The Rachel Maddow Show: Indefensible
By Heather Thursday Oct 22, 2009 5:00pm
As Rachel reports, it looks like the vote taken by 30 Republicans to protect contractors rather than rape victims is not playing very well for them in their local papers.
Jamie Leigh Jones and her attorney joined Rachel to talk about what happened to her and weigh in on the Republican response that the amendment was just a way to take a "political shot" at Halliburton.
MADDOW: One specific vote on one specific part of the giant legislation that funds the Defense Department is turning into a real political problem for 30 Republican senators.
In Idaho, the "Lewiston Morning Tribune" called out its two senators in an editorial titled, "Senators Crapo and Risch Cast an Inexplicable Vote."
In Mississippi, "The Clarion Ledger" editorialized, quote, "Senators Cochran and Wicker voted to protect corporations, not victims, and they should own up to that."
An opinion piece in the "Osawatomie Graphic" was titled simply, "Kansas Senators are Disappointing." In Tennessee, a "Crossville Chronicle" writers asked, "Whose Side are Our Senators On?"
The "Athens Banner Herald" in Georgia headlined a letter quote, "Georgia Senators Embarrass State." And in Louisiana, a "Shreveport Times" writer asks, quote, "What exactly is Sen. David Vitter problem with women."
When Republicans are getting called out in Mississippi, Kansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and Georgia, something big is going on politically. This all began when 30 Senate Republicans voted against an amendment by Democratic Senator Al Franken of Minnesota.
The amendment said that the government shouldn't give defense contracts to companies if those companies prevent their employees who have been raped or discriminated against from suing in court.
Franken's amendment passed, but 30 male Republican senators voted no on it. Now, much of the outraged response to that vote across the country is due to the fact that this legislation was prompted by a horrible real-life case, the case of Jamie Leigh Jones.
She was a 20-year-old female contractor at Halliburton subsidiary, KBR when she says she was drugged and gang raped by her co-workers and locked in a shipping container. Because of her employment contract, Ms. Jones was not allowed to sue. She still hasn't had her day in court.
I want you to know that we called every single one of the 30 Republican senators who voted no on this. Not one of them agreed to come on the show to talk about why they voted the way they did. Senators, I want you to know, the invitation remains open.
Joining us now is Jamie Leigh Jones and her attorney Todd Kelly. Thanks very much to both of you for coming on the show tonight. I really appreciate it.
JAMIE LEIGH JONES, FORMER KBR HALLIBURTON EMPLOYEE: Thanks for inviting us.
TODD KELLY, JAMIE LEIGH JONES' ATTORNEY: We appreciate that.
MADDOW: Jamie Leigh, four years ago, you were drugged and raped for working as a contractor in Iraq that led to, not only this legislation, but to the outrage over the people who voted against this legislation. Can you tell us briefly what happened?
J. JONES: OK. Well, I went to Iraq to serve my country during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Four days upon my arrival there, I was brutally and sexually assaulted and drugged.
And when I reported my assault to Halliburton KBR, they essentially imprisoned me in a container. And I was held captive by armed guard, by guards that were called gurkhas. And they are guards that have machine guns and everything else and they're hired by KBR.
And after pleading with one of the guards, he did let me contact my father, who contacted Congressman Ted Poe. And Congressman Poe dispatched a rescue mission to get me out of there.
MADDOW: Now, I understand you were not allowed to sue, to see that anybody was held responsible for what happened to you.
J. JONES: Right.
MADDOW: Is that because of the contract that you signed when you signed up with Halliburton?
J. JONES: Yes, exactly.
MADDOW: How would you describe Halliburton's role overall in responding to what happened to you? We know how you just described what happened immediately after the incident happened. But what's happened since?
J. JONES: Do you want to comment on that?
KELLY: Well, if you're asking what happened from a legal standpoint, Halliburton has made every effort to force Jamie into secret binding arbitration. If you're asking from a sense of how they have helped Jamie, obviously, she'd be in a better situation to answer that question than I would, but I would say not very much.
