Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
shouldn't a tele company get to trust the President? i mean if he broke the law the by telling a company that it wasn't, it seems to me you should be impeaching him or something.

No. And, fwiw, I assume that it wasn't George Bush personally calling each CEO, asking for help.

If I can step out of character for a moment -- I represented a business entity that was one of several victims of a criminal. State and federal law enforcement authorities investigated, and asked for copies of documents that were (like phone conversations) protected by federal statute. We said, love to help, send us a subpoena. They went ballistic, bullied, blustered, etc., and finally sent a subpoena.

Anyway, my point is that if my client had given the documents without the complusion of the subpoena, they would have been the one in violation of the statute, not the state and fed law enforcement types who would have been in receipt of the records.

Interesting discussion here about the topic http://www.overlawyered.com/2007/10/...com_immun.html

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
There is something profoundly wrong -- something that should trouble all of us -- when we have an elected senator who seems more worried about how to attack the opposition party than about the fact that the administration is not content to preside over one failed war but is laying the groundwork for another.

Wow - an highly rare example of "politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment "

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Translation: President Clinton we can kill Osama. we know where he is." "Let's not."

And to think that I considered adding "oh, hank, mentioning anything regarding cruise missiles, Clinton, and Osama is non-responsive to a discussion of the government shut-down," and did not because I figured even you wouldn't go there. C'est la vie.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Wow - an highly rare example of "politically paranoid, hyper-partisan sentiment "

I would have thought that you would be all for a war with Iran, and yet you don't seem disappointed by the notion that all the saber-rattling is not preparation for war, but just paranoia. I hope you're right.

Meanwhile, Joe is all-war-all-the-time. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but it's usually wrong.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Bob
And to think that I considered adding "oh, hank, mentioning anything regarding cruise missiles, Clinton, and Osama is non-responsive to a discussion of the government shut-down," and did not because I figured even you wouldn't go there. C'est la vie.

I remember the good old days when conservatives complained that Clinton was too promiscuous in shooting cruise missiles at Osama.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
And to think that I considered adding "oh, hank, mentioning anything regarding cruise missiles, Clinton, and Osama is non-responsive to a discussion of the government shut-down," and did not because I figured even you wouldn't go there. C'est la vie.

it's extrememlly relevent, goes to your mindset. it's why you can't see the reality.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I remember the good old days when conservatives complained that Clinton was too promiscuous in shooting cruise missiles at Osama.

I know a lot of babies are named that, but I didn't know they named a mountain after him.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I know a lot of babies are named that, but I didn't know they named a mountain after him.

• Clinton probably came within hours of killing bin Laden on Aug. 20, 1998, when the US attacked training camps in Afghanistan near Khost, where the CIA believed terrorist leaders were gathering to plan further attacks in the wake of earlier bombings of US embassies. The cruise missile strikes, launched from Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea, mostly hit their targets but missed bin Laden, most likely by just a few hours (9/11 Report, p. 117). . . .
  
  Clinton's Republican Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, described Clinton as vigorously trying to get bin Laden. Cohen told the 9/11 Commission that "President Clinton and his entire national security team devoted an extraordinary amount of time and effort to coping with the threat."

link

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

• Clinton probably came within hours of killing bin Laden on Aug. 20, 1998, when the US attacked training camps in Afghanistan near Khost, where the CIA believed terrorist leaders were gathering to plan further attacks in the wake of earlier bombings of US embassies. The cruise missile strikes, launched from Navy vessels in the Arabian Sea, mostly hit their targets but missed bin Laden, most likely by just a few hours (9/11 Report, p. 117).

link

and i should post the times he passed, and you cite blogs about how it didn't happen? no thanks. i have a life.

do you have Sandy B's cell number? ask him.

oh, and ps "they named a mountain after him?" was the funniest thing here in months, and all you do is spit this back. that doesn't sound like the open minded ty we were prominsed we'll start seeing.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
it's extrememlly relevent, goes to your mindset. it's why you can't see the reality.

What reality don't I see? Kidding aside, Hank, if you think that the fact that there are people out there who want to destroy us and our way of life* means that our government must return to the legal standard of "the king can do no wrong," then discussion is really fruitless.

*Unlike, say, the Nazis and the Soviet Union, who simply wanted to be left alone.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
What reality don't I see? Kidding aside, Hank, if you think that the fact that there are people out there who want to destroy us and our way of life* means that our government must return to the legal standard of "the king can do no wrong," then discussion is really fruitless.

*Unlike, say, the Nazis and the Soviet Union, who simply wanted to be left alone.

no one said anything about the President. the question is an entity that seems to have believed he had some authority, which I think we'd like it to keep up its confidence, since Ty believes* congress is extending a law that will require the tele cos. to help with.

What law are you concerned they broke by the way?

*by "believe" I mean he cites a blog summary that claims the law is being extended.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
What law are you concerned they broke by the way?

18 U.S.C. 2511, according to the smart folks at Overlawyered. Violations of it give rise to a private right of action with statutory damages (18 U.S.C. 2520(c)(2)), which presumably is why the immunity provision was proposed.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
I would have thought that you would be all for a war with Iran, and yet you don't seem disappointed by the notion that all the saber-rattling is not preparation for war, but just paranoia. I hope you're right.

Meanwhile, Joe is all-war-all-the-time. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but it's usually wrong.

Why would we want to go to war with Iran?

The UN and the Democrat party constantly reassure me that their nuclear enrichment programme is solely for benign, domestic purposes.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
...Clinton probably came within hours of killing bin Laden on Aug. 20, 1998, when the US attacked training camps in Afghanistan near Khost...

We were attacking sovereign nations back in 1998?

The horror. The. Horror.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Bob
18 U.S.C. 2511, according to the smart folks at Overlawyered. Violations of it give rise to a private right of action with statutory damages (18 U.S.C. 2520(c)(2)), which presumably is why the immunity provision was proposed.

It is very unbecoming to dance in the end-zone like that. Hank's had a hard day.