Hello:

Silly Republicans. 30 of 'em who call themselves Senators voted AGAINST an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill that would STOP federal funding for contractors that FORCED victims of assault to settle their claims through arbitration. The amendment stemmed from what happened to Jamie Lee Jones in Iraq when she worked for KBR, where she was brutally assaulted by co-workers.

Republican Senator Jeff Sessions said the amendment was “a political attack by Senator Al Franken aimed at Haliburton.” Senator Franken pointed out that no contractor was named in the amendment, not that it would matter to anyone so idiotic as to vote against an assault protection amendment.

These are the same Senators who are calling for an investigation of ACORN where only PRETEND prostitution was considered, but who don't want an investigation into a company where REAL rapes happen.

The mere idea that arbitration would shield a company from ANY wrongdoing while at the same time that company is receiving OUR TAX DOLLARS is beyond the pale.

excon

The silence is deafening! Here's a link I picked up from the Thom Hartmann show yesterday...
Republicans for Rape - Blog (http://www.republicansforrape.org/)

What you fail to mention is that the Obama Defense Dept. sent a letter to the Senate urging that the amendment be rejected. The DOD and the White House itself ,although in favor of the intent of the amendment ,had issues with the enforceablilty of it .

I also agree with the intent of the amendment and hope it is reworded to cover ALL business contracts within U.S. jurisdiction ;and not just a transparent attack on a single contractor.

Imagine the nightmare of having to review the employee contracts of all contractors and sub-contractors doing business with the government . It would be an impossible time consuming bureaucratic waste of time.

But the rabid left wing attack machine spins it to mean that having issues with the technical wording of the amendment is the same thing as being in favor of rape.

Simply stated ,no employee ,whether they work for Haliburton and subsidiaries or not ;should be compelled to sign mandatory arbitration clauses as a precondition to employment if they include signing away their right to pursue justice from criminal violation .And if Americans can get away with gang rape ,be they working in the borders or outside the borders of the country ,then there is a lot more wrong than issues of employee contract law.

Another one of those "Right wing, despicable, UNAMERICAN behavior!" posts (which you sure dropped pretty quick). Even on Huffpo Ryan Grim says (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/defense-department-oppose_n_326569.html) "It's a question, it turns out, best addressed to the White House."

Nice try.

First of all, how does voting against a LABOR LAW equate to "voting for rape"?

Secondly, the Amendment, as I understand it, doesn't protect women or even penalize those who rape them. It does nothing to protect anyone.

Third, the law is a LABOR law that has nothing to do with DOD appropriations.

Fourth, even the White House has come out against the law. I guess that means that Obama also voted for rape.

You're on very thin ground here, excon.

Elliot

First of all, how does voting against a LABOR LAW equate to "voting for rape"?

Secondly, the Amendment, as I understand it, doesn't protect women or even penalize those who rape them. It does nothing to protect anyone.



I know you have more respect for corporations than women but some feel otherwise.


In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and "warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job." (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.
Offering Ms. Jones legal relief was Senator Al Franken of Minnesota who offered an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

Here are those who vote to protect a corporation over a victim of rape:

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Another one of those "Right wing, despicable, UNAMERICAN behavior!" posts (which you sure dropped pretty quick). Even on Huffpo Ryan Grim says (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/defense-department-oppose_n_326569.html) "It's a question, it turns out, best addressed to the White House."

nice try.So you also would have voted against the amendment?

So you also would have voted against the amendment?

Yes, NK, I have more respect for corporations than women. :rolleyes:

This has nothing to do with whether anyone voted for the amendment, it's about the blatantly false and outrageous charge that Republicans are for rape, and especially while ignoring the fact that the administration was against it as well. Using your logic Obama is FOR rape as well.

So what is the logic behind the 30 who voted against it?

The answer is yes I would've voted against it for the reasons I cited above.

Furthermore ;Senator Al Franken knew the weaknesses in the amendment and introduced it anyway so it could be demagogued .

The answer is yes I would've voted against it for the reasons I cited above.
So the 75% of Republican congressmen who voted FOR it are not as savvy as you?

So the 75% of Republican congressmen who voted FOR it are not as savvy as you?

I don't care why the Republicans voted . Show me they voted because they were for rape ? You can't .

But while you are quick to make phoney charges against the Republicans you neglect to point out how much in bed the Democrats are with the trial lawyer lobby.

The facts are that a rape in the workplace is a rare event;and I don't believe any court would uphold the proposition that an employee could not seek criminal and civil redress because of some employee contract .

