If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Kos)   According to Senate Republicans, removing funding for ACORN: good. Removing funding for companies that don't allow their employees to go to court when they're gang-raped by fellow employees: bad   (dailykos.com) divider line 178
    More: Obvious, acorn, employment contracts, senator, defense contractors, David Vitter, medical treatments, sexual assault, Jamie Leigh Jones  
•       •       •

3818 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Oct 2009 at 6:27 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



178 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-10-07 03:07:28 PM  
According to subby, two completely unrelated things that aren't comparable in any way: can be compared anyway if you're trying to make Republicans look bad.
 
2009-10-07 03:14:33 PM  
Capitalist1: According to subby, two completely unrelated things that aren't comparable in any way: can be compared anyway if you're trying to make Republicans look bad.

Actually, the article is pretty much as subby advertised. The article is meanspirited and invective, but the point isn't completely irrelevant.

If you subscribe to moral absolutism, then consistency would be amongst the highest virtues.

But I agree with you- there's absolutely no need to stretch to make Republicans look bad.
 
2009-10-07 03:16:35 PM  
TFA: Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

huh? Can someone explain this one? The crime is gang rape. How can an employer contract prevent an employee from bringing criminal charges? Does anyone understand this shiat at all? If it's a civil charge, then yes, a contract can call for arbitration, but this should be a criminal matter.
 
2009-10-07 03:32:19 PM  
In Canada, you can't sign away your rights, so you could sign such an agreement and then sue them anyways.
 
2009-10-07 03:42:22 PM  
Alacritous: In Canada, you can't sign away your rights, so you could sign such an agreement and then sue them anyways.

I thought it was the same in America.
 
2009-10-07 04:00:48 PM  
Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

I highly doubt the contract specific just sexual assault allegations would go to arbitration. I bet it was a provision that said something like "any dispute arising out of this contract will be determined by a neutral arbitrator and by signing this document you are knowingly waiving your constitutional right to a jury trial."
 
2009-10-07 04:03:57 PM  
patrick767: huh? Can someone explain this one? The crime is gang rape. How can an employer contract prevent an employee from bringing criminal charges? Does anyone understand this shiat at all? If it's a civil charge, then yes, a contract can call for arbitration, but this should be a criminal matter.

The arbitration clause wouldn't cover criminal charges, only a civil suit against the contractor.
 
2009-10-07 04:20:05 PM  
KaponoFor3:
The arbitration clause wouldn't cover criminal charges, only a civil suit against the contractor.


Let's see what Wikipedia has to say (blah blah, not trustworthy etc. Still the first place I figure I should look to get an overview of what happened.)

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has brought no criminal charges against the alleged assailants. Because of CPA Order 17, which limits the power of the Iraqi government to pursue legal action against foreign contractors working in Iraq, it is possible that her assailants may not face any legal penalty for the alleged crime - at least by the Iraqi government itself.

However, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 1, § 7, of the United States Code, entitled "Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined," the United States has jurisdiction over the following:

"(7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States."[4][14][15]

Because CPA Order 17 provides limited immunity for U.S. contractors from the Iraqi government, this offense may be outside Iraqi government's jurisdiction. Therefore, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 1, § 7, paragraph 7, of the United States Code, would apply because Jones is a national of the United States.[4]

Further, on December 19, 2007, during Jones' testimony, Congressman Robert Scott (D-VA) stated that the DOJ "can enforce with respect to contractors who commit crimes abroad, but it chooses not to."[16]


Sounds like it should apply, but that the DOJ isn't doing their jobs. Not sure that Franken's amendment necessarily deals with that, but still, why would anyone vote against:

withholding defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

That part seems like it might be relevant here, since apparently:

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]

Great companies, those. ACORN gets a few million, and they get billions.
 
2009-10-07 04:24:50 PM  
Racht: The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has brought no criminal charges against the alleged assailants.

Why do you think they didn't? I haven't totally followed this case.

Racht: However, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 1, § 7, of the United States Code, entitled "Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined," the United States has jurisdiction over the following:

"(7) Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States."[4][14][15]


Sounds to me like that is referring to jurisdiction in the sense that there would be no real "jurisdiction of any nation" on the high seas, for example. I could be wrong, but that's my interpretation based on the usage of the phrase "any place". Makes me think that CPA Order 17 wouldn't make it outside of the Iraqi government's jurisdiction. Sounds more like they are talking about a Guantanamo type area.

