***Updated December 7, 2009
Please note this blog describes events and behaviors that could be disturbing to some.
The headline is the truth. Today, Senator Al Franken took to the Senate floor to introduce an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill preventing funding companies that do not offer their employees recourse against companies for condoning, hiding, and threatening rape victims.
You probably remember the story of Jamie Leigh Jones, the 19 year old employee of KBR, then a subsidiary of Halliburton, who was drugged and repeatedly raped and sodomized by multiple men while working in Baghdad. After her rape, she was held by armed KBR guards inside a shipping container for 24 hours with no food, water, or medical attention. "Don't plan on working back in Iraq. There won't be a position here, and there won't be a position in Houston," the men told her. In other words, if you talk, you're out of a job. All the way across the world, in Baghdad, with no phone, means of transportation - forced to reside at the same camp with the men that repeatedly raped and sodomized you - and the corporation you are working for actually has armed guards keeping you from seeking help. Can you imagine her fear? Even for a second? Finally, a guard with a soul slipped her a cell phone. She called her father in Houston. He contacted his Rep. Ted Poe.
I don't always agree with Rep. Poe, but what he did next was nothing short of heroic. He contacted the State Department and had the Army immediately free her from the shipping container where KBR was holding her.
From ABC News:
"We contacted the State Department first," Poe told ABCNews.com, "and told them of the urgency of rescuing an American citizen" -- from her American employer.
Poe says his office contacted the State Department, which quickly dispatched agents from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to Jones' camp, where they rescued her from the container. "
After being rescued, she was examined by strangers. Army doctors collected evidence from her, examined her all while she was probably terrified and alone and far away - all the way across the world from safety and security. They then turned the evidence over to KBR Security personell. They "lost" it.
After two years, the Justice Department had not prosecuted any of her rapists. A loophole allows contractors who commit crimes while employed overseas immune from prosecution. Representative Poe said "There are several, I think, their excuses, why the perpetrators haven't been prosecuted," Poe said. "But I think it is the responsibility of our government, the Justice Department and the State Department, when crimes occur against American citizens overseas in Iraq, contractors that are paid by the American public, that we pursue the criminal cases as best as we possibly can and that people are prosecuted."
The only other recourse was a civil suit, that Jones' employment contract prohibited. Only a private arbitration with arbitrators hired by KBR would be permitted. The very people that were responsible for the men who raped her, sodomized her, held her hostage, threatened her and lost the evidence she had to endure humiliation and terror to have collected were dictating to her how exactly she was going to sue them.
According to Ted Poe, no less than three other women came to him with the same claims, but because of non-disclosure arbitration requirements, we'll never hear their stories and their rapists will remain free men. Likely in OUR communities here in Houston.
Cue Al Franken - who proposed the amendment to prevent any company that uses that clause in employment contracts against rape victims could not receive funding. Only those defense contractors that have "demonstrated their willingness and inability to protect women from sexual assault."
Here's Franken's speech:
In other words, if a company allows their employees to be gang-raped, we don't want to do business with them.
The amendment passed. 68-30.
Thirty. THIRTY. Thirty Republican senators voted against the amendment.
The Boston Herald reports that Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama "said it would invalidate due process rights of employers and employees and arbitration can be better and less expensive for employees.
"The Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting contracts," Sessions said."
He's worried about employer's rights?
From the Huffington Post - the names of each and every senator that voted against this amendment - including the victim's Senator - John Cornyn of TX.
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)
Every single one of these Senators is without a soul.
UPDATE: From the Burnt Orange Report:
Senator Cornyn believes that Al Franken is at fault for making thirty Republicans vote against justice for rape victims.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) accused Franken exploiting the story of Jamie Leigh Jones -- a former KBR employee who says she was locked in a container in Iraq after alleging she was raped by co-workers -- to further his political agenda."Trying to tap into the natural sympathy that we have for this victim of this rape --and use that as a justification to frankly misrepresent and embarrass his colleagues, I don't think it's a very constructive thing," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said in an interview.
So there you have it. It's "not constructive" to introduce a bill giving rape victims an exception from mediation clauses in contracts so they have their day in court.