But liberal trial lawyers have long objected to mandatory arbitration provisions for things like discrimination cases. And that is in fact what Franken was targeting... The fact that it happened to a defense contractor that the left despises... (despite the fact that this administration and the previous Democrat Administration had ongoing contracts with them)... is just the icing on the cake.

Wow, I'm speechless.

Wow, I'm speechless.

If only...

You should be . It's absurd on face level to make a claim that any company policy could trump the law. Rape is illegal so no company policy could possibly exempt someone who is guilty of rape.

I don't care why the Republicans voted . Show me they voted because they were for rape ? You can't .

The facts are that a rape in the workplace is a rare event;and I don't believe any court would uphold the proposition that an employee could not seek criminal and civil redress because of some employee contract .

But liberal trial lawyers have long objected to mandatory arbitration provisions for things like discrimination cases. And that is in fact what Franken was targetting ... The fact that it happened to a defense contractor that the left despises ....Hello again, tom:

I can. By objecting to an employees right to seek redress of their grievances in a court of law, they are supporting WHATEVER behavior caused the grievance in the first place. If that behavior is rape, then they support rape. That is just so...

Mandatory arbitration with NO appeal, whether you think so or not, has been upheald. Otherwise, why do you think Halliburton uses it? They use it, to LIMIT the rights of the employee and EXPAND their own. They are ABUSIVE of an employees rights. To end the practice is good, and right, and just, and the American way.

excon

Yes I'm aware of the Scotus decision in the Gilmer case (upheld 7-2) .
I'll repeat myself. NO WAY does that cover instances of rape .

I'll also repeat myself that if Congress were to pass a law banning mandatory arbitration I would support it. This was a sneaky back door trick by Franken.

It's absurd on face level to make a claim that any company policy could trump the law. Rape is illegal so no company policy could possibly exemp someone who is guilty of rape.Hello again, tom:

I think you misunderstand the fundamentals... We're not talking about criminal law here. If we were, you'd be right. No company policy shields someone from criminal charges...

What we're talking about here, is someone seeking civil redress for the wrongs committed against them while employed, no matter WHAT those wrongs are. Mandatory arbitration is a way to LIMIT a citizens rights under the Constitution. THIS legislation is a way to CLOSE that loophole.

excon

Then create legislation that would close that loop hole and sign me up .

This amendment rider to a defense appropriations bill does nothing of the sort however . That is why the WH objected to it.

Btw I think Jamie Lee Jones could pursue this in court and win because it was a criminal act against her. To my knowledge she has not pursued ANY judicial or criminal redress at all. So far all I see is her testifing to Congress and setting up web sites. If I'm wrong about that please correct me.

If I'm wrong about that please correct me.Hello again, tom:

I don't know what she's doing. But, she has a lawyer, and lawyers sue people. They don't make money when their client goes on TV. Maybe she's laying the foundation first. That ain't dumb. Or she's trying to guilt trip Halliburton into settling with her. That ain't dumb either.

excon

... I think Jamie Lee Jones could persue this in court and win because it was a criminal act against her. To my knowlege she has not persued ANY judicial or criminal redress at all. So far all I see is her testifing to Congress and setting up web sites. If I'm wrong about that please correct me.

Apparently, KBR is pretty much immune from criminal law in Iraq. In short, a criminal charge is not an option either and the Department of Justice has not pursued any charges. It has taken her three years to get the right to bring a civil suit.

Apparently, KBR is pretty much immune from criminal law in Iraq.
So I've heard . But surely they aren't immune to US law. Has she pursued it beyond the congressional testimony and the PR campaign ?

the Department of Justice has not pursued any charges

Not even that bastion of fair play Eric Holder ?

Hello again, tom:

I dunno what she's doing. But, she has a lawyer, and lawyers sue people. They don't make money when their client goes on TV. Maybe she's laying the foundation first. That ain't dumb. Or she's trying to guilt trip Halliburton into settling with her. That ain't dumb either.

You'd think the courts ruled in Halliburton's favor but they didn't (http://www.karlbayer.com/blog/?p=5279).

Thanks Steve . I stand corrected about that.

asking

Title 18, Part I, Chapter 1, § 7, of the United States Code, entitled "Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined,"
Says the United States has jurisdiction over the following:

"(7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States."[

So the Coalition Provisional Authority order 17 you refer to has no meaning regarding US law .It only states that contractors were immune from Iraqi law.

