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.

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.

In Canada, you can't sign away your rights, so you could sign such an agreement and then sue them anyways.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Was it rape, or was it raperape?

Maybe grapeape?

Is anyone surprised the example is Halliburton?

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).

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.

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

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.

I'm pro-rape, and I vote.

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.

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.

IgG4: Well you know what they say, rape me once, shame on you...

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

Shucks.

Corvus: So when do they stop funding Blackwater (aka Ze)?
It's Xe, not Ze.

Let's just stop pretending to be surprised by rampant hypocrisy, kay?

Hey, Libs opposing charges against rapists who are famous directors.

I find mercenaries to be pretty classy people by and large.

At least it isn't Vought-American...

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

vernonFL: 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape.

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

/Not catching.

TheBigJerk: At least it isn't Vought-American...


Does not approve.

RockIsDead: charges against rapists who are famous directors.

He was already tried, convicted and sentenced. Only charge now would be flight.

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?

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.

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.

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

How did the Democrats vote? I didn't see that in the article.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Or a Fox News watcher.

To be fair, the venn diagram of the two has the circle of Fox News watchers surrounded by the circle of idiots.

"GOP backs corporate rape" works on so many levels.

KernLead: How did the Democrats vote? I didn't see that in the article.

Apparently you don't know how to actually read an article, since this is cited right after the quoted article.

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

If they were withdrawing contracts because of a pattern of gang-rape, then yes there would be a correlation. However:

ACORN: Advising clients on how to commit tax fraud and human trafficking = illegal activity.

Defense Contractor: Having arbitration clause with contract employee = legal activity.

SteelPeart Quote 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.


(eyeroll)
Should I use smaller words so you can sound them out?

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.

is apparently an example on how you cannot make a coherent argument for yourself.

Cataholic: ACORN: Advising clients on how to commit tax fraud and human trafficking = illegal activity.

I'm really not so sure that's true. Have there been any arrests in connection with that?

The Dog Ate The Constitution: KernLead: How did the Democrats vote? I didn't see that in the article.

Apparently you don't know how to actually read an article, since this is cited right after the quoted article.

Also the 3rd word in the article links to this where it very plainly states "In the end, Franken won the debate. His amendment passed by a 68-30 vote, earning the support of 10 Republican senators" Unless you can't do basic math, I can't see how you missed that.

Cataholic [TotalFark] Quote 2009-10-07 07:11:30 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

If they were withdrawing contracts because of a pattern of gang-rape, then yes there would be a correlation. However:

ACORN: Advising clients on how to commit tax fraud and human trafficking = illegal activity.

Defense Contractor: Having arbitration clause with contract employee = legal activity.



It's the attempt to suggest that the arbitration clause should cover gang rape by company employees that's at contention. What was illegal was her subsequent imprisonment by KBR employees and the removal of the rape kit evidence that's highly illegal.

Personally I don't care for the linking of the Acorn story to this story. It should stand on its own.

Cataholic: 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

If they were withdrawing contracts because of a pattern of gang-rape, then yes there would be a correlation. However:

ACORN: Advising clients on how to commit tax fraud and human trafficking = illegal activity.

Defense Contractor: Having arbitration clause with contract employee = legal activity. sabotaging evidence of criminal rape = illegal activity.

FTFY.

The GOP, Bush, Cheney, Haliburton, et al and anyone who supports them are scum, plain and simple.

IgG4: Well you know what they say, rape me once, shame on you...

Why don't you call her and tell what a funny guy you are

Jones was just 20-years old and in Iraq for just four days, when she was drugged and viciously gang-raped in 2005 by Halliburton/KBR co-workers, leaving her severely bruised and bleeding, with lacerations to her vagina and anus, her breast implants ruptured and her pectoral muscles torn.

Cataholic: Hmm...wonder why she is suing the corporation. It doesn't have a penis and therefore didn't rape her.

Because the company tried to cover it up. Are you really this obtuse?

Awesome political move. The GOP are now defending rape in the name of their corporate masters.

/brilliant!

Fart_Machine: Because the company tried to cover it up. Are you really this obtuse?

Every woman who reports a rape is doing it for payback, money, and/or attention. Duh.

Fart_Machine: Cataholic: Hmm...wonder why she is suing the corporation. It doesn't have a penis and therefore didn't rape her.

Because the company tried to cover it up. Are you really this obtuse?

Cataholic? Obtuse? It's more likely than you think.

Zoophagous: Awesome political move. The GOP are now defending rape in the name of their corporate masters.

/brilliant!




GOP Corporate-Rape...Now in a 6 pack!

KaponoFor3:
-snip-
..."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.

__________

maybe if it was a porn actress in a rape fantasy film claiming that she was raped during the filming you could make that argument?

WAIT A shiat-LICKIN MINUTE.

Could it be that the amendment is unneeded, specifically because a contract cannot prevent someone from reporting a crime?

How the hell can a company get you to sign an agreement saying that if someone commits a crime against you, you can't go to the cops?

That doesn't make any sense. And of course, don't wait for DailyKocks to provide the actual verbage of the contract that they've conveniently paraphrased for us.

Hey, if you don't like being gang raped then do not work for that company. Those chicks knew what they were getting into and its all their fault for what happened

Cataholic: 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.

It took the rape kit and locked her in a shipping container for 24 hours.

Zoophagous: Awesome political move. The GOP are now defending rape in the name of their corporate masters.

/brilliant!

Well they already defend torture. I guess rape would serve as an appropriate bookend for the family values party.

vernonFL: 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape.

____________

just to be sure I understand, the 10th person is the rapee and not one of the rapists right?

