Franken Wins Support For Legislation Reining In KBR?s and other contractor's treatment Of Rape

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

So would you say there are some good Republicans?

Yes, and I know both of them. (j/k)

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: bfdd

Blackwater is blacklisted(from what my brother told me when he got back) and KBR does oil field and construction work but also hires for security purposes.

You and your brother need better sourcs. Blackwater is as black as ever. They renamed themselves Xe, and they're still sucking on the government dole as contractors in both Iraq and Afghanistan. :|
...

Remember this is now the Obama government that is issuing contracts and renewing them.

Ask them why?

 

[bfdd]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: bfdd

Blackwater is blacklisted(from what my brother told me when he got back) and KBR does oil field and construction work but also hires for security purposes.

You and your brother need better sourcs. Blackwater is as black as ever. They renamed themselves Xe, and they're still sucking on the government dole as contractors in both Iraq and Afghanistan. :|
...

Remember this is now the Obama government that is issuing contracts and renewing them.

Ask them why?

Good question.


Harvey, yeah my brother was telling me they were told to stay well away from the Blackwater guys because of the shady shit they were doing. I believe he was over there when they got blacklisted.

 

[NeoV]

still haven't seen a valid reason for a no note on this one other than what the op has suggested

 

[Arkaign]

lol has Jon Stewart done anything on this story yet, I could see this being darkly hilarious. Thank god in this instance that the GOP didn't have a majority to prop up their pro-rape platform.

EDIT : Some disgusting history on the right-wing noise machine on this, Michelle Malkin trying to mitigate this horrific crime, and her sychophantic storm trooper audience lapping it up and joining in the 'she wasn't raped, or this is a huge left-wing lie' bullshit.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007...gang-rape-allegations/

This situation just makes me more aware than ever that we really need a new conservative party that isn't a bunch of overwhelmingly horrible people. If I ever met any of these pro-rape fucksticks in person I'd have a hard time not shoving my fist through their face.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: bfdd

Blackwater is blacklisted(from what my brother told me when he got back) and KBR does oil field and construction work but also hires for security purposes.

You and your brother need better sourcs. Blackwater is as black as ever. They renamed themselves Xe, and they're still sucking on the government dole as contractors in both Iraq and Afghanistan. :|
...

Remember this is now the Obama government that is issuing contracts and renewing them.

Ask them why?

:light::moon::laugh::thumbsdown: BOOOOOOOSH!!!!!! TRAITOR!!!!!!!!!!!!! :camera::frown::thumbsup:

 

[imported_inspire]

Originally posted by: NeoV
still haven't seen a valid reason for a no note on this one other than what the op has suggested

I think between Fenix's posts and my citation of the debate on the Floor of Congress, you could find one. Tossing Article VII into seemed a bit over the top. Not saying I agree with it - just pointing it out.

 

[Cheesetogo]

Could someone explain to me exactly why her rapists could not be charged in criminal court? Is it just because this took place out of the country?

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus
But keep pretending that Republicans are decent human beings when they're not.

Except for the Republican Yeas.

Right?

We're talking about Phokus here -- if they're Republican, they're evil; if they're Democrat, they walk on water.

Congratulations to the RINO's (you know, the guys that conservatives reject and wish they weren't part of their party) for having a soul. It's almost like they're out of place and in the minority or something. There's really only a couple 'surprising' YEA votes from the GOP.

So would you say there are some good Republicans?

I would classify them as reasonable but very few. most have them have jumped ship became independents or bludog democrats.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo
Could someone explain to me exactly why her rapists could not be charged in criminal court? Is it just because this took place out of the country?

this amendment had nothing to do with the criminal side.

 

[Cheesetogo]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo
Could someone explain to me exactly why her rapists could not be charged in criminal court? Is it just because this took place out of the country?

this amendment had nothing to do with the criminal side.

I know that, I just wondered why it wasn't possible for them to be brought to criminal court.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Pretty heinous crime. She deserves a day in court as opposed to an arbitrator.

Looks like she's getting her day in court:
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/...br-raped-right-to-sue/

There's almost no difference these days anyway. Either way it would be a civil case. What's the story with the criminal charges though?

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Pretty heinous crime. She deserves a day in court as opposed to an arbitrator.

Looks like she's getting her day in court:
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/...br-raped-right-to-sue/

There's almost no difference these days anyway. Either way it would be a civil case. What's the story with the criminal charges though?

great news.

only bad part is didnt haliburtan employees take all the evidance and destroy it? she is in a hard fight. hope she wins.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: bfdd

Blackwater is blacklisted(from what my brother told me when he got back) and KBR does oil field and construction work but also hires for security purposes.

You and your brother need better sourcs. Blackwater is as black as ever. They renamed themselves Xe, and they're still sucking on the government dole as contractors in both Iraq and Afghanistan. :|
...

Remember this is now the Obama government that is issuing contracts and renewing them.