Steve

On September 15, 2009 the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Jamie Leigh Jones' federal lawsuit against KBR can be tried in open court.
Appeals court sends KBR rape case to court | National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) (http://www.nsvrc.org/news/news-field/1754)

Steve

On September 15, 2009 the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Jamie Leigh Jones' federal lawsuit against KBR acan be tried in open court.
Appeals court sends KBR rape case to court | National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) (http://www.nsvrc.org/news/news-field/1754)

Another good pickup, tom.

I know you have more respect for corporations than women but some feel otherwise.

I know I'm going to kick myself for doing this, but can you please explain how your post responds to my points?

The laws that Franken put forward does a great job of PUNISHING CORPORATIONS... but how does that protect a single woman from being raped? How does it keep women safe?

Answer: it doesn't.

The law is an attack on corporations but offers no benefit to women.

Elliot

So the 75% of Republican congressmen who voted FOR it are not as savvy as you?

Yes, but we already knew that. The other 25% aren't either.

Wow, I'm speechless.

No, THIS is speechless.

Ask Me Help Desk - View Profile: speechlesstx (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/members/speechlesstx.html)

You are NeedKarma.

Stop being so confused.

Elliot

The laws that Franken put forward does a great job of PUNISHING CORPORATIONS... but how does that protect a single woman from being raped? How does it keep women safe?
Tell me, is there a law that can protect a woman from being raped? Of course not, that's a straw man argument that you set up. You'll rape someone if you want to regardless if there is a law that exists. Read the amendment to see what it does. How does it punish corporations? By making more difficult for them to drug, gang rape, and confine women in shipping containers? Then I'm all for that kind of punishment, aren't you?

Since I already pointed out that the court ruled that Halliburton could not arbitrate her claims and that her law suit could proceed ;Franken's point is mute... unless his motivation went beyond protecting women in the work place from rape.

Tell me, is there a law that can protect a woman from being raped? Of course not, that's a straw man argument that you set up. You'll rape someone if yuo want to regardless if there is a law that exists. Read the amendment to see what it does. How does it punish corporations? By making more difficult for them to drug, gang rape, and confine women in shipping containers? Then I'm all for that kind of punishment, aren't you?

The law, as excon explained, punishes corporations by withholding money from them if they try to force victims to settle their cases via arbitration.

How does that correspond to "making more difficult for them to drug, gang rape, and confine women in shipping containers".

Which brings me back th the question I asked before...

How does this law protect a single woman from being raped? For that matter, how does it punish a single rapist?

The law doesn't address either one of these things.

It's bad law. The 30 Reps who voted against it knew it, the WH knows it, and we know it too. And voting against it doesn't constitute a "vote in favor of rape" since the law doesn't even ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF RAPE.

Elliot

How does this law protect a single woman from being raped? Strawman - as I mentioned in my last post. Can you read?

Read the amendment to see what it does. How does it punish corporations? By making more difficult for them to drug, gang rape, and confine women in shipping containers? Then I'm all for that kind of punishment, aren't you?
http://myiq2xu.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/strawman.jpg

According to CBS news, April 2008:

"Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson, the subcommittee's chairman, said at least three laws give the Justice Department authority to prosecute such cases."

And yet the DOJ under Bush did not. The DOJ has only indicted one person under MEJA for a violent crime.

Here's a fairly coherent (May 2008) account from the University of Pittsburgh's law school--regarding another case:
JURIST - Hotline: US military court-martialing civilian contractor Ali while DOJ slumbers (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2008/05/us-military-to-court-martial-ali-while.php)

Roughly, the DOJ is unmotivated because of internal rules that work as disincentives and nobody really knows how to legally prosecute civilians under military law.


Thus, when criminal law fails, it's usual to resort to civil law.

Strawman - as I mentioned in my last post. Can you read?

Yes I can, that's why I addressed it and showed that it WASN'T a strawman.

On the other hand, your argument that the law somehow is "making more difficult for them to drug, gang rape, and confine women in shipping containers"... THAT is a strawman... since as I pointed out, the law never addresses the issue of rape.

Clearly YOU are the one having trouble reading.

But then again, you also think you're speechless (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/republicans-vote-rape-408740-3.html#post2047930).

Elliot

Strawman - as I mentioned in my last post. Can you read?

Got no answer, huh?

That's OK, you rarely do.

What is so hard to understand? It's simple. The amendment withholds federal contracts from contractors that use mandatory arbitration clauses to prevent victims of assault from going to court. A rider is a great place to put it. After all, the arbitration clauses are riders on employment. Turn about is fair play.