I was under the impression that arbitration clauses do not cover illegal activity. So isn't this amendment redundant? The arbitration clause would only cover voluntary sexual activity, not rape.

thalidomide new and improved: WAIT A shiat-LICKIN MINUTE.

Could it be that the amendment is unneeded, specifically because a contract cannot prevent someone from reporting a crime?

How the hell can a company get you to sign an agreement saying that if someone commits a crime against you, you can't go to the cops?

That doesn't make any sense. And of course, don't wait for DailyKocks to provide the actual verbage of the contract that they've conveniently paraphrased for us.

Probably the same reason why the personnel accused of raping her have never been brought to justice.

From the ABC story linked to the article:

Legal experts say Jones' alleged assailants will likely never face a judge and jury, due to an enormous loophole that has effectively left contractors in Iraq beyond the reach of United States law.

"It's very troubling," said Dean John Hutson of the Franklin Pierce Law Center. "The way the law presently stands, I would say that they don't have, at least in the criminal system, the opportunity for justice."

thalidomide new and improved: WAIT A shiat-LICKIN MINUTE.

Could it be that the amendment is unneeded, specifically because a contract cannot prevent someone from reporting a crime?

How the hell can a company get you to sign an agreement saying that if someone commits a crime against you, you can't go to the cops?

That doesn't make any sense. And of course, don't wait for DailyKocks to provide the actual verbage of the contract that they've conveniently paraphrased for us.

Because this news is old and you should just look it up.

SERIOUSLY, the assault happened years ago, she's been fighting for years to get the right to sue the company for destroying evidence and press charges. A crime occurred, the evidence (what evidence wasn't destroyed as an egregious violation of the law that will continue to go unpunished) is clear that it did, and while the law shouldn't be neccesary it apparently is because she's still having to fight this shiat.

Seriously, check farking wikipedia, this has been hashed out (though hushed-up by Haliburton) for quite a while.

Hung Like A Tic-Tac: Cataholic? Obtuse? It's more likely than you think.

Never confuse obtusefullnesses with stupidness.

It's not considered rape if you yell "SURPRISE!!"

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.

In my world of wishful thinking, the attorney would see how horrendous this situation was and start by advising Halliburton/KBR not to fight it. Settle, cooperate with an investigation, etc. If told to fight it anyway, the attorney would resign in protest and disgust.

In the real world, of course, that's not what happened.

/maybe the attorneys had to sell their souls as part of their employment contract with Halliburton

Bossk'sSegway: Cataholic: 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.

It took the rape kit and locked her in a shipping container for 24 hours.

The only reason she was released was due to a sympathetic guard loaning her his cell phone with which she called her father in Texas who contacted Representative Ted Poe (R - TX), who initiated a response from the State department. The State department dispatched two of their personnel to Iraq to free her and escort her to safety.

thatmanfromtexas

You seem to have read up on the case. With regards to the scrubbed rape kit, do they have any idea how the hell Halliburton/KBR would have had access to it? Surely company people weren't the ones who ran it in the first place.

It's unbelievable, not to mention sick, that no charges have been filed in this case. The sick farks who did it will apparently never answer for their crimes.

Fart_Machine: Cataholic: Hmm...wonder why she is suing the corporation. It doesn't have a penis and therefore didn't rape her.

Because the company tried to cover it up. Are you really this obtuse?

No. Just trying to reach out beyond the rabid frothing and see if anyone can get the big picture here. Nothing in her contract will prevent her from getting justice. Those responsible (the employees) are pretty much dead to rights on any civil suit. The problem is she is looking for a much bigger payday and has to rope the corporation in somehow...and get IT in front of a jury of morons who couldn't get out of watching Oprah that day.

ps. If the coverup is the big deal, why aren't we passing a bill that refuses to allow defense contracts to companies that cover up rapes instead of ones that have arbitration clauses?

thalidomide new and improved: WAIT A shiat-LICKIN MINUTE.

Could it be that the amendment is unneeded, specifically because a contract cannot prevent someone from reporting a crime?

How the hell can a company get you to sign an agreement saying that if someone commits a crime against you, you can't go to the cops?

That doesn't make any sense. And of course, don't wait for DailyKocks to provide the actual verbage of the contract that they've conveniently paraphrased for us.

Or, given the contracts are public record, you could have spent 30 seconds Googling it and reading the court decision yourself, which quotes the contract:

"You also agree that you will be bound by and accept as a condition of your employment the terms of the Halliburton Dispute Resolution Program which are herein incorporated by reference. You understand that the Dispute Resolution Program requires, as its last step, that any and all claims that you might have against Employer related to your employment, including your termination, and any and all personal injury claims arising in the workplace, you have against parent or affiliate of Employer, must be submitted to binding arbitration instead of the court system."

Or you could sit there and congratulate yourself on the razor-sharp wittiness of your "DailyKocks" pun.

Mentat: MyRandomName: I was under the impression that arbitration clauses do not cover illegal activity. So isn't this amendment redundant? The arbitration clause would only cover voluntary sexual activity, not rape.

Why do people act so surprised to discover that Republican-friendly corporations weren't bound by the law under the Bush Administration? Have people been asleep the last eight years?

Is the case not working it's way through the court system? Seems like it's in the legal system. What are you implying?

The thread title say "employees", were there more than one of these occurrences? Where is the criminal case? Can a civil contract stop a prosecutor from filing charges in a felony case?

Barbigazi: 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.

It is. Can stop civil action, but not criminal. An actual rights violation is a crime.

But the government is not obligated to help you shake people down for money.

MyRandomName: Mentat: MyRandomName: I was under the impression that arbitration clauses do not cover illegal activity. So isn't this amendment redundant? The arbitration clause would only cover voluntary sexual activity, not rape.