J. JONES: Yes. They have tried to completely keep this under arbitration because then, it would be quiet and secret and binding. Then I would not be able to be sitting here in front of you today to tell my story, which I think is very crucial for other wives, mothers and daughters that want to go and serve their country by working for a contractor.
So, you know, essentially, I think that corporations should never be above going in front of a trial by jury. And so this Franken amendment would prevent that from happening.
MADDOW: The amendment, obviously, passed and I think that we're all watching to see what happens whether it ultimately becomes law.
J. JONES: Right.
MADDOW: The Defense Department has expressed concerns about whether or not it would be enforceable, although they say that they agree with the overall intent of it. We don't know what's going to happen next.
J. JONES: Right.
MADDOW: But I have to ask your reaction to those 30 no votes. Three out of four Republican senators voted against this amendment. How did you feel about that?
J. JONES: Well, I think that is really unfortunate. I wouldn't - I cannot even understand the reasoning as to why anyone would vote against it. I am very happy about the votes that we did get for it.
I'm thrilled it's gotten as far as it has gotten. Hopefully, the 30 senators will have a change of heart during a conference because maybe if they tried to understand how they would feel if their daughter or wife or somebody was in my position, how they would feel if it was to go in front of an arbitrator. Hopefully, they'll change their position on it, so -
MADDOW: Jamie Leigh, either you or Todd - I was struck by the argument from Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama. He's one of the people who voted against it and he argued against it.
J. JONES: Yes.
MADDOW: And he said this is just a political shot at Halliburton. This is just Democrats taking a shot at a politically unpopular company. Can I ask you to respond to that?
KELLY: Absolutely. It's not that. In fact, if this amendment had been in place when Jamie went to Iraq, her rape most likely never would have happened. What needed to happen is that companies like Halliburton need to have rules in place that forced their employees to obey those rules that needed to have oversight.
And they're only going to implement such things if their actions are exposed to the light of day. And what happened in the case of Jamie is, for years prior to her arrival there, the environment was allowed to grow and to fester.
And these people, because of the arbitration provision, were never punished. Their actions were disposed of secretly in binding arbitration that couldn't be appealed, even when the arbitrators blatantly disregarded the law.
So they created this environment that they then threw Jamie into. And the rape occurred as a natural and foreseeable consequence of that action. This has nothing to do with politics. This has to do with doing the right thing by our young American women and girls that are trying to support this country like Jamie.
MADDOW: Jamie Leigh Jones and her attorney Todd Kelly, thank for telling this story publicly and fighting for this.
J. JONES: Thank you.
MADDOW: And thank you for coming on the show tonight. I really appreciate it.
KELLY: Thank you for having us.
Login or Register to post comments.
Wow. Republican reps actually did something low enough to catch the scorn of their supporters? I didn't know that was possible. Hopefully this will wake some teabaggers up.
On a side note, she didn't "serve" her country in Iraq. She was working for a private contractor. Private contractors have no interest in serving their country, they are out to make a profit. People that work for them are doing a job, not serving their country.
I agree, she was not serving the country and neither was Halliburton. It was a job for her and business for Halliburton, but she should be protected from abuse while there and be able to get justice the same as she would if in the USA. Sen Franken is right, and those repugs who voted no should answer for that vote.
Every time some one put their life at great risk to support the troops in battle it is in service of the country. As contractor take greater and greater role in supporting our troops on the battle they should be giving the respect they are due.
from being instituted.
She is a fellow living being. She deserves to be treated fairly and justly, even if you don't approve of what you perceive as her motives for being over there.
But, contractors do not "serve our country."
The are employed by the US.
"They" are employed by the name company.
Not the individuals, who technically, should not be called contractors in this context. But I digress.
The company I worked for three years ago that makes airplane parts make money off the government. Are they "serving the country"? No, they're making a profit SELLING things to the government. Same with Halliburton.
Damn, how did this worship of profit get to the point where people will actually believe something like that?