Nine Republicans voted with Democrats on the legislation for a final vote of 68-30.

I think if the 30 Republicans who voted against it were as easy in their consciences about this as you guys are, at least the ever-loquacious Jeff Sessions would have been willing to explain their reasoning. But mum's the word.

I explained my reasoning . Set up legislation that prohibits ALL companies from mandatory arbitration and I'd probably support it.

But be honest... the Jones case was a pretext for the real reason the Dems with the backing of the trial lawyer lobby want the bill . They want it because they are missing out on all those delicious legal fees and large settlements as employees take their employers to court for any reason ,frivilous or otherwise.

What is so hard to understand?

What is so hard to understand is why voting against a bill that deals with the issue of arbitration vs. trial is being construed as a "vote for rape"?

Whether you are in favor of the bill or against the bill doesn't matter. The bill isn't about rape.

Can you explain it?

Elliot

Can you explain it?

ElliotThis righteousness coming from a guy who posts about death panels? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle african american?

This righteousness coming from a guy who posts about death panels? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle african american?

Changing the subject again? Don't have an answer? Fine.

The difference is that I can cite the places where death panels are mentioned. You just refuse to acknowledge it.

So, back to the question at hand... can you explain why voting for or against this particular law is a vote for or against rape, if the law itself has NOTHING to do with rape?

Elliot

This righteousness coming from a guy who posts about death panels? Isn't that the pot calling the kettle african american?

No that was my line (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/its-time-drawup-articles-impeachment-407827-3.html#post2047931). Are you trying to channel me today?

You still can't see the obvious hypocrisy here which is a guy that complains about others posting about death panels saying Republicans are for rape.

No that was my line (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/its-time-drawup-articles-impeachment-407827-3.html#post2047931). Are you trying to channel me today?

You still can't see the obvious hypocrisy here which is a guy that complains about others posting about death panels saying Republicans are for rape.

Speech,

NK thinks he's you (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/republicans-vote-rape-408740-2.html#post2047615). Not surprising that he's channelling your ideas... though he seems a bit slower than you.

Elliot

Ex,

Ya know I love you like a brother, but you DO post some weird things.

I think this one reaches the level of bizzarre.

Ex,

Ya know I love you like a brother, but you DO post some wierd things.

I think this one reaches the level of bizzarre.

But he tries hard.

The law, as excon explained, punishes corporations by withholding money from them if they try to force victims to settle their cases via arbitration.

How does that correspond to "making more difficult for them to drug, gang rape, and confine women in shipping containers".

Which brings me back th the question I asked before...

First of all, it doesn't just withhold money, it withholds government contracts. It's basically saying, "I won't do business with you if you do this." It's like not recognizing another country diplomatically. So I think it's a bit stronger than just "withholding money" seems to suggest. Just as Title IX withholds federal funding from school districts that discriminate against women and girls. It's the same idea. Everybody wants those grants and contracts. Defense contractors LIVE on government contracts, so if you view a corporation as a legal person, it's a kind of death threat.

It doesn't make it "more difficult" for individuals to rape. It gives the company --any company -- a disincentive to allow the kind of "working" environment that leads to that kind of thing.

All this I assume all of you already know and you are just pretending to not get it because you like arguing with each other so much. :)

So carry on.

It doesn't make it "more difficult" for individuals to rape. It gives the company --any company -- a disincentive to allow the kind of "working" environment that leads to that kind of thing.

All this I assume all of you already know and you are just pretending to not get it because you like arguing with each other so much.Hello asking:

What you say above, is so glaringly obvious, even the dullest amongst us has got to get it. Therefore, you must be right. There IS another reason why they say the bunk they do...

But, it's not because they like to argue.. It's more insidious than that. It's because their hatred for ANYTHING Obama or Franken BLINDS them utterly to simple truths...

excon

I guess my question is, What's at stake?

I disliked Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld quite a lot, but occasionally one of them would do something I actually agreed with, though my feeling was that their rationale for doing it was never what mine would have been.

So if people who hate Obama, moderates, and liberals, generally, hate them so much that they are blinded to the obvious, what's at stake for them? What would happen if they acknowledged that people with different values sometimes do good things or that people with similar values sometimes do terrible things?

Why is realizing that the good guys don't always behave and the bad guys aren't always so bad so scary?

