View Full Version : How far can you take "pro business"?
Up to, and possibly beyond condoning rape so long as company policy is followed for 30 Republicans in the Senate.
Franken Wins Bipartisan Support For Legislation Reining In KBR’s Treatment Of Rape
In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” (Jones was not an isolated case.) 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.
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.” Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Franken said:
The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law … And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts do deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. … The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court [and] Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen.
Watch Franken’s speech:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q5kVbiWnAQ
On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” Franken responded, “This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This amendment would defund any contractor that refuses to give a victim of rape their day in court.”
In the end, Franken won the debate. His amendment passed by a 68-30 vote, earning the support of 10 Republican senators including that of newly-minted Florida Sen. George LeMieux. “He did what a senator should do, which was he was working it,” LeMieux said in praise of Franken. “He was working for his amendment.”
Appearing with Franken after the vote, an elated Jones expressed her deep appreciation. “It means the world to me,” she said of the amendment’s passage. “It means that every tear shed to go public and repeat my story over and over again to make a difference for other women was worth it.”
Roll Call posted:
NAYs ---30
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
There's a list of people who are questionably human and really not deserving to be part of any civilized society. Their lust for money and ire of civilization is incredible.
DarkHippie
10-11-2009, 03:45 PM
i cant believe anyone would vote against that.
TheMojoPin
10-11-2009, 03:47 PM
Why the fuck would anyone vote against this?
Franken is so far a pleasant surprise.
boosterp
10-11-2009, 05:04 PM
i cant believe anyone would vote against that.
Agreed, wow! There has to be more to it as to why these individuals cast a nay vote. :huh:
TooLowBrow
10-11-2009, 05:06 PM
Agreed, wow! There has to be more to it as to why these individuals cast a nay vote. :huh:
because they are against anything franken is for
I can't wait for the campaign commercials.
"Jeff Sessions voted to make it legal for Halliburton TO RAPE YOUR DAUGHTER!"
Kevin
10-11-2009, 05:09 PM
I can't wait for the campaign commercials.
"Jeff Sessions voted to make it legal for Halliburton TO RAPE YOUR DAUGHTER!"
She was asking for it.
Wearing all those sexy oily clothes.
Tenbatsuzen
10-11-2009, 05:30 PM
I'm wondering why McCain voted no.
TooLowBrow
10-11-2009, 05:31 PM
I'm wondering why McCain voted no.
because he hates franken
TheMojoPin
10-11-2009, 05:31 PM
There better be one hell of a rider on this one.
TooLowBrow
10-11-2009, 05:33 PM
There better be one hell of a rider on this one.
well the thing is this... how can halibuton do what it needs to do if it is liable for lawsuits. if they can kill why cant they rape a little too?
Tallman388
10-11-2009, 05:35 PM
The amendment had less to do with this girl's particular case and more to do with monitoring the arbitration practices of most businesses. It helps that her story is the perfect example of what a business should not be allowed to do. A lot of companies have "objective" arbitrators who really only ensure that the employee is awarded as little as possible.
boosterp
10-11-2009, 05:38 PM
because they are against anything franken is for
That would be sheer ignorance.
TooLowBrow
10-11-2009, 05:38 PM
That would be sheer ignorance.
thats exactly what it is
underdog
10-11-2009, 05:56 PM
Shocking to see all those "R"s next to those names.
boosterp
10-11-2009, 06:31 PM
Shocking to see all those "R"s next to those names.
Is it really?
Shocking to see all those "R"s next to those names.
It was interesting that all 4 female R's voted for the amendment.
hanso
10-11-2009, 07:01 PM
This is under gov.contract I would guess.
And on our tax dollars.
Stop the wars.
TripleSkeet
10-11-2009, 07:10 PM
Why the fuck would anyone vote against this?
Franken is so far a pleasant surprise.
The same reason that the political system is basically outdated now. Politicians care more about not seeing their opponents accomplish anything then they do about the people they are supposed to represent.
Its become like a sports rivalry where any accomplishment for the other team is frowned upon because they are "the enemy".
keithy_19
10-11-2009, 10:30 PM
I didn't read the bill but it looks like a simple yes.
There better be one hell of a rider on this one.
There always is.
RoseBlood
10-12-2009, 06:32 AM
Shocking to see all those "R"s next to those names.
It was interesting that all 4 female R's voted for the amendment.
The "R" stands for "Rape" :thumbdown:
I didn't read the bill but it looks like a simple yes.
This quote immediately comes to mind:
The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple ~oscar wilde
TheMojoPin
10-12-2009, 07:10 AM
There always is.
True, though a rider that trumps being anti-rape would still be impressive.
True, though a rider that trumps being anti-rape would still be impressive.
Rape of federal dollars for pork projects > rape of women.
conman823
10-12-2009, 09:08 PM
Rape of federal dollars for pork projects > rape of women.
Source, rightpundits.com:
Sen. Sessions, who did vote against the bill, argued that this gives Congress too much power to alter employment contracts of private companies and that it went against the recommendation of the Defense Department, but eh, I don’t think those concerns outweigh the concerns that rape victims should have more legal protections.