Racht: Not sure that Franken's amendment necessarily deals with that, but still, why would anyone vote against:

It depends on how the language was crafted -- but I don't see any specific reason to exempt certain causes of action from an arbitration clause.
 
2009-10-07 04:31:39 PM  
From the wiki:

Jones' account was confirmed by U.S. Army physician Jodi Schultz

And to support that, the article cites to her own Congressional testimony? Strange.

I'm also somewhat unclear why losing notes and photographs would preclude criminal prosecution if they still had the rape kit.

They also cite her testimony for the fact that one of the guys admitted having sex with her -- I wonder if that guy has admitted it to anyone else?

Interestingly enough...

On September 15, 2009 the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled Jamie Leigh Jones' federal lawsuit against KBR and several affiliates can be tried in open court

I'd imagine that ruling will get appealed by KBR, they've come this far so I doubt they will give up. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said:

After 15 months in arbitration, Jones and her lawyers went to court to fight the KBR claims. Yesterday, a court ruled in favor of Jones." Mother Jones reports:

Jones argued that the alleged gang rape was not related to her employment and thus, wasn't covered by the arbitration agreement. Finally, two years later, a federal court has sensibly agreed with her. Tuesday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 ruling, found her alleged injuries were not, in fact, in any way related to her employment and thus, not covered by the contract.

One of the judges who ruled in her favor, Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, is a West Point grad, Vietnam vet, and one of the court's most conservative members, a sign, perhaps, of just how bad the facts are in this case. It's a big victory, but a bitter one that shows just how insidious mandatory arbitration is. It's taken Jones three years of litigation just to get to the point where she can finally sue the people who allegedly wronged her. It will be many more years before she has a shot at any real justice.

"We do not hold that, as a matter of law, sexual-assault allegations can never 'relate to' someone's employment," wrote the court. "For this action, however, Jones' allegations do not 'touch matters' related to her employment, let alone have a 'significant relationship' to her employment contract.

I wouldn't want to be the attorney arguing that an alleged sexual assault was the type of injury to be expected to arise from the employment contract, let's put it that way.
 
2009-10-07 04:32:50 PM  
KaponoFor3:
Why do you think they didn't? I haven't totally followed this case.


Neither have I, and I don't know why they didn't either. My speculative guess would be that this was around the time of the DOJ attorney firing scandal, in which the department was highly politicized, and policing of companies like Halliburton simply wasn't done. Now, apparently, they don't have any evidence, since KBR held it for 18 months and then turned it over with everything relevant gone.

It depends on how the language was crafted -- but I don't see any specific reason to exempt certain causes of action from an arbitration clause.

I would argue there's a pretty strong justification that if a contractor makes an "employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration", and then tries to enforce that provision or otherwise delay the process by which things like a gang rape by their employees are enforced in the courts rather than internally, that contractor at the very least shouldn't be receiving federal funds. Shouldn't there be some kind of standard of decency in conduct for receiving taxpayer dollars? That's all I heard about when people were talking about ACORN.
 
2009-10-07 04:35:09 PM  
KaponoFor3:
I wouldn't want to be the attorney arguing that an alleged sexual assault was the type of injury to be expected to arise from the employment contract, let's put it that way.


I don't know - given all the stuff that has come out about our contractors over there, one could make a case that sexual assault is just part of the job description that you should expect when you sign up with them.
 
2009-10-07 04:42:32 PM  
Well you know what they say, rape me once, shame on you...
 
2009-10-07 04:48:11 PM  
Racht: Now, apparently, they don't have any evidence, since KBR held it for 18 months and then turned it over with everything relevant gone.

The Wiki did say that they do have the rape kit now though. That plus her testimony, and/or the testimony of the only person who allegedly admitted to her that he participated in the attack, should be enough for convictions.
 
2009-10-07 05:07:38 PM  
Was it rape, or was it raperape?

Maybe grapeape?
 
