30 GOP votes: no recourse for rape victims

[birdwatch]

Backstory: A woman is working overseas for a company under a US Govt. contract. She is beaten, gang-raped and locked in a shipping container by a group of her fellow employees. But she cannot sue. Its in her signed contract. If the US GOVT. contractor hires a bunch of thugs who perpetrate the crimes - she cannot sue. HUH?
Sen. Franken proposed a simple (seemingly sure-fire) Bill stating that the Pentagon would no longer do business with any company that requires an employee to sign an agreement that she cannot sue if she is, for instance, attacked and gang raped by employees.
Good News: the Bill passed! Congrats to Franken on his 1st Bill.
Bad News: 30 Republicans voted against it..... -including the esteemed southern gentlemen Sessions, Saxby and Isaakson. I'm stunned: can anyone explain this to me?
.
Jon Stewart's Daily Show showed Sessions stating that "It is not the Government's business to tell private business what they should have in their contracts (not even US Contractors, apparently); and that it is just a pollitical ploy.

[birdwatch]

Since the democrats control both houses your premise is a joke, spin to shift the focus from those that had the power to pass the legislation, the democrats.
I did tell you the good news in my OP: They did pass it - of course, they passed it! You are SO missing the point aren't you?

I didn't say the bill didn't pass - I just wondered what earthly reason would all those (30) normal, thinking Republicans have to vote against this?

There are so many links to this story and no law or rule requires that I give them to you.

[birdwatch]

How many democrats voted against it? I'm so glad you asked that question! The vote was 68-30 - ALL of the 30 NO votes were Republicaton.
.

[LisaM22]

Backstory: A woman is working overseas for a company under a US Govt. contract. She is beaten, gang-raped and locked in a shipping container by a group of her fellow employees. But she cannot sue. Its in her signed contract. If the US GOVT. contractor hires a bunch of thugs who perpetrate the crimes - she cannot sue. HUH?
Sen. Franken proposed a simple (seemingly sure-fire) Bill stating that the Pentagon would no longer do business with any company that requires an employee to sign an agreement that she cannot sue if she is, for instance, attacked and gang raped by employees.
Good News: the Bill passed! Congrats to Franken on his 1st Bill.
Bad News: 30 Republicans voted against it..... -including the esteemed southern gentlemen Sessions, Saxby and Isaakson. I'm stunned: can anyone explain this to me?
.
Jon Stewart's Daily Show showed Sessions stating that "It is not the Government's business to tell private business what they should have in their contracts (not even US Contractors, apparently); and that it is just a pollitical ploy.

the party of "NO" just voted "NO" cause that's what they do nowadays, vote "NO"

seems to me it is the governments business when they are the ones doing the hiring of these contractors, like how republicans try to push this off as telling private business what to do?

[birdwatch]

Surely there is someone who will come forward and stand up for the GOP. Aren't there even any female republicans who are outraged? Help us out here, will you? We need to understand.

[Lady_Jean_La]

I did tell you the good news in my OP: They did pass it - of course, they passed it! You are SO missing the point aren't you?

I didn't say the bill didn't pass - I just wondered what earthly reason would all those (30) normal, thinking Republicans have to vote against this?

There are so many links to this story and no law or rule requires that I give them to you.

They could have had a thousand reasons and I suspect they are detailed in the links you don't want to provide. imo

Maybe they just don't like Senator Franken. imo

[Details]

They could have had a thousand reasons and I suspect they are detailed in the links you don't want to provide. imoThis story has been out there forever. No, there are no hidden gotchas, yes, a woman was brutally raped, then imprisoned in a shipping container, then not allowed to do a thing about it. Yeesh, it's not that hard to find - just go look!

Here - I took the 20 seconds necessary and found you your links:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/halliburton-employee-jamie-leigh-jones-testifies-senate-rape/story?id=8775641
Jamie Leigh Jones was a 20-year-old young woman working her fourth day on the job in Baghdad for contractor Halliburton/KBR in 2005, when she says she was drugged and gang-raped by seven U.S contractors and held captive by two KBR guards in a shipping container. But more than four years after the alleged crimes occurred, Jones is still waiting for her day in court because when she signed her employment contract, she lost her rights to a jury trial and, instead, was forced into having her claims decided through secret, binding arbitration.

http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091013/OPINION02/91012024/1008/OPINION01/State%E2%80%99s+GOP+senators+vote+unconscionablyIn 2005, then Halliburton/KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones alleges she was gang-raped by her co-workers in Baghdad and then put into a shipping container for 24 hours without food or water and was warned that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Leigh_Jones

[Lady_Jean_La]

This story has been out there forever. No, there are no hidden gotchas, yes, a woman was brutally raped, then imprisoned in a shipping container, then not allowed to do a thing about it. Yeesh, it's not that hard to find - just go look!

Here - I took the 20 seconds necessary and found you your links:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/halliburton-employee-jamie-leigh-jones-testifies-senate-rape/story?id=8775641


http://www.tennessean.com/article/20091013/OPINION02/91012024/1008/OPINION01/State%E2%80%99s+GOP+senators+vote+unconscionably

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Leigh_Jones

Probably just didn't want to side with Sen. Franken. imo

[Details]

Probably just didn't want to side with Sen. Franken. imoSo it's OK to vote against a bill that stops companies from locking rape victims up in shipping containers, then preventing criminal or other charges?

That is some seriously sick partisanship, to place voting against Franken ahead of allowing rapes to be prosecuted.

[Lady_Jean_La]

Predictably, Sen. Jeff Sessions, ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opposed Franken's bill.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20091016/cm_thenation/15485424_1

[Lady_Jean_La]

So it's OK to vote against a bill that stops companies from locking rape victims up in shipping containers, then preventing criminal or other charges?

That is some seriously sick partisanship, to place voting against Franken ahead of allowing rapes to be prosecuted.

Silly little games Congress plays and all very predictable. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

UPDATE: Stephen Boyd, a Sessions spokesman, said in response: "Was Jon Stewart really trying to suggest that Jeff Sessions, a former federal prosecutor and Attorney General, is soft on criminals? Give me a break.


"What Stewart failed to mention was that the perpetrators of these sort of violent acts were completely outside the reach of criminal prosecution until a landmark new law - authored by Senator Sessions - was passed to extend the court's jurisdiction to reach American contractors working abroad."

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2009/10/jon_stewart_slams_alabama_sen_1.html

Shelby added that the arbitration process has problems, but said the Franken legislation was too broad and did not address any of those issues.

[tiptop]

So it's OK to vote against a bill that stops companies from locking rape victims up in shipping containers, then preventing criminal or other charges?

That is some seriously sick partisanship, to place voting against Franken ahead of allowing rapes to be prosecuted.

I initially thought it had to be about money. Hell, its always about money. But now I wonder if its not about abuse and power. And events in a foreign country; well, its like it never happened, right? IMO women are nuts to go work in a country like Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately brains are still not enough to override stupidity and male dominance.

[Brentwood]

I initially thought it had to be about money. Hell, its always about money. But now I wonder if its not about abuse and power. And events in a foreign country; well, its like it never happened, right? IMO women are nuts to go work in a country like Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately brains are still not enough to override stupidity and male dominance.

Exactly. Well said.

[tiptop]

You know, Lady .... you could be right .... and isn't that sad ??

jmo

So very sad. I cant envision any men being victim to this type atrocity.

[birdwatch]

So very sad. I cant envision any men being victim to this type atrocity. If they were there would be hard and fast laws and no "hold harmless" clauses in Government Contractors contracts.... but its only their "wimminfolk" who get what they get if they want to work overseas.

[birdwatch]

Probably just didn't want to side with Sen. Franken. imo

Well there is a reason. I guess. No pretense of rationality. OK - as long as they have their priorities clear and the good of their constituancy isn't an issue for them.
Now we can trust them to do their best for us on Health Care,etc. - yes we sure can. Oh - but the Legislature is not in the business of telling private companies what they can and cannot write in their contracts. So I guess that lets the whole insurance industry off the hook for good. And we know how fairly they treat women, LOL.

[Lady_Jean_La]

I initially thought it had to be about money. Hell, its always about money. But now I wonder if its not about abuse and power. And events in a foreign country; well, its like it never happened, right? IMO women are nuts to go work in a country like Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately brains are still not enough to override stupidity and male dominance.

I bet the money is really good! imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

You know, Lady .... you could be right .... and isn't that sad ??

jmo
Most of what goes on in Congress makes me sad. imo

[tiptop]

I bet the money is really good! imo

Indeed it is.

I had the chance to go to Saudi in the early 1990s. Didnt take long for me to do a little research and decide there was more to life than seeing Saudi and the money my bank account could entertain. I was lucky enough to talk with a woman who worked there. But my knowledge of the country and its customs was enough for me to make the decision not to go.

[Lady_Jean_La]

Well there is a reason. I guess. No pretense of rationality. OK - as long as they have their priorities clear and the good of their constituancy isn't an issue for them.
Now we can trust them to do their best for us on Health Care,etc. - yes we sure can. Oh - but the Legislature is not in the business of telling private companies what they can and cannot write in their contracts. So I guess that lets the whole insurance industry off the hook for good. And we know how fairly they treat women, LOL.

Well said. Nice to see some real analysis. imo

[Barbara2]

A link to the amendment and the votes for and against:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308

[LisaM22]

They could have had a thousand reasons and I suspect they are detailed in the links you don't want to provide. imo

Maybe they just don't like Senator Franken. imo
well that is just crazy, you don't do the wrong thing because the right thing would be agreeing with someone you dislike, but it does fit the logic of the party of "NO"

[LisaM22]

A link to the amendment and the votes for and against:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308

thanks for the link, shows us just who the party of "NO" is... doesn't it?

[Carol25]

I certainly all 30 of those Senators get their just due...They don't belong in leadership positions.

[Carol25]

A link to the amendment and the votes for and against:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308
OMG...both of my senators! They will hear from me tomorrow!

[Jumbo1]

Backstory: A woman is working overseas for a company under a US Govt. contract. She is beaten, gang-raped and locked in a shipping container by a group of her fellow employees. But she cannot sue. Its in her signed contract. If the US GOVT. contractor hires a bunch of thugs who perpetrate the crimes - she cannot sue. HUH?
Sen. Franken proposed a simple (seemingly sure-fire) Bill stating that the Pentagon would no longer do business with any company that requires an employee to sign an agreement that she cannot sue if she is, for instance, attacked and gang raped by employees.
Good News: the Bill passed! Congrats to Franken on his 1st Bill.
Bad News: 30 Republicans voted against it..... -including the esteemed southern gentlemen Sessions, Saxby and Isaakson. I'm stunned: can anyone explain this to me?
.
Jon Stewart's Daily Show showed Sessions stating that "It is not the Government's business to tell private business what they should have in their contracts (not even US Contractors, apparently); and that it is just a pollitical ploy.

Actually, since the govt is paying the contractor & should be a party to writing the contract it is very much the govt's business to tell them what should be in the contract....unless they are not even monitoring yje contract & enforcing provisions...but merely paying as billed.

[justaguy]

i think alot of it is...that some of the companies that have had MAJOR trouble..are companies the government is very close to and wants.

the contractors that shot civilians in iraq ? (i can't post a link..my browser is acting up)


the firm that built showers that electrocuted OUR military people?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/28/soldier.electrocutions/index.html


POSSIBLY they are thinking...if we go after those that allowed rape..we have to go after these..and we don't want to. just a thought..have no evidence to back it up.

[Barbara2]

I'm wondering the same thing. Where's the link? Why is this in the political section? With the dems having control of the house/senate why point out ONLY repubs were so called against this? Were there any hidden agendas the repubs were against in this bill? Maybe they were just against those 'hidden' inside the bill but not the whole bill itself.

I question why it was necessary to name specific companies in the amendment itself. It does make it seem as if they want to target the specific companies and not apply the same to other companies that they want to include in the process.

