You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 10, 2016, 04:55:20 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Republicans for Rape  (Read 2165 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ElayneTopic starter

Republicans for Rape
« on: October 20, 2009, 08:25:07 PM »
Quote
Whats the big deal?

The 2010 Franken Senate Defense Appropriations Amendment overreaches into the business of private enterprise. Defense contractors are a part of the functioning free market; not the Federal Government. A handful of isolated assaults is no reason to summon the interference of the Federal Government and Congress. This amendment interferes with the privacy of companies and the ability of our defense contractors to effectively conduct the business of protecting America from terrorism.

Who is really hurt by this amendment?

Jamie Leigh Jones claims that other employees of Halliburton have come forward with stories of assault since her media exposure. However, even if these unconfirmed cases were true, this represents only a small fraction of the population. With over 52,000 employees, it is difficult to blame the company for this singular event! Hindering the company's ability to manage its own employees makes it more difficult to perform effectively. This amendment ultimately only compromises our mission to spread liberty and freedom worldwide.

Why are the courts involved?

The American justice system, with its activist judges are yet again interfering with our privacy. By forcing these employees to go through the courts, this amendment allows too many small incidences to burden our tax payers and our criminal justice system. According to Halliburton, the vast majority of employees who participate in internal arbitration end up victorious and compensated for their damages. Since the company is clearly capable, willing, and good at self regulating its internal affairs, why are we getting courts involved? This is going to only burden American tax payers, and force needless navigation through bureaucracy and paperwork!

Who is this going to cost?

In the end, this is another story of liberal Democrats promoting big government interference, taxing and spending. By allowing these incidents to go through the long process of the justice system, this amendment places unneeded burden on our tax dollars. In these times of economic recession, our government shouldn't be trying to find more ways to overextend their resources. So who is this going to cost? American taxpayers.

Who will stand up for the rights of these poor companies?

Check out the thirty brave Republican Senators who spoke out in support of the patriotic companies that work hard everyday to defend freedom and liberty.  With three out of four Senate Republicans voting in favor of rape, we can be sure that rape is a Republican value.  A big thank you to these Senators for protecting liberty, and freedom (including the freedom of companies to cover up rape!).

http://www.republicansforrape.org/why-rape/
http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4099514&page=1&page=1
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/halliburton-employee-jamie-leigh-jones-testifies-senate-rape/story?id=8775641

Quote
Jamie Leigh Jones was a 20-year-old young woman working her fourth day on the job in Baghdad for contractor Halliburton/KBR in 2005, when she says she was drugged and gang-raped by seven U.S contractors and held captive by two KBR guards in a shipping container. But more than four years after the alleged crimes occurred, Jones is still waiting for her day in court because when she signed her employment contract, she lost her rights to a jury trial and, instead, was forced into having her claims decided through secret, binding arbitration.

"I didn't even know that I had signed such a clause, but even if I had known, I would never have guessed that it would prevent me from bringing my claims to court after being brutally sexually harassed and assaulted," Jones, who told her story to ABC News' Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross in an award-winning 20/20 story, testified at the Senate committee meeting on the issue. "I had no idea that the clause was part of the contract, what the clause actually meant, or that I would eventually end up in this horrible situation."

Offline Pumpkin Seeds

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #1 on: October 20, 2009, 08:42:24 PM »
Isn't the right to a trial by your peers written into the Bill of Rights?  I wasn't aware a private corporation could usurp rights with a contractual clause.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #2 on: October 20, 2009, 09:21:17 PM »
You can waive your right to a jury trial. That's precisely what an arbitration agreement does - and they are in car sale agreements, employment agreements (my company has one that I did not sign). They are meant to tamp down class action suits and prevent massive punitive damages. Just the nice package for a company working overseas in a country where women's civil rights are already trampled. *thumbsup*

That said, this article is clearly either a spoof or written for a far, far right audience. It's easy pickings.

It still blows my mind that John McCain was one of the thirty who voted against the bill. Ugh.

Offline ElayneTopic starter

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #3 on: October 20, 2009, 10:07:12 PM »
You can waive your right to a jury trial. That's precisely what an arbitration agreement does - and they are in car sale agreements, employment agreements (my company has one that I did not sign). They are meant to tamp down class action suits and prevent massive punitive damages. Just the nice package for a company working overseas in a country where women's civil rights are already trampled. *thumbsup*

That said, this article is clearly either a spoof or written for a far, far right audience. It's easy pickings.

It still blows my mind that John McCain was one of the thirty who voted against the bill. Ugh.

