Geoffrey Stone has a great rebuttal to John Ashcroft’s op-ed in the New York Times on wiretapping:
Suppose the government asked a private security firm to commit murder or torture or rape. Would they, too, be entitled to immunity because they acted on the basis of “explicit assurances from the highest levels of the government that the activities in question were authorized by the president and determined to be lawful”? Is there a difference in principle between these situations? Perhaps in Mr. Ashcroft’s view unlawful surveillance is different because it’s just not a sufficiently serious violation of individual freedom to expect private individuals and organizations to question the legality of the government’s request. Perhaps Mr. Ashcroft would demand legislative immunity even in cases of murder, torture, and rape. I would like to know. Second, what makes Mr. Ashcroft think that the government or the telecommunications companies could reasonably have believed in this situation that the government’s surveillance program was lawful? As a matter of fact, the clear consensus among legal and constitutional experts is that Mr. Bush’s surveillance program violated the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which expressly prohibited such conduct. Only a tiny slice of the legal profession believes that the Bush surveillance program was lawful, and almost all of them had been recruited into the Bush White House.
It was hard to pick one excerpt because it was all really good, so go read the whole thing.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.