Why do people act so surprised to discover that Republican-friendly corporations weren't bound by the law under the Bush Administration? Have people been asleep the last eight years?

Is the case not working it's way through the court system? Seems like it's in the legal system. What are you implying?

I dunno what he's implying, but I for one am outright stating that I don't think the US government should be bankrolling these farkheads.

Curse of the Goth Kids: MyRandomName: Mentat: MyRandomName: I was under the impression that arbitration clauses do not cover illegal activity. So isn't this amendment redundant? The arbitration clause would only cover voluntary sexual activity, not rape.

Why do people act so surprised to discover that Republican-friendly corporations weren't bound by the law under the Bush Administration? Have people been asleep the last eight years?

Is the case not working it's way through the court system? Seems like it's in the legal system. What are you implying?

I dunno what he's implying, but I for one am outright stating that I don't think the US government should be bankrolling these farkheads.

The company is awful, I agree. The amendment in question is redundant. That was my only argument. Arbitration clauses do not cover criminal activity, which this would fall under.

What KBR did was make getting a rape conviction much, much harder. No court is going to let the results of the rape kit into evidence without a good chain of custody, never mind the missing photo evidence. She should sue the company, they've made it much harder for her to have her day in court and some measure of justice. And, given what ThatManFromTexas said above, it sounds like she was just lucky that she wasn't disappeared over there.

And this company should be cut off from Federal funds if they are going to behave in such a reprehensible manner. How the bill is worded, whether it talks about arbitration agreements or companies that lock employees into shipping containers, doesn't really matter, although, it's easier to prove a company has arbitration agreements than that it locks people into shipping containers. Good for Franken. Boo to the Republicans who refused to support the bill.

Republicans
Accepting
Penis
Entry

MyRandomName: The company is awful, I agree. The amendment in question is redundant. That was my only argument. Arbitration clauses do not cover criminal activity, which this would fall under.

Well, not really. The amendment in question is specifically about denying defense contracts to companies that include such clauses in their employee contracts, and AFAIK the simple act of engaging in a technically faulty contract isn't illegal.

Curse of the Goth Kids: MyRandomName: The company is awful, I agree. The amendment in question is redundant. That was my only argument. Arbitration clauses do not cover criminal activity, which this would fall under.

Well, not really. The amendment in question is specifically about denying defense contracts to companies that include such clauses in their employee contracts, and AFAIK the simple act of engaging in a technically faulty contract isn't illegal.

From reading the clause in her thread, the arbitration only covers her employment contract. The contract would be voided in the event of illegal activity. Likewise covering up illegal activity is not part of her employment, which is what her legal argument is. Arbitration clauses are very applicable in contract law. Her case does not deal with the terms of her employment, but rather the coverup of a crime. The company should not be allowed to argue arbitration, and the latest judge agreed.

From the article:

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

No company could legally restrict employees from taking a criminal action to court. So the amendment is redundant. One could argue that the only valid part of Franken's bill would fall under the discrimination case clause he added, as in general this is a civil matter which is what Arbitration clauses cover. So the added words for sexual assualt and battery seem to have been added as an effect. Leave the words in for discrimination and I have no problem.

Cataholic: ACORN: Advising clients on how to commit tax fraud and human trafficking = illegal activity.

KBR and human trafficking (new window)

You're absolutely right, I propose that we withdraw all support and funding for any company or organization whose employees have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to commit sexual assaults and whose executives have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to ignore it and cover it up.

I'm sure Al Franken agrees with me and will be introducing a resolution to withdraw the United States from the United Nations immediately and stop all funding toward the United Nations.

.

Liberal douchebags are interesting when they are out of power.
The same way monkeys are interesting when they dont have revolvers.

amazing_live_seamonkeys: .

Liberal douchebags are interesting when they are out of power.
The same way monkeys are interesting when they dont have revolvers.

Very nice rebuttal of the article's points.

MyRandomName: Curse of the Goth Kids: MyRandomName: The company is awful, I agree. The amendment in question is redundant. That was my only argument. Arbitration clauses do not cover criminal activity, which this would fall under.

Well, not really. The amendment in question is specifically about denying defense contracts to companies that include such clauses in their employee contracts, and AFAIK the simple act of engaging in a technically faulty contract isn't illegal.

From reading the clause in her thread, the arbitration only covers her employment contract. The contract would be voided in the event of illegal activity. Likewise covering up illegal activity is not part of her employment, which is what her legal argument is. Arbitration clauses are very applicable in contract law. Her case does not deal with the terms of her employment, but rather the coverup of a crime. The company should not be allowed to argue arbitration, and the latest judge agreed.

From the article:

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

No company could legally restrict employees from taking a criminal action to court. So the amendment is redundant. One could argue that the only valid part of Franken's bill would fall under the discrimination case clause he added, as in general this is a civil matter which is what Arbitration clauses cover. So the added words for sexual assualt and battery seem to have been added as an effect. Leave the words in for discrimination and I have no problem.

I still don't see how the fact that her criminal case is technically about something else makes the amendment "redundant."

For the amendment to be "redundant" there would have to be some other law on the books already that would disqualify employers who issued contracts with similar clauses.

Maybe you mean the wording is redundant? Or perhaps more accurately "superfluous" in the case of assault and battery? But again, if there's not already a law on the books that specifically forbids Uncle from contracting a company whose practices fit this description, I don't see how "the amendment is redundant."

AFAIK there's not even a proscription against hiring a company whose employees have previously broken the law.

Federal Contractor Misconduct Database (new window)

I'm assuming ALL these companies will be defunded.

amazing_live_seamonkeys: Liberal douchebags are interesting when they are out of power.
The same way monkeys are interesting when they dont have revolvers.

what does that even mean?

