Franken outs 30 Republicans for Rape

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:53 pm

I couldn't believe this was true until I looked it up on the official Senate Website. Notice that NONE of the women Senators voted 'nay'. (See links for official transcripts below)

Jon Stewart's take:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-o ... /rape-nuts

FROM: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP02588:
S.AMDT.2588
Amends: H.R.3326
Sponsor: Sen Franken, Al [MN] (submitted 10/1/2009) (proposed 10/1/2009)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.

AMENDMENT NO. 2588

SENATE FLOOR TRANSCRIPT:

Mr. FRANKEN. Madam President, the amendment I offer today is inspired by the courageous story of a young woman who has dedicated 4 years of her life to making sure no other woman lives through her nightmare.

Four years ago at the age of 19, Ms. Jamie Leigh Jones signed a contract to become an employee of KBR, then a Halliburton subsidiary. That contract contained a clause which required her to arbitrate any future dispute against her employer--this means to force her to give up her right to seek redress in court if she was wronged. At the time, Ms. Jones had no idea what implications this seemingly innocuous fine-print clause would have.

Ms. Jones arrived in Iraq in July of 2005. Immediately, she complained to supervisors about the hostile conditions imposed by KBR. She was constantly being harassed by her male colleagues and was housed in barracks with 400 men and only a few women. Her pleas for safer housing were ignored.

Four days after her arrival, Ms. Jones was drugged and gang-raped. She requested medical attention, and a doctor administered a rape kit. Parts of that rape kit have since mysteriously disappeared.

After Ms. Jones reported the rape to her supervisors, she was locked in a shipping container with an armed guard and prohibited any contact with the outside world. They locked her in a container. It was only after she convinced one of the guards to lend her a cell phone that she was able to talk to her father, who enlisted the help of Representative Ted Poe, a Republican Congressman from Texas, to arrange for her safe return to the United States.

But Ms. Jones' horrific plight did not end there. Having survived this ordeal, most of us would expect that she would have had her day in court to seek justice for the actions and inactions of her employer. Instead, KBR sought to enforce the arbitration clause in Ms. Jones' contract and tried to force her into arbitration. So over the past 3 years, Ms. Jones has been fighting for her right to bring a lawsuit, and KBR has been fighting her every step along the way.

This is simply too long for a rape victim to wait, just to have her day in court.

The only thing more outrageous than KBR's actions is that Ms. Jones' story is not an isolated one. Since Ms. Jones courageously shared her story, many more women have come out of the shadows saying the same thing happened to them. And, yes, some of these women are still waiting for their day in court too. Others were forced into arbitration, and their outcome remains secret due to the nondisclosure clauses in the arbitration agreement.

Arbitration has its place in our justice system. For two companies haggling over the price of goods, arbitration is an efficient forum, and the arbitrator will undoubtedly have the appropriate expertise. The privacy that arbitration offers can protect their proprietary business information. But arbitration has its limits. Arbitration is conducted behind closed doors and doesn't bring persistent, recurring, and egregious problems to the attention of the public. Arbitration doesn't ever allow a jury of your peers. Arbitration doesn't establish important precedent that can be used in later cases.

Many of our Nation's most cherished civil rights were established by individuals bringing claims in court, the court ruling in their favor, and then extending the protection of those rights to anyone in a similar situation. Arbitration does have a place in our system, but handling claims of sexual assault and egregious violations of civil rights is not its place.

Ms. Jones won a small but important victory just a few weeks ago. The conservative Fifth Circuit Court, encompassing Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, ruled that most of Ms. Jones' claims do not belong in arbitration, and she is entitled to her day in court. The Fifth Circuit ruled that even when you sign an employment contract requiring arbitration, there are some rights to sue your employer that can't be signed away. These include assault and battery, infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. But the Fifth Circuit's ruling only applies to the Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction, so it is not settled law throughout the United States. Who can say what might happen to claims filed in other circuits?

My amendment seeks to extend much of the Fifth Circuit's reasoning to government contractors who continually subject workers to these so-called mandatory arbitration clauses. The government shouldn't be doing business with defense contractors such as KBR as long as they continue this practice.