[LisaM22]

I certainly all 30 of those Senators get their just due...They don't belong in leadership positions.

I agree, these are the 30 to watch, the party of no.... imo

[snookums1]

Probably just didn't want to side with Sen. Franken. imo

And IYO means it is ok to beat, gang rape, and imprison a fellow employee and get paid with US tax dollars while doing it, because not liking Franken is gives them reason to vote as they did.

[snookums1]

Adding insult to injury, the Department of Defense could prosecute these crimes under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act and the Patriot Act's special maritime and territorial jurisdiction provisions, but has opted not to. In the face of DoD inaction, survivors, meanwhile, had signed away their right to sue civilly and were left only with arbitration.



Predictably, Sen. Jeff Sessions, ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opposed Franken's bill. "Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts," he argued. The bill was, he maintained, a "political amendment at bottom, representing a political attack on Halliburton." In fact, the amendment only goes so far as to require contractors doing business with the government to permit employees to sue civilly in the "most egregious violations," Franken emphasized in a statement. (For less egregious matters, contractors can still require employees to waive their right to sue and submit to arbitration.)
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/485424/franken_s_anti_rape_amendment Gee, does anyone here not think of rape as an egregious offense?

[watcher2005]

Say, I wonder who's the Commander in Chief of the Department of Defense these days?

[Brentwood]

I think it is interesting that Vitter and Ensign voted pro gang rape

Vitter – Caught w/Hooker
http://www.bloggingneworleans.com/2007/07/09/senator-vitter-caught-with-a-hooker-for-a-second-time/

Ensign – Had Mistriss.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/husband-john-ensigns-mistress-speaks-ou

[Barbara2]

There is no mention of any crimes in the amendment:

Statement of Purpose: To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.

It is against working with any company that has a mandatory arbitration clause.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308

[snookums1]

SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; as follows:


On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

[Page: S10070] (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r111:./temp/~r111VglegG

[snookums1]

There is no mention of any crimes in the amendment:



It is against working with any company that has a mandatory arbitration clause.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308 WRONG. You forgot to add the end of the sentence.

regarding certain claims. And I provided the list of what those certain claims are.

[Brentwood]

I guess to some preventing rape means preventing a potential baby?

Unbelievable way of thinking, isn't it.

[snookums1]

I thought the rules stated that we provide links when we quote articles.

If this bill is anything like ones we've seen in the past, I have to ask what else was sneaked into the bill. There could very well be some things added and Republicans may have very good reason for opposing it because of that. Just saying........... Unless anyone can state everything that is in the bill, I will hold off forming an opinion. I provided links to the bill. You could answer your own questions just by clicking on them.

[RedSocksFan]

The links are here in the thread!

I think the poster meant the OP. No links were provided to thread title or quotes in original post.

[LisaM22]

I thought the rules stated that we provide links when we quote articles.

If this bill is anything like ones we've seen in the past, I have to ask what else was sneaked into the bill. There could very well be some things added and Republicans may have very good reason for opposing it because of that. Just saying........... Unless anyone can state everything that is in the bill, I will hold off forming an opinion.

the links have been posted, the reason given is government should not be in the business of writing contract they have with private companies, seems to me they should have a big say in whats in the contracts with who they hire with our tax dollars, hard to believe republicans could think otherwise

[Justice4all]

How many democrats voted against it?

Zero.........

[LisaM22]

SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; as follows:


On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

[Page: S10070] (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r111:./temp/~r111VglegG

and republicans are against this... amazing isn't it?

[LisaM22]

Zero.........

yep, only 30 republicans voted "NO", I think this vote showed us exactly who is gonna vote "NO" don't matter what, this is the party of "NO"

[LisaM22]

can you imagine if acorn had it's employee's sign something like this and something like this happened..... but if it happened at Halliburton I guess it would be ok?

[syringa]

the links have been posted, the reason given is government should not be in the business of writing contract they have with private companies, seems to me they should have a big say in whats in the contracts with who they hire with our tax dollars, hard to believe republicans could think otherwise

The first part of your statement is correct - government should NOT be in the business of writing contracts for the private companies. Private companies should be able to put in what they want.

Where the government could come in is to say they don't want to do business with a companiy that they don't agree with their policies on. I don't think the senators voting against this bill liked having one company (Halliburton) separated out either....it smacks of a personal witch-hunt.

jmo

[syringa]

It smacks of halliburton being negligent.

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2009/09/halliburton_kbr_rape.php

Then again, for halliburton, it's nothing new.......


http://firedoglake.com/2009/01/27/halliburton-fined-record-569-million-for-bribing-foreign-officials-while-cheney-was-ceo/

I'm sure that if Halliburton didn't get these contracts, that we would be finding something to gripe about with another company by this time. And maybe they could have had a bill written specifically against them too.

[syringa]

So that's how, in your mind, you justify the companies behavior? WOW.:rolleyes:

I'm not justifying Halliburton's misdeeds....I don't like them being separated out in the bill because I am almost positive any other company would have had problems and failures too given the enormity of the job.

[Lady_Jean_La]

And IYO means it is ok to beat, gang rape, and imprison a fellow employee and get paid with US tax dollars while doing it, because not liking Franken is gives them reason to vote as they did.

I doubt those reponsible know who Senator Franken is. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

There is no mention of any crimes in the amendment:



It is against working with any company that has a mandatory arbitration clause.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308

Maybe the democrats would like some more huge lawsuits. Hmmmm.... imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

Zero.........

Looks very partisan to me. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

yep, only 30 republicans voted "NO", I think this vote showed us exactly who is gonna vote "NO" don't matter what, this is the party of "NO"

Only 30, that's most of them. Was Senator Snowe absent that day?

[Lady_Jean_La]

can you imagine if acorn had it's employee's sign something like this and something like this happened..... but if it happened at Halliburton I guess it would be ok?

Yes. That's the way it works. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

The first part of your statement is correct - government should NOT be in the business of writing contracts for the private companies. Private companies should be able to put in what they want.

Where the government could come in is to say they don't want to do business with a companiy that they don't agree with their policies on. I don't think the senators voting against this bill liked having one company (Halliburton) separated out either....it smacks of a personal witch-hunt.

jmo

A witch hunt and a money hunt. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

It seems pretty clear from some of the rw posters here, why halliburton feels above the law, imo. So very, very sad.

Above the law, no, abiding by the law yes. imo

[MercedesV]

Pentagon denounces Halliburton's 'overwhelmingly negative' performance in Iraq
28 March 2006

WASHINGTON, March 28 (HalliburtonWatch.org) -- A new report released today reveals that Pentagon officials and investigators have harshly criticized Halliburton’s oil reconstruction work in Iraq, citing “profound systemic problems,” “exorbitant indirect costs,” “misleading” and “distorted” cost reports, a “lack of cost control,” an “overwhelmingly negative” evaluation, and an “obstructive” corporate attitude toward oversight.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/RIO2_audit.html

Thursday, July 21, 2005
Questions Raised about Halliburton’s Attempt to Disrupt Essential Fuel Delivery to Iraq

Rep. Waxman and Sens. Dorgan and Lautenberg request that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld investigate Halliburton’s efforts to prevent an American contractor from delivering fuel from Kuwait to Iraq just two weeks after the contractor testified before Congress about Halliburton’s excessive fuel charges and lack of infrastructure work

http://oversight.house.gov/investigations.asp?start=50&Issue=Iraq+Reconstruction

WASHINGTON - Troops and civilians at a U.S. military base in Iraq were exposed to contaminated water last year and employees for the responsible contractor, Halliburton, couldn’t get their company to inform camp residents, according to interviews and internal company documents.

Halliburton, the company formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, disputes the allegations about water problems at Camp Junction City, in Ramadi, even though they were made by its own employees and documented in company e-mails.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x210769

Washington - Halliburton, the big contractor that's won the lion's share of government contracts to rebuild Iraq, significantly and systematically violated federal contracting rules by providing inaccurate and incomplete information about its own costs, according to a special report by Defense Department auditors.

Yet 16 days after that Dec. 31 "flash" report and after a second warning by Pentagon auditors, the Army Corps of Engineers gave Halliburton, formerly headed by Vice President Dick Cheney, a new $1.2 billion contract.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7874

And perhaps the big reason this company is specifically named in the legislation:

A former Halliburton/KBR worker who claims she was gang-raped in her bedroom by co-workers in Iraq is one step closer to getting her day in court, thanks to a favorable ruling by a panel of three federal judges in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a 2-1 ruling, the judges decided that the allegations made by Jamie Leigh Jones of Houston were not subject to the arbitration clause in her employment contract, meaning Jones' civil lawsuit against Halliburton, KBR and affiliates can proceed in court to a possible trial. The primary question before the court was whether the alleged rape and Jones' other claims were related to her employment and whether the alleged attack took place at an official workplace.

http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2009/09/halliburton_kbr_rape.php

[Hey Paula]

I'd like to hear more from the senators who voted against this because I cannot believe anyone, except perhaps Obama supporter Sara Bernhard, regardless of party affiliation, would condone or encourage gang rape.

Perhaps the reason for so many nay votes was because, like other bills passed by this Congress, the true purpose of this bill might be masked under the guise of morality. When names like McCain and Graham, for example, show up as nay votes, I question the true intent of this bill.

IMO

[Barbara2]

Why have they not been fired a long time ago? Why does it take an amendment to a bill to let people in the gov't know that they should not do business with someone who is not doing the job??? No wonder so much of our tax money is wasted.

[LisaM22]

The first part of your statement is correct - government should NOT be in the business of writing contracts for the private companies. Private companies should be able to put in what they want.

Where the government could come in is to say they don't want to do business with a companiy that they don't agree with their policies on. I don't think the senators voting against this bill liked having one company (Halliburton) separated out either....it smacks of a personal witch-hunt.

jmo

and that was exactly what this bill did, it stated they would not do business with companies that required their employees to sign these horrible contracts, I think your right though, Halliburton may have had something to do with them not signing...

[LisaM22]

I would like to know how many of these 30 "NO" voters have connections to Halliburton and what those connections are?

[LisaM22]

I'd like to hear more from the senators who voted against this because I cannot believe anyone, except perhaps Obama supporter Sara Bernhard, regardless of party affiliation, would condone or encourage gang rape.

Perhaps the reason for so many nay votes was because, like other bills passed by this Congress, the true purpose of this bill might be masked under the guise of morality. When names like McCain and Graham, for example, show up as nay votes, I question the true intent of this bill.

IMO

well per the post birdwatch made ealier, they said the us gov should not be in the business of writing private company contracts, which is NOT what the bill does, the bill says we will not do business with a company that puts these horrible items in their contracts that allow this stuff to go on - that is what these 30 objected too - crazy - but the votes speak for themselves

[Susan43]

Why have they not been fired a long time ago? Why does it take an amendment to a bill to let people in the gov't know that they should not do business with someone who is not doing the job??? No wonder so much of our tax money is wasted.

And I think that at the time they were getting no-bid contracts. But what happened to that woman is just disgraceful and we should all be outraged that it was in her contract that she couldn't sue. From what I've been able to assertain she is not the first woman that this has happened to, but she is obviously the strongest to be fighting this for all these years.

When I read this the other day I was just horrified.

Further, the lawsuit filed by Jones' attorneys cites the following: "When she awoke the next morning still affected by the drug, she found her body naked and severely bruised, with lacerations to her vagina and anus, blood running down her leg, her breast implants ruptured, and her pectoral muscles torn – which would later require reconstructive surgery. Upon walking to the rest room, she passed out again."[5] Jones' account was confirmed by U.S. Army physician Jodi Schultz.[6] Schultz gave the rape kit she used to gather evidence from Jones to KBR/Halliburton security forces, after which the rape kit disappeared. It was recovered two years later, but missing crucial photographs and notes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Leigh_Jones

I find it astounding that anyone would vote against the amendment. I saw the video of Sessions on the Daily Show the other night. He said the reason he voted against it was because he thought that government shouldn't interfere with private company contracts. Then Jon Stewart yelled, "This is exactly what the government should do." After all these are government contracts and we, the taxpayers are paying for it.