The Dog Ate The Constitution: amazing_live_seamonkeys: .

Liberal douchebags are interesting when they are out of power.
The same way monkeys are interesting when they dont have revolvers.

Very nice rebuttal of the article's points.

I do try.

amazing_live_seamonkeys: I do try.

emphasis on the "try"

When we have elected officials serving corporations we are no longer a democracy. We are a corporate theocracy.

Wouldn't any politician who had any care for We The People vote on the same side as Franken on this? Well if the military industrial complex is greasing your palm, you don't care about We The People.

We need to end lobbying. We need to dramatically reduce the size of our military, and then we need to take all of the politicians who serve the corporations and remove them from office. And that means pretty much everyone on both sides of the aisle.

ACORN's funding kicks back in November 1st. This was just an empty gesture to make it look like the Government cares. A slap on the wrist. Bad ACORN, don't get caught again.

TheBigJerk: Because this news is old and you should just look it up.

SERIOUSLY, the assault happened years ago, she's been fighting for years to get the right to sue the company for destroying evidence and press charges. A crime occurred, the evidence (what evidence wasn't destroyed as an egregious violation of the law that will continue to go unpunished) is clear that it did, and while the law shouldn't be neccesary it apparently is because she's still having to fight this shiat.

Seriously, check farking wikipedia, this has been hashed out (though hushed-up by Haliburton) for quite a while.

Sorry, Tough Guy. I don't have unemployment checks to fund my desire to sift through endless URLs looking for news and facts and what not. I gotta work for a livin.

/and oh what a livin

jaerik: Or, given the contracts are public record, you could have spent 30 seconds Googling it and reading the court decision yourself, which quotes the contract:

"You also agree that you will be bound by and accept as a condition of your employment the terms of the Halliburton Dispute Resolution Program which are herein incorporated by reference. You understand that the Dispute Resolution Program requires, as its last step, that any and all claims that you might have against Employer related to your employment, including your termination, and any and all personal injury claims arising in the workplace, you have against parent or affiliate of Employer, must be submitted to binding arbitration instead of the court system."

Or you could sit there and congratulate yourself on the razor-sharp wittiness of your "DailyKocks" pun.fark that noise.

I don't need to google shiat to know that no contract can punish you for reporting a crime, dildo.

GWSuperfan: vernonFL: 9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape.

The 10th person is the victim.

Actually, it's just someone who needs to buck up. Strange joke, I know.

thalidomide new and improved: TheBigJerk: Because this news is old and you should just look it up.

SERIOUSLY, the assault happened years ago, she's been fighting for years to get the right to sue the company for destroying evidence and press charges. A crime occurred, the evidence (what evidence wasn't destroyed as an egregious violation of the law that will continue to go unpunished) is clear that it did, and while the law shouldn't be neccesary it apparently is because she's still having to fight this shiat.

Seriously, check farking wikipedia, this has been hashed out (though hushed-up by Haliburton) for quite a while.

Sorry, Tough Guy. I don't have unemployment checks to fund my desire to sift through endless URLs looking for news and facts and what not. I gotta work for a livin.

/and oh what a livin

You're posting on Fark. It would be wise to walk away from that moronic statement.

Curse of the Goth Kids:
I still don't see how the fact that her criminal case is technically about something else makes the amendment "redundant."

For the amendment to be "redundant" there would have to be some other law on the books already that would disqualify employers who issued contracts with similar clauses.

Maybe you mean the wording is redundant? Or perhaps more accurately "superfluous" in the case of assault and battery? But again, if there's not already a law on the books that specifically forbids Uncle from contracting a company whose practices fit this description, I don't see how "the amendment is redundant."

AFAIK there's not even a proscription against hiring a company whose employees have previously broken the law.

Superflous is a better word, so I retract redundant. It is an unneeded amendment for the most part as criminal activity would not be covered under the arbitration clause, and the very arbitration clause of the person in question did not protect the company under criminal accounts, but under employment.

KaponoFor3: 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."

Yeah, contracts do not superceed felonies.

thalidomide new and improved: TheBigJerk: Because this news is old and you should just look it up.

SERIOUSLY, the assault happened years ago, she's been fighting for years to get the right to sue the company for destroying evidence and press charges. A crime occurred, the evidence (what evidence wasn't destroyed as an egregious violation of the law that will continue to go unpunished) is clear that it did, and while the law shouldn't be neccesary it apparently is because she's still having to fight this shiat.

Seriously, check farking wikipedia, this has been hashed out (though hushed-up by Haliburton) for quite a while.

Sorry, Tough Guy. I don't have unemployment checks to fund my desire to sift through endless URLs looking for news and facts and what not. I gotta work for a livin.

/and oh what a livin

That is some good old fashioned douchebaggery. There are things that are debatable. This isn't one of them.

Cataholic: Fart_Machine: Cataholic: Hmm...wonder why she is suing the corporation. It doesn't have a penis and therefore didn't rape her.

Because the company tried to cover it up. Are you really this obtuse?

No. Just trying to reach out beyond the rabid frothing and see if anyone can get the big picture here. Nothing in her contract will prevent her from getting justice. Those responsible (the employees) are pretty much dead to rights on any civil suit. The problem is she is looking for a much bigger payday and has to rope the corporation in somehow...and get IT in front of a jury of morons who couldn't get out of watching Oprah that day.

ps. If the coverup is the big deal, why aren't we passing a bill that refuses to allow defense contracts to companies that cover up rapes instead of ones that have arbitration clauses?

She has been trying to get justice for years now and because of the legal loophole situation they are unable to prosecute those responsible. As for arbitration why would you want to deal again with the same people who stuck you in a container for 24 hours and "lost" the rape kit?