The amendment I am offering today seeks to narrowly target the most egregious violations. The amendment applies to defense contracts, many of which are administered abroad, where women are the most vulnerable and least likely to have support resources. The amendment will apply to many contractors that have already demonstrated their incompetence in efficiently carrying out defense contracts and have further demonstrated their unwillingness and their inability to protect women from sexual assault.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Here's how the Senators voted on the amendment:

Senate Vote Results Link

YEAs 68
NAYs 30
Not Voting 2

Here are their mug shots:
http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:58 pm

Will there be a amendment added for women who work around Billy BJ Clinton? I proposed the amendment be named the Juanita Roberts amendment.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:08 pm

This is why I left the Republican party…they are as inept as hell, when it comes to this kind of thing…Got suckered right in!

LOL, a map of “Republicans for Rape”…

Genius!

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:53 pm

LOL if your gonna post a lie at least post a believeable lie

Frankens amendment wrote:AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.

RAPE rofl, some people will believe anything

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:28 pm

some background on the Jones case, and how it was mishandled in-country -
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/12/hbc-90001948

a little bit of info on what some of the \"no\" votes were about -
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/1 ... 26569.html

UPDATE: North Carolina GOP Sen. Richard Burr's spokesman David Ward sends in this statement: \"Senator Burr believes violence against women is despicable and intolerable, and those who have committed or abetted such heinous crimes should be subjected to the full weight of the law. Unfortunately, the Franken amendment would not do anything to protect women from violence or to punish criminals. If it had, Senator Burr would certainly have voted for the amendment. Instead, rather than protect women from rape, the Franken amendment prohibits contractors who have employment arbitration agreements with their employees from being paid for the work they have done for the military. In fact, the Obama Defense Department opposed the amendment. As current federal law states and the courts have already upheld in the Jones case, arbitration agreements are non-binding when it comes to criminal acts, like rape. Unfortunately, the Franken amendment was a cynical attempt by the trial lawyers to eliminate arbitration agreements, which limit their fees, behind the guise of protecting women.\"

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm automatically suspicious when posts like the OP come up. I don't think Jon Stewart's a lawyer either, but I could be wrong. On the rape case itself, and its subsequent investigation, it seems like there is plenty of reason for outrage. I wouldn't feel very comfortable at all if I was an employee of KBR and I saw how this case had been handled. But it would be nice, in the matter of Sen. Franken's amendment, if the media would do a good job of laying out the specific facts at issue and having a discussion just around those, without all of the other posturing.

Holding my breath in 3....2....1...........not.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 7:06 pm

dissent wrote:...But it would be nice, in the matter of Sen. Franken's amendment, if the media would do a good job of laying out the specific facts at issue and having a discussion just around those, without all of the other posturing.

Holding my breath in 3....2....1...........not.

If they did that they would have to do actual work like real journalists instead of carry the water for their favorite party, stir the pot then sell the sensationalism they help create.
Nice to see Franken has slipped effortlessly into the role of complete shameless ★■◆● in his new job, he's a natural.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:00 am

Were these Republicans against Rape, or Rape Rape?

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 11:03 am

you mean Whoopi doesn't know?

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:26 pm

Here's your 'Republicans for Rape' map Spidey!

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2009-308

If you want to know just how severe her rape ordeal was, here's a PDF of her testimony.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/reports/Jones071219.pdf

More on the case about the Jones case and the mandatory arbitration clause.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =105153315

Franken was being cagey here. He wanted a straight up or down vote on this, so he added his funding restriction amendment to the Defense Appropriation Bill to prevent it from being filibustered. GOOD FOR HIM! No one else has even tried to reign in these contractors and the abuses they are getting away with! These U.S. government contractors are using the 'mandatory arbitration clause' to prevent criminal prosecutions of their employees and sweep abuses under the rug. There doesn't seem to be any method or motivation outside of the U.S. to prosecute U.S. government-contracted employees, or even U.S. government-contracted corporations, when it concerns criminal violations in a foreign country. Congress, in their infinite paid-off wisdom, gave these contractors the authority to use mandatory arbitration in the contracts their employees are required to sign. The Defense Department sure isn't doing anything about the problem. In the case of rape, they tend to look the other way or cover it up.