At least 10 Repubs voted for it. That's better then none.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/

I was just trying to find out exactly what Sen. Sessions said and ran across this little tidbit.

ADDENDUM: It's been pointed out to me that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbied against the Franken amendment as well:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-senators-who-vot_n_312976.html

WOW!

[Barbara2]

It shouldn't even be a matter of a lawsuit! If that is all this bill does than it is STILL outrageous! That is a criminal offense and the woman should not only be compensated monetarily but the criminals should be prosecuted. How much money can she get to make up for what was done to her?

[Susan43]

It shouldn't even be a matter of a lawsuit! If that is all this bill does than it is STILL outrageous! That is a criminal offense and the woman should not only be compensated monetarily but the criminals should be prosecuted. How much money can she get to make up for what was done to her?

I couldn't agree more. She was just brutalized and I would love to see those animals in the slammer.

[Barbara2]

I couldn't agree more. She was just brutalized and I would love to see those animals in the slammer.

I'm not a violent person and I don't even believe in the death penalty, but if they are in a country with no laws to protect their employees, go ahead and hire on a hit man to take out idiots like the men who did this to her. I would rather see that than see them get away with it.

[LisaM22]

It shouldn't even be a matter of a lawsuit! If that is all this bill does than it is STILL outrageous! That is a criminal offense and the woman should not only be compensated monetarily but the criminals should be prosecuted. How much money can she get to make up for what was done to her?

the contract prevents it, that is why this bill needed to be created, to stop us from doing business with companies with outrageous contracts like this one

[LisaM22]

Get real. Some of you are acting like it is the Repuplican Party that is known for being weak on crime, IMO.:rolleyes:

weak on corporate crime it seems....

[Susan43]

I'm not a violent person and I don't even believe in the death penalty, but if they are in a country with no laws to protect their employees, go ahead and hire on a hit man to take out idiots like the men who did this to her. I would rather see that than see them get away with it.

I don't believe in the death penalty either, but sometimes it does seem fitting doesn't it?

She was in Iraq at the time. Maybe I'm nuts but it seems to me that the military could have investigated. Aren't they the law over there?

I read the thread before I posted and was stuck by Snookums post #47 where she said this...

Adding insult to injury, the Department of Defense could prosecute these crimes under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act and the Patriot Act's special maritime and territorial jurisdiction provisions, but has opted not to. In the face of DoD inaction, survivors, meanwhile, had signed away their right to sue civilly and were left only with arbitration.

So it appears that the government could have followed through and chose not to and they are going to get away with it.

[Barbara2]

the contract prevents it, that is why this bill needed to be created, to stop us from doing business with companies with outrageous contracts like this one

So you're saying that they need a bill to force them to not do business with a company with questionable practices? How many more bills are going to be required to cover all the possibilities? Or can we just have someone responsible in D.C. to NOT hire the company to begin with without needing a bill? How refreshing that would be!

[LisaM22]

So you're saying that they need a bill to force them to not do business with a company with questionable practices? How many more bills are going to be required to cover all the possibilities? Or can we just have someone responsible in D.C. to NOT hire the company to begin with without needing a bill? How refreshing that would be!

obviously they do, 30 republicans did not even want to agree to this bill, how sad is that? this was a common sense bill, one everyone should of had no problem voting yes on, but 30 refused too, 30 republicans, everyone else, republicans, independents and democrats voted YES, something wrong with this party of "NO"

[Susan43]

So you're saying that they need a bill to force them to not do business with a company with questionable practices? How many more bills are going to be required to cover all the possibilities? Or can we just have someone responsible in D.C. to NOT hire the company to begin with without needing a bill? How refreshing that would be!

IMO it's all part of the "old boys" club. It's amazing how many legislators quit politics and become lobbyists or go to work for a company that does business with the government.

[Susan43]

obviously they do, 30 republicans did not even want to agree to this bill, how sad is that?

It's very sad. And I wonder how many of those men have daughters. McCain does for sure. But you're right...it's just very, very sad.

[Barbara2]

obviously they do, 30 republicans did not even want to agree to this bill, how sad is that? this was a common sense bill, one everyone should of had no problem voting yes on, but 30 refused too

You're missing the point. Why is a bill necessary to make the government do the right thing? How many bills are going to need to be written in order to cover all of the contingencies.

[LisaM22]

You're missing the point. Why is a bill necessary to make the government do the right thing? How many bills are going to need to be written in order to cover all of the contingencies.

it was necesary because obviously it was needed, if it wasn't the right thing would of been done and we would not do business with people with contracts like this, but we are, so the bill is needed - makes sense to me - the question IS, why would 30 republicans vote "NO" when it seems to be a common sense bill that everyone would easily agree on? everyone except this 30 republican party of "NO"

you said "How many bills are going to need to be written in order to cover all of the contingencies."

the usa has been writing bills sense it's creation, I do not see that ending anytime soon, something new will always come up that needs addressed

[tiptop]

You're missing the point. Why is a bill necessary to make the government do the right thing? How many bills are going to need to be written in order to cover all of the contingencies.


If it was concerning prostate cancer there would be no discussion.

Just another example of do as I say, not as I do. Out of sight, out of mind is the mentality of most. Its about power and money, plain and simple.

[crocdog1]

Get real. Some of you are acting like it is the Repuplican Party that is known for being weak on crime, IMO.:rolleyes:

The GOP party is not weak on crime.

However, when it involves "their own," which also involves big business and MONEY, this is another story.

just My humble Opinion

[Barbara2]

it was necesary because obviously it was needed, if it wasn't the right thing would of been done and we would not do business with people with contracts like this, but we are, so the bill is needed - makes sense to me - the question IS, why would 30 republicans vote "NO" when it seems to be a common sense bill that everyone would easily agree on? everyone except this 30 republican party of "NO"

It's a big deal about nothing, IMO. So now they only hire companies that allow employees to sue (not file charges) against those who assault them sexually (other crimes not being included). Where do they get to sue? And if it's in a U.S. court, how do they get the information needed to succeed in the suit? Do you see what an empty bill this is? It looks good on paper but it doesn't do anything to prevent the crime from happening or give the victim the justice they deserve. AIMO.

[tiptop]

It's a big deal about nothing, IMO. So now they only hire companies that allow employees to sue (not file charges) against those who assault them sexually (other crimes not being included). Where do they get to sue? And if it's in a U.S. court, how do they get the information needed to succeed in the suit? Do you see what an empty bill this is? It looks good on paper but it doesn't do anything to prevent the crime from happening or give the victim the justice they deserve. AIMO.

So women who chose to live and work overseas are vunerable. Nothing new about this. Same as in the US or anywhere.

[Barbara2]

So women who chose to live and work overseas are vunerable. Nothing new about this. Same as in the US or anywhere.

Can you think of any bills that can be written to change this?

[LisaM22]

It's a big deal about nothing, IMO. So now they only hire companies that allow employees to sue (not file charges) against those who assault them sexually (other crimes not being included). Where do they get to sue? And if it's in a U.S. court, how do they get the information needed to succeed in the suit? Do you see what an empty bill this is? It looks good on paper but it doesn't do anything to prevent the crime from happening or give the victim the justice they deserve. AIMO.

the crime happened overseas in Iraq, not here in the USA

why not attack the company for the outlandish contracts that take away an Americans rights rather then this bill? - all this bill does is make sure business do what is right or they will lose the business of the government - it's common sense, this should of passed without issue, no reason for anyone to vote against it

[tiptop]

Can you think of any bills that can be written to change this?

No, ma'am.

[tiptop]

Well there it is, she chose to be vunerable. do nothing folks, move along, nothing to see here......Gawd.....:mad:

Your insinuation is not mine.

Are you a man? Despite how "free" we are," women remain vunerable. So the choice for us is this; do we continue to put ourselves in situations where we get hurt? Or do we remain vigilant and be careful? It may not be right, but I doubt the "free will" of women will grow in countries like Iraq. We are a commodity. Chattel, in many countries. We have to be careful and realise that justice IS NOT ours. And in many countries, never will be.

[Barbara2]

weak argument, imo. so voting no helped how? I shudder in disbelief that people would even attempt to back up a no vote. Sad.

So voting yes helped?

[Barbara2]

the crime happened overseas in Iraq, not here in the USA

why not attack the company for the outlandish contracts that take away an Americans rights rather then this bill? - all this bill does is make sure business do what is right or they will lose the business of the government - it's common sense, this should of passed without issue, no reason for anyone to vote against it

Companies should do what is right or lose the business anyway. They shouldn't need a bill to hold a company to standards. They should hire the best company for the job and fire any company that doesn't measure up. I still can't see the necessity of a bill that is really pretty empty. IMO

[tiptop]

Nope. You typed what you typed. Vunerablility and this discussion have nothing in common. Bad try.

OK, live in your fantasy world then. You ever been in the military?
Ever traveled outside the US? You think women have it all peaches and cream everywhere? lol, if it wasnt so sad it would be funny. As I said before, it may not be right but until the rest of the world (and really the US too) changes to respect women then we must remain conscious of where we go and what we do. Sad, but true.

[tiptop]

Sure did.

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308

carry on. people defending no votes show their colors, imo. I'm done.


:seeya: Have a nice evening.

[Barbara2]

Sure did.

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308

carry on. people defending no votes show their colors, imo. I'm done.

Who is she suing and what are her chances of winning? Have the criminal charges been assessed? What are her chances of winning any suit in the absence of any charges? How is this justice or is it just some "for show" business?

[Susan43]

Your insinuation is not mine.

Are you a man? Despite how "free" we are," women remain vunerable. So the choice for us is this; do we continue to put ourselves in situations where we get hurt? Or do we remain vigilant and be careful? It may not be right, but I doubt the "free will" of women will grow in countries like Iraq. We are a commodity. Chattel, in many countries. We have to be careful and realise that justice IS NOT ours. And in many countries, never will be.

Actually didn't she go to Iraq knowing it would be dangerous? Little did she realize that the major danger was from her fellow Americans. This had nothing to do with where she was but the type of person that Halliburton hired. She shouldn't have ever had to worry about her co-workers and I say this after working with all male crews.

AND not only that, but because they had that clause in the contract she was never given the info that these rapes were taking place. She had no way of knowing because that clause kept the info under wraps.

[LisaM22]

So women who chose to live and work overseas are vunerable. Nothing new about this. Same as in the US or anywhere.

only in this case they are forced to sign a contract that takes away their rights, this bill will still allow that, but the us tax payers wont do business with them after this bill is signed, the gov should not be working with companies that have contracts like this, that is what this bill makes clear

[Barbara2]

Actually didn't she go to Iraq knowing it would be dangerous? Little did she realize that the major danger was from her fellow Americans. This had nothing to do with where she was but the type of person that Halliburton hired. She shouldn't have ever had to worry about her co-workers and I say this after working with all male crews.

AND not only that, but because they had that clause in the contract she was never given the info that these rapes were taking place. She had no way of knowing because that clause kept the info under wraps.

Were the employees fellow Americans? I know they were employees but I was not aware they were Americans. I'm asking for information only, not that it makes a lot of difference to the debate.

[Susan43]

OK, live in your fantasy world then. You ever been in the military?
Ever traveled outside the US? You think women have it all peaches and cream everywhere? lol, if it wasnt so sad it would be funny. As I said before, it may not be right but until the rest of the world (and really the US too) changes to respect women then we must remain conscious of where we go and what we do. Sad, but true.

I haven't been in the military but I have traveled all over the world and sometimes with an all male crew and I never for a minute thought that my co-workers would try anything like that. In fact I'd go so far as to say if someone had tried to do something so awful my crewmates would have kicked their butts. This has nothing to do with where she was but who she was with.

