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 ?

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.

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.

§ 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.

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?

So they were planning to destroy them in 2003. It was a premeditated act and not one decided at the time of their destruction.

Jane Harman

Oh, right, this is BushitCo we’re talking about.