30 US Senators Defend Gang Rape, what's your take?
Asked by
patg7590 (
4608
)
October 20th, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/healthwellness/143164/30_gop_senators_vote_to_defend_gang_rape/
It is stunning that 30 Republican members of the United States Senate would vote to protect a corporation, in this case Halliburton/KBR, over a woman who was gang raped. The details from Think Progress:
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.
Offering Ms. Jones legal relief was Senator Al Franken of Minnesota who offered 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.”
Seems simple enough. And yet, to GOP Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions of Alabama allowing victims of sexual assault a day in court is tantamount to a “political attack” at Halliburton. That 29 others, all men, chose to join him in opposing the Franken amendment is simply mind-boggling.
There is a video and list of the guilty on that link.
My question is…Why???
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
33 Answers
Cause Franken is a democrat, and the 30 were Republicans.
@filmfann . . .If we are going to make a distinction like that I feel I should point out that the ACLU would probably take the case on behalf of the rapists.
I would offer the famed “Watergate Advice”: follow the money. I am willing to bet that each of the 30 benefits financially from Blackwater in some form.
They then construct a “philosophical” objection to the legislation ex post facto, as a cover for their misbehavior, but I don’t think they are fooling too many people save those who have long ago drunk the Kool-Aide.
@pdworkin perhaps you meant Halliburton? I know it’s hard to keep the war profiteers straight. There’s just so many these days
Because women want to work in a male dominated environment. One that is closed off and isolated. They get raped in the military too.
And yes, I am saying when it comes to men, their wants and “needs”, especially in war time and when BIG money is involved.
The man gets away with it. I find it wrong, and disgusting. Being a man myself.
Either men just cant control themselves. Being men. And/or women by design should not be in those situations.
We want equal rights. We have just not evolved far enough for it to work yet.
@Blondesjon Since the ACLU are only interested in protecting the Constitution, and peoples rights, I think they would embrace this law.
Big $ political contributor….hard to become a Senator without a large campaign fund.
See ya…..Gary/wtf
That’s it though?
I thought maybe there was some good reason… something else snuck in the ammendment?
its seriously just back scratching, crooked politicians, and corporate control?
I’m with you, patq – the mind boggles. I hope this receives the public outrage it deserves. What kind of company has an employment clause stipulating employees can only bring sexual misconduct charges to private arbitration, and what court will allow that? I guess the international jurisdiction becomes an issue. It’s just insane, though, as far as my limited view on the facts takes me, anyway.
Halliwater. Blackburton. Chush, Beney.
very likely the perpetrators are Iranian nationals and not subject to prosecution under US laws. That doesn’t make it right. It is morally wrong for us. BUT in Iran (Persia as they sometimes like to call it) Women are like cattle or property. Foreign women are less than human and flaunt their religious laws like doing unspeakable horrors like not covering their faces, or telling a man he is wrong (as in a training situation) The non-prosecution clause in the contract was likely an addition made by the client. Under their laws no laws were broken.All she can do is quit a VERY high paying job.
@majorrich This happened in Iraq if I’m not mistaken and was perpetrated by other KBR(employed by)Halliburoton(employed by the USA) employees…
Females from the US seeking contract work in the Middle east are usually briefed about these possibilities by state dept personnel before they enter their contracts.
@patg7590—they probably were, Haliburton employs nationals to train them to run facilities they build before turning complete control over to them.—
how do I make the type little?
—text here—(no spaces btw the two dashes and your word on either end)
practicing typing little. spent 4 years in the general area. thats how they think
@majorrich well done; and remember, “speak softly and carry a big stick”
May they experience the pain of the victims and be forced into arbitration as their only recourse. John Stewart’s take on this was excoriating.
“Excoriating” is a great word. More people should use it.
Does the agreement specify arbitration only for sexual assault or is it arbitration only for all suits against the company? I worked for a place where I had to sign something saying that I gave up any right to sue them and any legal disputes would be handled through arbitration.
Dick Cheney threatened to come to each of their homes and shoot them in the face?
No… they’re either getting money for their re-election campaigns or some other political/financial favour for blocking this bill.
No, they know that legislation like this is counterproductive and reactionary and would serve no purpose
@phoenyx The Comedy channel probably isn’t the best source to cite here. I understand the outrage, but as I said earlier, clearly out of American jurisdiction
What’s the point to this question, it has already been asked here
It’s just as misleading and uses the same heavily biased source, come on…
At the very least, it should be reworded to “Why do the Obama administration and 30 senators defend gang rape?”, just to bring a little bit of balance, if not levelheadedness.
And this link should be added too:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/defense-department-oppose_n_326569.html
@majorrich I thought I’d post it because other people had mentioned it an I thought people would be interested in what they were talking about.
How is this out of American jurisdiction?! When we make contracts with these companies they are representing us. Why shouldn’t we be able dictate how we are represented?
The point of the matter is that if a person signs a contract that states problems stemming from being on the job should only be handled internally, this SHOULD NOT include sexual assault, kidnapping, blackmail or any other crime. Fortunately a federal judge has at least given this woman a right to sue the company. Her rape did not stem from a company policy she disagreed with. She was gang-raped and then held against her will in a storage container for 24 hours in an effort to keep her from reporting what happened to her. How are these not crimes? How are these related to her job?
If crimes are committed by people working for an American company themselves working under the auspices of the US military, then such crimes should be handled by the American justice system and not internally by that company. The DoD and American law needs to hold contractors working for them (and by extension, for us) accountable for any crimes they commit.
@phoenyx Thanks for putting the link up.
@majorrich The Daily Show is one of the best sources for clear thinking on national issues around these days.
What on Earth do you mean that this is out of America’s jurisdiction? How companies employed as contractors to the U.S. government conduct their business overseas as well as their hiring and employment practices is absolutely the business of the paying institution: the US government.
What evidence do you have that the contractors involved in the assault are not American citizens, much less the totally unsupportable assertion that they were Iranians?
This late in the game in Iraq, if we are leaving, The facility has almost certainly already been turned over to the host country. I don’t know all the facts. I just know how the company works. All employees of that company are either contractors from various countries or nationals. That’s what Haliburton and the like do. Build infrastructure and vital services, get paid by the host country, train their people and leave them to it. Those who choose to stay as contractors are employees of the host state, often drawing obscene amounts of money.
There are not many companies that do this kind of work because of the risk involved, but the rewards are great and the few that do it get large enough to absorb a few facilities taken over, or bombed by our own people.
@ChazMaz I agree with you about the “disgusting” part, but if a man “just can’t control himself” shouldn’t he be the one removed from the situation, rather than the law-abiding woman?
@benjaminlevi – Easier said then done.
Only problem with that is it is too late once the deed is done.
It is having the self control and respect to prevent it and control it before it happens.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