2009-10-07 05:15:34 PM  
KaponoFor3: I wouldn't want to be the attorney arguing that an alleged sexual assault was the type of injury to be expected to arise from the employment contract, let's put it that way.

I did a mock trial once back in '88 and was defending a prison that fired a security guard with AIDS. Not fun. Plus, AIDS was a touchier subject back then.

I'm still not sure how you put something in a contract that bars you from pursuing criminal charges outside of arbitration. How legal can that contract be?
 
2009-10-07 05:20:30 PM  
How much rape?

I think less than 40lbs is a misdemeanor...
 
2009-10-07 05:23:18 PM  
Is anyone surprised the example is Halliburton?
 
2009-10-07 05:28:02 PM  
GAT_00: Is anyone surprised the example is Halliburton?

It's the Aristotelian perfect type, that all other abysmally scummy and corrupt businesses aspire to be.
 
2009-10-07 05:30:02 PM  
KaponoFor3: Racht: The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has brought no criminal charges against the alleged assailants.

Why do you think they didn't? I haven't totally followed this case.


The reason why the DoJ is not bringing any charges is because the rape kit (the primary source of evidence in any of these cases) appears to have been "scrubbed" by somebody at KBR, in so much that it was missing the photos and examination notes.

The DOJ has no evidence other than the woman's word, which while compelling is not going to be enough for them to get reasonable doubt in a court of law. The only reasonable course of action for this woman is civil court (which she cannot do because of the arbitration rule).

I am sorry to say that the civil arbitration rule is legally binding, and without evidence the DoJ has nothing that it can do. The only thing left is trying to pursue an even more difficult conspiracy investigation against KBR (because the fact that her completed rape kit was tampered with is very fishy and sounds like somebody was running interference for the rapists).
 
2009-10-07 05:30:28 PM  
I'm not sure if this would fall under the requirements of Executive Order 13303 or not, but I bet KBR would make the argument that they qualify.
 
2009-10-07 06:10:16 PM  
Hey corporations are individuals aren't they? Nail Haliburton for evidence tampering.

/hey you want corporations to be legally existing individuals, then they ought be liable as such
 
2009-10-07 06:24:06 PM  
KaponoFor3: Racht: Now, apparently, they don't have any evidence, since KBR held it for 18 months and then turned it over with everything relevant gone.

The Wiki did say that they do have the rape kit now though. That plus her testimony, and/or the testimony of the only person who allegedly admitted to her that he participated in the attack, should be enough for convictions.



One would hope. I don't know what to be sickened by the most with respect to this case - the individuals who gang raped her or the many people who tried to cover it up.


/The story of what happened to her is cringe-worthy...to say the least.
 
2009-10-07 06:30:30 PM  
unyon: But I agree with you- there's absolutely no need to stretch to make Republicans look bad.
==========================================

Being hypocritical far pales in comparison to condoning rape by a corporation.

The republicans are downright sickening voting it down.
 
2009-10-07 06:32:53 PM  
So when do they stop funding Blackwater (aka Ze)?
 
2009-10-07 06:34:02 PM  
I'm pro-rape, and I vote.
 
2009-10-07 06:34:51 PM  
Nonstory.

Everyone knows that corporate rape is part of the republican party platform.

They have been supporters of corporations raping whatever the hell they want to for decades.
 
2009-10-07 06:36:45 PM  
Capitalist1: According to subby, two completely unrelated things that aren't comparable in any way: can be compared anyway if you're trying to make Republicans look bad.

Exactly! There's no comparison between discussing denying one company funding because of alleged misdeeds and discussing denying a different company funding because of alleged misdeeds. The situations are in no way similar.
 
2009-10-07 06:37:13 PM  
IgG4: Well you know what they say, rape me once, shame on you...

Rape me twice, you can't get raped again?

Shucks.
 
2009-10-07 06:37:48 PM  
Corvus: So when do they stop funding Blackwater (aka Ze)?
It's Xe, not Ze.
 
2009-10-07 06:37:55 PM  
Let's just stop pretending to be surprised by rampant hypocrisy, kay?
 
2009-10-07 06:38:04 PM  
9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape.
 
2009-10-07 06:38:18 PM  
Let's not forget that conservatives fought even making rape a CRIME.
 
