Too often, the argument is made that telecommunications companies simply "had" to cooperate with the government, that they had no choice but to accede to the Bush Administration's illegal requests for wiretaps. It sounds like an open and shut case - after all, who wants to be in the lonely position of saying no when the government - the government - is asking you to do something? Especially after 9/11, when, as we all know "everything changed". Rather like being between a rock.... and another rock.

Except for two small details - First, some telecommunications companies actually did say no to the Bush Administration. Qwest in particular refused a warrant-free Bush administration demand for it's customer's private phone records. In a letter addressed to National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell, and Ken Wainstein, Representative John Conyers wrote:

According to news reports and papers filed with a federal court in Denver, as early as February, 2001, the NSA asked Qwest Communications and other telecommunications companies for some form of warrantless access to records concerning Americans' private communications. Although the precise nature and scope of the intercepted communications has not been revealed, one report suggests that it may have involved "monitoring long distance calls and Internet transmissions and other digital information." S. Shane, "Former Phone Chief Says Spy Agency Sought Surveillance Help Before 9/11," New York Times (Oct. 14, 2007). Although Qwest apparently refused the request, which a former Qwest executive claims led to retaliation against him and his company, it is unknown what access to confidential customer information was provided by other telecommunications companies.

I cannot vouch for the validity of the claims of retaliation (they are shameful, if true). But the fact remains - it was entirely possible for telecoms to refuse the illegal requests made by the administration.

Second, the Bush administration made requests about illegal warrantless wiretapping MONTHS before the attacks of 9/11. Even if one could made the (dubious) case that more flexibility in wiretapping laws was needed to protect us from the new terrorist threat - it would not excuse or explain the Bush administration's pursuit of those powers prior to 9/11.

Even in the best of times, we should not blindly trust our government with unchecked power - why would we hand it over to an administration that has proved itself so untrustworthy in these matters?