Facilitating extraordinary rendition

Last year, the ACLU filed a law suit against Jeppesen Dataplan charging that it facilitated an illegal activity, namely, our government's extraordinary rendition program.

Demonstrating the courage of its convictions, a Justice Department lawyer argued to a federal judge recently that pursuit of this lawsuit would risk divulging state secrets. In other words, although it is a conviction that rendition is justifiable, no justification of it can be publicized--even to the judiciary.

I want to leave aside the extraordinariness of this line of reasoning to ask a different question: to what extent should a company be legally culpable of intentionally facilitating immoral (and, we can add legally questionable) governmental activities, which facilitation is requested, perhaps even demanded, by the government itself? This case poses a greater problem than the one involving the question of immunity for the telecommunications industry now facing the Senate. It does so because facilitating torture (in this case, providing transportation to CIA 'black sites') is patently wrong, while facilitating spying is not (or not necessarily).

What do people think?