But yeah, I'm sure she was asking to get raped for the money.

brainiac-dumdum: amazing_live_seamonkeys: Liberal douchebags are interesting when they are out of power.
The same way monkeys are interesting when they dont have revolvers.

what does that even mean?

I've reread it a dozen times and I don't get it either.

Typical liberal hypocrisy coming from hypocritical liberal hypocrites who support liberal director Roman Polanski and therefore child rape- and, as we all know, you can't spell "child rape" without "liberal"*.

* - Yeah, you kinda have to flip some of the letters and swipe an "l" from somewhere (usually from "hlard working Americans"). But the point stands!

Scrotar: Typical liberal hypocrisy coming from hypocritical liberal hypocrites who support liberal director Roman Polanski and therefore child rape- and, as we all know, you can't spell "child rape" without "liberal"*.

* - Yeah, you kinda have to flip some of the letters and swipe an "l" from somewhere (usually from "hlard working Americans"). But the point stands!

ROMAN POLANSKI!

Scrotar: Typical liberal hypocrisy coming from hypocritical liberal hypocrites who support liberal director Roman Polanski and therefore child rape- and, as we all know, you can't spell "child rape" without "liberal"*.

* - Yeah, you kinda have to flip some of the letters and swipe an "l" from somewhere (usually from "hlard working Americans"). But the point stands!

So your a supporter of rape like liberals?

/Good to know

I support equal opportunity for analogies and my god given right to keep my opinions free of liberal dogma posing as "fact".

SeismicJizzer: Scrotar: Typical liberal hypocrisy coming from hypocritical liberal hypocrites who support liberal director Roman Polanski and therefore child rape- and, as we all know, you can't spell "child rape" without "liberal"*.

* - Yeah, you kinda have to flip some of the letters and swipe an "l" from somewhere (usually from "hlard working Americans"). But the point stands!

So your a supporter of rape like liberals?

/Good to know

You didn't say rape twice. I am disappointed.

Scrotar: I support equal opportunity for analogies and my god given right to keep my opinions free of liberal dogma posing as "fact".

Does the nice lady who changes your diaper and brings you pudding know you're on the internet un-supervised?

Here are the Nay votes:

Alexander (Rape-TN)
Barrasso (Rape-WY)
Bond (Rape-MO)
Brownback (Rape-KS)
Bunning (Rape-KY)
Burr (Rape-NC)
Chambliss (Rape-GA)
Coburn (Rape-OK)
Cochran (Rape-MS)
Corker (Rape-TN)
Cornyn (Rape-TX)
Crapo (Rape-ID)
DeMint (Rape-SC)
Ensign (Rape-NV)
Enzi (Rape-WY)
Graham (Rape-SC)
Gregg (Rape-NH)
Inhofe (Rape-OK)
Isakson (Rape-GA)
Johanns (Rape-NE)
Kyl (Rape-AZ)
McCain (Rape-AZ)
McConnell (Rape-KY)
Risch (Rape-ID)
Roberts (Rape-KS)
Sessions (Rape-AL)
Shelby (Rape-AL)
Thune (Rape-SD)
Vitter (Rape-LA)
Wicker (Rape-MS)

/Crapo. huh huh huh....

I see the usual idiots are here doing their usual deflection.
The new amendment and the clause in the contract are about civil torts, not criminal.
Of course she can go to the authorities with her story and in a perfect world , all the men who raped her would go to jail. But she wasn't in a perfect world, she was in Iraq, where her employer locked her in a shipping container and threatened her if she told the police. They then tampered with the evidence, ensuring that if she did manage to find a US court that would claim jurisdiction over the actual rape, that there would be no way to actually try the case. She is left with only one option and that is a civil suit against KBR for abridging her right to justice, however, the arbitration clause says she can't sue them.
None of the idiots like cataholic, thalidomide new and improved, myrandomname etc... will acknowledge this, or that the amendment is a good one or that the issue is that Republicans don't want to hold KBR responsible.

75% of the Republicans in the Senate believe in Halliburton's god given right to rape,rape...

Does the nice lady who changes your diaper and brings you pudding know you're on the internet un-supervised?

Careful how you talk about your mother. She's a good woman, despite the diaper thing and all.

IAmNotGryn: brainiac-dumdum: amazing_live_seamonkeys: Liberal douchebags are interesting when they are out of power.
The same way monkeys are interesting when they dont have revolvers.

what does that even mean?

I've reread it a dozen times and I don't get it either.

A dozen times? Keep reading it. The sheer brilliance of my joke will come to you like a bolt of lightning from a clear blue sky!

/or not

Notice FTA that all six Republican women senators voted for the amendment.

This is a perfect example of why governmental bodies need to reflect the makeup of America.

By all rights, the United States should have 51 female senators and 5 female Supreme Court justices.

Gonzee: I see the usual idiots are here doing their usual deflection.
The new amendment and the clause in the contract are about civil torts, not criminal.
Of course she can go to the authorities with her story and in a perfect world , all the men who raped her would go to jail. But she wasn't in a perfect world, she was in Iraq, where her employer locked her in a shipping container and threatened her if she told the police. They then tampered with the evidence, ensuring that if she did manage to find a US court that would claim jurisdiction over the actual rape, that there would be no way to actually try the case. She is left with only one option and that is a civil suit against KBR for abridging her right to justice, however, the arbitration clause says she can't sue them.
None of the idiots like cataholic, thalidomide new and improved, myrandomname etc... will acknowledge this, or that the amendment is a good one or that the issue is that Republicans don't want to hold KBR responsible.

They don't want to disrupt the war effort! What's the point of being a contractor in Iraq if you can't rape?!

