Interestingly, the emailer speaks of civil immunity which, of course, has nothing to do with criminal immunity as there would be no criminal immunity. As for civil immunity, in the federal system, the burden rests on the official to demonstrate he was acting reasonably and in his ofiicial capacity. Our scenario involves an official knowingly violating the law. While McCain has said he believes torture, undignified treatment, or whatever, could be used in a ticking time bomb situation (whatever that is), he does not codify it. So, his pronouncements don’t have the force of his law. But the emailer does raise an interesting point: if McCain believes there are occasions when an interrogator could use torture, undignified treatment, or whatever, then he should affirmatively shield that official, i.e., include language in his amendment granting immunity.