"It has been argued that anti-male bias built into the justice system (ranging from the legislature, judicial system, police, attorney orgs, etc) is contributing to many societal problems. Do you disagree?"
Yes. I'm not going to pounce on you with the very large amount of research I've read and helped conduct over the past decade and the thousands of cases I've worked on. Suffice it to say that there are some exceptions to every rule, but it is well-documented that the majority of crimes against women are perpetrated by men, and the majority of crimes against men are perpetrated by other men. Do women physically assault men, and are men less likely to report it? Yes, to both, however a woman is generally less likely to cause injury to a man than vice versa, and it is mandatory for police to arrest if there is evidence of mutual domestic violence at the scene of a call for service.
I could spend an afternoon telling you about the bias I've seen among police all over the country, officers buddying up and siding with a man when an obviously injured female made the call to the police. I've met officers who have admitted bias against women.
At some point, you might recognize that what may seem like bias against men is in fact actual reality. I know SStMelon may be too busy to provide you with evidence, but I have a long, long list of research that refutes your argument of some anti-male conspiracy, and I'd be more than happy to send you an email with that information if you'd be willing to read it.
If your only argument is that violence against any person is wrong, then on that we agree :).
Seems like to me you're halfway there already... :o)
Peace, sister...I believe in justice for all!
You're asking me to do research to justify (or debunk) your baseless claims about the anti-male nature of U.S. social institutions and the violent, contract-killing tendencies of American women? Other than the three-second Google search, the result of which I posted earlier, not likely.
SST,
ok, I get it...you'll have to do your own work.
"Many women after deciding that their intimate partner is no longer filling the bill will "hire" a individual (usually a lover, family member) to perpetrate the crime. This is not classified as a murder committed by a female intimate against a male spouse/lover but is actually classified in a separate crime category."
Um, really? I can assert, for example, that little green men come into the house through the little ventilation doohicky in the kitchen ceiling and do a nifty tap dance on the counter, all in unison, but I'd not be surprised if a few of you wanted a bit of evidence to substantiate that before believing it. Admittedly, it's not very likely that any little green men do what I said, whereas I imagine that, at least every once in a while, some woman takes out a contract hit on her spouse, but perhaps you see the point I'm trying to make.
Evidence, hon. Evidence. Where is it?
As for this: "It has been argued that anti-male bias built into the justice system (ranging from the legislature, judicial system, police, attorney orgs, etc) is contributing to many societal problems."
All I have to say in response is: pardon?? I must've missed that anti-male bias somewhere. Perhaps you meant to say "_black_ male"? I could buy that, at least in certain contexts.
I can't tell whether you're trying to corroborate my statement, dispute it, or neither but at any rate for purposes of discussion here is one factoid that is debatable:
"In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims."
Many women after deciding that their intimate partner is no longer filling the bill will "hire" a individual (usually a lover, family member) to perpetrate the crime. This is not classified as a murder committed by a female intimate against a male spouse/lover but is actually classified in a separate crime category.
Do you mind if I ask what you're trying to demonstrate?
My point is that I want to see 'violence' and more importantly, "The Dance of Dysfunction" in intimate relationships clearly explained to the public.
It has been argued that anti-male bias built into the justice system (ranging from the legislature, judicial system, police, attorney orgs, etc) is contributing to many societal problems. Do you disagree?
I don't know what you're quoting, alienhunter, but you might check out the ABA's website. The stats cited there, with links, are rather different from those you provide:
http://www.abanet.org/domviol/statistics.html
yes, sexual assault is a horrible crime. I have a serious disgust with any "animalistic" behavior, always have and always will. I used "typical male" as a quick and dirty qualifier perhaps it was inaccurate to do so.
Here's my issue:
Violence viewed as the sole province and tool of the male subspecies. It's wrong and terribly counterproductive to the viability of our most fundamental unit of society...the family.