Custer Battles, one of the more notorious Iraq contractors, and its principals were found guilty of overbilling the United States by a jury, but the conviction was set aside by TS Ellis III, a federal judge sitting in the Eastern District of Virginia. The ground? Based on arguments raised by the Bush administration, which objected to the prosecution, Judge Ellis concluded that the Coalition Provisional Authority ("CPA"), the entity which actually hired contractors on behalf of the United States in Iraq, was not the United States government, and therefore Custer Battles could not be found liable under the federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729, et seq. because it billed CPA and not the United States directly.
According to Judge Ellis' Wikipedia entry, he's fond of reminding criminal defendants that "life is about making choices and living with the consequences."
Kind of makes you wanna spit, doesn't it?
http://www.countercurrents.org/rollingstone28...
They don't serve the US. They serve their bottom end. That the mercenary happens to work for the US does not mean that their loyalty lies any deeper than our pocketbooks.
stand for, but that still does not give Jamie's rapists and their enablers the right to get away with what they've done.
Veering things off into whether she should have been working for KBR or not feels too much like we're discussing what she wore, how late at night she was out, etc. to this rape survivor.
I originally stated this as an aside. Now there are people defending contractors as guardians of our nation which is disgusting.
Being against war profiteers is not being for rape. As you stated, they're two totally different things. That said, I can't believe there are people here on C&L defending the role of private contractors making obscene profits off of turning war and security into a commodity.
Questioning whether she should work for KBR or not feels too much like victim blame.
I never said she should or shouldn't work for KBR. Please, read what I wrote.
Did I make a judgement on her? No. I simply said she was not serving our country. It was an aside. But I don't like when people get confused between our troops and private contractors. I just interviewed an Army vet for a documentary of mine who was sexually abused while in Iraq. Her trauma is just as real and important as this KBR employee's. But their role in Iraq is quite different. One was serving her country, the other was doing her job. That is my sole point.
*
Get over it. You misread what was written. Own up and move on.
Whether I misread what he wrote or not (which I evidently did), is not the damn point. The point, which I exasperated myself trying to get across last night, is that there is a very specific reason that bringing up the subject he did was both disrespectful and unnecesary in the context of sexual assault. Of course, he couldn't get out of his own way long enough to understand that, and drop the subject until a more appropriate thread came along, despite the efforts of others to get through to him too, and despite their saying it so much better than I could.
I'm sorry that I misread what he wrote, but no way in hell am I sorry that I tried explaining that he was being disrespectful, and no way in hell am I sorry for being angry that he kept pushing the subject.
As for "get over it," well. Yeah. That's disrespectful too.
There's a thing that feminist blogosphere is referring to as "non-survivor privilege," people who have been fortunate to not have been sexually assaulted. Unfortunately people with non-survivor privilege often aren't willing to get out of their own way long enough to understand why their words or actions are disrespectful to survivors.
She wasn't serving her country.period.
She signed on with a private contractor.
Thems the facts.
CORPORATION had her contract her right to a day in court away. That is supposed to be illegal. Why isn't it illegal for corporate contractors--war profiteers? THAT is the point, not who she was working for.
Her employer is responsible for providing security.
I take issue when someone says she was serving her country. That goes for people who are wearing the uniform. And only those who are wearing the uniform. They call it enlisting. Or drafted. but that's a whole different story.
I despise private contractors and war profiteers. I hate people being forced to fight these dirty wars for corporations trying to steal as much money as is possible from anyone they can steal it from. But I would rather people from Blackwater get killed doing this than innocent people who think they are doing the patriotic thing by enlisting. Enough of the bullshit. Truth has to show its face.
I agree with you on the contractors and war profiteers.
I would rather see everyone come home .
I don't want to see anyone lose their lives.
But I go back to my point that it's the employers responsibility to provide security.
You can kick and scream and stomp your feet all you want. It doesn't change the fact that it's her employers responsibility.
You would rather see people from blackwater get killed huh?
*
This just got a little on a side track. Not to worry savannah. Everybody here knows and thinks this woman should have had her day in court.
Couldn't agree more. :)
Please refraim from bringing up oddly-timed non-sequitors.