There's some video here (new window) of Franken questioning one of the company's lawyers, and Jones is there to answer questions as well.

Near the end, Jones says that she has since been contacted by other women who had similar experiences before her, and who were forced into binding arbitration. One condition imposed on them was that they stay silent about what happened. So the company clearly knew that there were problems and did nothing to fix them, and there was no way for female employees to know what they would be facing if they went to Iraq.

/Really impressed with how Franken handles the whole thing.

They don't care about that. Or anything else except the amendment came from a (D) and that Halliburton/KBR is a friend to the (R).
Everything else is just semantics.

Sabyen91: SeismicJizzer: Scrotar: Typical liberal hypocrisy coming from hypocritical liberal hypocrites who support liberal director Roman Polanski and therefore child rape- and, as we all know, you can't spell "child rape" without "liberal"*.

* - Yeah, you kinda have to flip some of the letters and swipe an "l" from somewhere (usually from "hlard working Americans"). But the point stands!

So your a supporter of rape like liberals?

/Good to know

You didn't say rape twice. I am disappointed.

dammit I'm slacking.

Say, if you were to charge a company with evidence tampering, intimidation, obstruction of justice and some others, what would be a good punishment if found guilty? How about revocation of their charter?

Well that's just great...because of this case, I'll probably have to sign yet ANOTHER revision of the company's rape contract. Such a headache...

Gonzee: I see the usual idiots are here doing their usual deflection.
The new amendment and the clause in the contract are about civil torts, not criminal.
Of course she can go to the authorities with her story and in a perfect world , all the men who raped her would go to jail. But she wasn't in a perfect world, she was in Iraq, where her employer locked her in a shipping container and threatened her if she told the police. They then tampered with the evidence, ensuring that if she did manage to find a US court that would claim jurisdiction over the actual rape, that there would be no way to actually try the case. She is left with only one option and that is a civil suit against KBR for abridging her right to justice, however, the arbitration clause says she can't sue them.
None of the idiots like cataholic, thalidomide new and improved, myrandomname etc... will acknowledge this, or that the amendment is a good one or that the issue is that Republicans don't want to hold KBR responsible.

You have so little comprehension of what is happening. The latest judge ruled correctly that the arbitration clause did not cover the coverup of the rape. Arbitration clauses do not encompass crimes (which illegal coverups are part of). Her particular arbitration clause covered disputes of employment. The first few judges incorrectly ruled that the rape was a condition of employment, the latest judge ruled that was ridiculous and agrees that the rape was not a contract/employment dispute. The law is working as intended.

Then again, you seem to have little comprehension of what arbitration covers.

Her Civil Suit is still being processed. You do realize this correct? She is not in arbitration, and her arbitration clause did not cover "rape coverups".

Gonzee: They don't care about that. Or anything else except the amendment came from a (D) and that Halliburton/KBR is a friend to the (R).
Everything else is just semantics.

Strawmen arguments now, nice.

Gonzee
Of course she can go to the authorities with her story and in a perfect world , all the men who raped her would go to jail. But she wasn't in a perfect world, she was in Iraq, where her employer locked her in a shipping container and threatened her if she told the police. They then tampered with the evidence, ensuring that if she did manage to find a US court that would claim jurisdiction over the actual rape, that there would be no way to actually try the case. She is left with only one option and that is a civil suit against KBR for abridging her right to justice, however, the arbitration clause says she can't sue them.

I'm still trying to figure out how KBR would have access to the rape kit. It seems likely they did, but how? Surely they weren't the ones doing the exam that creates the kit in the first place. One would hope...

Why do Republicans hate America ... and love gang rape?

Whatsleft: What's the point of being a contractor in Iraq if you can't rape?!

Don't forget about the pillaging clause.

Apparently a KBR rape kit just has a gun and a roll of duct tape. Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good time in Iraq with all this stuff.

It happened in Iraq so what court would the case go to trial in anyways? An Iraqi council of elders? Good lucking finding the four male witnesses that Islam requires to confirm a woman's claims of rape or else no guilty verdict. Though I rather try my chances chances under Sharia law than KBR/Halliburton.

If the invisible finger of the invisible hand didn't want to fark the shiat out of vulnerable women out of their element in another country (in a shipping container!), its infallible guidance would do so.

Why do you hate teh free market, libs? Clearly ideology trumps ideas and scientifically constructed morality.

MyRandomName: Gonzee: I see the usual idiots are here doing their usual deflection.
The new amendment and the clause in the contract are about civil torts, not criminal.
Of course she can go to the authorities with her story and in a perfect world , all the men who raped her would go to jail. But she wasn't in a perfect world, she was in Iraq, where her employer locked her in a shipping container and threatened her if she told the police. They then tampered with the evidence, ensuring that if she did manage to find a US court that would claim jurisdiction over the actual rape, that there would be no way to actually try the case. She is left with only one option and that is a civil suit against KBR for abridging her right to justice, however, the arbitration clause says she can't sue them.
None of the idiots like cataholic, thalidomide new and improved, myrandomname etc... will acknowledge this, or that the amendment is a good one or that the issue is that Republicans don't want to hold KBR responsible.

You have so little comprehension of what is happening. The latest judge ruled correctly that the arbitration clause did not cover the coverup of the rape. Arbitration clauses do not encompass crimes (which illegal coverups are part of). Her particular arbitration clause covered disputes of employment. The first few judges incorrectly ruled that the rape was a condition of employment, the latest judge ruled that was ridiculous and agrees that the rape was not a contract/employment dispute. The law is working as intended.

Then again, you seem to have little comprehension of what arbitration covers.

Her Civil Suit is still being processed. You do realize this correct? She is not in arbitration, and her arbitration clause did not cover "rape coverups".