SSTMelon,
The studies are out there in book form and the internet. Here's one interesting statistic that you can do a quick search for however bear in mind that probably most cases of violence against men is considered humorous AND extremely embarassing to men so most go unreported. Also bear in mind that "domestic violence" is a very limited definition of "violence" but I'm sure you get the picture:
"Statistics About Domestic Abuse And Violence Against Men
Very little in known about the actual number of men who are in a domestic relationship in which they are abused or treated violently by women. In 100 domestic violence situations approximately 40 cases involve violence by women against men. An estimated 400,000 women per year are abused or treated violently in the United States by their spouse or intimate partner. This means that roughly 300,000 to 400,000 men are treated violently by their wife or girl friend."
Okay, a)it's obvious the people who voted against the amendment have none of the "natural sympathy" that Sen. Cornyn refers to and b)nobody embarassed the senators but themselves.
Cornyn is bitching because he and his cohorts are now on record as to how they really feel about rape victims.
Please check out the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Crime Victimization Survey: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vsx2.htm
Men are more likely victims of violent crime in all areas EXCEPT sexual assault. Even with violent crime in general, the numbers between men and women has been narrowing rapidly in the last 5 years. "Much more likely that a typical male..." is not accurate at all anymore. In any case, I'd rather be knocked over the head and robbed than sexually assaulted. I have a feeling most women would agree with me.
First, the Republicans who voted against the amendment were simply voting to uphold a properly executed business agreement that Ms. Jones (and the other employees, presumably) signed on their own volition. After all, had they wanted to and taken the proper initiative, they could either have negotiated a different contract agreement, or not have signed the contract at all and chosen a different job.
Second, women shouldn't be working in the first place, and certainly not in a foreign country in a male-dominated position. If Ms. Jones had simply adhered to her proper gender role, she would never have been in Iraq to be gang-raped in the first place.
"The Boston Herald reports that Republican Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama "said it would invalidate due process rights of employers and employees and arbitration can be better and less expensive for employees."
----
I think arbitration should only be for salary and other disputes that don't involve a heinous crime. There should be no excuse or clause forbidding any employee from suing their employer, in the event, they are a roadblock to the victim from seeking justice.
My opinion is the same as it was back in October. These 30 Republicans - how do they look themselves in the mirror? How can they face the female members of their own families?
It appears that Hutchinson was one that voted FOR the amendment. She's pretty strong on women's rights for a Republican - HOWEVER - she is running ads right now against the 'government take over' of health care, and as the government isn't trying to take over health care, she's a liar and has lost any chance of my vote (although she had no chance to get my vote with White in the race now).
"Truth is, it is much more likely that a typical male will be confronted by violence (obviously, not of a sexual nature, but it certainly happens)."
Really? I'd be interested in seeing those studies you're citing, or the other evidence you might have. Could you provide me with links (or at least the citations)? Thanks!
Why pretend anymore? There is no Constitution.
Well, at the risk of 'sounding' cynical when I saw that he was getting married I figured his golf career was over... :O)
Not really kidding, though...it's the male essence thing.
I'm not sure I get what you mean...about walking to the other side of the room? I would like to know.
Hi AH,
It's not a competition, although it feels like it some times. What I don't get is why guys just can't walk to the the other side of the room, to the side of the wronged woman, in the presence of other men.
Why is that so hard?
And I haven't heard the "humor" about Tiger. Honestly, I was a little shocked. When he got married, I thought it was so that he could focus on golf. Am I naive or what?
You guys have said it all, so anything I say would just be redundant. But, I did notice Vitter from LA, you know the one who frequents the "houses" in New Orleans also voted against. Also, Cornyn is a complete ass.
so thirty voted FOR rape and AGAINST a woman's right to chose NOT to accept rape as a condition of employment. and voted to PROTECT profits and no-bid contracts of employers who basically raped the woman a second time, essentially assaulting this victim a third time! same lawmakers who went crazy over acorn set-up, where a FAKE pimp and supposedly fake HOOKER discussed a potential crime! best i not share with you what i would like to see happen to these senators, because it would involve yet a fourth sexual molestation. so i will end this post on a positive note, to thank god for senator al franken and his compassion, courage and determination to stand up against RAPE. incidentally where was kay on this?