Person 1: 'A woman was drugged and gang-raped and Republicans backed the company trying to stop her from being able to take any action whatsoever!'
Person 2: 'She wasn't serving her country.'
I don't think you meant ill, but there's a time and a place; I don't care if it's a 'pet peeve' of yours as being gang-raped is a bit worse than someone's wording.
Like it makes a difference. The company she was working for was obliged to provide protection for ALL of their employees.
I don't understand why that's so hard to understand.
It's not her fault. She signed on to go do a job. It doesn't make any difference if it's here, or in bumfuckistan. Her employers are responsible to make sure she's safe. From her own fellow employees no less.
The issue here is not the contractor or the DOD. All of you unemployed should have recognized the issue the minute you filled out your second or third application.
Many prospective employers require you to sign a form requiring arbitration and forbidding litigation,
When you sign an application, you are signing away your Constitutional rights. Court cases have affirmed that it is a violation of those rights to require your signature at the bottom of that application.
You are allowed to mark through provisions you don't like/agree with, and initial and date them, or respond with initialed, dated substitutes or addenda. You may even get hired.
After I started responding to a smear campaign by marking out the "character and general reputation" clause in the background-check release, the larger employers in my region removed it from their apps, presumably after legal department reviews.
Jamie has, indeed, taken her case to arbitration, by the media and in front of that great sounding board called "We, the People". Many more such actions, and the SOB's in charge may discover that they prefer the attorneys and out-of-court settlements.
Respect for doing a job that for the entire existence of our military was done by our troop - and doing that exact same job at an obscenely inflated price that we taxpayers are forced to pay? For turning war into a commodity?
We used to call contractors "war profiteers".
Right. Entering an active hellhole is not exactly a picnic.
"As contractor take greater and greater role in supporting our troops on the battle they should be giving the respect they are due."
This is what really bothers me. You know who used to support our troops in battle? Our troops! But politicians, mostly republican starting with Ray-Gun, decided it made much more sense to have contractors fill the support roles rather than actual members of the military.
It's a bullshit practice and it's bad for our military.
The cost.
No Bid Contracts?
I'd never heard of those before.
A corporation that takes advantage of the fact that Congress is full of swine taking money is NOT serving the country. Halliburton is not there out of any sense of duty. They are there to make a profit.
If people want to serve this country, there are legitimate ways to do it, not by making the situation worse, which is what Halliburton and other corporations like it are doing. Want to serve your country? Get a civil service job. Enlist in the armed forces. But don't pretend that working for these contractors has anything to do with "serving the country."
The got the contracts. No bidding. Chaney and Bush got a cut of the billion dollar contracts. Respect?
I wasn't saying she shouldn't be protected. By all rights, she should be protected. I just don't like hearing the words "serve our country" and "KBR" in the same sentence unless that sentence is "Dick Cheney killed, gutted and served our country to KBR on a platter."
I understand how you feel about contractors, but that can be left for another argument, and shouldn't even be brought up in this situation.
*
My apologies. I didn't mean for it to become this big of a deal. I just mentioned it as an aside because it caught my attention.
The fact that people are defending private contractors "service" to our country is blowing my feeble mind though. Not only are these private contractors syphoning money from us, they are covering up crimes like this and much worse - yet somehow, people here are defending KBR and other private contractors for their "service". Wow.
"Wow. Republican reps actually did something low enough to catch the scorn of their supporters?"
Nah, nothing that low. But apparently drugged rape is one of the few military-industrial issues that the media can take a stand on. Really fucking brave, media. Really fucking brave indeed.
It is true, private contractors do not swear oaths of loyalty to their country, as members of the armed services do. They are serving the corporations, not their country. But I wonder if KBR/Halliburton recruited these young people by suggesting they would be serving their country by going to work for them. She got the idea somewhere. And she was only 20 when she was hired, so splitting hairs may have been lost on her.
