Ask Me Help Desk - Republicans vote FOR rape

Republicans vote FOR rape

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

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 "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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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.

Quote:

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Another one of those "Right wing, despicable, UNAMERICAN behavior!" posts (which you sure dropped pretty quick). Even on Huffpo Ryan Grim says "It's a question, it turns out, best addressed to the White House."

nice try.

So you also would have voted against the amendment?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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 .

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

... 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.

Quote:

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 ?

Quote:

the Department of Justice has not pursued any charges

Not even that bastion of fair play Eric Holder ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

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.

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

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)

Another good pickup, tom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Wow, I'm speechless.

No, THIS is speechless.

Ask Me Help Desk - View Profile: speechlesstx

You are NeedKarma.

Stop being so confused.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

How does this law protect a single woman from being raped?

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

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.

Elliot

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

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.