CIA Met with White House about How to Respond to Jane Harman’s Torture Warnings

After being briefed on February 5, 2003 that the CIA had used waterboarding and intended to destroy tapes depicting that torture, Jane Harman wrote CIA General Counsel Scott Muller a letter raising concerns. Harman warned CIA they should not destroy the torture tapes, whether or not they constituted an official record.

You discussed 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.

And she asked directly whether President Bush had bought off on torture as a policy.

I would like to know what kind of policy review took place and what questions were examined. In particular, I would like to know whether the most senior levels of the White House have determined that these practices are consistent with the principles and policies of the United States. Have enhanced techniques been authorized and approved by the President?

In his response to her, Muller basically ignored her warning about the torture tapes. And he gave her a very indirect answer to the question that–under the National Security Act–she should have been able to get a direct answer on, whether or not Bush had signed off on the torture.

While I do not think it appropriate for me to comment on issues that are a matter of policy, much less the nature and extent of Executive Branch policy deliberations, I think it would be fair to assume that policy as well as legal matters have been addressed within the Executive Branch.

As it turns out, Scott Muller was not acting alone when he largely blew off Harman’s concern. Document 28 of the CIA’s Vaughn Index on the torture tape destruction reveals that CIA met with the White House about its response to Harman. (There’s also a one-page draft of the letter to Harman dated February 19.) The Vaughn Index describes the second email, which has the subject “Harmon Letter,” this way:

This is a one-page email, discussing a meeting between CIA and the White House regarding the CIA’s response to a congressional inquiry. The document also includes the draft text of a letter to Congress. This document contains information relating to the sources and methods of the CIA. The document also contains predecisional, deliberative information, CIA attorney work-product, and information provided by a CIA attorney to his client in connection with the provision of legal advice.

Thus, even though Harman’s letter and Muller’s response have been declassified, the CIA is claiming that we can’t know what Muller advised (himself? Bush? Tenet? Precisely who is the CIA General Counsel’s client, here?) about how to respond to Harman’s inquiry.

So we know that the White House weighed in on how to respond to Harman. We’re just not allowed to know how they weighed in.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

46 Responses to CIA Met with White House about How to Respond to Jane Harman’s Torture Warnings

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel Dudley returns to his "finding firms guilty" is the same as "jail."
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Is anyone saving this hearing for posterity bc I just had the thought Sherrod did: Geithner would have said the same thing Dudley is.
9mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @HanniFakhoury: Of the 500+ court orders Charlotte police obtained to use a Stingray since 2010, none actually mention Stingray: http://…
13mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Don't think you're the only one. Big market opportunity RT @xeni: I fucking miss flip-phones
14mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Really hoping someone turns this Warren/Dudley exchange into a fire marshall/cop on the beat animation.
17mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Warren: Illegal behavior if you stumble. Dudley: I'd say see. Warren: But you're not looking.
18mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel LOLOL Warren: You don;t think you should do investigation, you just wait until it jumps in front of you?
20mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Dudley: Not cop on a beat, more of a fire warden.
20mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Did someone take "sufficient liquidity" as their drinking phrase for this Banking hearing? (Checking to see if it's still available...)
23mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @Krhawkins5 That's why I said "battle."
24mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel In which @Krhawkins5 does a CIA email (battle) victory lap. http://t.co/nnDiDB6tkN
25mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @alexisgoldstein Now you're just trolling. (Keep up the good work)
27mreplyretweetfavorite
November 2009
S M T W T F S
« Oct   Dec »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930