That said, I hope 30 good Democratic WOMEN challenge these Senators when their terms are due to expire. I see McCain voted against Franken's amendment. And this is just one more issue to add to Vitter's growing list of problems (infidelity, not commenting on the racist judge who wouldn't marry the interracial couple). He could be ripe for picking off the Senate tree.
By my count, 30% of these senators are up for re-election next year:
Burr, Coburn, Crapo, DeMint, Isakson, McCain, Shelby, Thune, Vitter
Bond, Brownback, Bunning, and Gregg do not seem to be running for reelection.
These types are probably offended that she was even over there. They believe a woman she be in her "place," which is, barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.
No doubt that's exactly how they justify the vote to themselves. She shouldn't have been there anyway, if there weren't uppity women trying to do the work of "real men" this kind of thing wouldn't happen etc. etc. Of course, it WOULD happen - but it would happen to the Iraqis. But who gives a shit about them, right?
...because it's one of the clearest examples yet how current Rethuglican ideology gets in the way of humanity--not to mention common sense. This is one reason why progressives need to continue to bring the hot button issues to the floor; force the ideologues to show their stripes time and again, whether it's the public option, immigration, protecting corporations over individuals or any other. Time and again, they'll be on the wrong side of the majority of public opinion.
As sad as it is, it is rather fun to watch them contort to try to reconcile really bad philosophies with real human needs.
After Chattanooga's Judge Doug Meyer made his indefensible comment about rapists needing "dating services", the public re-elected him. I used to hang outside my pickup truck window and excoriate him at top volume every time I passed his house.
that the GOPerverts want to protect the rapists.
it's what they always do.
think back to Sarah Palin charging rape victims for the forensic kits, as but one of endless examples.
sort of off topic: these contractors still have contracts, why?
to handle the hundreds of billions of dollars the contract represents. Other, less well connected (dick Cheney) companies would not kick the money back to the correct people.
The US military used to do it by themselves all the time.
"Think not what your country can do for you, but what it can do for Dick Cheney's pocketbook."
He has them, you know.
KBR and halliburton were involved in VietNam-one of them built the bases used by the armed forces, and contractors were used extensively for a variety of jobs.
I don't know if there were armed security types in those days.
This has NOTHING to do with the point of the article, all you folks arguing about who is and isn't serving our country are hijacking the thread. I guess I'm not helping by commenting off the topic....
The contractor shit on the battlefield or war zone is bullshit!
............has to be 'protected' so that these scum can reproduce themselves! YUK!!!! The raped woman can't even get an abortion!!!! and 'wealthcare' wouldn't provide for her and the rotten fetus because she has a 'pre-existing' condition!!! We have returned to the Inquisition, and the Dark Ages!
that is how their brains work.
>>
:)
the 30 senators will ever have in their goddamn sorry-ass lives.
Going public with her story couldn't have been easy. I wish her well.
While it is nice to see Republicans face a backlash for voting against the amendment, Senator Inouye, a Democrat, might strip the amendment.
what does that mean?
We need to get Inouye.
He wants to water-down or remove the amendment. Here's a story about it: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/fran...
Let's make it clear to him that this is not acceptable.
He's a very distinguished man. What the hell is he thinking?
you too, savannah43
She's someones daughter. We're talkin as American as apple pie here folks.
Those 30 GOpers who voted against her/it. Just committed political suicide.
While there are certainly some Crazy wingnuts out there that will still side with the likes of KBR and Haliburton.
I think that a large part of the GOP will say these bozo's crossed the line on this one. This will be great ammunition for the mid term elections.
btw, Liz Cheney, this is your father's fucking legacy at work.
Unescorted.
that may be a threat and a pre-emptive arrest may be in order.
;)
I wonder why she's suddenly dropped of the radar right now?
I'd like to hear what she has to say about this.
I'd like to see someone confront her on this and ask her ,her opinion. And how she would have voted if she were in office(Senate).
Hey, she's going to make a go of it. She will run for office.
So , I'd like to hear what she has to say on this matter.
She posted a picture link of herself on Twitter last week consisting mostly of her ample cleavage, I guess to turn little repugs into big ones.
