Sure they can. Here's some more background on that subject:
http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/ag/speeches/1998/jan1598.htm [quote]
QUESTION: Ms. Reno, an off-the-wall question here.
QUESTION: Ms. Reno, an off-the-wall question here.
(Laughter.)
QUESTION: After the Nichols trial, there was some concern on the part of some of the jurors there about the fact -- and this comes up from time to time -- that the FBI does not transcribe interviews, it does this form 302. And every once in a while somebody says, you know, that it is not the best evidence, 302's are summaries of what something thinks somebody said. And people, every once in a while, look at whether the FBI should change that.
Is that anything that is being looked at? During the time you have been Attorney General, has anyone ever suggested that the FBI ought to change that practice?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I have heard it on occasions and have discussed it with Director Freeh. I cannot discuss it in the context of this particular case.
QUESTION: But as a general matter, is that something that is pretty much a dead letter now?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: As always, we continue to review each issues, the circumstances of the issue in the context it arises, to see what is appropriate. But, again, with respect to this matter, in this case, I cannot discuss it.
QUESTION: Yes, but as a general matter, does it strike you as a good idea, the way the FBI does the 302's? Do you see any need to change that?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I think, each case, you have got to look at it on a case-by-case basis, and I think that is what the Bureau does.
QUESTION: Are you saying that they sometimes use a tape recorder?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: Again, I think you have to look at the specific examples of each case and make the best judgment of what is right in that case.
QUESTION: (Off microphone) -- some have suggested the FBI should no longer use this form 302, and should go to a transcription of interviews. Would that be a good idea, in your view?
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: Again, you are going to have to look at the whole matter: each case, when you interview, who you interview, what the circumstances are.
QUESTION: But the FBI has a policy that applies to all cases all the time, that they do not tape record their interviews.
ATTORNEY GENERAL RENO: I will be happy to check with Director Freeh and clarify anything that I have said. But, again, I cannot comment on this particular case. And I think you have got to look at the larger picture. [end quote]
* * * * * * * * * *
Los Angeles Times 7-31-2001
Hearings Open on Mueller
Senate: Bush's pick to head the FBI tells panel his "highest priority" is to restore public's trust in the battle-weary bureau.
[excerpt] " . . . . . he said he would consider expanded tape-recording of FBI interviews to give its investigations greater credibility--another idea the bureau has resisted through the years."[end excerpt]
In summary, most have considered 302s to be "witness reports" but they're not. The only witness report referred to in this thread is the personally prepared report of Faret & Wendell.
Here is a question I would like answered. If it was, indeed, a missile shootdown by terrorists, why has it not happened again in the past ten years? Terrorists tend to go with what works until it doesn’t work anymore.
It is not a matter of being able to get surface-to-air missiles; they are available for the right money in the right country. Also, it’s not a matter of not being able to get them into this country, as our borders are porous, especially if they come through Canada.
So if terrorists are able to get the missiles and get them into the US, why has that not happened more often? Perhaps the real answer is that it was not a shootdown, but actually bad wiring.