[LisaM22]

I can not believe some republicans here are defending the actions of these people - some are even trying to blame the victim that came forward now, crazy

[tiptop]

Actually didn't she go to Iraq knowing it would be dangerous? Little did she realize that the major danger was from her fellow Americans. This had nothing to do with where she was but the type of person that Halliburton hired. She shouldn't have ever had to worry about her co-workers and I say this after working with all male crews.

AND not only that, but because they had that clause in the contract she was never given the info that these rapes were taking place. She had no way of knowing because that clause kept the info under wraps.


Understand your point Susan, but IMO yes --- it did matter where she was. As I said before, out of sight......out of mind. So true she should not have had to worry about co-workers. But a different place can create a different mindset IMO.

A woman ALWAYS has to be on guard. Always alert. Especially in the service or abroad. I was briefed on this ad nauseam during my military service. Perhaps things have changed.

[Susan43]

only in this case they are forced to sign a contract that takes away their rights, this bill will still allow that, but the us tax payers wont do business with them after this bill is signed, the gov should not be working with companies that have contracts like this, that is what this bill makes clear

And not only did it take away their rights but it also kept the info from women who might be thinking of joining them. The reason we have not heard of this before is that clause kept the info secret.

I think Franken did pretty well with his first piece of legislation. :thumbsup:

[tiptop]

I haven't been in the military but I have traveled all over the world and sometimes with an all male crew and I never for a minute thought that my co-workers would try anything like that. In fact I'd go so far as to say if someone had tried to do something so awful my crewmates would have kicked their butts. This has nothing to do with where she was but who she was with.

You were lucky. Different scenarios for me.

[LisaM22]

these companies know they are immune from the law, so they do not care, with this bill, it will effect them in the pocket book and make them give a better effort at a safe working environment

[Barbara2]

And not only did it take away their rights but it also kept the info from women who might be thinking of joining them. The reason we have not heard of this before is that clause kept the info secret.

I think Franken did pretty well with his first piece of legislation. :thumbsup:

Point of correction: His first piece of legislation was the service dogs for veterans act.

[LisaM22]

And not only did it take away their rights but it also kept the info from women who might be thinking of joining them. The reason we have not heard of this before is that clause kept the info secret.

I think Franken did pretty well with his first piece of legislation. :thumbsup:

yep, thumbs up for Franken, thumbs down for the party of 30 NO's

[Susan43]

Understand your point Susan, but IMO yes --- it did matter where she was. As I said before, out of sight......out of mind. So true she should not have had to worry about co-workers. But a different place can create a different mindset IMO.

A woman ALWAYS has to be on guard. Always alert. Especially in the service or abroad. I was briefed on this ad nauseam during my military service. Perhaps things have changed.

Not only out of sight, but with no info to guide them so maybe some of the women made the wrong decision. I know I probably would never have dreamed of my co-workers acting so brutally towards me.

But I would love to know what the people at Halliburton were thinking by hiring women and putting them in this situation when they knew women were getting hurt. That really puzzles me.

[tiptop]

Not only out of sight, but with no info to guide them so maybe some of the women made the wrong decision. I know I probably would never have dreamed of my co-workers acting so brutally towards me.

But I would love to know what the people at Halliburton were thinking by hiring women and putting them in this situation when they knew women were getting hurt. That really puzzles me.

It reminds me of one guy in a bar. He may not have the courage to speak to a woman, let alone say derogatory things. But a crowd of men may be a different story. Ever passed a construction site? I do not mean to say all men are like this. But I do know that men in a group can have more courage than a single guy. And some men away from home can be of the same mindset IMO.

[Susan43]

Point of correction: His first piece of legislation was the service dogs for veterans act.

Thanks Barbara, I didn't know that. I thought this bill was the first. :biggrin:

[tiptop]

:w00t: So a change of venue makes this ok? IIRC That is also the thinking of any 'average' rapist; off the sidewalk and behind a bush, down an alley, etc. And, apparently it is the "thinking" of the thirty. IMO

No, I am not saying it makes it OK. I am saying it can make it easier to happen.

[tiptop]

:confused: Easier to happen? A female walking down the street nude might also make the situation more accomodating to a rapist. However, the attire does not make the rapist, nor does the location. IMO

You need to go back and read what has already been posted.

[Susan43]

It reminds me of one guy in a bar. He may not have the courage to speak to a woman, let alone say derogatory things. But a crowd of men may be a different story. Ever passed a construction site? I do not mean to say all men are like this. But I do know that men in a group can have more courage than a single guy. And some men away from home can be of the same mindset IMO.

I think I'd rather think of these men as brutes. I have a difficult time thinking that most men change that much just because they are away from home. I don't think that the men I shipped with would ever have done anything so awful to a woman...no matter where they were.

I know what you mean about construction sites. But this is a whole different thing.

[tiptop]

I think I'd rather think of these men as brutes. I have a difficult time thinking that most men change that much just because they are away from home. I don't think that the men I shipped with would ever have done anything so awful to a woman...no matter where they were.

I know what you mean about construction sites. But this is a whole different thing.


Of course not all men, Susan. But some. You seemed to be with a great bunch of guys. As was I. I was the only woman in a class of 30 men. They treated me with respect and watched out for me when I was young and not so experienced. Not all men would do that.

[Barbara2]

Trust me, there is education beyond the posts here. For instance, take two specific types of rape, marital and date. Educating the men might be more on point. IMO

That is what Halliburrton failed to do and the 30 are perpetuating the 'blame the victim' mentality. IMO

The amendment does nothing to deal with the crime. If these men are Iraqis hired by Halliburton, does her lawsuit do anything to them? She can sue the company and get some money but that doesn't punish the crime itself. And what about companies in this country that are not under government contract. Is there some bill to get rid of all the "no litigation" clauses from all American companies and if not, why not?

[tiptop]

Trust me, there is education beyond the posts here. For instance, take two specific types of rape, marital and date. Educating the men might be more on point. IMO

That is what Halliburrton failed to do and the 30 are perpetuating the 'blame the victim' mentality. IMO

I agree. I hope education would be enough to secure the safety of women working abroad. But would you (if you are a woman) rely specifically on that for your well-being?

[Susan43]

Of course not all men, Susan. But some. You seemed to be with a great bunch of guys. As was I. I was the only woman in a class of 30 men. They treated me with respect and watched out for me when I was young and not so experienced. Not all men would do that.

I think most of them were great guys. I also think the great guys would never have allowed something so brutal to happen. They would have stopped it.

I wasn't so young when I started shipping, and not always treated with respect LOL. But since I could give as well as get, we had a good working relationship. And I was very lucky. Plus, there was nothing in any contract that would have protected anyone from prosecution and/or lawsuits and they knew it.

That clause in the contract protected rapists and don't think they didn't know this. What a freaken disgrace.

[tiptop]

I think most of them were great guys. I also think the great guys would never have allowed something so brutal to happen. They would have stopped it.

I wasn't so young when I started shipping, and not always treated with respect LOL. But since I could give as well as get, we had a good working relationship. And I was very lucky. Plus, there was nothing in any contract that would have protected anyone from prosecution and/or lawsuits and they knew it.

That clause in the contract protected rapists and don't think they didn't know this. What a freaken disgrace.

I too have been lucky. Working with respectful men throughout my career. But not all women are so blessed.

Your last sentence............so timely and bringing it all right to the surface.

[Susan43]

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/gop-votes-against-prevent-rape/

Interesting article, thank you. It answered one of my questions, all 4 women Repub Senators voted for the bill. Of course they did and I'm shocked they couldn't get more of the cohorts to vote for it.

[Susan43]

I too have been lucky. Working with resepctful men throughout my career. But not all women are so blessed.

Your last sentence............so timely and bringing it all right to the surface.

I actually hadn't considered this until I was writing my post to you. They had to have known they had some form of protection from the company.

Well, I'm just glad the amendment passed and the young lady can get some justice. If nothing else lets hope it helps put an end to this ugly problem.

[LisaM22]

It reminds me of one guy in a bar. He may not have the courage to speak to a woman, let alone say derogatory things. But a crowd of men may be a different story. Ever passed a construction site? I do not mean to say all men are like this. But I do know that men in a group can have more courage than a single guy. And some men away from home can be of the same mindset IMO.

do you agree with this bill that we should not do business with companies like this, or do you agree with the 30 republicans that disagree with the bill?

[tiptop]

do you agree with this bill that we should not do business with companies like this, or do you agree with the 30 republicans that disagree with the bill?

I think we should not do business with these companies, but that will not happen because of $$$$$$. IMO that is the main ingredient in all this. C'mon now folks. If we have to pick between safety and profit, what do you think will suffer?

[Lady_Jean_La]

They haven't abided by the law.
What law did they not abide by?
:confused:

[Lady_Jean_La]

I would like to know how many of these 30 "NO" voters have connections to Halliburton and what those connections are?Follow the money. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

well per the post birdwatch made ealier, they said the us gov should not be in the business of writing private company contracts, which is NOT what the bill does, the bill says we will not do business with a company that puts these horrible items in their contracts that allow this stuff to go on - that is what these 30 objected too - crazy - but the votes speak for themselves
What about those who didn't vote, what does that say?
:confused:

[Lady_Jean_La]

And I think that at the time they were getting no-bid contracts. But what happened to that woman is just disgraceful and we should all be outraged that it was in her contract that she couldn't sue. From what I've been able to assertain she is not the first woman that this has happened to, but she is obviously the strongest to be fighting this for all these years.

When I read this the other day I was just horrified.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Leigh_Jones

I find it astounding that anyone would vote against the amendment. I saw the video of Sessions on the Daily Show the other night. He said the reason he voted against it was because he thought that government shouldn't interfere with private company contracts. Then Jon Stewart yelled, "This is exactly what the government should do." After all these are government contracts and we, the taxpayers are paying for it.

At least 10 Repubs voted for it. That's better then none.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/

I was just trying to find out exactly what Sen. Sessions said and ran across this little tidbit.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/07/meet-the-senators-who-vot_n_312976.html

WOW!

Isn't the U.S. Chamber of Commerce always against lawyers?

[Lady_Jean_La]

I couldn't agree more. She was just brutalized and I would love to see those animals in the slammer.

What law was violated?

[Lady_Jean_La]

You're missing the point. Why is a bill necessary to make the government do the right thing? How many bills are going to need to be written in order to cover all of the contingencies.
The right thing in Iraq might not be the same. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

If it was concerning prostate cancer there would be no discussion.

Just another example of do as I say, not as I do. Out of sight, out of mind is the mentality of most. Its about power and money, plain and simple.
Don't the men sign the same contract?

[Barbara2]

Once they are successful in ousting the current company, I'll be curious to see which company fills the gap and then follow the money. (Politics as usual.) IMO

[tiptop]

Don't the men sign the same contract?


I'm assuming so.

How much male abuse you reckon there will be?

[Lady_Jean_La]

Actually didn't she go to Iraq knowing it would be dangerous? Little did she realize that the major danger was from her fellow Americans. This had nothing to do with where she was but the type of person that Halliburton hired. She shouldn't have ever had to worry about her co-workers and I say this after working with all male crews.

AND not only that, but because they had that clause in the contract she was never given the info that these rapes were taking place. She had no way of knowing because that clause kept the info under wraps.

How do you know fellow Americans harmed her?:confused:

[Barbara2]

:huh: "Fill the gap"? How about not and remove our miltary presence from Iraq and all quests for other peoples' oil? Cowboy down.

Bush had the draw down in place. Obama tried to delay the draw down. Obama is now continuing with what Bush put in place. Talk to Obama and ask him why we still need these companies in place.

[Lady_Jean_La]

Once they are successful in ousting the current company, I'll be curious to see which company fills the gap and then follow the money. (Politics as usual.) IMODitto! imo

:thumbsup:

[tiptop]

Perhaps; however, fwiw, doubt there's any exclusionary clause encouraging criminal behavior.

This thread is astounding, as some search for excuses for both halliburton and the 30, imo.


