Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
2003 Letter Told CIA: Trashing Tapes Would Harm Image
WASHINGTON -- More than two years before the CIA destroyed interrogation videotapes, top officials were urged to preserve them by a senior lawmaker who warned that disposing of the recordings would "reflect badly on the agency."
The warning came in a February 2003 letter from Rep. Jane Harman of Venice, then the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
The letter was released publicly by Harman's office on Thursday, after its contents were declassified by the CIA, and one day after the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into the destruction of the tapes.
The existence of Harman's letter had been reported; but its precise contents, previously unrevealed, provide details on then-classified discussions between the CIA and senior members of Congress about the tapes and the agency's desire to get rid of them.
Harman wrote the letter after learning in a classified briefing that the CIA planned to destroy the tapes. She urged the agency to reconsider. "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," she wrote.
The letter was addressed to the CIA's general counsel at the time, Scott W. Muller.
Harman's letter refers to a classified briefing in which Muller told panel members that the CIA had used "enhanced techniques" in interrogating Al Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah. Zubaydah, who was captured in Pakistan in 2002, was subjected to interrogation methods including "waterboarding," in which a prisoner is made to feel that he is drowning.
"You discussed the fact that there is videotape of Abu Zubaydah following his capture that will be destroyed after the [CIA] inspector general finishes his inquiry," Harman wrote. At the time, the inspector general's office was examining the detention and interrogation programs.
The advice that Muller and other administration lawyers offered on whether the tapes could be destroyed is likely to be a major avenue of inquiry for John H. Durham, the federal prosecutor named Wednesday to head the investigation.
Federal courts in Washington have ruled that government lawyers cannot assert the attorney-client privilege to avoid testifying in grand-jury and other proceedings about advice they gave.
Those rulings, which emerged during the myriad investigations of the Clinton administration, mean that Muller and other lawyers who once served on the Bush team, including former Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales and former White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers, would have to submit to questioning from Durham's task force.
Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics expert at New York University law school, said it would be hard to prosecute the lawyers themselves for their legal advice unless there was evidence that they had participated in or actively urged destruction of the tapes.
However, the lawyers had no independent obligation to take possession of the tapes to ensure that they be preserved, Gillers and other experts said.
Under federal law, it is obstruction of justice to destroy evidence that might be relevant not only to a pending official proceeding but to one that is reasonably foreseeable. At the time the tapes were destroyed in late 2005, Congress was already moving to broaden restrictions on the sort of aggressive interrogation techniques that the tapes portrayed.
"Clearly, White House officials were involved in discussions regarding the disposition of the tapes," Harman said in a written statement Thursday. She added that "Congress needs to know why key committees may have been misled about their existence and not told they had been destroyed."
In her letter, Harman noted that Muller had assured members that the Justice Department and White House had sanctioned the legality of the detention and interrogation program. But she questioned whether employing harsh methods was "consistent with the principles and policies of the United States."
In a February 2003 letter responding to Harman -- also released Thursday by Harman's office -- Muller said he could not comment on administration deliberations but "I think it would be fair to assume that policy as well as legal matters have been addressed within the executive branch."
© 2007 The Los Angeles Times
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
17 Comments so far
Show AllThat's what I don't understand about this whole thing. Even if the Government were "open" and "honest," and it was made very appearent that they're scamming us, nothing would change.... the people wouldn't give a shit; yeah they'd whine a little more, but it would end at that. Just like the Iraq war. 2/3rds of the whole country is against it and whining about it - and if they learned that we're going to be there for 25+ years, all that would occur is 75-80% would be against it, a few of them would kick and scream and that would be the end of it. But they'll never know the truth about the real reasons for the war, and oil is only a secondary reason.
We're, unfortunatly, in Iraq for the long haul, so get used to it. And Government spying on and harassing it's own population for that matter.
what is the real reason? I thought it was oil.
--"I think it would be fair to assume that policy as well as legal matters have been addressed within the executive branch." --
"HOLY MOLE!"
Hearings and investigations will continue until the Bush administration leaves office, then they will throw a low level somebody under the bus. Nothing will change!
Harmon is too meally-mouthed. By just saying it 'would harm image', she left it basically open to the CIA to destroy them or not. And just how concerned is an agency with a 50 year track record of torture and assassination about 'their image'? There was probably laughter in Langley when they read this letter.
What she should have said is that these are documents that might be needed for investigations and oversight and made sure that it was clear that destroying them was a breach of law that would be prosecuted. Or just simply make it clear that as the ranking Dem, she might very well become the chair of the committee someday, and that pissing her off on this would have a direct impact on the budget of the agency.
Anyone see Charlie Wilson's War where the congress critter gets the CIA's attention by saying he's going to dock the agency budget a $1 million for every delay. Someone's in his office that morning. That's exactly why Exec agency departments USED to jump when a congresscritter spoke. But if everyone knows you are just posturing by writing a silly letter with no teeth behind and no intention of backing it up with any real actions, then I'm sure they just laughed at it.
