Quote:

---

Krishna said:
well, off the top of my head, i recall there being a line or two slipped in there saying that corporations that the US Federal Government said were "partners in the War on Terror" (not the exact phrasing - but the phrasing is very vague) would be free from public/government investigation into their finances. From my understanding of this, it means that a company like Halliburton could keep it's books closed, even after the fact has come to light that numerous large corporations have been "cooking the books" - because they are working for the "good guys"

---

Quote:

---

Krishna said:
OK i found the article that i was thinking about... my memory was a bit faulty. The lines I was thinking about aren't about finances - basically, it says that the government wants companies to report on any other companies that they think are related to terrorist-activities. The lines I was thinking about grant the company who reported the "terrorist activity" immunity from being held accountable in the event that the claim of "terrorist activity" turned out to be unsubtantiated.

---

Quote:

---

Here is the quote from the actual bill:

"This provision provides protection against civil liability for businesses and their personnel who voluntarily provide information to federal law enforcement agencies to assist in the investigation and prevention of terrorist activities. The purpose of the provision is to encourage voluntary cooperation and assistance in counterterrorism efforts by private entities and individuals. "

---

Quote:

---

The ACLU argument against this (and an argument that I tend to accept) is that it would encourage companies turning in their competition on terrorist charges- even if the crime was shown to be false and the person was cleared of all charges, it would take a lot of time, money, etc - not to mention damage to one's reputation - and by including this protection against civil liability, companies would be free to do this, without any risk of reprieve

---

Quote:

---

SoopaX said:
Their is a great deal of difference in your claim that companies that 'cook the books'would be given immunity if they worked with the government and the reality that they wouldn't be held liable for slander charges if they made an accusation that turned out to be false.

---

Yep, I definitely agree there - I'll edit my prior post to reflect this

Quote:

---

If a company reported another company with malice aforethough and knowingly lied to the government, the PATRIOT act would have them charged with criminal charges, not just a simple civil act.

---