Profit really does absolve many things. And I still say its especially easy to overlook goings-on many miles from home.

[Barbara2]

:w00t: In the name of who invaded whom, you blame Obama for the mess? :blink:

BTW Link please to that alleged exit strategy. tia

Once again (it's been posted numerous times):

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_4TDMCIC1d vWUjF8QWt3y1N

[Barbara2]

That's your evidence, an op/ed piece??

Not op/ed. Expose.

[LisaM22]

What about those who didn't vote, what does that say?
:confused:

not as much as it says for those that voted "NO", maybe they thought it was a common sense vote and would pass without issue, which it did, why would anyone vote "NO" on this bill?

[tiptop]

Especially easy to whom? Some of our BEST ambassadors are our military and sincere Americans visiting or living there. Those who trespass and violate OUR principles, when in another country are the ones who have 'earned' the US reputations as "Ugly Americans." imo

BTW Absolve? Or, did you mean a qualified 'justification'?

Corporations who profit from those working overseas find it easy to overlook wrong-doings. If a woman is raped in Iraq while working for company XYZ (for example) --- well, quite easy for XYZ to sweep it under the rug.

Absolve is a synonym for excuse, so I meant ABSOLVE.

[LisaM22]

Profit really does absolve many things. And I still say its especially easy to overlook goings-on many miles from home.


so you think that absolves those 30 republicans that voted "NO" in your eyes if profit was involved?

[Barbara2]

Call it what you will. But please try to stay on topic and post facts. tia

Expose and tabloid journalism are sisters under the skin without fact. jmo

I did post facts. If you choose to ignore them because they go against what you insist on believing in the face of facts, I can't help you. MO

[tiptop]

so you think that absolves those 30 republicans that voted "NO" in your eyes if profit was involved?

I'm talking about the corporation/big business. Does it really matter what a bunch of politicians in the US think about an overseas business? Until someone's pocktbook is affected, it means nothing.

Maybe we should be doing an extensive search into the "dreaded 30." Wonder if their pockets somehow extend overseas?

[LisaM22]

I'm talking about the corporation/big business. Does it really matter what a buch of politicians in the US think about an overseas business? Until someone's pocktbook is affected, it means nothing.

Maybe we should be doing an extensive search into the "dreaded 30." Wonder if their pockets somehow extend overseas?

I think it matters very much, ask this victim what she thinks...

maybe... sounds like may be a conflict of interest there, why else would they vote "NO" on a bill like this?

this bill will effect companies that have abusive contracts like this, like you said, in not so many words, the only way they make safer environments for their workers is if it effects their pocket books

[tiptop]

Oh really? And, if that were a fact, it would be acceptable? I would hope that more than a few as a minimum experience a twinge of conscience over said paycheck. Shall we say "moral relativism"?

IIRC IF "XYZ" either acts as in your hypothetical or is enabled as would the 30 naysayers; it is what it is - enabling behavior.

FWIW "Sweeping" under the carpet is enabled by any and all who "validate" such behavior. jmo

Btw - absolve and excuse are not synonyms.


lol - you need to check a thesaurus among other things........

[tiptop]

I think it matters very much, ask this victim what she thinks...

maybe... sounds like may be a conflict of interest there, why else would they vote "NO" on a bill like this?

Yes, why would you vote NO?

MONEY!

Why is that so hard to understand? You really think a big corporation is going to give a crap about a woman being abused overseas? Of course it matters to the woman involved. But wouldnt you agree she seems to be in the minority in the caring department?

[LisaM22]

Yes, why would you vote NO?

MONEY!

Why is that so hard to understand? You really think a big corporation is going to give a crap about a woman being abused overseas? Of course it matters to the woman involved. But wouldnt you agree she seems to be in the minority in the caring department?

so your saying you think these 30 republicans voted "NO" because of money?

[tiptop]

so your saying you think these 30 republicans voted "NO" because of money?


Why do you think they voted no?

[tiptop]

Oh really. Link to Roget or any source supporting your assertion?

As for the 30 apparent supporters of "moral relativism" any facts to support their position? IIRC if there was a 'rider' on the bill, they were free to announce WHY they voted no.



http://encarta.msn.com/thesaurus_/absolve.html

[LisaM22]

Why do you think they voted no?

only two reasons I can think of, either to protect halliburton because they are large contributors to them or because it was Franken that wrote the bill and they could really care about the lives their "NO" vote effects - neither of which are good reasons

reason #1 would agree with your reason..... money

[LisaM22]

What is the point of this thread?

read the title

[LisaM22]

Just an attention seeking bill introduced by Franken so the purpose of the thread is to bash the GOP. MO

well it seems to be the 30 republicans getting all the attention to me, it just doesn't make sense for them to vote "NO" on a bill like this

and the excuse they gave sounded like something Palin herself could of come up with, had nothing to do with the bill that was being signed

[LisaM22]

Remarkable, eh? None of the "defenders" of this behavior has yet to cite one reason by any of the 30 as to their enabling behavior.

Is it a culture of just vote nay and it will go away? :w00t:

I don't think there is anything they can say to defend these 30 republicans votes of "NO" and they know it - guess the "R" behind the name makes it ok with them

[LisaM22]

:sad: When blame the victim is defended. IMO

And when it continues post after post, without a fact to support it, it does make one wonder. :w00t:

6 pages and no so called "independents" have questioned their "NO" votes

[LisaM22]

I definitely question their NO votes.....I suppose I haven't posted because the reasons are posted here already.

I wish some of the Republicans would post something that logically explains the NO votes. How the NO votes protect their constituents as well as all Americans?

I know many are very much against rape, so I do wonder how they reconcile the NO votes when it's their party against protecting people from such a horrible act.

thank you Narcissist71, I wasn't refereeing to all independents, just a few here that claim to be independents, if you know what I mean, wont name any names....

after all we know the independents voted "YES" on this bill, as did the democrats and many republicans, only this group of 30 republicans voted "NO", everyone else voted "YES"

[LisaM22]

Lindsey Graham explained to no votes. :shrug:

well please share, what excuse did Lindsey Graham give?

[Lady_Jean_La]

I definitely question their NO votes.....I suppose I haven't posted because the reasons are posted here already.

I wish some of the Republicans would post something that logically explains the NO votes. How the NO votes protect their constituents as well as all Americans?

I know many are very much against rape, so I do wonder how they reconcile the NO votes when it's their party against protecting people from such a horrible act.

Is this really about rape? I thought it was more about lawyers. Maybe there are answers you just don't like them. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

thank you Narcissist71, I wasn't refereeing to all independents, just a few here that claim to be independents, if you know what I mean, wont name any names....

after all we know the independents voted "YES" on this bill, as did the democrats and many republicans, only this group of 30 republicans voted "NO", everyone else voted "YES"

Did everyone vote?

[Lady_Jean_La]

well please share, what excuse did Lindsey Graham give?

I think there was a link back a few pages. imo

[LisaM22]

I think there was a link back a few pages. imo

the only excuse given so for is in the ops link, an excuse that was like something Palin herself would come up with, cause it had nothing to do with the bill at hand

[LisaM22]

Did everyone vote?

the ones that are at issue are the ones that voted "NO", 30 republicans voted not, everyone else, democrats, independents and republicans voted "YES" - it just doesn't make sense why this group of 30 republicans voted "NO", had this group of 30 not voted, it would not be a issue, but they did, they voted "NO"

[LisaM22]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/15/jon-stewart-takes-on-30-r_n_321985.html

watch the video....

[LisaM22]

One can only hope they voted their conscience and their constituant's wishes. Congress, like Blackjack, is a lot of things but while a game of good play is not a team sport. IMOO

so you agree with the 30 republicans that voted "YES", not sure what you are saying?

[LisaM22]

Sorry Lisa, as you know, sometimes I get carried away with my typing. I hope those voting YES or NO were voting what they thought was best for the people in their State and District and what the folks that elected them would want them to vote in this instance. Actually every instance. In spite of Party affilication, the Congress folk should not be voting for the party but their voters. IMOO

one would hope, that is why it would be nice if there was a valid excuse for these 30 to vote "NO", but there doesn't seem to be one

[watcher2005]

Yeah, probably.

But what's the excuse for Democrats keeping the war going for another year in the first place? No war, no need for billion dollar independent contracts.

[LisaM22]

This entire thread is nothing more than a left wing attempt to shift the focus away from the horrendous job Obama and crew are doing. Since it has remained on the 1st page here for a few days it is obvious some are falling for their faux outrage. If the neo-comms are truly concerned about the 30 "R's" that voted no for whatever reason then don't vote for them if they represent you. Let's get back to what's important, how do we stop these destroyers of democracy?

in otherwords you can think of no valid excuse for these 30 to vote "NO" either?

[LisaM22]

Yeah, probably.

But what's the excuse for Democrats keeping the war going for another year in the first place? No war, no need for billion dollar independent contracts.

I do not think there is any excuse not to bring our soldier home now, as for the independent contracts, sure they will exist in the future as well, so this bill would be needed even without this current war

it is prolonging the inevitable, the countries will go back to the way they were, we have created many that hate us over there, we can't kill them all, and by killing innocents we create more that hate us

how many years did the Iraq\Iran war go on.... we tried to make peace between them, seems it just gave them someone new to hate, but all that is really another topic altogether

[watcher2005]

I do not think there is any excuse not to bring our soldier home now, as for the independent contracts, sure they will exist in the future as well, so this bill would be needed even without this current war


Honest answer. Appreciate it.

[LisaM22]

I agree. good post!!!!

we agree on something :beer:

[watcher2005]

we agree on something :beer:

It can be done. :)

[Barbara2]

in otherwords you can think of no valid excuse for these 30 to vote "NO" either?

I can think of many reasons but since I'm not the one(s) that voted I can't tell you what they were thinking. All of these politicians know what the vote is going to be before it is called. The actual vote is just part of the dance. They didn't NEED those 30 votes to get that amendment passed. They knew it, the 30 voting against it knew it. It's all some stupid game they play in Washington and the bottom line is playing up to those who will give them money for their campaign. The majority that vote have no idea that this amendment was even on the table and have no idea how their own senators voted. They will vote based on whatever comes out in the campaign before election and it might have absolutely nothing to do with the qualifications of the candidate. IMO

[fiver]

Backstory: A woman is working overseas for a company under a US Govt. contract. She is beaten, gang-raped and locked in a shipping container by a group of her fellow employees. But she cannot sue. Its in her signed contract. If the US GOVT. contractor hires a bunch of thugs who perpetrate the crimes - she cannot sue. HUH?
Sen. Franken proposed a simple (seemingly sure-fire) Bill stating that the Pentagon would no longer do business with any company that requires an employee to sign an agreement that she cannot sue if she is, for instance, attacked and gang raped by employees.
Good News: the Bill passed! Congrats to Franken on his 1st Bill.
Bad News: 30 Republicans voted against it..... -including the esteemed southern gentlemen Sessions, Saxby and Isaakson. I'm stunned: can anyone explain this to me?
.
Jon Stewart's Daily Show showed Sessions stating that "It is not the Government's business to tell private business what they should have in their contracts (not even US Contractors, apparently); and that it is just a pollitical ploy.

The title of your thread is misleading and inaccurate. The companies in question have arbitration so there IS recourse.

:read:

[fiver]

That's not the point of the thread. So , if YOU were raped and left, you'd want the currnet recourse?:blush:
So....the title of the thread not the point of the thread...

:blink:

And what I would want or not want has nothing at all to do with the FACT that the companies mentioned by name in the Amendment have arbitration to settle "disputes" giving the employees/contractors RECOURSE, unlike what is stated in the misleading thread title.

[fiver]

Oh, and the woman Al Franken cites as the inspiration for his amendment won her case to seek damages in civil court by the 5th District Court of Appeals.

