Check out some similar questions!

asking · Oct 23, 2009, 09:02 AM

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.

tomder55 · Oct 23, 2009, 09:20 AM

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 ?

speechlesstx · Oct 23, 2009, 09:22 AM

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.

tomder55 · Oct 23, 2009, 09:27 AM

Thanks Steve . I stand corrected about that.

tomder55 · Oct 23, 2009, 09:35 AM

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.

tomder55 · Oct 23, 2009, 09:38 AM

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)

speechlesstx · Oct 23, 2009, 09:42 AM

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.

ETWolverine · Oct 23, 2009, 10:07 AM

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

ETWolverine · Oct 23, 2009, 10:08 AM

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.

ETWolverine · Oct 23, 2009, 10:10 AM

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

NeedKarma · Oct 23, 2009, 10:13 AM

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?

tomder55 · Oct 23, 2009, 10:21 AM

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.

ETWolverine · Oct 23, 2009, 10:24 AM

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

NeedKarma · Oct 23, 2009, 10:25 AM

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?

tomder55 · Oct 23, 2009, 10:27 AM

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?

asking · Oct 23, 2009, 10:29 AM

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.

ETWolverine · Oct 23, 2009, 10:31 AM

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

ETWolverine · Oct 23, 2009, 10:32 AM

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.

asking · Oct 23, 2009, 10:40 AM

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.

tomder55 · Oct 23, 2009, 10:51 AM

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.