She admitted later to exercising bad judgment, took down the pics and has been lying low since, unlike her father who has been lying nonstop.
been defending her because of the condescending crap from the righties.
Yeah , maybe it was.
But I swear, I did not have sex with that website.
Nasty, narrow minds are such a turnoff.
Yep, they sure are a major turnoff. It sucks that she would get blasted for a casual at home picture. I see nothing wrong with it, I go for the tank top and sweats at home too, and despite being on the larger side of the spectrum like she is, I could care less what anyone thinks!
Do tell. :)
*
...did you have sex near that website?
ROFL!
I am close enough to the US border to claim the 5th by osmosis.
Whenever anything uncomfortable comes up, she's nowhere to be found. She's just as craven a coward as her old man. Hides in the bunker whenever someone might take a shot.
And this is the scum that calls itself "patriotic"? Give me a break.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpfQW76QDVM&fe...
So don't shoot me.
I thought this was an interesting comment:
So, is the amendment overreaching as "Joe" suggests? Or, is this a necessary move to ensure that justice is served?
and NOT mandatory. Everyone is entitled to their "day in court," and arbitration is not a day in court.
At the end of the day, it is a person being raped! Would you condone this at YOUR workplace? If it was your kid? What kind of loser thinks this is anything but morons protecting what is left of their credibility (0) against past votes and actions. Hell has a special place for opponents of this amendment.
With all the nation building going on, is rape a crime in the country that it occurred?
You can sign away your rights for prosecuting a civil redress but doesn't the criminal act still stand?
What makes you think you can sign away your rights? What do you mean by"prosecuting a civil redress?"
Yeah, that was Bremner's little add on that let Blackwater get away with murder.
The civil matter would be akin to a boxer or cage fighter not suing for damages from what would basically be assault and battery.
not to sue. The DA prosecutes crimes on behalf of the populace. They do have some discretion about which ones they will prosecute, but not absolute discretion. You are not looking at the assault and battery concept as deeply as you should. True assault or battery carries an element of "unwanted" behavior. Not consensual behavior. If it were so simple, all sexual contact would be criminal, and so would most other forms of bodily contact. You are on the right track, just think it through.
and the corporations don't want anything to interfere with their thievery. Especially contract disputes and law suits. Listen to Thune, the corporate shill on You Tube.
what did I say?
Birthers, deathers, rapers. Join today's party of morality and virtue and alternate realities.
that's why I've never heard of a Senator Crapo before. Even a crapo-senate-gov site. For real? I just never heard of him before this post. It's great.
Really!
You know, Vitter of diaper and hooker fame?
That one slipped past my rader. It's just too funy.
I posted this website earlier but with this topic I think I should post it again.
Republicans for Rape.org
Did he abstain? Or just vote present?
Good question muddy. I'll see if I can find it.
Hatch voted for the bill. He voted "yea".
asshole than I took him for!
No need to cut him any slack. He is still an asshole. Maybe his wife was in the gallery that day.
*
He was smart this time.
Well Jesus H. Christ in a pickup truck. How could anybody vote against this thing? .... Never mind.
Just for the record: In the Senate there is no such thing as a "present" vote (many wingnuts were
claiming that Obama did this until it was explained to them that it was the Illinois Senate not the US Senate). The House does have a "present" vote, though it's labeled "not voting" I believe.
Consider this info as "filed". thanks!
You can vote 'Abstain' as 2 Dems did:
http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/sublist...
It's shameful that anyone could vote against something like this. I saw an article about how rape is used as a war tactic in some current wars. What makes this clowns who did this to Jamie, any better than those war criminals. By voting against this measure, these right-wingers are condoning this and future heinous acts.
what happened to Jamie, if I may be allowed to say, could be considered worse because it is also betrayal on top of violation. The coworkers and she were supposed to be on the same side...
disclaimer: not condoning any rape, any time, by anybody. just replying to 'rape as weapon'.
Not if they have an unemployed family member and can run you out.
Not if overtime is about to be cut and they need the pay and can rack and sack you.