Damn, SSTM -- spot on!
Hi bobo,
it's meeeee....
Truth is, it is much more likely that a typical male will be confronted by violence (obviously, not of a sexual nature, but it certainly happens)
It really is a deep seated public perception that skews the reality. For example, have you noticed how entertaining it is that Tiger Woods' wife beat him with a golf club...now that's funny stuff!
On the other hand, I fully appreciate AstrosGirlKel's feelings about the disgusting injustice in this situation.
I like the POV of your list. Fresh. Puts the emphasis where it should be.
When it comes to personal safety, we women live in a completely different world.
This isn't precisely on point, but I saw it recently and suspect it might help cut down on events such as the KBR gang rape, as well as the innumerable assaults that occur daily right here.
Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work
1. Don’t put drugs in women’s drinks.
2. When you see a woman walking by herself, leave her alone.
3. If you pull over to help a woman whose car has broken down, remember not to assault her.
4. If you are in a lift and a woman gets in, don’t assault her. You know what? Don’t even ogle her.
5. When you encounter a woman who is asleep, the safest course of action is to not assault her.
6. Never creep into a woman’s home through an unlocked door or window, or spring out at her from between parked cars, or assault her.
7. When you lurk in bushes and doorways with criminal intentions, always wear bright clothing, wave a flashlight, or play “Boys Who Rape (Should All Be Destroyed)” by the Raveonettes on a boombox really loud, so women in the vicinity will know where to aim their flamethrowers.
8. USE THE BUDDY SYSTEM! If it is inconvenient for you to stop yourself from assaulting women, ask a trusted friend to accompany you when in public.
9. Carry a rape whistle. If you find that you are about to assault a woman, you can hand the whistle to your buddy, so s/he can blow it to call for help.
10. Give your buddy a revolver, so that when indifferent passers-by either ignore the rape whistle, or gather round to enjoy the spectacle, s/he can pistol-whip you.
Is anyone really surprised? The people depend on exploitation. In their twisted little minds she deserved it.
I guess you guys still don't know what you are dealing with. I keep repeating it yet know one wants to face it. They are PURE EVIL...
Their god is money and that is the only thing they answer to. Because that is what all this delaying has to do with, how much money they will lose. They don't care about the criminality or the human rights abuses. Hell, they beat and raped that poor girl then held her against her will. You really think these scum care about that? LOL, they only care about not pissing off big business.
"Trying to tap into the natural sympathy that we have for this victim of this rape --and use that as a justification to frankly misrepresent and embarrass his colleagues, I don't think it's a very constructive thing," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said in an interview.
----------------------------------
I agree with Cornyn. It is not a very constructive thing to try to tap into sympathy where none exists. It's curious that he would claim embarrassment among his collegues; if their behavior is justified, why be embarrassed?
Right on, tragicmagic
CF- Thank you SO much for the extra info!
dear hurricane readers, gotta get my chron time in, anyone who checks over there for a reminder of the flaming haters we left behind can relate.
mytragicmagic99 wrote:
dear don't hate, chron's business now entirely depend on flaming back & forth, like throwing raw steak at a pack of starved dogs. so let's not disappoint them or let them down. they did not need to ignore acorn, they knew if they ran a story about people needing public assistance all the haters here would take care of it for them. why deprive them of pretending to have a paying readership? they tossed out today's march story like a porterhouse, watch the hungry get down to serious drool! personally i'd like to see them further ignore the kbr employee who was drugged, kidnapped, raped and has no legal remedy for over four years. except when al franken confronted the kbr people in front of all seven cspan viewers. that way humanitarians like me could get on with saying kbr's contract should have been pulled by congress like acorn. with full hearings as soon as they were proven to have conspired in covering the crime up from the taxpayer. fair is fair, acorn or kbr. the chron has deprived "business" protectionists here the right to talk nonsense about "contracts" "binding arbitration" and "national security interests" taking precedent. over one woman's right not to be drugged, raped, and kidnapped in a conspired cover up by a company you and i are paying, not to mention who suck up so much corporate welfare they should be getting a food stamp card for easier access.
