Today, the Senate listened to her story before approving an amendment by a vote of 68-30 that would prohibit ‘the Defense Department from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve sexual assault allegations and other claims through arbitration.’
But…but…Kevin Jennings!
The damn thing is that it sounds like hyperbole to call it that, but I have no other idea how else to describe the idea that a goddam Rape is, in certain circumstances, not an issue for criminal courts, particularly when the circumstance in question is “committed by an employee of Haliburton.”
Imagine our surprise when 7 senators and 74 congressmen voted for immigrant child prostitution through ACORN funding.
No wonder they have such low approval ratings.
Imagine our surprise when 7 senators and 74 congressmen voted for immigrant child prostitution through ACORN funding.
Yes. Who can forget the heartwrenching testimony of those ACORN-sponsored child prostitutes?
What? There weren’t any? Oh.
Imagine our surprise when 7 senators and 74 congressmen voted for immigrant child prostitution through ACORN funding.
Hey, look over there!
What I don’t understand is, why is any employer legally able to require employees to give up their rights? Particularly in a situation involving a crime?
This isn’t some non-disclosure agreement that someone tries to claim limits their right to free speech. This isn’t some agreement to arbitrate disputes in a civil action. This is requiring someone to no make use of the justice system when they are the victim of a crime.
Sean, unfortunately the companies in question operate in a legal black hole – they aren’t technically subject to U.S. laws when they operate overseas. Which is the next thing that Congress needs to address.
There was a rape in this instance, there were no child prostitutes, except in Andrew Breitbart’s imagination.
30 Republicans Vote For Rape
Fucking monsters.
Citation-free Distraction Troll attempts to distract, without a citation (natch).
Oliver, you forget the best part. One of those 30 was former Presidential nominee, John McCain.
Could someone post a complete list of all senators who voted against?
Does this include government contractors who rape detainees held in custody indefinitely without charges?
That “legal black hole” thing was always BS invented by the political class as an excuse not to prosecute mercs. The moment these companies signed contracts with the US government, they became subject to US Courts and the military code of justice.
soullite, perhaps I should have written a defacto legal black hole.
Is there anything Dennis won’t defend?
Is there anything Dennis won’t defend?
An innocent victim?
‘What I don’t understand is, why is any employer legally able to require employees to give up their rights? Particularly in a situation involving a crime?’
Because Dead Eye Dick Cheney said so.
‘Does this include government contractors who rape detainees held in custody indefinitely without charges?’
It was probably specifically designed for them; raping Americans was just a fringe benefit.
‘Is there anything Dennis won’t defend?’
The Rule of Law?
@Repack Rider-
“Is there anything Dennis won’t defend?
An innocent victim?”
@jrfunkenstein-
“Is there anything Dennis won’t defend?’
The Rule of Law?”
http://www.tradebit.com/filedetail.php/5678971-comedy-drum-roll-sound-effect-wav
Women are chattel to cons. If you see soemthing you like, you should be able to take it by force
Nice strategy, Jaims. Suck up and condescend to Oliver about how great he is for banning the personal attacks so you can pretend he wasn’t including you and continue your personal attacks.
Clever.
Objectively Pro-Rapist Senator Defending Troll continues to defend Senators who voted for rape.
Holier-than-thou Pro-Teen Prostitution Defending Hypocrite continues to defend Democratic Congressmen who voted for teen prostitution.
Copycat Distraction Troll attempts to distract via imitation, but instead only flatters.
Imagine our surprise when 7 senators and 74 congressmen voted for immigrant child prostitution through ACORN funding.
Okay, so you’ve got one ACORN branch worker who committed the unpardonable sin of giving advice to a fake pimp and ho on how to avoid paying taxes (Gasp! No honest CPA would ever help their clients do that). That ACORN worker is fired but no matter, the whole organization has to be corrupt beacuse of the actions of one branch, got it?
53 million over the course of its lifetime as an organization. That’s what ACORN has received from the federal government.
-Which is .01325% of the $4 billion the Coalition Provisional Authority “lost” -to Halliburton thieves or insurgency fighters, while doing a bang-up job sickening troops, building shower stalls that electrocute soldiers and committing rape.
But it’s ACORN that Real Americans(tm) should be outraged over.
Ochaye: Could someone post a complete list of all senators who voted against?
http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00308
Dennis: Nice strategy, Jaims. Suck up and condescend to Oliver about how great he is for banning the personal attacks so you can pretend he wasn’t including you and continue your personal attacks.