The facts of the case (that the woman in question was imprisoned, gang raped and savagely beaten) are not in dispute.
The fact that the company in the case argued to have the case given to their arbitration committee rather than a criminal trial isn't in dispute.
Al Franken did provably propose an resolution that would have closed this 'loophole'.  The wording is that after 2010 all defense contractors will agree that criminal cases will be the jurisdiction of the US Courts and that they will not go to arbitration.
30 Senators (all males) did provably oppose this resolution.

Now, in all fairness, all the female Republicans DID agree with the resolution.

However, we have a MAJOR American company (Haliburton) arguing that gang rape, kidnapping and assault are part of the job expectation (that's actually literal) and 30 male Senators AGREED.

To me, that's absurd.

Offline Morven

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #4 on: October 20, 2009, 10:12:02 PM »
However, we have a MAJOR American company (Haliburton) arguing that gang rape, kidnapping and assault are part of the job expectation (that's actually literal) and 30 male Senators AGREED.

And it would be one thing if they were arguing "We can't protect our employees from being attacked by the enemy in a war zone", but that's not what's going on.  They're claiming that it's part of the agreed job risks FROM OTHER EMPLOYEES OF THE SAME EMPLOYER.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #5 on: October 20, 2009, 10:19:52 PM »
However, we have a MAJOR American company (Haliburton) arguing that gang rape, kidnapping and assault are part of the job expectation (that's actually literal) and 30 male Senators AGREED.

To me, that's absurd.

Yes. Yes, it is.

Offline Doomsday

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #6 on: October 20, 2009, 10:27:15 PM »
Then again this is America we're talking about. I'm sure those 30 men didn't even pay attention to the issue; all that mattered to them was that Democrats were voting for Mr. Frankenberry's bill.

Then again, this is America we're talking about. The land of the free, home of the brave, and the mainland of morons. I'm just glad neither of my states had a single senator vote against this.

Also, lol@ this!

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2009, 10:41:55 PM »
I'm more interested in the 2 that abstained. I can't find any reasoning or statements from them.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #8 on: October 20, 2009, 11:15:06 PM »
I'm more interested in the 2 that abstained. I can't find any reasoning or statements from them.

They may just not have been there to vote. It's not like the passage of the amendment was in question.

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #9 on: October 20, 2009, 11:28:19 PM »
That's what I suspect, but I really just can't find any data on it, so it has me curious.

Offline Sabby

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2009, 04:11:24 AM »
Uhm... I read the opening post and honestly have no clue what this topic is about.

Offline Doomsday

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #11 on: October 21, 2009, 11:47:11 AM »
Uhm... I read the opening post and honestly have no clue what this topic is about.

I'll translate.

A woman working for Halliburton was working in Iraq when she was drugged and repeatedly raped and kept prisoner by her own comrades in a shipping container. It turns out there was a clause in her contract saying that she can be raped without her rapist facing any consequences.

Senator Franken is pushing a bill that would get rid of all this misogynistic nonsense and hold those pigs accountable. And 30 people voted against that bill.

Offline Avi

  • I'll show you how to soar.
  • On Hiatus
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2007
  • Location: Memphis and Maury City, TN
  • Gender: Male
  • Flying by the seat of his pants...
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #12 on: October 21, 2009, 12:20:49 PM »
I am proud to say that, as a Wisconsinite, neither of my senators voted against the bill, and for that, I am extremely grateful.  The Republican ideology of keeping hands off of the affairs of business is a fair one, and I'll respect that... but not when it comes down to protecting a company's right to stonewall an employee who was raped, abused, and tormented by other employees.

Offline Kotah

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #13 on: October 21, 2009, 03:10:10 PM »
You have got to be shitting me.

Offline Dios

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #14 on: October 21, 2009, 03:14:03 PM »
Senator Franken is pushing a bill that would get rid of all this misogynistic nonsense and hold those pigs accountable. And 30 people voted against that bill.
Franken's amendment simply says that the government will not give money to companies which have clauses such as that in their paperwork. Most likely such clauses would not hold up in court and if the raped woman sought to take them to court, she would be able to, there would just have to be a hearing on that issue first.

Offline Doomsday

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2009, 03:46:23 PM »
Franken's amendment simply says that the government will not give money to companies which have clauses such as that in their paperwork. Most likely such clauses would not hold up in court and if the raped woman sought to take them to court, she would be able to, there would just have to be a hearing on that issue first.

Thanks for clearing that up. I'm not a very political minded person, I just had a vague understanding of the bill :-)

Online Callie Del Noire

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #16 on: October 21, 2009, 04:05:11 PM »
I am curious to the actual language of the proposal. If it was as targeted as the original qoute that is fine, I read elsewhere that it wasn't that specific.