Do any you military guys realize how many of our young service people have been electrocuted, TO DEATH, or poisoned by our 'patriotic' contractors? How are we going to hold these bastard's feet to the fire and stop paying for these contractor's cost overruns, theft and shoddy workmanship? More importantly, how are we going to stop paying for the abuse, rape or 'accidental deaths' of their employees/customers (ie. military personnel, foreign nationals) because of the dangerous work conditions, lax management and the ability to get away with it because of those nice little arbitration clauses. This amendment is a least a start and those 30 Republicans have no excuse for their 'nay' votes, unless they LIKE to pay for the government-sanctioned rape and death.

By the way, take a little read of your own telecom contract and you'll see that mandatory arbitration affects you too. Here's where the 'meat' of the mandatory arbitration problem might be addressed by Congress. Read the 'summary' of H.R. 1020 in this link:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1020

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 1:41 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Do any you military guys realize how many of our young service people have been electrocuted, TO DEATH, or poisoned by our 'patriotic' contractors? How are we going to hold these bastard's feet to the fire and stop paying for these contractor's cost overruns, theft and shoddy workmanship? More importantly, how are we going to stop paying for the abuse, rape or 'accidental deaths' of their employees/customers (ie. military personnel, foreign nationals) because of the dangerous work conditions, lax management and the ability to get away with it because of those nice little arbitration clauses. This amendment is a least a start and those 30 Republicans have no excuse for their 'nay' votes, unless they LIKE to pay for the government-sanctioned rape and death.

The amendment is not in dispute here. its the pro Rape part. its a sick and despicable act of which you are now a part of to imply that ANYONE is in favor of rape, this is stooping to a new low even for you TC.
its obvious that Franken had no real interest in Haliburton, his intent was to try and embarrass Republicans. which he has probably suceeded in doing. along with embarrassing himself in the process and PROBABLY killing ANY chance that he would have to be a functional Senator for the state of Minnesota. as I'm sure that if there are any Senators with a shred of character hopefully they will start to distance themselves from this kind of Statesmanship.

EDIT: not to mention the whole against Rape part is BS pure and simple. Rape is a Felony crime, waver clause or not the perpetrator can still be prosecuted,

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:41 pm

You may be right, but change had to start somewhere and some sap had to start it. Nothing was being done for our military personnel being hurt or the female employees being victimized. The wheels of progress had been stuck in one place so long, someone had to be the new rabble-rouser and the freshman Franken was it. Now we know where a few Republican Senators stand as well, on the side of the vast, powerful Military Industrial Corporate Complex that President Eisenhower railed against. Unfortunately, it looks like these 30 Senators were willing to sweep aside a little rape problem to support their corporate masters.

EDIT: Rape is a Felony, but no one was bothering to prosecute it as a crime for the victim in this case.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:07 pm

tunnelcat wrote:You may be right, but change had to start somewhere and some sap had to start it. Nothing was being done for our military personnel being hurt or the female employees being victimized. The wheels of progress had been stuck in one place so long, someone had to be the new rabble-rouser and the freshman Franken was it. Now we know where a few Republican Senators stand as well, on the side of the vast, powerful Military Industrial Corporate Complex that President Eisenhower railed against. Unfortunately, it looks like these 30 Senators were willing to sweep aside a little rape problem to support their corporate masters.

EDIT: Rape is a Felony, but no one was bothering to prosecute it as a crime for the victim in this case.

WELL first off your ASS-uming that they knew about it.
second if there have been no charges filed in this rape case it makes me start to wonder.
1. was there really a case of was it a fabrication/political ploy
2. is there enough evidence to prosecute since no charges have been filed.
3. Maybe we should start looking at the law enforcement agency investigating the case before we start accusing ANY politician of these kind of heinous thing

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:45 pm

1. Legislation directed at a specific company…have to call foul on that one. (not even sure that’s legal)
2. Many companies have this type of contract, intended to protect the employers from the actions of their employees, not acting as agents of that company at the time of an indiscretion.
3. Bill is way too vague.
4. There is no contract in the world that can protect someone from being a criminal, or prosecution as such.