You sure wasted a lot of effort on all that agreeing with me. You could have just said "Yup" or "This"
Just because she can now go through with the civil suit doesn't mean that the law is "working as intended". She was raped years ago and is just now getting access to the courts because of the arbitration clause in her contract. KBR has been trying to duck the civil suit because of the arbitration clause. Franken's amendment would restrict corps that do that from receiving funding.

Yes, all you said is correct, but it wasn't always so. The whole point to this is her struggle for some kind of justice after having been gang raped and maimed to the point of needing reconstructive surgery.

She was brutally gang raped.
She was falsely imprisoned.
KBR stole and tampered with the relevant evidence in the case.
Iraq has no jurisdiction on the rape.
The DOJ won't prosecute with the current state of the evidence.
KBR claims immunity from her civil suit, but it is finally ruled (2 years later) that her suit can proceed, 4 years after the rape.
On May 16, 2007, Jones filed a civil lawsuit against KBR and former parent corporation Halliburton.[2] KBR requested a private arbitration, and claims this is required by her employment contract. 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. (new window)

What was your point again? Except to deflect from 40 Republican Senators that seem to think gang rape is cool?

Gays in the military could lead to this sort of thing happening to dudes.

BE AFRAID

Ornery Alien: There's some video here (new window) of Franken questioning one of the company's lawyers, and Jones is there to answer questions as well.

Thanks for that. I would never have found that on my own.

amazing_live_seamonkeys: a bolt of lightning

Oh, I see. You were hit by lightening.

explains a lot

Republicans: Pro Torture, Pro adultery, pro rape.

They're just a bunch of pros.

IXI Jim IXI: Republicans: Pro Torture, Pro adultery, pro rape.

They're just a bunch of pros.

pro-life

brainiac-dumdum: IXI Jim IXI: Republicans: Pro Torture, Pro adultery, pro rape.

They're just a bunch of pros.

pro-life

Unless you happen to be retarded and Texan...

IXI Jim IXI: Unless you happen to be retarded and Texan...

Isn't that a redundant statement?

/I keed!

IXI Jim IXI: Unless you happen to be retarded and Texan...

wait.... a person can be from Texas and not be retarded?

/from Texas

Gonzee:

You sure wasted a lot of effort on all that agreeing with me. You could have just said "Yup" or "This"
Just because she can now go through with the civil suit doesn't mean that the law is "working as intended". She was raped years ago and is just now getting access to the courts because of the arbitration clause in her contract. KBR has been trying to duck the civil suit because of the arbitration clause. Franken's amendment would restrict corps that do that from receiving funding.


Holy shiat you are full of yourself. If you had any reading comprehension you would have said I already posited the points you just listed. The law is working exactly as intended. Franken's amendment calls out specifically arbitration clauses that deal with rape, sexual assault, or discrimination. Her arbitration clause did not call out any of those subjects. Go read it, it's posted in this thread. The arbitration clause had to do with conditions of her employment. Just because the lower court judges sided with KBR, does not mean the law does not cover this instance. It in fact covers this instance in the last ruling. So again, you are wrong. Franken's amendment would not effect KBR based on the clause in this woman's contract.

Again, my whole argument, since you can't seem to comprehend what I've written and attempted to call me out...

Arbitration can not protect anybody from an illegal criminal activity. What KBR did was a crime. The courts finally ruled correctly on that front. That was my whole argument. Get some reading comprehension before calling people out.

Gonzee:

What was your point again? Except to deflect from 40 Republican Senators that seem to think gang rape is cool?

Again, your reading comprehension is utter shiat. I made no judgment on the republicans voting for or against this amendment. The amendment is superfluous. But you can't seem to keep your mind on tract and attempt to make this a partisan issue. My argument was on the merits of the amendment and only that. Not everything is partisan.

There's no rape like Republican-sponsored rape

patrick767: thatmanfromtexas

You seem to have read up on the case. With regards to the scrubbed rape kit, do they have any idea how the hell Halliburton/KBR would have had access to it? Surely company people weren't the ones who ran it in the first place.

It's unbelievable, not to mention sick, that no charges have been filed in this case. The sick farks who did it will apparently never answer for their crimes.

The rape kit was handled by a military doctor and the kit has since disappeared.

Well, statistically, 4 out of 5 people enjoy gang rape.

MrSteve007: Well, statistically, 4 out of 5 people enjoy gang rape.

Clayton Williams told me rape is like rain, you can't do anything about it so just sit back and enjoy it.

The Dog Ate The Constitution
Also the 3rd word in the article links to this where it very plainly states "In the end, Franken won the debate. His amendment passed by a 68-30 vote, earning the support of 10 Republican senators" Unless you can't do basic math, I can't see how you missed that.

Huh. Whadya know. I have to admit I kinda started tuning the article out went Kos went one of it's predictable recycled rants.

KOS bashing republicans? Thats umpossible!!!11!11eleventy

Mr. Breeze: KOS bashing republicans? Thats umpossible!!!11!11eleventy

So you are defending gang-rape?

KaponoFor3: 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."

See that part there, explain to me why a corporation, or any other american entity, should even be allowed to make this a condition in any kind of contract, or agreement? Who the fark gave these people the right to bypass the highest law in the land?

Halli: Mr. Breeze: KOS bashing republicans? Thats umpossible!!!11!11eleventy

So you are defending gang-rape?

Yeah, I'm totally defending gang rape.

