The destroyed tapes: Rep. Jane Harman speaks

From an NPR interview this evening with Rep. Jane Harman, chair, Intelligence Subcommittee, about her knowledge of the interrogation tapes destroyed the the CIA:

NPR:  Representative Jane Harman, the California Democrat, was part of a small group of members of Congress who attended CIA briefings on the interrogations of terror suspects. Last week we all learned that the CIA had destroyed videotapes of those interrogations.  There will be hearings this week about the destruction of the tapes and presumably about what kind of interrogation techniques the tapes showed.   ...I spoke with Jane Harman about how she learned about the tapes' existence.

Jane Harman: My first briefing in February, when I had been ranking member for a couple of weeks, and it was on this subject of highly classified briefings -- so I can't tell you the specifics except I will tell you that videotaping came up in that briefing.  I had some concerns about the briefing, including about videotaping.  I wrote a classified letter to the general counsel of the CIA who had briefed me and raised those concerns in the letter. 

NPR:  Based on that, is it fair to say that members of Congress, or at least a member of Congress -- you , were aware of the fact that the interrogations were videotaped?  And you at least were concerned about the prospect of their being destroyed? That seemed to be a live question, prompting...

JH: The answer to that is a resounding yes!  As of February 2003.  So my letter came in more than two years before this action that we've all been reading about in the newspapers.  There was no information sent to the Intelligence Committee in 2005 that the tapes were about to be destroyed or that they were destroyed. 

NPR:  I know that you're saying that your letter was classified and you've sought its declassification.  But, barring that, can you explain why you would have opposed destruction of the videotapes at that time of it hadn't been in some way alluded to?  Or was it simply a fear that you had that they might be destroyed?

JH: Well, I can't really reconstruct the meeting which was -- again -- highly classified.  I took no notes; it was five years ago; and this feeble grandma just ain't that good! But basically, I'm sure it must have seemed to me at the time that, if there was a good reason to do this -- that, I know, is questionable, thinking about it  -- surely there was not a good reason to destroy it.  The reason given, the one I've read in the newspaper and in the statement of CIA Director Hayden, to protect his work force, should have been a reason at the front end not to do it, if that was the wrong thing to do!

NPR:  You knew from briefings that there were videotapes of interrogations.  You asked the CIA to make sure that any videotapes that were made wouldn't be destroyed.  Was there anything about your letter that would have suggested that's what you felt in 2003 but, come 2005 or 2006, that would no longer obtain -- that concern?

JH:  No.  No.  And I understand over the weekend a very short response to my letter was received by the Committee.  I've asked that that be declassified as well.  But it's just a response that says, "Thank you for your letter.  We're evaluating your request."  I had no reason to believe that the videotapes would be destroyed without consulting Congress!  No reason whatsoever!  And now that I read in the newspaper that Porter Goss gave them the same advice, and Harriet Myers gave them the same advice, I simply cannot imagine they thought this was some kind of practice that would be well regarded by Congress!  Impossible!

NPR: You say the red light there was visible about destroying these videotapes..?

JH: The red light?  Unmistakeable!  So whatever is the back story here is something we have to learn.  I don't think Jose Rodriguez acted alone...

NPR: ...head of the clandestine services at CIA...

JH:  Correct.  Who directed him to do this?  What legal authority was that person acting under?  Why, even in that circumstance, was Congress not told?  And did this action interfere with investigations ongoing in Congress?  The answer to that is yes. Investigations by the 9/11 Commission?  Yes!  Investigations by the courts? Maybe.  This is a very, very serious issue and I certainly hope that Congress will shine getting to the bottom of this.

NPR: There was by the way in the Washington Post yesterday a quotation attributed to Porter Goss who said that in the very early briefings -- of the Intelligence Committee senior members -- members of Congress were enthusiastic about what they were hearing, even asking if these interrogation techniques... "are you tough enough on these people?"  Square with your recollection?  Was there enthusiasm for the very things Congress is now criticizing?

JH: Well, I think Congress has taken the post-9/11 threats very seriously.  We have to get the policies right.  But the policies have to be consistent with our laws and our Constitution.  And so I think it is highly improper for people who were in highly classified briefings to be making any accusations.  That's inappropriate.  I will just say that I was able to write a letter.  That record will stand for itself when that letter is declassified.  But I think that destroying videotapes, made for whatever reason in connection with the interrogations, was flat wrong in 2003, and it surely was flat wrong in 2005 when it was done.

"Bombshell" interview with one of the interrogators who admits to torture.  (Careful, sounds like a set-up!)

House Intelligence Committee schedules investigation.