2009-10-07 06:44:32 PM  
Hey, Libs opposing charges against rapists who are famous directors.
 
2009-10-07 06:45:22 PM  
I find mercenaries to be pretty classy people by and large.
 
2009-10-07 06:46:20 PM  
At least it isn't Vought-American...
 
2009-10-07 06:46:52 PM  
It doesn't sound like the contract is what's keeping her from pressing charges:

"An army doctor collected DNA evidence, including vaginal swabs and scrapings from her fingernails, and placed them in a box for evidence. Ms Jones said the doctor gave the box to a KBR security officer but it went missing. A State Department diplomatic security agent recovered the kit in May 2007, but the doctor's notes and photographs are now inexplicably missing, undermining any chances of bringing the case through the criminal courts."

From: Link
 
2009-10-07 06:47:17 PM  
vernonFL: 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape.

Looks like you and I have a plan for the weekend.

/Not catching.
 
2009-10-07 06:53:44 PM  
TheBigJerk: At least it isn't Vought-American...

media.comicvine.com
Does not approve.
 
2009-10-07 06:55:00 PM  
RockIsDead: charges against rapists who are famous directors.

He was already tried, convicted and sentenced. Only charge now would be flight.
 
2009-10-07 06:58:13 PM  
Corvus: So when do they stop funding Blackwater (aka Ze)?

When are they going to arrest the CEO of Blackwater for murdering two of his employees who were working with the feds, and also for gunrunning illegal weapons to Iraqi leaders?
 
2009-10-07 07:00:27 PM  
Capitalist1: According to subby, two completely unrelated things that aren't comparable in any way: can be compared anyway if you're trying to make Republicans look bad.

THIS.
 
2009-10-07 07:02:18 PM  
Code_Archeologist
I am sorry to say that the civil arbitration rule is legally binding, and without evidence the DoJ has nothing that it can do. The only thing left is trying to pursue an even more difficult conspiracy investigation against KBR (because the fact that her completed rape kit was tampered with is very fishy and sounds like somebody was running interference for the rapists).

The cover-up should absolutely be part of the investigation. It's illegal, not to mention revolting.
 
2009-10-07 07:02:39 PM  
SteelPeart 2009-10-07 07:00:27 PM
Capitalist1: According to subby, two completely unrelated things that aren't comparable in any way: can be compared anyway if you're trying to make Republicans look bad.

THIS.



If you can't see the correlation then you're an idiot.

Or a Fox News watcher.

/but I repeat myself
 
2009-10-07 07:04:41 PM  
How did the Democrats vote? I didn't see that in the article.
 
2009-10-07 07:05:19 PM  
Cyber_Junk: SteelPeart 2009-10-07 07:00:27 PM
Capitalist1: According to subby, two completely unrelated things that aren't comparable in any way: can be compared anyway if you're trying to make Republicans look bad.

THIS.


If you can't see the correlation then you're an idiot.

Or a Fox News watcher.

/but I repeat myself


also, pussy libtard.
 
2009-10-07 07:06:27 PM  
two completely unrelated things that aren't comparable in any way: can be compared anyway if you're trying to make Republicans look bad.

Al-Qaeda attacked us in 2001, after repeated warnings of an impending attack were ignored.

Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, after repeated assurances that Saddam was about to attack us with his WMD.
 
2009-10-07 07:07:27 PM  
SteelPeart: Capitalist1: According to subby, two completely unrelated things that aren't comparable in any way: can be compared anyway if you're trying to make Republicans look bad.

THIS.


See

Thrag: Capitalist1: According to subby, two completely unrelated things that aren't comparable in any way: can be compared anyway if you're trying to make Republicans look bad.

Exactly! There's no comparison between discussing denying one company funding because of alleged misdeeds and discussing denying a different company funding because of alleged misdeeds. The situations are in no way similar.
 
2009-10-07 07:07:44 PM  
unyon: But I agree with you- there's absolutely no need to stretch to make Republicans look bad.

Now that is about the most obvious thing I have heard anyone say all day.
 
2009-10-07 07:08:04 PM  
Hmm...wonder why she is suing the corporation. It doesn't have a penis and therefore didn't rape her. I also wonder why she is worried that arbitration won't provide her with an adequate forum.
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report