After reviewing the relevant documents, the Intelligence Committee determined that providers had acted in response to written requests or directives stating that the activities had been authorized by the President and had been determined to be lawful. The letter goes on to note: In its Conference Report, the committee "concluded that the providers had a good faith basis" for responding to the requests for assistance they received. The Senate Intelligence Committee ultimately agreed to necessary immunity protections on a nearly unanimous bipartisan 13-2 vote. Twelve members of the committee subsequently rejected a motion to strike this provision. The authors go on to note: The immunity offered in S. 2248 applies only in a narrow set of circumstances. They note, for example: A court must review this certification before an action may be dismissed. This immunity provision does not extend to the government or government officials. In other words, they can still be sued. And it does not immunize any criminal conduct. This is critical to understand what the amendment does not do.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the Intelligence Committee's findings on immunity provisions in a legislative amendment.
Share
More from Jon Kyl
I know that the Democratic leader is scheduled to speak next, but if there is a minute that I could take in between, I just wanted to comment on my colleague who spoke yesterday, Senator Collins. I had wanted to come to the floor to speak…
the other thing I would like to do this afternoon is to very briefly report to my colleagues and to constituents back home on some things which my predecessor, Senator McCain, was working on at the time of his untimely death and which his…
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee is exactly correct. You could illustrate the same things with charts relating to our Air Force, to our Army, to our Marine Corps--all elements of our services. It is not just in the number of…