Clever.
Nice strategy, Dennis. Ignore the issue and respond instead with a personal attack criticizing others for their personal attacks.
Clever.
Paul_D: But it’s ACORN that Real Americans(tm) should be outraged over.
Am very interested in hearing what reasonable reply Dennis might have Paul_D’s comments. I suspect it will sound something like crickets, but look forward to being proven wrong.
Have any of the 30 given any reason or made any statement as to why they were opposed to this measure?
Can anyone provide a good thing that follows from not allowing victims to pursue criminal charges, or a bad thing that follows from allowing them to do so?
Forgot to add that yesterday 243 Congressmen voted FOR tax evasion.
Rep. Waters:‘Many members’ suffer from disclosure problems like Rep. Rangel
Hey, we ALL do it. Who cares?
Let’s all just MoveOn.
I suspect it will sound something like crickets, but look forward to being proven wrong.
Best o’ luck with that. Really. But as we’ve seen, if past (lack of) performance is any indication, it ain’t gonna happen.
Well, looks like I was wrong. Didn’t end up sounding like crickets at all. It was instead yet another refrain of “Look, over there.”
Sean, it’s really not worth going over again for the hundredth time just because you think it’s point that should be addressed and in which you throw it out as some sort of challenge.
30 Republicans didn’t vote for rape; that’s a completely ridiculous assertion. Completely ridiculous. Congress didn’t vote for child prostitution, that was the reason for the equally ridiculous analogy. And Congress didn’t vote for tax evasion either by letting Charlie Rangel off the hook, though they did vote for hypocrisy. Paul_D also makes too many false assertions to make any kind of coherent point or an equivalency worth addressing. ACORN has far too many things going wrong with their organization than the one example he lists, and yes, the corruption is widespread as more revelations are made almost daily. LIberal have been attacking Halliburton since Cheney decided to run for office and you expect conservatives to be quiet about ACORN because you bring up the charges you’ve never been able to stick against Halliburton after nine long years of liberals hounding them?
I’d ask you why you were so outraged about Halliburton but now want to defend the obscene actions of what is now evidently a plethora of violations and examples of corruption against ACORN. Where’s the consistency from your side, Sean?
Dems Will Start Funding ACORN Again at the End of October
It was all a show….
Sean, it’s…
And still no answer to the question. Even after all that. Wow. Go figure.
(To review, these were the questions:
His reference to crickets, Indeed, had to do with answering Paul_D’s question to me, not what you just displayed. No need to apologize, though.
And if you are that curious about Sean’s question about why the 30 Senators voted the way they did and what that bill was really about, why don’t you go research it yourself? It’d be far more than anyone else here calling this ‘voting for rape’ has done, that’s for damn sure.
Dennis: I’d ask you why you were so outraged about Halliburton but now want to defend the obscene actions of what is now evidently a plethora of violations and examples of corruption against ACORN. Where’s the consistency from your side, Sean?
I’d answer if will first explain why are you so outraged about ACORN but not about Halliburton? Where’s your consistency?
Dennis: 30 Republicans didn’t vote for rape; that’s a completely ridiculous assertion.
OK, I’ll agree it’s a purposefully chosen emotion-laden therefore less accurate description.
But they did vote against the measure.
Why?
(And I’m asking you, not Indeed, since you’re the one who seems to have no problem with the “No” votes. So no deflecting with a “why don’t you go research it yourself?”)
Hedley Lamar: Name your crimes.
Thug: Rape, murder, arson, and rape.
Hedley: You said rape twice.
Thug: I like rape.
Blazing Saddles, 1974
30 Republicans didn’t vote for rape; that’s a completely ridiculous assertion. Completely ridiculous.
Nah, they just voted to protect rapists. Big difference.
I came in late — who says she can’t have them charged with rape and / or sexual assault.
It seems she is suing for civil recourse, when she signed a contract stating she could make such a claim.
If she is otherwise entitled to make a claim, then the clause is exculpatory, like a landlord putting a lease, “Landlord will not be required to make repairs; tenant will make repairs at his own expense, and may not deduct the cost of said repairs from his rent, or in any other way compensate himself at the landlord’s expense”
That clause would be exculpatory, because the landlord is saying to the tenant “You hereby give me permission not to do something which is required by law.”