10/11/2009 4:58:34 PM
Here's the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion ruling that four tort claims arising from the sexual assault are not covered by the arbitration agreement: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/08/08-20380-CV0.wpd.pdf
I wouldn't recommend reading it in entirety.
What I did find of particular interest was the dissent by Judge Harold R. DeMoss, whose final argument that Ms. Hughes should be bound to arbitration consisted of this: "Finally, Jones’s claims are inextricably connected because they arose from the same incident and the evidence of the claims will necessarily overlap. It
seems inefficient to adjudicate these claims before different fora."
Really? It's "inefficient" to handle certain parts of a suit in arbitration or mediation, but have a trial on other issues? That's funny, because it's done ALL THE TIME. The fact that his honor would need to raise this as an argument undermines the validity of his entire dissent.
By the way, Harold DeMoss took time off from his law firm in 1988 to work on the campaign of the first President Bush.
Scott, I think you were right on point. Obviously, fear is a powerful tool of Republicans. It is ironic, but I think absolutely true, that people tend to be afraid of events that will likely never come to pass than they are of the very real threats they encounter every day. Another example, most of my relatives here in a suburb of Houston were deathly afraid of terrorism after 9/11, whereas I lived right in Washington DC and wasn't afraid.
Every one of them was more likely to die in a car accident, but you couldn't rationalize with any of them. Phobias involve irrational fear. I strongly believe that Republicans want Americans to be phobic. I've worked with people in crisis, and learned long ago that people paralyzed by fear are extremely malleable.
Unfortunately my dry sense of humor doesn't always come clear over the internet. Maybe I just don't have the command of humor that Carguy has. Basically, to be totally serious, the conservatives are able to shift your fear from something that just might happen (you being screwed by your employer) to something that will likely never happen (a terrorist attack affecting YOU personally). So, the weaker mind comes out fearing the terrorist and accepting the danger of giving their employer too much power. Analyze that with a sober mind and it makes absolutely zero sense.
Scott, I apologize for calling BS. I read it 2 more times, and then I FINALLY got the nuance. (Hope you don't think I am as clueless as those 35 million, even though I DID take philosophy in college).
Sorry, Scott... I'm calling BS on your reasoning.
Scott: You are a riot.
I told a friend of mine in Dallas to check out the DH. Not a lot of clear-minded liberal thinking people IN Dallas. He just reads. He doesn't post. He said he likes you best. (Sorry girls-you know who you are. BUt you ALL tied for 2nd)
franken might turn out to be one of the best senators this country has ever had! no wonder the GOP feared him and tried to stop him from taking the seat. god bless rick sanchez, he just showed footage of franken confronting the contractor about "binding arbitration". think i'll email the republican senators and ask THEM if the rape was worth $50 or $100 in arbitration? sanchez is definitely a class act, earlier in the week he updated about the small town DA in texas who had officers stop minorities and shake them down for money, then split the money up like pirates loot! i was surprised to learn sanchez got his tv start in houston.
People are always motivated more on fear than they are of anything else. This issue is the same. I'm not afraid of getting gang raped or my wife getting gang raped in Iraq because neither of us plan on going. So, they are able to shift the issue to what I am afraid of. Suddenly, if we have to apply more regulations to corporations then somehow we will be less safe as a people. Yes, it makes no sense logically, but the 35 million voters that you are talking about never took basic philosophy where you had to follow a line of thinking from point A to point B.
We should all remember that the GOP ran an effective campaign in '00 and '04. (Notice I didn't say "honest" or "admirable", just effective.)
In addition, BOTH democratic candidates did an arguably poor job in both their choice of strategies as well as execution.
Lastly, but not leastly, there are about 20 million voters who are easily manipulated and another 15 million that are just plain stupid.
There you go, my election analysis in a nutshell.
That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
P.S. Whereas I think Bush 43 did what he thought was right most of the time. I agree that that Dick Cheney is truly the devil incarnate and the biggest SOB on the planet. And that is quite an accomplishment considering the other people in whosse company I place him.