Sessions said nothing of Pork. Even rightwing sites have trouble defending Rep actions. Mostly they cry that it "singles out Halliburton", which makes no sence since they are the ones denying someone rights to a Jury Trail for FUCKING RAPE!
His defence is basically we don't want to know what these people, that the government pays, are doing in our name.
Oh silly Politics, you accomplish nothing........
hanso
10-12-2009, 10:51 PM
This can be an example of how the economy goes to hell when the right is in charge. With these vote results it shows where there heads are at.
The right tramples over small business in an effort to shove there heads as far as they can up big businesses collective asses.
badmonkey
10-13-2009, 11:35 AM
Maybe a law that makes it illegal for a company to as part of an employment contract to require you to waive your rights to have law enforcement investigate when you are a victim of a violent crime would be better than something that allows congress to alter employment contracts. I mean... if you're really out for justice for the victim and not trying to punish Halliburton, wouldn't that make sense? I would rather something like that anyway since it protects those of us that don't work for companies that depend on US Defense contracts.
TheMojoPin
10-13-2009, 11:42 AM
Maybe a law that makes it illegal for a company to as part of an employment contract to require you to waive your rights to have law enforcement investigate when you are a victim of a violent crime would be better than something that allows congress to alter employment contracts.
Is that even possible in the first place? Obviously, one can sign contracts saying they basically won't sue their employer in the event something happens to them, but how can someone "wave their rights" in terms of a law enforcement investigation? That's basically saying that someone could theoretically sign a contract saying they don't want an inevstigation in the event that they're murdered while on the job. What authority does that have over the police? Doesn't their perogative to investigate supercede the concession to investigation with certain crimes?
topless_mike
10-13-2009, 11:52 AM
it doesnt quite make sense to me. this should have been a clear cut 100% vote, unless there is something attached to this that really stinks.
although... thinking about it... the only justification i can come up with is the arguement that this is more government involvement with companies policies. however, this is a contractor hired by the gov to do what its asked of.
i dunno. still doesnt quite make sense to me.
Is that even possible in the first place? Obviously, one can sign contracts saying they basically won't sue their employer in the event something happens to them, but how can someone "wave their rights" in terms of a law enforcement investigation? That's basically saying that someone could theoretically sign a contract saying they don't want an inevstigation in the event that they're murdered while on the job. What authority does that have over the police? Doesn't their perogative to investigate supercede the concession to investigation with certain crimes?
I think you're on to something there. It wouldn't be a valid contract if it agreed to something you didn't have the authority to say or do. I don't think you can agree to waive your "unalienable" rights.
TooLowBrow
10-13-2009, 12:06 PM
I think you're on to something there. It wouldn't be a valid contract if it agreed to something you didn't have the authority to say or do. I don't think you can agree to waive your "unalienable" rights.
what happens to your rights if you are working in another country?
do you still have american rights or the rights that that country provides?
for instance, if its legal to beat a woman in a middle eastern country. is it ok for a male worker to beat his female coworker while in that country?
TheMojoPin
10-13-2009, 12:09 PM
what happens to your rights if you are working in another country?
do you still have american rights or the rights that that country provides?
for instance, if its legal to beat a woman in a middle eastern country. is it ok for a male worker to beat his female coworker while in that country?
I think what's key is that these are effectively government employees working under the circumstances of a US military occupation.
TooLowBrow
10-13-2009, 12:20 PM
I think what's key is that these are effectively government employees working under the circumstances of a US military occupation.
yeah but they are exempt from military laws, no?
TheMojoPin
10-13-2009, 12:22 PM
yeah but they are exempt from military laws, no?
But being there doesn't make them exempt from US criminal law.
TheMojoPin
10-13-2009, 12:22 PM
Fiddle-faddle.
burrben
10-13-2009, 12:23 PM
YAY! no one from ohio voted against it
underdog
10-13-2009, 12:25 PM
it doesnt quite make sense to me. this should have been a clear cut 100% vote, unless there is something attached to this that really stinks.
Halliburton money.
badmonkey
10-13-2009, 12:33 PM
Is that even possible in the first place? Obviously, one can sign contracts saying they basically won't sue their employer in the event something happens to them, but how can someone "wave their rights" in terms of a law enforcement investigation? That's basically saying that someone could theoretically sign a contract saying they don't want an inevstigation in the event that they're murdered while on the job. What authority does that have over the police? Doesn't their perogative to investigate supercede the concession to investigation with certain crimes?
That's what's interesting. I think that violent crimes like rape and murder, etc are legally considered crimes against the state rather than crimes against the person so that the state can still charge, prosecute, and convict these criminals without the victim's consent. I think it's that way to prevent the criminal from threatening the victim with further abuse/violence if they don't drop the charges. I may have seen that in a movie tho. If that is the case tho, they could lose jurisdiction while in Iraq so that there is no "state" jurisdiction to prosecute under. Maybe they prosecute under the state where the company is headquartered or the employees are based from? Where's all the lawyers at today?