[fiver]

Oh, and Obama's Dept of Defense opposes the amendment.

oops

[MercedesV]

In the amendment, the language does not include the names of any company. Some that voted no felt it was an attack on Halliburton. Given all the problems and wrongdoing by Halliburton why do any feel a need to support them.

[snookums1]

Oh, and the woman Al Franken cites as the inspiration for his amendment won her case to seek damages in civil court by the 5th District Court of Appeals. Were her attackers ever given criminal sentences for beating and raping her? Or are they free to do it again? I am sure she would much rather they were locked away so they never do that to her or another woman again. Money does not bring peace of mind.

[Barbara2]

Were her attackers ever given criminal sentences for beating and raping her? Or are they free to do it again? I am sure she would much rather they were locked away so they never do that to her or another woman again. Money does not bring peace of mind.

The bill does nothing to address that problem either. I'm not sure that any company can write a contract that would allow a person to press charges in a foreign country. You are at the mercy of that country's laws. IMO

[fiver]

Were her attackers ever given criminal sentences for beating and raping her? Or are they free to do it again? I am sure she would much rather they were locked away so they never do that to her or another woman again. Money does not bring peace of mind.I have no idea - that's a criminal matter, not a civil matter. The victim couldn't bring criminal charges, only a civil complaint - regardless of an employment contract stipulating the use of arbitration to settle disputes.

[fiver]

In the amendment, the language does not include the names of any company. Some that voted no felt it was an attack on Halliburton. Given all the problems and wrongdoing by Halliburton why do any feel a need to support them.

"AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP2588:

[MercedesV]

"AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims."

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP2588:

Yes, but here is the language of the amendment:

The amendment reads as follows:

SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

http://bluecenterlightpop.com/2009/10/09/republicans-rape-and-responsibility/

[Susan43]

The title of your thread is misleading and inaccurate. The companies in question have arbitration so there IS recourse.

:read:

Closed arbitration with no charges against the perps and without any other recourse. Oh sure, that's really fair.

Also with this arbitration no information could be given out to protect other women. Real fair isn't it?

The title to this thread was right on.

[Susan43]

This entire thread is nothing more than a left wing attempt to shift the focus away from the horrendous job Obama and crew are doing. Since it has remained on the 1st page here for a few days it is obvious some are falling for their faux outrage. If the neo-comms are truly concerned about the 30 "R's" that voted no for whatever reason then don't vote for them if they represent you. Let's get back to what's important, how do we stop these destroyers of democracy?

I'm surprised the powers in charge are letting the left make claims that these 30 senatora all think gang rape is ok, posting an outright lie here as fact used to be bannable. link (http://boards.insessiontrials.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=13566961)

NO it isn't. It's a left-wing attempt to show how heartless the right is. How they won't support women. If any Senator voted no on this amendment he is obviously FOR covering up gang rape because that's what the clause in the employment contract does. It provides cover for the company and the rapists.

No faux outrage here...it's real and I'm very angry that this amendment wasn't passed with 100% of the Senators voting for it. At least 10 Repubs voted aye, including all 4 women on the right. At least they knew what that damn cover-up clause did to women.

It's no lie that the clause in the contract provided cover for rapists and the company. It's the truth and that must hurt or you wouldn't be insulting those of us who are honestly outraged.

[fiver]

Closed arbitration with no charges against the perps and without any other recourse. Oh sure, that's really fair.

Also with this arbitration no information could be given out to protect other women. Real fair isn't it?

The title to this thread was right on.
Oh NO! :ohmy: Franken didn't bar any employment contract language that barred an employee, as a condition of employment, not file CRIMINAL charges.

Franken's amendment only dictates private labor contracts not bar the employee from filing tort claims for specific complaints, instead of going through arbitration. It says nothing about criminal complaints.

Gee, wonder who got that one wrong....a liberal blogger or Franken.

:confused:

[fiver]

Closed arbitration with no charges against the perps and without any other recourse. Oh sure, that's really fair.

Also with this arbitration no information could be given out to protect other women. Real fair isn't it?

The title to this thread was right on.

Ps - why would an arbitration hearing between a private individual and the private company they work for be public? Are depositions of employment tort claims public record if the claim never makes it to court? No, so why would an arbitration hearing be public?

[Susan43]

There are lots of reasons, IMO Franken is rehashing the same old Halliburton hatred for political purposes. I'm no lawyer but I have never heard of a document required for employment that forces you to can give up your rights.

This is just feel good gobbledygook from a freshman senator whose best work was his scene in Trading Places where he loads the gorilla on the train. We have enough comedians in politics without Franken who would still be a 2nd rate jokester were it not for ACORN.

You sure aren't a lawyer and her contract did have a clause the prevented her from taking them to court. And you have a lot of nerve saying that someone else's actions are just political when you readily admit you don't know anything about it and then deride it. Just who is playing politics here? You maybe?

Her lawyer, Todd Kerry, said that by forcing earlier assault cases to arbitration, Halliburton and other defence firms had created a climate in which some workers came to believe they could get away with sexual assaults and other crimes.

"I've received upwards of 40 calls to my office [about assault cases] in the past two years. A good number had been disposed of under arbitration," he said."Had there been public scrutiny to prevent such things happening and these cases taken to court, they might not have been repeated. Instead one of the men who raped Jamie was so confident that nothing would happen that he was lying in bed next to her the morning after."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/15/defence-contractors-rape-claim-block

It took her four years to make this public and here is a rundown of the case.

In one of those pub*lic rela*tions night*mares, the Fifth Cir*cuit Court of Appeals ruled that Jamie Leigh Jones’s claims against Hal*libur*ton for an alleged gang rape will head to open court instead of the secret world of arbitration.
http://federalappeals.net/2009/09/jones-v-halliburton-sexual-assault-falls-outside-arbitration-clause/

That is one of the things that so infuriates me, by keeping this a secret the company enabled the rapists. They thought they could get away with anything. It's just disgraceful.

And good for Franken for backing up this young woman.

[fiver]

snipped

It's no lie that the clause in the contract provided cover for rapists and the company. It's the truth and that must hurt or you wouldn't be insulting those of us who are honestly outraged.


I would love to read her contract, do you have a link to it?

[Susan43]

Oh NO! :ohmy: Franken didn't bar any employment contract language that barred an employee, as a condition of employment, not file CRIMINAL charges.

Franken's amendment only dictates private labor contracts not bar the employee from filing tort claims for specific complaints, instead of going through arbitration. It says nothing about criminal complaints.

Gee, wonder who got that one wrong....a liberal blogger or Franken.

:confused:

I'll type this real slow so you can understand what I was getting at. With the arbitration secret the rapists knew they were protected. They wouldn't/couldn't be prosecuted because the rape was covered up and kept secret by the company. Essentially the rapists were protected by the company.

And please feel free to check my posts, I never said that the amendment had anything in it that dealt with the criminal side of the issue. But it does end the secrecy. And IMO that is very important.

[fiver]

snipped

That is one of the things that so infuriates me, by keeping this a secret the company enabled the rapists. They thought they could get away with anything. It's just disgraceful.

And good for Franken for backing up this young woman.

From one of your link:

"Before heading east, she signed an employment agree*ment that contained an arbitration clause that included manda*tory arbitra*ion for any personal injury claims against her employer related to her employment"


:read:

Exactly how is mandating a tort claim to arbitration, enabling a rapist? There is NOTHING to prevent criminal charges.

Her claim is all about MONEY. That's all tort claims are for - assigning a dollar value to someone's pain and suffering.

[fiver]

I'll type this real slow so you can understand what I was getting at. With the arbitration secret the rapists knew they were protected. They wouldn't/couldn't be prosecuted because the rape was covered up and kept secret by the company. Essentially the rapists were protected by the company.

And please feel free to check my posts, I never said that the amendment had anything in it that dealt with the criminal side of the issue. But it does end the secrecy. And IMO that is very important.
It's not your speed of typing that is your problem. Try slowing down as you READ.

You have got to be kidding me. A DA is not part or party to any employment contract and can file criminal charges against a rapist. Trying to claim that tort claims be arbitrated in private is protecting a rapist is one of the biggest leaps in logic I have ever seen.

Why don't you exert some of your outrage to the Dept of Justice for not filing any criminal charges against the alleged rapist???

[fiver]

-snipped

And please feel free to check my posts, I never said that the amendment had anything in it that dealt with the criminal side of the issue. But it does end the secrecy. And IMO that is very important.


Sure you did:

Closed arbitration with no charges against the perps and without any other recourse. Oh sure, that's really fair.

Also with this arbitration no information could be given out to protect other women. Real fair isn't it?

The title to this thread was right on.

And since you seem to be unfamiliar with the tort process, very few actually make it before a jury or judge as most are settled out of court with all details sealed and a condition of the settlement being that neither side is to discuss the details of the case or settlement.

So much for ending the secrecy.

[fiver]

My expectation is that a fusillade of links will be forthcoming

:laugh::laugh:: laugh :
My umbrella stands at the ready :patriot:

[snookums1]

In the amendment, the language does not include the names of any company. Some that voted no felt it was an attack on Halliburton. Given all the problems and wrongdoing by Halliburton why do any feel a need to support them. I quoted this post simply because it needs repeating. Haliburton was not named. Neither was KBR, the company that the woman did work for. Apparently everyone feels it is simply punishment for Halliburton because they know how they were in Iraq. And if that is so, they know there is justification for the bill.

[Susan43]

From one of your link:

"Before heading east, she signed an employment agree*ment that contained an arbitration clause that included manda*tory arbitra*ion for any personal injury claims against her employer related to her employment"


:read:

Exactly how is mandating a tort claim to arbitration, enabling a rapist? There is NOTHING to prevent criminal charges.

Her claim is all about MONEY. That's all tort claims are for - assigning a dollar value to someone's pain and suffering.

Did you read the whole Guardian article? Or don't you understand that with arbitration the preceeding would be secret? In order to keep it secret they can't very well prosecute the offenders can they? Don't you think this would lead the rapists to think they had some cover since this has happened before? Don't you think that by keeping it secret that other women might put themselves in harms way?

And don't you think that she deserves her day in court? So what if it's about money? She had to have surgery to fix something that was done to her. Or are you just worried that a big corporation might have to pay out a few buck and it would cut into their bottom line?

I don't get why you could possible think it's ok for a company to have a clause in it's contract that prevents a victim from sueing.

I really don't get how you are thinking.

I read the employment clause the other day but I don't remember where. Sorry.

[snookums1]

Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes posters grow tired of providing links you'll never read. Might want to hedge your bet. jmo

However if your bet comes in, you might consider not ducking and actually reading the "expected fusillade." How true. Then people on this board ask question after question claiming they need to be answered when the answer is plainly written in the opening link.

[Susan43]

It's not your speed of typing that is your problem. Try slowing down as you READ.

You have got to be kidding me. A DA is not part or party to any employment contract and can file criminal charges against a rapist. Trying to claim that tort claims be arbitrated in private is protecting a rapist is one of the biggest leaps in logic I have ever seen.

Why don't you exert some of your outrage to the Dept of Justice for not filing any criminal charges against the alleged rapist???

:confused: You are the one that keeps bringing up the criminal charges, please check my posts, this is not what I am upset about. I am upset that the company was keeping this secret and it was happening to women for years.

No leap in logic because that is exactly what has happened. The men were protected by the secrecy and other women have been hurt by that secrecy. Whether you like it or not, that's exactly what this secret arbitration has caused. We're not talking hypotheticals here, but what really happened. Read the whole Guardian article, it names some other women.

[snookums1]

:confused: You are the one that keeps bringing up the criminal charges, please check my posts, this is not what I am upset about. I am upset that the company was keeping this secret and it was happening to women for years.

No leap in logic because that is exactly what has happened. The men were protected by the secrecy and other women have been hurt by that secrecy. Whether you like it or not, that's exactly what this secret arbitration has caused. We're not talking hypotheticals here, but what really happened. Read the whole Guardian article, it names some other women. And technically all of those women were punished by the companies they worked for because they got raped.