You do not need new legislation for that. It already exists. This anti-Halliburton grandstanding.
“It seems she is suing for civil recourse, when she signed a contract stating she could make such a claim.” should read “It seems she is suing for civil recourse, when she signed a contract stating she couldn’t make such a claim.”
It seems she is suing for civil recourse, when she signed a contract stating she could make such a claim.
And the bill passed by the Senate says the government won’t hire companies that make their employees sign contracts like that one. KBR put Ms. Jones in a dangerous situation, failed to protect her, held her against her will after the crime, threatened retaliation if she sought medical care, and “lost” the evidence against her attackers.
Thirty GOP Senators think companies should be allowed to treat female employees this way. Funny thing, Ms. Snowe, Collins, Hutchison, and Murkowski are not among the 30.
“Suck up and condescend to Oliver about how great he is for banning the personal attacks”
Oh no, little guy. I was perfectly content to keep on mocking your sad failure of a life but Oliver says we have to play nice.
Don’t you remember? I live in SCARY BROWN PEOPLE INFESTED KOREA!
And I said that the bill is unnecessary, because thereis already a principle in law that says, that if a provision of a contract is unlawful, it doesn’t matter if you signed the contract or not; that portion of the contract is unenforceable. It is a perfect example of the principle “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, working for the benefit of the person who is ignorant of the law, when they sign the contract.
KBR put Ms. Jones in a dangerous situation, failed to protect her, held her against her will after the crime, threatened retaliation if she sought medical care, and “lost” the evidence against her attackers.
Which one of those acts is lawful — right now — without that law being passed ?
More crickets.
Who could have predicted?
And I said that the bill is unnecessary, because thereis already a principle in law that says, that if a provision of a contract is unlawful, it doesn’t matter if you signed the contract or not;
In this case, the provision of the contract IS lawful. That doesn’t mean it’s right. And it doesn’t mean the U.S. government has to do business with companies that treat their employees this way.
The bill IS necessary because Jamie Leigh Jones wasn’t the only woman treated this way. She wasn’t even the first.
Simple question, Frank: Should a company be able to hire a young woman and throw her to a gang of criminals and never have to face the consequences for doing so?
Which one of those acts is lawful — right now — without that law being passed ?
All of them.
That’s why Ms. Jones has been fighting for four years to bring suit against KBR. So far, the law has been against her.
Frank, if this happened in the US, none of it is lawful, what’s the law in Iraq? Can Ms. Jones file criminal charges there? Can she get the Americans who raped her extradited to Iraq? Is the Iraqi justice system set up to investigate, try, convict, and penalize US citizens working for Halliburton in Iraq? Is it somehow Ms Jones’ fault that she was not able to obtain justice in this case? Is it her fault that she is not able to overcome the difficulties in international law, the general lawlessness of where she was raped, the coverup by her powerful employer (who has been completely above Iraqi law for 6+ years now), and the contract excluding her from seeking any form of justice in the US system?
The answer to all these is no. Ms Jones’ case exists in a netherworld where the only reasonable jurisdiction of the US Courts is on the civil side. Halliburton has forced employees to sign contracts eliminating their rights, which they can do, but that doesn’t mean that the US government has to continue to pay them vast sums of money to facilitate abuse of their American employees.
Still looking for someone to provide a reason for voting against this measure.
Anyone? Anyone?
The issue with ACORN is significantly different as such: ACORN was contracted BEFORE the whole fake prostitute scandal came along. With the rape bill they are told that this rape clause exists and then they voted against it. Kind of a big difference wouldn’t you think?
As a proud ACORN organizer, I have to say that nothing more eloquently displays the blatant hypocrisy of these Republicans who led the charge against ACORN. As a defender of the marginalized elements of society we have had our fair share of problems both in the sheer power dynamic of the struggle and with the occasional dishonest employee. Nothing in my experience, or in the history of the organization, comes close to rivalling the very real crimes committed by Haliburton as an organization.
If what our organization “did” by having 1 or 2 employees who personally gave bad advice to fake prostitutes was worthy of having our federal funding revoked and our good name run through the mud, then this incident is worthy of, at absolute minimum, the same for Haliburton. If anything, this organization should have their government contracts revoked and the people responsible for this heinous crime prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. There is no excuse for allowing US government contractors able to rape and threaten employees ANYWHERE THEY ARE DEPLOYED with impunity.