In article ,
"Gary Drescher" wrote:
I don't see how the government could elect to "avoid" abiding by its
declared immunity policy. Immunity deals (even for serious crimes, which
this isn't) are crucial to our legal system, and as such are taken
seriously; the whole system would fall apart if immunity guarantees were not
binding.


You don't see how the government could elect to not follow its own
rules? Seems to me that's most of what the government does. The FAA in
particular has a long history of either ignoring its own rules, or
conveniently redefining them to suit the moment.



JKG