[fiver]

As expected; don't let those facts hit you! :wink:
So far, it's nonfacts.

Like Ms Jones' employment contract barring any criminal complaimt.

Or the title of this thread regading "no recourse".

:wink::wink:

[fiver]

Did you read the whole Guardian article? Or don't you understand that with arbitration the preceeding would be secret? In order to keep it secret they can't very well prosecute the offenders can they? Don't you think this would lead the rapists to think they had some cover since this has happened before? Don't you think that by keeping it secret that other women might put themselves in harms way?

And don't you think that she deserves her day in court? So what if it's about money? She had to have surgery to fix something that was done to her. Or are you just worried that a big corporation might have to pay out a few buck and it would cut into their bottom line?

I don't get why you could possible think it's ok for a company to have a clause in it's contract that prevents a victim from sueing.

I really don't get how you are thinking.

I read the employment clause the other day but I don't remember where. Sorry.


no, I read the opinion from the 5th circuit.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov:8081/isysquery/irld7b4/1/doc

and if everyone was "due their day in court", federal courts would not have the authority to enforce arbitration agreements.

Again, Hallibuton's attempted coverup of the incident did not preclude Ms Jones from filing a criminal complaint.

You need to read the opinion I linked, it details circumstances that allow for the filing of a tort claim - the very same circumstances Ms Jones used to file her claim.

[fiver]

True. However, I do not expect the defenders of the 30 who would defend rape to ever find the answers they want. Maybe it is time to let them search their own links; talk about a lesson in futility.


Oh for crying out loud, no one is defending rape. :rolleyes:

How absurd.

[fiver]

:confused: You are the one that keeps bringing up the criminal charges, please check my posts, this is not what I am upset about. I am upset that the company was keeping this secret and it was happening to women for years.

No leap in logic because that is exactly what has happened. The men were protected by the secrecy and other women have been hurt by that secrecy. Whether you like it or not, that's exactly what this secret arbitration has caused. We're not talking hypotheticals here, but what really happened. Read the whole Guardian article, it names some other women.

And you have gone completely out of your way to ignore the fact that there was NOTHING precluding Ms Jones or any of these other women from filing criminal complaints. So it wasn't a matter of being bound by an arbitration agreement that kept those charges from being filed.

Definate leap in logic on your part as there was nothing preventing the women from filing criminal complaints. Their arbitration agreement was only for TORT claims.

So again, I ask - where is your outrage at the Dept of Justice for not filing criminal charges against the alleged rapists???

[fiver]

And technically all of those women were punished by the companies they worked for because they got raped.
Punished by the companies they worked for because they got raped and couldn't sue for money? That doesn't even make any sense :confused:

[fiver]

Post #244; way too soon to *bump* the facts for you, again.

Again, no one is defending rape. That's the fact you seem to be avoiding at all costs.

[MercedesV]

It’s been over two years since Ms. Jones’ trip to Iraq, and little has happened as she attempts to seek justice for what happened. Rep. Poe assisted Ms. Jones in attempting to have criminal charges brought against her assailants. She was interviewed by an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and a State Department Special Agent is supposed to be investigating her case, yet neither Ms. Jones nor Rep. Poe have been informed about the status of the criminal investigation. (See Rep. Poe’s Statement to Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.)

http://www.todaysworkplace.org/category/jamie-leigh-jones/

The above article is from Jan. 2008. As has been posted in links upthread Ms. Jones did go to the hospital had a rape kit done by a doctor and that was given to Halliburton security. And necessary evidence from that kit went missing. No one seems anxious to proceed with criminal charges, and one has to wonder why that is too.

The article does go into the arbitration issue as well.

[fiver]

It’s been over two years since Ms. Jones’ trip to Iraq, and little has happened as she attempts to seek justice for what happened. Rep. Poe assisted Ms. Jones in attempting to have criminal charges brought against her assailants. She was interviewed by an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and a State Department Special Agent is supposed to be investigating her case, yet neither Ms. Jones nor Rep. Poe have been informed about the status of the criminal investigation. (See Rep. Poe’s Statement to Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.)

http://www.todaysworkplace.org/category/jamie-leigh-jones/

The above article is from Jan. 2008. As has been posted in links upthread Ms. Jones did go to the hospital had a rape kit done by a doctor and that was given to Halliburton security. And necessary evidence from that kit went missing. No one seems anxious to proceed with criminal charges, and one has to wonder why that is too.

The article does go into the arbitration issue as well.


The total lack of criminal charges is what people should be outraged about, not that Ms Jones had a clause in her employment contract that mandated arbitration.

[Susan43]

It’s been over two years since Ms. Jones’ trip to Iraq, and little has happened as she attempts to seek justice for what happened. Rep. Poe assisted Ms. Jones in attempting to have criminal charges brought against her assailants. She was interviewed by an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and a State Department Special Agent is supposed to be investigating her case, yet neither Ms. Jones nor Rep. Poe have been informed about the status of the criminal investigation. (See Rep. Poe’s Statement to Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.)

http://www.todaysworkplace.org/category/jamie-leigh-jones/

The above article is from Jan. 2008. As has been posted in links upthread Ms. Jones did go to the hospital had a rape kit done by a doctor and that was given to Halliburton security. And necessary evidence from that kit went missing. No one seems anxious to proceed with criminal charges, and one has to wonder why that is too.

The article does go into the arbitration issue as well.

Terrific article Mercedes, thank you.

The article I posted from the Guardian is one of the best I've read so far. I imagine that most of the women in Jones's place would not have fought for 4 years to get her day in court.

Mary Beth Kineston, who drove lorries in Iraq and survived a bloody ambush, has alleged that she was sacked after complaining of sexual assaults by several fellow workers...

Linda Lindsey, who worked for KBR in Iraq for three years, has said that male supervisors regularly offered promotions and other benefits in exchange for sex. Lindsey said she filed complaints but they that were never acted on.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/15/defence-contractors-rape-claim-block

And this was about sexual harrassment, not rape. Also there was a good article in Mother Jones on arbitration. I found this very interesting.

Data from the American Arbitration Association showed that Halliburton won more than 80 percent of its cases in arbitration, and when I looked at the data two years ago, it showed that out of 119 cases Halliburton arbitrated over a four-year period, only three resulted in the employee actually winning any money. The deck was clearly stacked against Jones from day one.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/09/halliburton-loses-jamie-leigh-jones

After I read the article that Mercedes posted I went and read the testimony of Republican Congressman Poe regarding the case. He sounds like the kind of man you would want on your side.

While the criminal justice system has certainly failed Jamie, in the United States, the civil court system may be of no help either in holding wrongdoers civilly liable for the injuries they have inflicted on victims. The inclusion of a binding arbitration clause in Jamie’s employment contract may preclude her from accessing a judge or jury to hear her civil case. She may be forced into arbitration, a privatized justice system with no public record, no discovery, and no meaningful appeal. Jamie needs and deserves justice. As a former judge, I have always thought that the best way to solve disputes was in a courtroom with a jury.

Since Jamie has gone public with her experience, my office has heard from 3 other women. Of course, my office will furnish the names of these women to the Judiciary Committee if needed. One of the three women is Tracy Barker. Tracy is also a former KBR employee, who says that she was sexually assaulted in Iraq by a State Department employee who still works at the State Department today.
http://poe.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=81168

Go read what he has to say, he is obviously a decent man unlike the one's that voted against the amendment for political reasons.

[fiver]

On just this page, this is the second time you have claimed "no one is defending rape." Please explain how the 30 to vote against a the bill were not doing so, when voting to exclude rape from due process or in particular ending the arbitration clause. tia

Sorry, but defending Halliburton and voting against this bill is exactly that, defending rape.


What are you talking about? The Franken amendment is for TORT cases ONLY.

Where is your outrage over the fact that Ms Jone's alleged rapists have not been charged? Talk about "lack of due process" and "defending rape". Not a word about the lack of criminal charges, just faux outrage because 30 senators think it's an overreach of the Federal Govt to mandate language in employment contracts.

I'm done with you and your "defending rape" bait. You obviously have not read the amendment or the court filings by Ms Jones.

[watcher2005]

Cart before the horse, imo. Please NOTE .. the rape kit mysteriously came up missing, which certainly impedes a criminal prosecution. And please, before you tell me what is outrageous, please think about that clause, arbitration for rape. :blink: Arbitration for rape. :blink:

What do you think of the things that Cynthia Mckinney brought up when she was still in Congress? Were they ever addressed?

[MercedesV]

The total lack of criminal charges is what people should be outraged about, not that Ms Jones had a clause in her employment contract that mandated arbitration.

Why should it be either or? This thread is about the amendment that Franken proposed and passed and that 30 Republicans voted no on. That is outrageous. The treatment that Ms. Jones received was beyond horrific. Not just the rape, but the enprisonment by Halliburton/KBR afterward. The threats made to her. It should horrify anyone. And our tax dollars are paying this company. That should get people upset. We are paying this kind of company.

Where are all those people that thought ACORN should be defunded? What Halliburton/KBR has done in Iraq over years is far worse than anything ACORN has ever been accused of, never mind find guilty of. Where is the outrage over how our taxpayers money is going to an outfit like this? Some are so quick to scream about anything ACORN, even when unproven, but support a company like Halliburton who has been shown to do many unethical horrible things.

[fiver]

http://poe.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=81168

Go read what he has to say, he is obviously a decent man unlike the one's that voted against the amendment for political reasons.

That was from 2007 and he was wrong because the 5th district court of appeals ruled her tort claim for the rape does not fall under arbitration.

[fiver]

Why should it be either or? This thread is about the amendment that Franken proposed and passed and that 30 Republicans voted no on. That is outrageous. The treatment that Ms. Jones received was beyond horrific. Not just the rape, but the enprisonment by Halliburton/KBR afterward. The threats made to her. It should horrify anyone. And our tax dollars are paying this company. That should get people upset. We are paying this kind of company.

Where are all those people that thought ACORN should be defunded? What Halliburton/KBR has done in Iraq over years is far worse than anything ACORN has ever been accused of, never mind find guilty of. Where is the outrage over how our taxpayers money is going to an outfit like this? Some are so quick to scream about anything ACORN, even when unproven, but support a company like Halliburton who has been shown to do many unethical horrible things.


What is so outrageous about not wanting the long arm of the Federal Govt to reach even further into employment contract language and instead, continue to let the courts rule on the matter?

If it's oh so terrible for Halliburton to have such language in their employment contracts, what about all of us that don't work for a Fed Contractor that won't be covered by this amendment?

[MercedesV]

What is so outrageous about not wanting the long arm of the Federal Govt to reach even further into employment contract language and instead, continue to let the courts rule on the matter?

If it's oh so terrible for Halliburton to have such language in their employment contracts, what about all of us that don't work for a Fed Contractor that won't be covered by this amendment?

What is outrageous is what Halliburton/KBR has done in Iraq, with out tax dollars. This language in their contracts is meant to only protect them not see any kind of justice of any kind.

They can have whatever language they choose to have in their contracts. We shouldn't do business with them if they do. As to those who don't have Federal contracts, this publicity should help alert people to look for these things when contemplating going to work for a company.

Arbitration for rape, threats, holding prisoner, withholding food and water, tampering with evidence. Yeah, sure that's a plan. But not for justice that's for sure.

[Susan43]

What is so outrageous about not wanting the long arm of the Federal Govt to reach even further into employment contract language and instead, continue to let the courts rule on the matter?

If it's oh so terrible for Halliburton to have such language in their employment contracts, what about all of us that don't work for a Fed Contractor that won't be covered by this amendment?

These are not private contracts, they are paid with taxpayer dollars. Do you really think that the government has no place putting some restrictions on contracts that we pay for?

This amendment will apply to all government contracts.

If you are currently working for a company that has this type of arbitration clause in it maybe you could do what Ms Jones did and fight it. It's taken her four years but she finally prevailed. But you know darn well that no repub would ever vote to make arbitration clauses illegal in private contracts. After all, with many of them, they much prefer profits to people.