You know, you should read "The Appeal" by John Grisham. I understand it's a novel, but it does make me wonder if something akin to the premise in that novel had something to do with the MILLIONS of dollars raised for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. The similarities are creepy.
And when you consider that Cheney was in charge of Halliburton, well....put 2 and 2 together and what do you come up with? Eight years of George F'n Bush. And Dick Cheney.
OF COURSE they can afford to buy legislators. I'm convinced they bought the damn presidency for eight years. Why else would Dickhead Cheney choose himself as VP nominee?
All THEY need to know
....Republicans GOOD.....Democrats BAD. NO ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUE REQUIRED.
Couldn't have said it better myself. These guys KNOW on which side their bread is buttered. And, thanks to their vote here, now we do too!
I am surprised, somewhat, that KBR-Halliburton could afford to buy THAT MANY legislators. Guess getting multi-billion$$$ NO BID government contracts frees up a lot a money on "Sale of the Century". You know what they say..."once you buy a US senator he is yours to keep."
Sorry about the double post. Not on purpose.
I agree that she should have her day in court somehow and somewhere and that somebody needs to pay.
I don't think ANY contract in THIS COUNTRY should be enforceable if it contains a person signing away rights guaranteed either by state or federal law. For instance, slavery is illegal. Just because I would put it in a contract and you sign it does not "legitimize" it. IF KBR-Hallibirton had such contracts where personal rights were abdicated for whatever reason, that contract should be ruled null and void in a situation like this. The company, KBR-Halliburton, giving ITSELF sole discretion and "arbitration" is absolutely ludicrous and violates every damn thing this country stands for.
Ladies, and dear friends at the DH, I hope this clarifies my position, better.
I know they get it, its too open for them not to. But when you are a puppet of the corporations targeted by the amendment you have to do what is expected or required of a paid employee. You protect your employer or the payments stop. Being bought and paid for means you lose your soul.
I didn't get a chance to email those bastards last night; crises at work kept me away from my computer.
But what keeps going through my mind is that this woman is someone's daughter; possibly sister, aunt, niece. As all of us women are, at the end of the day.
How the HELL could these men vote no? What if it were their daughter? How can they look the women in their families in the eye now?
How can they face themselves in the mirror, knowing they have sold their soul to the devil that is today's GOP?
BTW, unrelated topic. Breaking news is that President Obama has won this year's Nobel Peace Prize. WOW!
Republicans can vote against it because they realize that, among their base constituency, nobody cares about this issue.
Beyond that, KBR and Halliburton abused the taxpayer for years during the reign of George the W and the GOP didn't give a shit about that either.
I know I repeat myself, but Republicans like Cornyn and Hutchison and McCain continue to remain in office only because they have found a group of voters who will vote Republican no matter what impact it has on their own self interests. An uninformed electorate is the GOP's best friend.
carguy the fact that they had no contingency in place for this kind of thing to happen means either their background & psych-social battery of tests are flawed or the checks were not thoroughly conducted, possibly not conducted at all. almost all these contractors are ex-military and ex-cops and they no doubt knew the law shielded them to commit this crime against humanity. they probably knew if this crime was perpetrated against a woman from the foreign country, they could and would have been handled and then the shoe would be on the other foot with "nothing nobody could do FOR" these animals. in my opinion we are dealing with two felonies, enhanced as one perpetrated in the commission of the first, and, PREMEDITATED! yes if you get shot by enemies, friendly fire, break your leg, get swine flu & die, car wreck, etc the contract specifically states your danger pay is in effect as re-compensation and medical care will be handled on site by the military. once you get back on american soil, NO health care provided, no unemployment check, no work comp check, etc. but this is a gross negligence tort case, as negligence would have been if the company could have had no idea this could happen and it happened by accident or by outside actors. this passes the threshold for gross negligence i'm betting because these men will be found out to have a history of being drunk & disorderly, poorly disciplined and regimented. the reason the republicans freaked out is once this amendment was passed, an immediate resolution could have been introduced and voted upon to drop the contractor, like what you saw with acorn, who incidentally also had a contract and was immediately dropped from funding before even a preliminary investigation was conducted, much less charges filed or a case brought forward. so you see, contracts are breached and invalidated all the time with only a show cause hearing. usually by the GOP like acorn and the contracts of the auto workers, who republicans decided without a full hearing they were not worthy in the winners & losers game. yeah like AIG.