I guess my question is, What's at stake?
Why is realizing that the good guys don't always behave and the bad guys aren't always so bad so scary?Hello again, asking,

In order to see what you're asking others to see, would require them to take off the blinders of ideology. What's at stake is a lifetime belief in an ideology which reached its apex under the dufus, but has since made a dramatic fall from grace into utter disrepute.

Failing to support THIS amendment for the REASONS given only increases their slide.

excon

Yes. I just wish that 30 out of our 100 senators weren't wearing those blinders.

Perhaps you should advise the White House to also take off those blinders since they also advised the Senate to reject the amendment??

Perhaps you should advise the White House to also take off those blinders since they also advised the Senate to reject the amendment ?????????Hello again, tom:

If I were to advise the White House on KBR, it would be to fire them, and bring them up on charges of murder and corruption.

excon

The DoD opposed it because it's a hassle for them to have to look at subcontracts. They don't want to be in the position of having to be the enforcer. This is just a matter of legal wording. For example, if by taking a government contract, any arbitration wording becomes null and void, that's at least a start. In addition, including such wording would have to be punishable as well. Contractors would get the message.

I'm guessing the DoD also has to get along with those big contractors and felt obliged to oppose it by their ongoing relations with "the boys." I would not take their mild opposition as an argument against the idea that something needs to be done to allow people to take legal action if they are assaulted or harassed in these situations.

I don't think anyone is going to fire KBR. They are a defacto branch of the military now. For better or worse.

The Franken amendment is forcing the government into a game of chicken. Good for him!

But the DoD and the White House are apparently asking for rewording. I just hope that doesn't significantly weaken the amendment.

And rewording is the only thing I suggested also.

Multiple administrations from both parties have hired Halliburton and it's affiliates because they provide needed services that no one else seems to be able to effectively duplicate.

But what you have done is proven my point. The amendment was not so much the protection of a women from rape... that was the convenient pretext. The amendment was designed to zing Halliburton and also to throw a bone to the trial lawyer lobby.

But what you have done is proven my point. The amendment was not so much the protection of a women from rape....that was the convenient pretext.

Nonsense.

Nothing I said proved your point. My point about the game of chicken was quite different from yours. Mine was that the government and defense contractors are mutually dependent enough that the contractors count on getting what they want--ie literally getting away with murder. But in fact, the federal government has the upper hand and should use its clout more often.

In this case, the government is asking for something totally reasonable.

Also, why are you so focused on Halliburton? Do you work for them?

Also, why are you so focused on Halliburton? Do you work for them?
Lol... that is a non sequitur .Obviously if I take a position that favors Halliburton I must be employed by them. Excon uses the same tactic with me all the time asking if I have stock in the Insurance Industry.


You are aware that KBR is Halliburton no ?

Mine was that the government and defense contractors are mutually dependent enough that the contractors count on getting what they want--ie literally getting away with murder.
That's the nonsense.
If they want to make a law to deal harshly with gross criminal sexual misconduct then do it. But this is a transparent payoff to a special interest group. I thought the Dems condemned that sort of thing . I guess not.

Like I already mentioned ;the courts have already overruled any arbitration agreement that was signed by Jones.

Here is a statement by Sen Corker

"This vote has been grossly misunderstood, oversimplified, and misreported. Senator Corker, the father of two daughters, believes what happened to Jamie Leigh Jones is abhorrent and that the culprits should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; further, he agrees that rape, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress should not be arbitrated, but the Franken amendment went far beyond the ill it was trying to remedy to encompass most possible employment claims,"

And that's the point. It's not exclusively about rape . It's opening up all employee grieviances that are handled now by arbitration to civil court remedy ;and that is a Trial Lawyer Lobby dream. .

The Franken Amendment does not remedy her situation because it needed no remedy... she could sue away. It's a foundation of law that certain rights cannot be signed away in a contract.

Halliburton divested itself of KBR. You didn't know?
KBR was too much of a liability on a variety of counts.

The Franken Amendment does not remedy her situation because it needed no remedy .


No. You are right; it doesn't help her directly. It remedies the situation of people like Jones who will be in that situation in the future. Jones won her day in court --but it took three years to be allowed to sue in a civil court what should in fact be handled as a criminal case. On that you and I agree. But if the DoJ can't or won't do its job, for whatever reason, then at least give people the option of a civil trial until such time as these cases are likely to be prosecuted at all, which so far, they aren't.

Further, future perps will know that even if they are functionally immune from criminal prosecution, victims can still sue both them and the company. It's going to have a cooling effect on their various and sundry passions.