/idiot

Craptastic: Here are the Nay votes:

Alexander (Rape-TN)
Barrasso (Rape-WY)
Bond (Rape-MO)
Brownback (Rape-KS)
Bunning (Rape-KY)
Burr (Rape-NC)
Chambliss (Rape-GA)
Coburn (Rape-OK)
Cochran (Rape-MS)
Corker (Rape-TN)
Cornyn (Rape-TX)
Crapo (Rape-ID)
DeMint (Rape-SC)
Ensign (Rape-NV)
Enzi (Rape-WY)
Graham (Rape-SC)
Gregg (Rape-NH)
Inhofe (Rape-OK)
Isakson (Rape-GA)
Johanns (Rape-NE)
Kyl (Rape-AZ)
McCain (Rape-AZ)
McConnell (Rape-KY)
Risch (Rape-ID)
Roberts (Rape-KS)
Sessions (Rape-AL)
Shelby (Rape-AL)
Thune (Rape-SD)
Vitter (Rape-LA)
Wicker (Rape-MS)

/Crapo. huh huh huh....

So do any of these R's have female family members the good ol' boys at KBR can have some good ol' gang-rapin' fun with?

/since it seems to be OK in their minds

Mr. Breeze: Halli: Mr. Breeze: KOS bashing republicans? Thats umpossible!!!11!11eleventy

So you are defending gang-rape?

Yeah, I'm totally defending gang rape.

/idiot

So what are you defending then?

Curse of the Goth Kids: I find mercenaries to be pretty classy people by and large.

HEY! They're not "mercenaries", they're "Patriots for hire".

Halli: Mr. Breeze: Halli: Mr. Breeze: KOS bashing republicans? Thats umpossible!!!11!11eleventy

So you are defending gang-rape?

Yeah, I'm totally defending gang rape.

/idiot

So what are you defending then?

Free enterprise! The free market will determine supply and demand for rape.

Cataholic: Fart_Machine: Cataholic: Hmm...wonder why she is suing the corporation. It doesn't have a penis and therefore didn't rape her.

Because the company tried to cover it up. Are you really this obtuse?

No. Just trying to reach out beyond the rabid frothing and see if anyone can get the big picture here. Nothing in her contract will prevent her from getting justice. Those responsible (the employees) are pretty much dead to rights on any civil suit. The problem is she is looking for a much bigger payday and has to rope the corporation in somehow...and get IT in front of a jury of morons who couldn't get out of watching Oprah that day.

ps. If the coverup is the big deal, why aren't we passing a bill that refuses to allow defense contracts to companies that cover up rapes instead of ones that have arbitration clauses?

I honestly can't tell if this is trolling or just ITG syndrome.

wooden_badger: So do any of these R's have female family members the good ol' boys at KBR can have some good ol' gang-rapin' fun with?

/since it seems to be OK in their minds

Crapo's daughter likes it in the pooper.

aden_nak: Cataholic: Fart_Machine: Cataholic: Hmm...wonder why she is suing the corporation. It doesn't have a penis and therefore didn't rape her.

Because the company tried to cover it up. Are you really this obtuse?

No. Just trying to reach out beyond the rabid frothing and see if anyone can get the big picture here. Nothing in her contract will prevent her from getting justice. Those responsible (the employees) are pretty much dead to rights on any civil suit. The problem is she is looking for a much bigger payday and has to rope the corporation in somehow...and get IT in front of a jury of morons who couldn't get out of watching Oprah that day.

ps. If the coverup is the big deal, why aren't we passing a bill that refuses to allow defense contracts to companies that cover up rapes instead of ones that have arbitration clauses?

I honestly can't tell if this is trolling or just ITG syndrome.

ITG and Libertarian Corporation Love syndrome. I'd almost guarantee Cataholic is one of those people who will look at any story about a corporation being sued and assume the poor, hard-working corporation is being abused by the massive liberal/hippie/commie bias that (in his/her imagination) has resulted in so many big companies being robbed by greedy, lazy people with lawyers. S/he has not bothered to read the details of how the victim was repeatedly raped, beaten, and kidnapped, how she had to beg and plead for help until someone with a conscience from outside smuggled her a cell phone to call friends in the consulate to get rescued, how she could have been murdered and dumped had she not managed to do this. How the evidence was collected (rape kits are not comfortable things) and that evidence STOLEN by higher-ups to ruin her chances of proving she was sexually assulted. How the company then explained she couldn't sue, couldn't press charges, and was "farking fired" if she had the audacity to go to a hospital forthe injuries she sustained.

No, all those details are too much reading, so it's just some story and the only reason anyone cares is because hippies hate Haliburton. Kind of like how the vast and powerful anti-christian majority in this country are always on the attack, trying to burn down churches and stamp out religious freedom. i.e. Kind of delusional.

thalidomide new and improved: jaerik: Or, given the contracts are public record, you could have spent 30 seconds Googling it and reading the court decision yourself, which quotes the contract:

"You also agree that you will be bound by and accept as a condition of your employment the terms of the Halliburton Dispute Resolution Program which are herein incorporated by reference. You understand that the Dispute Resolution Program requires, as its last step, that any and all claims that you might have against Employer related to your employment, including your termination, and any and all personal injury claims arising in the workplace, you have against parent or affiliate of Employer, must be submitted to binding arbitration instead of the court system."

Or you could sit there and congratulate yourself on the razor-sharp wittiness of your "DailyKocks" pun.fark that noise.

I don't need to google shiat to know that no contract can punish you for reporting a crime, dildo.

I never claimed it did. You just took a swipe at Kos, implying no one would ever actually post the text of the contract in question, and I corrected you.

Nobody thinks a contract clause can usurp a felony. Except... for Halliburton, who in this particular case is arguing that the above clause means even the felony must go to arbitration.

It doesn't matter that it doesn't work this way. What matters is that they're actually trying, and the US should not be doing business with companies like that.