Serpico1103
10-13-2009, 01:39 PM
A contract saying you won't press criminal charges is not enforceable. They may try to use it to prevent civil suits. But, even then, it a case of rape, I find it hard to believe that an arbitration clause would be enforced. For a sexual harassment suit, where there is no physical assault, I could see an arbitration clause being enforced.
New laws passed, including the Patriot Act and others since, have expanded the jurisdiction of US criminal laws. I believe this crime would be covered, as both, victim and assailants were working for a company hired by the US military.
If she was just a person on vacation and she was raped by an Iraqi, US law would not apply. If she was a government official and she was raped because of her position, US law would apply. If her and the assailant are US citizens, both on vacation, US law might apply without the new laws.
PapaBear
10-13-2009, 07:53 PM
A contract saying you won't press criminal charges is not enforceable. They may try to use it to prevent civil suits. But, even then, it a case of rape, I find it hard to believe that an arbitration clause would be enforced. For a sexual harassment suit, where there is no physical assault, I could see an arbitration clause being enforced.
New laws passed, including the Patriot Act and others since, have expanded the jurisdiction of US criminal laws. I believe this crime would be covered, as both, victim and assailants were working for a company hired by the US military.
If she was just a person on vacation and she was raped by an Iraqi, US law would not apply. If she was a government official and she was raped because of her position, US law would apply. If her and the assailant are US citizens, both on vacation, US law might apply without the new laws.
Tell that to the woman who wasn't able to press charges.
Serpico1103
10-14-2009, 06:26 AM
Tell that to the woman who wasn't able to press charges.
Have her email?
Because the DOJ doesn't press charges does not mean they do not have the right to press charges.
This case will, and does, make the DOJ and other agencies look very bad, so they are very happy to sweep it under the rug.
The court ruled that the arbitration clause does not apply to the civil suit because the assault did not happen at the workplace; it happened in her bedroom. So, I guess KBR will have a new on-premise rape policy.
hanso
10-14-2009, 09:50 PM
Up to, and possibly beyond condoning rape so long as company policy is followed for 30 Republicans in the Senate.
There's a list of people who are questionably human and really not deserving to be part of any civilized society. Their lust for money and ire of civilization is incredible.
All Sen. votes nay R.
I bet this story will not be on Fox News.
PapaBear
10-14-2009, 09:56 PM
I could have sworn I heard it was 50 Republicans. But that was on the Daily Show.
SatCam
10-15-2009, 02:25 AM
All Sen. votes nay R.
I bet this story will not be on Fox News.
It will be on Fox News. Except all the nay sayers will be labeled as Ds
IMSlacker
10-15-2009, 02:44 AM
Her contract says she couldn't sue KBR (Haliburton), not that she couldn't press charges. I don't know if charges were pressed or not.
Here's the Daily Show clip.
<table style='font:11px arial; color:#333; background-color:#f5f5f5' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='360' height='353'><tbody><tr style='background-color:#e5e5e5' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;'><a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com'>The Daily Show With Jon Stewart</a></td><td style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; text-align:right; font-weight:bold;'>Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c</td></tr><tr style='height:14px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:2px 1px 0px 5px;' colspan='2'<a target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts'>Rape-Nuts<a></td></tr><tr style='height:14px; background-color:#353535' valign='middle'><td colspan='2' style='padding:2px 5px 0px 5px; width:360px; overflow:hidden; text-align:right'><a target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com</a></td></tr><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><embed style='display:block' src='http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:252468' width='360' height='301' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' wmode='window' allowFullscreen='true' flashvars='autoPlay=false' allowscriptaccess='always' allownetworking='all' bgcolor='#000000'></embed></td></tr><tr style='height:18px;' valign='middle'><td style='padding:0px;' colspan='2'><table style='margin:0px; text-align:center' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='0' width='100%' height='100%'><tr valign='middle'><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes'>Daily Show<br/> Full Episodes</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com'>Political Humor</a></td><td style='padding:3px; width:33%;'><a target='_blank' style='font:10px arial; color:#333; text-decoration:none;' href='http://www.indecisionforever.com/2009/09/23/ron-paul-on-the-daily-show-tuesday-sept-29/'>Ron Paul Interview</a></td></tr></table></td></tr></tbody></table>
IMSlacker
10-15-2009, 02:46 AM
I could have sworn I heard it was 50 Republicans. But that was on the Daily Show.
Stewart said 30 Republicans on the Daily Show. 50 would be impossible, since there are only 40 in the Senate.
hanso
10-15-2009, 03:16 PM
That's where I heard it also.
I heard him say that every nay vote was Republican.
hanso
10-15-2009, 03:32 PM
It will be on Fox News. Except all the nay sayers will be labeled as Ds
I've seen them caught doing that. Not that long ago thanks to the daily show.
I also remember during an election they would highlight the R names even if they were behind in the poll count.
I urge everyone who has not seen Outfoxed to watch it. And see what other tricks they use.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.