How could anyone be against this?

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.”
[…]
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.”

Franken has turned out to be quite an intelligent and reasoned voice on many issues in a sea of idiots.




  1. freddybobs68k says:

    #20 LibertyLover

    ‘Once again, you have forgotten you are not allowed to talk to me until you answer why you would let 10 strangers die to save your wife.’

    What is wrong with you?

    You previously said that you’d let _everybody die_ to save your wife. Great – so now everybody who isn’t your wife knows where they stand.

    What you can be sure of, is given such a situation everyone will choose an answer between 0 and your answer. And? So?

    Let it go. Everybody isn’t (thankfully in that respect) like you.

  2. Wretched Gnu says:

    How can you be so concerned about a government contractor that rapes and murders when Acorn was caught *talking to fake prostitutes!*

    Get your priorities straight, please.

  3. LibertyLover says:

    #34, Unless you have conFusion’s balls in your purse, you can’t help him. Only men can answer that question truthfully, openly, and without reservation. And since you’ve already shown your colors by lying on this question, you are not qualified for that title.

    ttfn little girl.

  4. doughoist says:

    I can’t stand Franken but he is on the right side of this. Also, both Haliburton and this woman should have their day in court.

  5. Lou says:

    The USA is still recovering from 8 years of W.

  6. Mr. Fusion says:

    #28, karmaloser,

    Some days they open the doors at that idiot place and we get a bumper crop of idiots posting. This must be Liberty Loser’s new handle.

    Please learn to read BEFORE posting. The employment contract said ALL disputes between the company and the employee will be settled by binding arbitration. That includes company complicity in a violent assault.

  7. qb says:

    Seriously, do you think anyone reading a contract would connect, or even ask a lawyer, whether that clause would apply assault, drugging, gang rape, and unlawful imprisonment? It doesn’t make sense.

    If you are reading your personal employment contract and thinking about how it would protect from such violent crimes, then you are one sick and twisted bastard.

  8. Cantankerous says:

    Fusion,

    Why don’t you just answer his question? I would kill to save my wife because I love her. Do you love yours?

  9. bobbo, words have meaning says:

    #41–qb==really? What does “any” mean in your world? Pretty straight forward. You sound like the type of guy who keeps going when the girl says stop because who knows what that means?

  10. noname says:

    # 8 Improbus,

    dammit … I like your funny. 🙂

  11. Teri Greene says:

    If a state/federal law makes something a criminal act, then the state/federal government has its own case against the perpetrator. The case will be titled, “State of ____/U.S.A. vs. _____.” Her contract has nothing to do with it.

  12. MikeN says:

    Teri has it right. The description of the issue is not correct. It is like saying Roman Polanski should be left alone because the victim says so.

  13. deowll says:

    The company is protected from being punished for the action of its employees. The people that did it aren’t based on the post but then how do you prove it now?

  14. KarmaBaby says:

    #41, Fusion, a private contract does NOT override or negate federal or state law. What planet are you from?

  15. JimD says:

    Repukes SHOOTING THEMSELVES THROUGH THE HEAD AGAIN !!! I LOVE IT !!! KEEP IT UP, S**T FOR BRAINS !!!

  16. Glenn E. says:

    What may be more interesting (and disturbing) than so many Republican Senators voting against this Bill. Is that the many stream news media did report on it. At least none of the ones I can tune into. I’ve heard nothing else but the Health Care bill, languishing in Congress. Which apparently is the news media’s excuse for not covering any of the other Bills’ progress. Another MIA Bill is Ron Paul’s one to audit the Federal Reserve. We all know that’s never gonna happen.

  17. MMoore says:

    #42, Liberty Loser,

    Wrong.

    The discussion was about extending health care to everyone, something Libertarians are against. For whatever reason they, and you, feel only the few people like you should be insured.

    You are trying to input a micro argument as the basis for a macro decision. It doesn’t work that way. What Fusion, you, I, or anyone would do in a specific situation should not be the determining factor in the global decision of health care reform.

    The premise of your argument is to demonstrate that Fusion is selfish as he would save his wife before someone else. So what? Your premise is artificial anyway. What is not artificial is the number of people without or with inadequate health insurance in this country. That your question is even raised shows you don’t care about those who don’t have insurance to begin with.

    I understand Libertarians are selfish and only think of themselves. That is their personal decision to be dipsticks, assholes, tax cheaters, and what have you. But it doesn’t mean the rest of the world shares the same view.