Typical Dem, trying to have it both ways. Trying to look like they opposed this without doing the real steps needed to make that opposition concrete ... and thus basically letting it happen.
Note also the dirty little secret the Dems try to gloss over. The leaders of both houses of Congress and of the two intel committees have been fully briefed on what's happening since the beginning. This include Pelosi as she was on Intel committee before becoming speaker.
And they've done nothing to stop this. Which to me means they've supported it and been on board from the beginning. Dems are so cute, aren't they?
I think you've got it exactly backwards, COMarc! I think that the Dems you are castigating were merely governing to the right to lull their opponents into a false sense of security, all the while knowing that when, like cream, they rise to the top of the political... cream pitcher... in November, they will finally be free to persecute the warmongering wingnuts to the fullest extent of the law!
In the immoral words of Daniel Dav... er, the late Tug McGraw: Ya gotta believe!
We now have evidence that Rep. Harman knew that the CIA was conducting illegal interrogations. So why didn't she say something? Why didn't she expose these illegalities?
Unlikely, as she is the author of H.R. 1955. AKA "Homegrown Terrorism Act". This act threatens to identify almost anyone as a terrorist. This bitch has an axe to grind.
These are the questions I would like to have answered by Jane Harman:
Were you ever aware that Keane and Hamilton, of the 9/11 Commission, were seeking the information you had access to and they did not?
Did you at the time and do you now consider waterboarding to be torture?
Do you consider torture to be a war crime under U.S. and international law?
Do you believe it was an obstruction of justice for you to not DEMAND that ALL information the CIA had in relation to 9/11 be turned over to the 9/11 Commission?
And I would also like to ask her about a hundred other pertinent questions...but these four are a good start.
What a shame she'll never answer them. She's too busy celebrating the passage of her pet legislation, "The Stifling of Dissent Act"....
Isn't it curious that one of the reasons she was so eager to see her rotten "Homegrown Terrorism Act" (see above reference) passed was to shut-up the 9/11 truth movement groups such as "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth"?
People, please--LOOK AT THIS WOMAN! See that sh*t-eating grin?
It belongs to Jane Harmon, a California DEMOCRAT, the reprehensible person who is responsible for H.R. 1955: the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Never heard of it? If you are a political or environmental activist, or a person who cares about civil liberties, you should be worried about this dangerous and vaguely worded piece of McCarthyite legislation designed to criminalize dissent. For more information go to:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/120307C.shtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYPislFxkc0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9fyZ62U8fc&feature=related
My Gawd, as someone who is proudly "secular progressive" (read "Democrat") I am astounded by Jane Harman's inaction in the face of obvious governmental abuse and misconduct. As a "ranking" Democrat with access to what the CIA and government has been doing these past seven years, all she has apparently seen fit to do is to merely sit back, write a few memos, and go along for the ride that is the "Bubble-boy Anti-Constitution Express". We need legislators with balls; people who have principles, and who understand them, and who defend them when they are attacked. This moron merely sat back and enjoyed the perks of the job, with no effort expended to push back when it was required. WTF does she think that her responsibility to the American people is; to merely watch as the sordid show unfolds? We put people into elected government positions in order to represent us. Did she not read that memo? If she suspected that the tapes could be destroyed, she had an OBLIGATION to stop it; to raise hell; to expose the criminals; and to defend the Constitution against ALL threats, foreign AND DOMESTIC. She should have stayed on the issue, and at the point that she learned that the crime had been committed she should have immediately exposed the rat-bastards who did it. I was puzzled when Pelosi gave her the bum's rush in 2006, but now I am beginning to understand......... People such as Jane Harman are as much a cancer in government as are bubble boy and his ilk.
Jane Harman has zero credibility after sponsoring H.R. 1955: the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. This one is as bad, or worse than the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act combined.
You're not redeemed yet Jane.
What do you expect from the woman who sponsored the "Home Grown Terrorism Act". Like Lieberman she reports to Tel Aviv.
Writing as a former constituent of Rep. Harman, she has always tilted right on defense matters. This is partially due to the fact that her district is encompasses widely divergent areas from Venice Beach to parts of the South Bay where defense industries used to be headquartered (a swing district if there ever is one). It should also be mentioned that her husband is the Harman in Harman Karden sound systems. There is also the fact that Pelosi and her despise each other with a passion. This is a swipe at Pelosi for the CIA interrogation tapes scandal & "I told you so" for not making her the point-person on intelligence matters in the House (which is what she was under prior leadership). Don't be surprised if in coming weeks, Harman agitates for her former position. What remains to be seen is if Pelosi's pique is such that she will continue to consign Harman to the wilderness.
The Democrats did not have even a slight majority until January of 2007. Where were all the Republican Congress members during this time?
Jane Harmon, running for chief of the Thought Police with her Homegrown Terrorism recipe for 1984, was worried about the CIA's image. How very charming. PR consultant to torturers, murderers and kidnappers. She, along with Nancy Pelosi and Jay Rockefeller, have violated their oath to support the laws and constitution by conniving at, misprisoning, aiding, abetting and suborning war crimes and violations of constitutional rights.