Not if someone gets a promotion, and you are any kind of competition.
The reason our economy is in the bucket is that HR and supervision turn a blind eye to this kind of behavior, which decreases productivity, decreases the honest profits a company might make, and gives a boost to the dishonest who eventually, given enough power and opportunity, will rape the company itself.
If Halliburton lets this kind of behavior continue, they are shooting themselves in the foot, and their balance sheet will, sooner or later, come up red as Jamie's blood.
Republicans For Rape!
says it all.
Please ask Sarah Palin about this. I would like to hear a woman's point of view on behalf of the Republican party.
when they voted *for* the amendment, in contrast to their asshole male colleagues. That there were no female nays at all for the amendment, and that all of the nays were Republican men spoke volumes.
Wingnut women like Palin and Bachman won't talk about anything embarrassing for their party.
One woman cannot possibly speak for all women. In all fairness, she doesn't speak for all the Republican women. That honor goes to Rudy Guiliani, and
heshe is not gonna give uphisher tiara without a fight.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsYzn-lEftk&fe...
Palin has already made her views on rape pretty plain. She wanted all rape victims to pay for their evidence kits in Wasilla.
Always looking out for the underdog, that Sarah!
...sees this and gets good and mad. Mothers too.
Unless the Dems want a major red face they better convince Inouye to not strip the amendment.
I didn't find any about 30 minutes ago.
to strip it (that just sounds bad in light of the issue at hand), as well as some of the contractors.
Which I don't understand.
If they're going to commit felonies, why should we reward them with more contracts?
behalf of the big contractors. It's all about covering each others asses. I got the scent. Thanks.
BTW: We wouldn't reward them with more contracts. The bribees, however, want their money to keep rolling in, so they will give them anything they want--contracts, immunity from prosecution for crimes, civil immunity, 9 billion dollars that "just disappeared," laws that favor them at our expense, and anything else their black hearts desire.
I shouldn't say this without links, but here I go. I seem to remember Inouye coming up on the wrong side of military issues pretty consistently. Just my fuzzy memory, esp. during the Presidential campaign. I remember scratching my head alot. I think he's big buds with Ted "Toobz" Stevens too.
But I could be wrong, so don't quote me.
And their names are corporations. I mean, we’re talking about 30 rich white male republicans for Christ’s sake. It’s not like they have a soul worth saving or something.
I'm not saying it's widely accepted in the culture, but it is certainly a problem:
But they end up in Ft Leavonworth. Or which ever military prison that branch has.
Metric,
It is widely accepted in the culture, of course in very subtle ways. My husband is an officer in the USMC and I can tell you horror stories! Its an all boys club, and they do things, and say things to intimidate, dehumanize, and demoralize WM's on a ragular basis. They do this to keep the WM's "in their place" and it works so well that the majority of rape and sexual harrassment go unreported.
My husband and I are not the typical military family. We are both members of 'Stop Military Rape' and 'Military Families Speakout, and we get a LOT of shit for it, in fact a Major flung out of his chair to hit me once, cause I stood up to him. This kind of stuff goes on all the time! They use anything and every thing, including violence to keep women "in their place". Its a HUGE problem! And don't get me started on domestic rape and violence in the military!!
I recall seeing a video of Sen. Vitter speaking at a pro-life rally on C-Span. He was talking of how precious life is. I can't grasp how someone can say they're a Born-Again Christian and then pull the crap that he and his comrades-in-rape pull. These 30 Republicans would dignify a pile of drain scum just by standing next to it.
creates fetuses in women who would have otherwise chosen not to get pregnant, I'm sure Vitter's just fine with it.
After all, the Catholic Church in Brazil excommunicated a little girl for having an abortion because she'd been raped by her step-father and was expecting twins, but elected to allow the stepfather to remain Catholic. Shows where their priorities lie.
Edit - According to Wikipedia Vitter is Catholic. Surprise, surprise.