  18. LibertyLover says:

    Pedro, Cantankerous,

    He may not have answered the question here, but every time he looks across the supper table he’ll think about that question and answer it in his head. Every time she’s feeling bad with a headache or the flu, he’ll think about it and answer it in his head.

    What that answer is we don’t know. We do know he took an oath to forsake all others in favor of his wife and he has said he would do everything in his power to save her. The question is WHY he took that oath. I wonder if his wife knows he’s not willing to tell people why. Is it because society said he should say it?

    Named finally answered it. He and I may not agree on a lot of things, but he’s a man (and you, too, Tank). I respect him for that.

    I have absolutely no respect for the Poison Twin.

  19. Phydeau says:

    #46 Has anyone here considered the fact that these crimes didn’t occur in America? If it occurs in Baghdad, whose laws apply? Did they occur on U.S. Military bases? Or at Halliburton facilities, or just somewhere in the city?

    As far as I know, whatever country the crime occurs in, their laws apply. So it’s possible the U.S. government can’t arrest the perps. So suing in court might be her only recourse. Were they arrested in Iraq by the Iraqi police for this assault? If it’s a clearcut case of rape and assualt I’d think they’d be in Iraqi jails by now, if the Iraqis had a full-fledged government. But maybe they defer to the Americans.

    Lots of unanswered questions.

  20. Phydeau says:

    And btw, LL… you’re the one obsessed with “manliness”. So here’s an appeal to your “manhood”: If you want to make a point about your view on human nature, or politics, just be a man and come right out and say it. Spare us the cutesy “have you stopped beating your wife” questions. Don’t be a wimp, just state your point, for god’s sake.

  21. LibertyLover says:

    #57, Not obsessed with it, just pointing out the lack thereof. I can’t point my view until the question is answered. Otherwise, it’s just opinion. btw . . . I noticed YOU still haven’t answered the question.

    #58, It is a typical liberal response. When they come across something they don’t want to or can’t answer, they just attack with emotions. It’s ok for them to question others but when presented with a mirror, they start crying like little girls.

  22. Mr. Fusion says:

    #56, Phydeau,

    All American contractors in Iraq had immunity from Iraqi law. That was only recently rescinded. That was one of the biggest problems with Blackwater and the other Private Armies, they were responsible to no one.

  23. Mr. Fusion says:

    Loser,

    Did grade school get out early today? Why not grow up and quit acting like an effen pedro

  24. LibertyLover says:

    #61, Once again, you have forgotten you are not allowed to talk to me until you answer why you would let 10 strangers die to save your wife.

  25. Mr. Fusion says:

    #62, loser,

    You actually have it backwards. It is YOU who would allow the 10 stranger to die by denying them medical coverage.

    A petty sad commentary on Liebertarians.

    fuck you asshole.

  26. LibertyLover says:

    #63, Wow, you really are hardheaded. This isn’t about health care. It’s about character.

    Why would you allow 10 strangers to die to save your wife?

    fuck you asshole.

    See #59 about how liberals respond to mirrors.

  27. LibertyLover says:

    Poison Twin,

    Seeing as you insist on turning a question about character into one on health care, I have another one for you.

    Scenario 2:

    You are shopping with your wife. A fire breaks out in the store. You see your wife down the aisle. The fire is about to spread to her and she has no escape. Luckily for her, there is a fire extinguisher on the way to save her. Just as you get to the fire extinguisher, you notice a group of kids trapped by a different branch of the fire.

    In a moment of clarity, you realize you can either save the kids or save your wife, but not both.

    Your wife is screaming for you to save her. The kids are screaming for anyone to save them. What do you do? Save your wife, save the kids, or sit there confused because you refuse to make a decision while the fire consumes all of them?

  28. Rick Cain says:

    If there was any uncertainty on whose side the GOP is on, there is no longer any doubt.

  29. Mr. Fusion says:

    #65, loser,

    Your imaginary scenarios are reminiscent of someone who is unmarried, has no friends, and doesn’t have a life.

    Wait about another 25 years when you hit 40. Hopefully for you, by then, you will have learned enough about life to understand how your questions reflect on you.

  30. LibertyLover says:

    #67, Personal attacks are the last resort of those cornered by logic.

    Quit your crying and answer the question.

    Why would you sacrifice strangers for your wife?


2

Bad Behavior has blocked 5761 access attempts in the last 7 days.