I just noticed that John McCain was one who voted against this bill. He doesn't think this event was paramount to torture? Treason in a war zone by one's own "men"? Rape changes a person's life FOREVER. F-O-R-E-V-E-R.
What respect I had for that man and what he endured is now gone.
Carguy, what person would EVER DREAM that it was possible to have these things happen to them by their coworkers? What this woman went through plays like a Halloween horror film!
I'm sorry, but the days of "blame the victim" are OVER for sexual assault. Not only that, it is the one crime that has no statute of limitations.
Simply put: We women are tired of rape, and we're not gonna f'in take it any more!
Oh, wait, Senator Sessions did go to law school, but it was in Alabama, so there you go.
Jeff Sessions needs to go to law school. A contract that prevents someone from reporting a crime contravenes Due Process. Oh, and Sen. Sessions: regarding the idea that Congress should not be involved in writing contracts, what about our Social Contract, ***hole?
You can say that again Carguy (oh wait, you already did). I think Franken handled that well in his speech. When one signs a contract they hardly ever consider the absurd. I would throw gang rape under the absurd. When someone considers arbitration they usually consider compensation issues, issues of breech of contract, or maybe harassment issues. I think this is the whole point. I don't think anyone can control what those companies necessarily do over there (like crimes committed and evidence lost) but you can simply not give contracts to companies that don't allow for exceptions to the arbitration rule (or simply define what arbitration is for in a narrow sense). Even if she doesn't get her day in court at the criminal courthouse she still deserves one in civil court.
I'm not sure HOW you are going to legislate this or enforce it. Once you leave American soil you got a big chore dragging the constitution and OUR laws you. Regardless of the nature of the crime, it's a crime. And trying to play policeman all over the world where US citizens work and play is a tough row to hoe.
Sounds to ME as if these people working overseas signed some contracts they should NOT have signed. I know they get triple pay for this kind of overseas work, or MORE. But you gotta understand that you can't sign your life and ALL your rights away for plain money.
IMO, I would vote for the amendment, but fear you are closing the barn door afer the horse has escaped.
There is NO way I would have signed an employment contract that contains the provisions alluded to in this article.
I'm not sure HOW you are going to legislate this or enforce it. Once you leave American soil you got a big chore dragging the constitution and OUR laws you. Regardless of the nature of the crime, it's a crime. And trying to play policeman all over the world where US citizens work and play is a tough row to hoe.
Sounds to ME as if these people working overseas signed some contracts they should NOT have signed. I know they get triple pay for this kind of overseas work, or MORE. But you gotta understand that you can't sign your life and ALL your rights away for plain money.
IMO, I would vote for the amendment, but fear you are closing the barn door afer the horse has escaped.
There is NO way I would have signed an employment contract that contains the provisions alluded to in this article.
This makes me so angry. And to see that those dickholes Ensign and Vitter voted against it....those two hypocritical assholes. The two who have trouble keeping their own pants zipped up, as it is.
I am going to send emails to every single one of these asswipes tonight. Every single one.
Family values my ass. They have NONE. How would they feel if this were their daughter or wife?
Those BASTARDS.
I thought about that, Scott - and the reason I left it out was I don't think Senators should get kudos for protecting the most basic of our constitutional rights. That's like giving kudos to the mailman for bringing you a letter.
I also thought that if it was Iran instead of KBR we'd have a lot of outrage from the right instead of thirty negative votes.
What's Cheyney's role in all of this?
Maybe I'm just a glass half full kind of guy (ok who in the he'll am I kidding) but maybe we should praise the republicans who DID vote it for still having a soul. I guess for many of us, the fact that they are souless is kind of a default.
Feel free to let me know if I need to rephrase or edit any typo's, folks. This took so much emotion to write that I couldn't bear to read it after I put it all together. It was too much.
Thanks.