aa01.html
Today, Harman’s office released the Feb. 10, 2003 letter…
So they were planning to destroy them in 2003. It was a premeditated act and not one decided at the time of their destruction.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:36 pm“the videotape does not constitute an official record that must be preserved under the lawâ€
Jane Harman
Comment by mandolin — January 3, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
You cheap whore of a republican traitor, it says “even if the videotape does not constitute an official record that must be preserved under the law”. even if. Harman is not a practicing lawyer. why do you live in the USA if you hate it so much?
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:39 pmShe needs to read the Federal Records Act! That videotape CERTAINLY would have been encompassed by the requirements of the law, IMHO!
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:41 pmTITLE 44 > CHAPTER 33 > § 3301 (emphases added)
§ 3301. Definition of records
As used in this chapter, “records†includes all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency or its legitimate successor as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Government or because of the informational value of data in them. Library and museum material made or acquired and preserved solely for reference or exhibition purposes, extra copies of documents preserved only for convenience of reference, and stocks of publications and of processed documents are not included.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:50 pmEvergreen2U, Comment #5: Please give Harman a break. We all know how Bush and his minions shave the truth. We would have to have the record of what was presented at the briefing to really understand how the “enhanced” interrogation was explained to know whether the water boarding was appropriately disclosed. I would give her the benefit of the doubt.
Mandolin, Comment #7: See Evergreen2U, we have a perfect example of shaving the truth. Harman does not agree that the video tape is not a document that must be preserved under the law. She clearly prefaces the remark with a conditional - “Even if …” One cannot infer her agreement with the interpretation that may have been offered by the CIA. Indeed, we know that this administration has been known for coming up with questionable legal conclusions. I am not sure that Harman would even have the background to challenge a legal opinion. However, she states that the tapes should have been preserved. Remember, the CIA has taken the position (while Harman’s letter was classified) was that no one objected to the destruction of the tapes. Harman’s letter clearly proves that to be false.
Additionally, the CIA should have preserved the tapes because of two separate lawsuits that requested such evidence. In one lawsuit, the court order could be construed as limiting the requirement to preserve the tapes to those made at GTMO. However, the fact that such an order was issued should have made it clear that other such tapes (whether covered in the order or not) had clear evidentiary value in pending litigation. Secondly, the ACLU had filed suit to recover all documentation, recordings and tapes of interrogations wherever they occurred. The destruction of the tapes prior to a ruling would clearly constitute a violation of law.
The Bush administration constantly strives to torture the meaning of law. It parses the truth, limits the facts and then attempts to smear those with an incomplete knowledge of the facts as having agreed with the administration’s position.
January 3rd, 2008 at 6:57 pmYes, Mandolin attempts to modify the language to fit his agenda.
In reading the letter, Jane was clearly trying to cover all the bases. She most certainly stated these tapes should not be destroyed, “even if” it is not illegal to do so.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:59 pmSo, there’s nothing wrong with what the tapes showed - only the destruction of them would reflect badly. We REALLY need better people in government.
January 3rd, 2008 at 8:10 pm11. Lefty Patriot,
If you’re driving down the road, the state patrol turns on its siren and lights to pull you over which activates the dashboard camera. You accuse the police of brutality in the traffic stop.
The police tell the judge that they destroyed the tape as it doesn’t constitute an official record.
What does the judge say ?
January 3rd, 2008 at 9:52 pmI hope Harman sticks to her guns. It wouldn’t be the first time she said one thing and did another (think Specter).
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:36 pm