This bill is intended to defund Halliburton, and the Republicans acting like bumbling idiots, was just a cherry on the top.

There were plenty of ways the Republicans could have fought against this dumb bill, without falling into the trap…but I’m done giving advice to political amateurs.

That woman needs to press charges against the people who committed the crimes, not the company that hires them. And if Halliburton can be proved to have condoned the employees actions…well that’s a different story. (no contract can protect them from that)

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:22 am

CUDA, Spidey, she couldn't press charges BECAUSE of that little inconvenient clause in her employment contract forcing her into mandatory arbitration. The company used this to stonewall any criminal prosecution and thus hide her plight from the public. I'd heard about this incident when it first happened (it pays to watch the liberal press) and nothing was done for her in all this time because she had no legal recourse. You'll notice that she STILL hasn't been able to file any charges against the men who raped her.

How about the families of dead electrocuted soldiers? I don't see them getting any criminal charges brought against Halliburton/KBR or related defense contractors. I'm all for defunding these frauduant and negligent contractors in any way possible.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090601/scahill

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090921/scahill

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 11:57 am

tunnelcat wrote:CUDA, Spidey, she couldn't press charges BECAUSE of that little inconvenient clause in her employment contract forcing her into mandatory arbitration. The company used this to stonewall any criminal prosecution and thus hide her plight from the public. I'd heard about this incident when it first happened (it pays to watch the liberal press) and nothing was done for her in all this time because she had no legal recourse. You'll notice that she STILL hasn't been able to file any charges against the men who raped her.

How about the families of dead electrocuted soldiers? I don't see them getting any criminal charges brought against Halliburton/KBR or related defense contractors. I'm all for defunding these frauduant and negligent contractors in any way possible.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090601/scahill

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090921/scahill

your TOTALLY missing the issue of LAW. there is NO contract that can invalidate an existing law.

if this woman was raped then there is a criminal issue at hand and NO contract can prevent that from being prosecuted.

Tunnelcat · Post by **Tunnelcat** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 12:13 pm

Then WHY hasn't she been able to prosecute, hmmmmmm? I don't see anything happening. And WHY are you essentially giving a pass to slimball no-bid defense contractors that are so callous and greedy that they've even caused the deaths of our soldiers and no one's prosecuted them for it?

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:44 pm

tunnelcat wrote:Then WHY hasn't she been able to prosecute, hmmmmmm? I don't see anything happening. And WHY are you essentially giving a pass to slimball no-bid defense contractors that are so callous and greedy that they've even caused the deaths of our soldiers and no one's prosecuted them for it?

seems like I wrote this earlier.

By Me wrote:second if there have been no charges filed in this rape case it makes me start to wonder.
1. was there really a case of was it a fabrication/political ploy
2. is there enough evidence to prosecute since no charges have been filed.
3. Maybe we should start looking at the law enforcement agency investigating the case before we start accusing ANY politician of these kind of heinous thing

apparently your having a problem understanding what the Law is. so it will be explained to you for the 3rd time. there is a difference in a Civil case and a Criminal case. IF there was a crime, then NO CONTRACT can protect the ones involved. maybe you should look deeper into the FACTS of this case before ASSUMING that its Haliburton's fault and ALL republican are Pro Rape.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:04 pm

Cuda,

I'd say you're right that this case and the language surrounding it is being abused for political gain.

However, in the time it took you to type your last post, you could have easily found why no criminal charges have been filed.

It took me less than three minutes to find that the criminal case is held up by international jurisdictional issues, which is why ms. Jones' only recourse at present is civil action.

CUDA · Post by **CUDA** » Fri Oct 23, 2009 2:13 pm

Foil wrote:Cuda,

I'd say you're right that this case and the language surrounding it is being abused for political gain.

However, in the time it took you to type your last post, you could have easily found why no criminal charges have been filed.

It took me less than three minutes to find that the criminal case is held up by international jurisdictional issues, which is why ms. Jones' only recourse at present is civil action.

and the Truth shall set you free.

Thx Foil

Franken outs 30 Republicans for Rape

Franken outs 30 Republicans for Rape

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: