When the C.I.A.’s destruction of several interrogation tapes was revealed for the first time, many bloggers reserved much of their vitriol for Democrats who were consulted beforehand.

“The Democratic leadership really needs to start taking these Intel Committee postings more seriously,” Matthew Yglesias wrote at Atlantic Monthly.

Two days later, The Washington Post widened the criticism from a lack of opposition to the tape destruction to a lack of protest in general for the Bush administration’s wider interrogation policy as it was formed in 2002 and 2003.

But both issues were addressed by one Democrat on February 10, 2003, according to a letter declassified today from Representative Jane Harman of California, who was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. Here’s her warning on destroying the tape:

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 here’s her sharp question on harsh interrogation techniques:

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?

“I look forward to your response,” she said before signing off. But while Scott W. Muller, then the agency’s general counsel, politely thanked her for the letter, he completely ignored the tape issue.

On her bigger concern, he said she should “assume that policy as well as legal matters have been addressed within the Executive Branch.”

Copies of both letters are available here.

Whether the letter itself was enough to relieve at least Ms. Harman of criticism remains to be seen. When the news broke in December, she described the letter but one critic was unassuaged:

“When she found out the CIA had destroyed the tapes, where was Harman’s press conference?,” Marty Lederman wrote at Balkinization. “Where were the congressional hearings?”

Today, Ms. Harman said that there was no way she could hold a news conference. “I was unable to discuss this matter publicly,” she said, citing the matter’s “highly classified nature.” In comments to The Post, she detailed why, saying that “When you serve on intelligence committee you sign a second oath — one of secrecy.”

But was there more she could do besides taking the C.I.A. counsel at his word? The reactions are just starting to pour in.