...how does a Xian explain shitting in his diapers so his $1000 "mommy" can clean his wittow bottom...so he can get off? Every time someone on teevee runs a tape of his public apology, with his poor wife standing there humiliated and mortified at the whole thing, I just fucking hate the sonofabitch more. It's pretty bad when your enemies have more empathy and concern for your wife than you do! I'd love to politely invite him over to a gym in DC...
Giving new and perverse meaning to that old homily seems to be what the Republicans for Rape are saying when they place contractor rights above staff rape rights.
So how does this bode for Obama's misguided bipartisanship on other human rights issues like right to organize and public health care? If Republicans will support a contractor's right to rape, what are the odds we'll see any meaningful bipartisanship on _any_ human rights issue? And isn't Obama being a fool or collaborator?
Capture the Rapist Vote.
They need the three R's if they're to succeed in maintaining their respective seats in those states:
Racists
Rapists
Rapturists
Change your name. Bamboozled, you ain't.
It seems like half the people and their reps are just plain fucking nuts.
I hope Jamie gets her day in court and I hope the settlement breaks her former employer.
a box of rocks to vote no on an anti-rape bill like this one. I sincerely hope we see 30 new representatives for their states in the next election.
masters on real people and their pretend representatives in Congress. Fat chance. If she gets her day in court and she prevails, it will be an award from a jury and not a settlement. A settlement is in lieu of a trial. We want a public trial, now, don't we? Televised. And then a 9 figure award. And criminal charges against the perps. And the enablers as co-conspirators.
We want all of those things you mention and I want the frickin' company who employees the criminals who do this sort of thing fried too!
not her employer.
There is a provision called the Title VII claim, which would allow victims of assault or rape to bring suit against the individual perpetrator but not the contractor who employed him or her.
If Senator Inouye waters down the amendment, he 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 other portion of the amendment would deny government contracts to corporations who do not amend these forced arbitration clauses from their employment contracts.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/22/fran...
They have criminal culpability here. Kidnapping, for one. Conspiracy. I could come up with more.
If (and it's a pretty big if) you can get passed the gang rape, the "getting-locked-in-a-container" really moves the astonishment button to eleven.
KBR, or whatever off-shore spinoff corp has the contract, is certainly at extreme risk of being sued into the ground. Only a jury made up of senators or Cheneyspawn wouldn't hit them to the upper reaches of their insurance coverage.
I was in an auto accident and it was the other guy's fault. Allstate was his assholy provider. He was a Ford exec from MI. They kept calling me and tried to get me to sign some shit before they'd release funds. The Insurance Commissioner laughed and said "It doesn't matter what you sign for them. You can't sign away your rights. They're protected in this state." I realise that this is a different situation and all, but I don't understand how it can be legal for them to have ANYONE sign away their rights.Also, the fact they have this condition in their contract says to me this is quite a problem among contractors. Why is our government protecting the corporation and not the people? Rhetorical....
And Inouye should be shamed and ashamed. What a fucker. #31. The 31st man in the senate to say rape isn't such a big deal.
She signed a contract that apparently had a clause in it to protect the company.
Now, that means she (apparently) has no recourse for criminal prosecution. Yeah, it's just wrong. No denying it.
But, as much as I hate to say this, the contract protects her employer. This tells me that the corporate ceo's knew something like this was likely to happen. So they wrote it into the contract.
Probably in fine print.
But this doesn't mean that she can't sue them in civil court.
I could be wrong about this. Being that this happened in a foreign country. Making it outside of US jurisdiction. But, being a US company with a US Govt' contract, she may have a window of opportunity. It's thin. But it would be worth looking into.
She may have no recourse what so ever. Unless the company wants to settle. Which they won't.
This whole thing stinks.
All those who voted against this , just shows their depravity.
Depraved indifference.
There has to be some kind of recourse for this woman to take.
At anyrate, I wish this young woman well. She deserves more than just a pat on the back.
prosecution will occur. It is up to a prosecutor. Also, one cannot sign one's rights away, contract or no contract.
Let the lawyers handle this. Not for amateurs. This could be a real war.
Login or Register to post comments.