[fiver]

These are not private contracts, they are paid with taxpayer dollars. Do you really think that the government has no place putting some restrictions on contracts that we pay for?

This amendment will apply to all government contracts.

If you are currently working for a company that has this type of arbitration clause in it maybe you could do what Ms Jones did and fight it. It's taken her four years but she finally prevailed. But you know darn well that no repub would ever vote to make arbitration clauses illegal in private contracts. After all, with many of them, they much prefer profits to people.
The contracts are between the employer and the employee. The employer is not the Federal Gvt.

The amendment will not apply to existing contracts.

Sorry, but unlike you I don't have a direct channel to the inner thoughts of those in Congress. And you might want to reconsider a narrower brush since the amendment did draw GOP votes.

The bottom line is, the courts have been handling arbitration disputes for years proving that everyone with an employment contract that stipulates arbitration can challege if their complaint falls under arbitration or a tort filing.

and again I ask, where is the outrage at the DOJ for not filing rape charges? Seems there is more concern about suing for money than criminal prosecution. But the GOP is railed for putting money before people. :blink:

[fiver]

What is outrageous is what Halliburton/KBR has done in Iraq, with out tax dollars. This language in their contracts is meant to only protect them not see any kind of justice of any kind.

They can have whatever language they choose to have in their contracts. We shouldn't do business with them if they do. As to those who don't have Federal contracts, this publicity should help alert people to look for these things when contemplating going to work for a company.

Arbitration for rape, threats, holding prisoner, withholding food and water, tampering with evidence. Yeah, sure that's a plan. But not for justice that's for sure.

Right, Hallibuton is concerned about being sued for MONEY.

Arbitration instead of filing a civil suit for money. Nice to see you equate MONEY with justice.


Very nice. :rolleyes:

[Lady_Jean_La]

the only excuse given so for is in the ops link, an excuse that was like something Palin herself would come up with, cause it had nothing to do with the bill at hand

That happens often. imo

[Lady_Jean_La]

the ones that are at issue are the ones that voted "NO", 30 republicans voted not, everyone else, democrats, independents and republicans voted "YES" - it just doesn't make sense why this group of 30 republicans voted "NO", had this group of 30 not voted, it would not be a issue, but they did, they voted "NO"
Oh thanks for the information. I thought all the Republicans voted no.

[Lady_Jean_La]

That's not the point of the thread. So , if YOU were raped and left, you'd want the currnet recourse?:blush:

Is anything else realistic?

[fiver]

It’s been over two years since Ms. Jones’ trip to Iraq, and little has happened as she attempts to seek justice for what happened. Rep. Poe assisted Ms. Jones in attempting to have criminal charges brought against her assailants. She was interviewed by an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and a State Department Special Agent is supposed to be investigating her case, yet neither Ms. Jones nor Rep. Poe have been informed about the status of the criminal investigation. (See Rep. Poe’s Statement to Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security.)

http://www.todaysworkplace.org/category/jamie-leigh-jones/

The above article is from Jan. 2008. As has been posted in links upthread Ms. Jones did go to the hospital had a rape kit done by a doctor and that was given to Halliburton security. And necessary evidence from that kit went missing. No one seems anxious to proceed with criminal charges, and one has to wonder why that is too.

The article does go into the arbitration issue as well.

you are missing a key word. "allege"

"Jones reported the rape to another employee and was taken to see Halliburton/KBR medical personnel. A rape kit was administered at a United States Army-run hospital. Jones alleges Halliburton/KBR subsequently mishandled the rape kit. She further alleges: after her rape-kit procedure was performed, she was placed under armed guard in a container and not permitted to leave; and, despite repeated requests to be allowed to do so, she was denied access to a telephone to contact her family, until she convinced one of her guards to allow her to telephone her father."

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov:8081/isysquery/irld7b4/1/doc

[Lady_Jean_La]

In the amendment, the language does not include the names of any company. Some that voted no felt it was an attack on Halliburton. Given all the problems and wrongdoing by Halliburton why do any feel a need to support them.
Often bills are for one company only which isn't mentioned. Especially in the tax laws. imo

[MercedesV]

Right, Hallibuton is concerned about being sued for MONEY.

Arbitration instead of filing a civil suit for money. Nice to see you equate MONEY with justice.


Very nice. :rolleyes:

There is a reason we have civil suits. Ms. Jones was very seriously injured. Who paid for her medical bills? She couldn't work afterward either. How'd she pay her bills? Yes, there needs to be compensation. Not to mention, there is a reason there is punitive awards issued too.

You can't unring the bell. But punishment must be meted out. With Halliburton, that means hitting them in their pocketbooks. More importantly it is a court of law ruling they were wrong. Being publicly found guilty in a court of law. Yeah, that would be a form of justice.

It would be even better if the sob's who raped her went to prison. Seems Halliburton should face criminal penalties for holding her prisoner, refusing her food and water, making threats against her and tampering with evidence. And after that, they had to pay Ms. Jones a very large payment for her pain and suffering. They should be publicly exposed for the evil they did.

[MercedesV]

Often bills are for one company only which isn't mentioned. Especially in the tax laws. imo

They couldn't make this bill a bill of attainer. No company was named in the amendment. It would cover all companies with a Federal contract.

[Lady_Jean_La]

Were her attackers ever given criminal sentences for beating and raping her? Or are they free to do it again? I am sure she would much rather they were locked away so they never do that to her or another woman again. Money does not bring peace of mind.Were her attackers ever charged with a crime?

[Lady_Jean_La]

Is "fair" a legal term or just something you've decided to throw into the discussion?

:confused::confused:

I was wondering what fairness had to do with employment? :confused:

[Lady_Jean_La]

I quoted this post simply because it needs repeating. Haliburton was not named. Neither was KBR, the company that the woman did work for. Apparently everyone feels it is simply punishment for Halliburton because they know how they were in Iraq. And if that is so, they know there is justification for the bill.

I don't follow that logic. :confused:

[fiver]

There is a reason we have civil suits. Ms. Jones was very seriously injured. Who paid for her medical bills? She couldn't work afterward either. How'd she pay her bills? Yes, there needs to be compensation. Not to mention, there is a reason there is punitive awards issued too.

You can't unring the bell. But punishment must be meted out. With Halliburton, that means hitting them in their pocketbooks. More importantly it is a court of law ruling they were wrong. Being publicly found guilty in a court of law. Yeah, that would be a form of justice.

It would be even better if the sob's who raped her went to prison. Seems Halliburton should face criminal penalties for holding her prisoner, refusing her food and water, making threats against her and tampering with evidence. And after that, they had to pay Ms. Jones a very large payment for her pain and suffering. They should be publicly exposed for the evil they did.
When was there a judgement against Halliburton? The last I saw, portions of her appeal were remanded to civil court to be heard after the arbitration hearing for the portions of her appeal that were affirmed to fall under arbitration. Arbitration is a substution for filing a civil case - the findings are just as binding.

Well the DOJ needs to file charges. But for some reason, no one seems to be upset that they haven't.

[Lady_Jean_La]

And technically all of those women were punished by the companies they worked for because they got raped.

What do the companies have to do with criminal prosecution? :confused:

[fiver]

They couldn't make this bill a bill of attainer. No company was named in the amendment. It would cover all companies with a Federal contract.

Do you mean bill of attainder? Not sure it would apply anyway since it has to do with the wording on an employment contract that offers no civil or criminal penalties for failure to comply. Just no contract with the Feds if employment contracts contain certain phrases.

[LisaM22]

Oh, and the woman Al Franken cites as the inspiration for his amendment won her case to seek damages in civil court by the 5th District Court of Appeals.

against the government, not the company

[LisaM22]

In the amendment, the language does not include the names of any company. Some that voted no felt it was an attack on Halliburton. Given all the problems and wrongdoing by Halliburton why do any feel a need to support them.

no kidding, what is it about Halliburton, why do the right protect them so, how much do they donate to them to buy them off like that?

[LisaM22]

The dance of the nays continues!!!! Why don't you admit the 30 messed up???

exactly, many republicans voted yes, they could choose to support them rather then the party of "NO", there was no excuse for voting "NO" and they know it

[LisaM22]

And you have gone completely out of your way to ignore the fact that there was NOTHING precluding Ms Jones or any of these other women from filing criminal complaints. So it wasn't a matter of being bound by an arbitration agreement that kept those charges from being filed.

Definate leap in logic on your part as there was nothing preventing the women from filing criminal complaints. Their arbitration agreement was only for TORT claims.

So again, I ask - where is your outrage at the Dept of Justice for not filing criminal charges against the alleged rapists???

ah, the doctor turning the rape kit over to Halliburton security forces, who then conveniently lost them.... did you forget that?

what happened really doesn't matter, a bill was approved to prevent this and 30 republicans voted against it, why would they do that?

a criminal complaint should just be filed on her behalf anyways, why should a rape victim have to file a complaint? what they did to this poor women was unreal

[LisaM22]

I wonder if these rapists were fired or allowed to keep their jobs?

[fiver]

against the government, not the company
uh....what?

[fiver]

ah, the doctor turning the rape kit over to Halliburton security forces, who then conveniently lost them.... did you forget that?

what happened really doesn't matter, a bill was approved to prevent this and 30 republicans voted against it, why would they do that?

a criminal complaint should just be filed on her behalf anyways, why should a rape victim have to file a complaint? what they did to this poor women was unreal

Oh, so that has been proven. Please provide a link.

No, an amendment was approved that disallows a contractor who receives federal funds from barring it's employees/contractors into arbitration for specific complaints.

why don't you ask Eric Holder why the DOJ has failed to bring charges.

[fiver]

5er, what's so hard to understand in that post? If you want to be so partisan as to condone the 30 pro-rape votes, just say so...

"pro rape votes" how absurd

:rolleyes:

[LisaM22]

Oh, so that has been proven. Please provide a link.

No, an amendment was approved that disallows a contractor who receives federal funds from barring it's employees/contractors into arbitration for specific complaints.

why don't you ask Eric Holder why the DOJ has failed to bring charges.

was already posted, but will post again...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Leigh_Jones

""[5] Jones' account was confirmed by U.S. Army physician Jodi Schultz.[6] Schultz gave the rape kit she used to gather evidence from Jones to KBR/Halliburton security forces, after which the rape kit disappeared. It was recovered two years later, but missing crucial photographs and notes. [7]"

this happened in 2005, not sure why the DOJ did not press charges

"In May 2007, a State Department diplomat recovered the rape kit from Halliburton and KBR. However, notes and photographs taken by Schultz (of Jones the morning following her rape) were missing, undermining any chances of bringing the case through the criminal courts.[8]"

[LisaM22]

<snip>

No, an amendment was approved that disallows a contractor who receives federal funds from barring it's employees/contractors into arbitration for specific complaints.

<snip>

why would someone vote no on that? sounds like a good bill to me and most that voted on it other then those 30 republicans

[Lady_Jean_La]

against the government, not the company
Isn't that some recourse?
:confused:

[Lady_Jean_La]

no kidding, what is it about Halliburton, why do the right protect them so, how much do they donate to them to buy them off like that?

Aren't donations a public record?

[Lady_Jean_La]

was already posted, but will post again...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Leigh_Jones

""[5] Jones' account was confirmed by U.S. Army physician Jodi Schultz.[6] Schultz gave the rape kit she used to gather evidence from Jones to KBR/Halliburton security forces, after which the rape kit disappeared. It was recovered two years later, but missing crucial photographs and notes. [7]"

this happened in 2005, not sure why the DOJ did not press charges

"In May 2007, a State Department diplomat recovered the rape kit from Halliburton and KBR. However, notes and photographs taken by Schultz (of Jones the morning following her rape) were missing, undermining any chances of bringing the case through the criminal courts.[8]"

That sounds like the reason in your quote. undermining any chances. imo