Do I think folks like Haliburton exploit the law (and use arbitration to quietly sweep things out of sight). Most definitely.

Do I think that a ill worded amendment could seriously screw up contracts and issue. Yes.

Do I hope that Senator Franken (who struck me as a fairly smart and even keeled guy for years) think and work it though before putting it in the bill.

Personally? I think Haliburton should just give up their contracts, and their buildings should be burned to the ground and the soil salted and used as an example of how NOT to serve the needs of the Federal Goverment and the Public. The last 10 years they have fed at the trough like NO one else has, the company has done out subpar work, put our forces in the region at risk and stuff like that does nothing for their image.

What I find so horrendous is if the woman's father hadn't called in a senator, she might have very well vanished along with all the evidence from her assault.

Offline Vekseid

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #17 on: October 21, 2009, 04:12:38 PM »
Franken's amendment simply says that the government will not give money to companies which have clauses such as that in their paperwork. Most likely such clauses would not hold up in court and if the raped woman sought to take them to court, she would be able to, there would just have to be a hearing on that issue first.

They aren't holding up in court, but until the Supreme Court rules on KBR's appeal, they can still try enforcing the clause on anyone outside of the fifth circuit.

Offline MercyfulFate

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2009, 04:31:22 PM »
I can't believe anyone would want to argue for most of these private contractors. Scumbags like Blackwater make me sick.

Offline ElayneTopic starter

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2009, 10:54:07 AM »
I am curious to the actual language of the proposal. If it was as targeted as the original qoute that is fine, I read elsewhere that it wasn't that specific.


Quote
SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; as follows:

    On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

    Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.


    (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r111dPbFgT:e0:

So, the specific language is that as of Sept 30, 2010, the Defense department will not use tax payer money to hire companies with 'bad' contracts.

'Bad' contracts are defined as any contract that requires internal arbitration for complaints relating to the Civil Rights act (discrimination) or complaints based on charges of sexual assault, harassment, assault and battery, false imprisonment, or employer negligence.


Offline Morven

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #20 on: October 22, 2009, 11:13:51 AM »
That's a remarkably succinct amendment indeed.  Clearly Franken doesn't know what he's doing yet; any amendment should be long, overly verbose, with loopholes big enough to drive a truck through and a little corruption added.

Offline ElayneTopic starter

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #21 on: October 23, 2009, 01:05:06 AM »
Quote
An amendment that would prevent the government from working with contractors who denied victims of assault the right to bring their case to court is in danger of being watered down or stripped entirely from a larger defense appropriations bill.

Multiple sources have told the Huffington Post that Sen. Dan Inouye, a longtime Democrat from Hawaii, is considering removing or altering the provision, which was offered by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and passed by the Senate several weeks ago.

Inouye's office, sources say, has been lobbied by defense contractors adamant that the language of the Franken amendment would leave them overly exposed to lawsuits and at constant risk of having contracts dry up. The Senate is considering taking out a provision known as the Title VII claim, which (if removed) would allow victims of assault or rape to bring suit against the individual perpetrator but not the contractor who employed him or her.

"The defense contractors have been storming his office," said a source with knowledge of the situation. "Inouye either will get the amendment taken out altogether, or water it down significantly. If they water it down, they will take out the Title VII claims. This means that in discrimination cases, they will still force you into a secret forced arbitration on KBR's (or other contractors') own terms -- with your chances of prevailing practically zero. The House seems to be very supportive of the original Franken amendment and all in line, but their hands are tied since it originated in the Senate. And since Inouye runs the show on this bill, he can easily take it out to get Republicans and the defense contractors off his back, which looks increasingly likely."

A Democratic aide on the Hill, also with knowledge of the situation, confirmed the account, as did a source who works on defense contracting matters outside of Congress. "The contractors are putting on a full-court press on this amendment... they are all doing it," said the latter source.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/frankens-anti-rape-amendm_n_329896.html

Offline Morven

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #22 on: October 23, 2009, 01:38:52 AM »
Gah. 

Offline Trieste

  • Faerie Queen; Her Imperial Lubemajesty; Willing Victim
  • Dame
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: In the middle of Happily Ever After with a dark Prince Charming.
  • Gender: Female
  • I am many things - dull is not one of them.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 4
Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #23 on: October 23, 2009, 01:41:34 AM »
Need all the Hawaiians to hop off their surfboards long enough to write their rep and say "NO". >.>

Offline Vekseid

Re: Republicans for Rape
« Reply #24 on: October 23, 2009, 02:27:22 AM »
The Title VII claim only refers to discrimination based on sex, race, religion, etc. Sexual harassment, assault and employer negligence would still be in, if that's all that gets removed...