Ask them why?

:light::moon::laugh::thumbsdown: BOOOOOOOSH!!!!!! TRAITOR!!!!!!!!!!!!! :camera::frown::thumbsup:

8/10. You forgot to mention the "Criminal cabal of traitors, murderers, and general incompetents," or I would've given you a 10.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Pretty heinous crime. She deserves a day in court as opposed to an arbitrator.

Looks like she's getting her day in court:
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/...br-raped-right-to-sue/

There's almost no difference these days anyway. Either way it would be a civil case. What's the story with the criminal charges though?

great news.

only bad part is didnt haliburtan employees take all the evidance and destroy it? she is in a hard fight. hope she wins.

dunno, but she only has to win by 51%. Her testimony could be enough.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Pretty heinous crime. She deserves a day in court as opposed to an arbitrator.

Looks like she's getting her day in court:
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/...br-raped-right-to-sue/

There's almost no difference these days anyway. Either way it would be a civil case. What's the story with the criminal charges though?

great news.

only bad part is didnt haliburtan employees take all the evidance and destroy it? she is in a hard fight. hope she wins.

dunno, but she only has to win by 51%. Her testimony could be enough.

I hope so. this should never have happened.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus
But keep pretending that Republicans are decent human beings when they're not.

Except for the Republican Yeas.

Right?

We're talking about Phokus here -- if they're Republican, they're evil; if they're Democrat, they walk on water.

Congratulations to the RINO's (you know, the guys that conservatives reject and wish they weren't part of their party) for having a soul. It's almost like they're out of place and in the minority or something. There's really only a couple 'surprising' YEA votes from the GOP.

So would you say there are some good Republicans?

These few defectors are outside the mainstream of the GOP for the most part, with a couple exceptions. These guys are the type of Republican that the b ase (think Club for Growth) actually tries to kick out of the party for not being 'conservative enough'. Maybe, just maybe, these people just wear the republican nametage without actually having much to do with the mainstream republican ideology. The Republican party, as a whole, is terrible. Who cares about outliers. And FWIW, the outliers for the DNC, conservative democrats, are terrible (but apparently not terrible enough to vote against this amendment) and i've railed against them as well (especially for their non-support for healthcare reform). Are we going to be accusing Zell Miller of being a liberal now just because he was a democratic senator?

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: NeoV
still haven't seen a valid reason for a no note on this one other than what the op has suggested

The OP of course is full of his usual stupidity... republicans evil blah blah, democrats wonderful blah blah.

There are perfectly valid reasons to vote "no" on this, and none of them have anything to do with the crime itself. The amendment, as written includes this:

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.

Yes, it covers a case like the one presented in the OP, but it's broad enough to basically include just about any complaint or case that someone wants to bring. Whenever you see things like "negligent hiring, supervision, retention", you know it's going to be broad enough to include just about anything. That means that essentially this amendment removes the abiltiy of companies getting these contracts can not use arbitration for anything, which is a bad thing (as even the supreme court concluded).

Contrary to what the rabid lefty idiots like Jokus say, voting "no" on an amendment doesn't mean condoning the action we all know is horrible. It's the usual political ploy: a bill contains a measure to help crime victims, as well as other language that would remove people's rights to own a firearm. Then, when someone votes against the bill, a fraud (like phokus) can scream "see!! how heartless, they voted against helping crime victims!". :roll:

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy

Originally posted by: NeoV
still haven't seen a valid reason for a no note on this one other than what the op has suggested

The OP of course is full of his usual stupidity... republicans evil blah blah, democrats wonderful blah blah.

There are perfectly valid reasons to vote "no" on this, and none of them have anything to do with the crime itself. The amendment, as written includes this:

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.

Yes, it covers a case like the one presented in the OP, but it's broad enough to basically include just about any complaint or case that someone wants to bring. Whenever you see things like "negligent hiring, supervision, retention", you know it's going to be broad enough to include just about anything. That means that essentially this amendment removes the abiltiy of companies getting these contracts can not use arbitration for anything, which is a bad thing (as even the supreme court concluded).

Contrary to what the rabid lefty idiots like Jokus say, voting "no" on an amendment doesn't mean condoning the action we all know is horrible. It's the usual political ploy: a bill contains a measure to help crime victims, as well as other language that would remove people's rights to own a firearm. Then, when someone votes against the bill, a fraud (like phokus) can scream "see!! how heartless, they voted against helping crime victims!". :roll:

The sad thing is, you actually can't see how forcing employees to sign binding arbitration is a win for companies and a loss for employees and you think that's a plus for republicans who voted against it. Yes, allowing companies to force these binding arbitrations, whether it's related to rape, or not, is BAD.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: PokerGuy
Contrary to what the rabid lefty idiots like Jokus say, voting "no" on an amendment doesn't mean condoning the action we all know is horrible. It's the usual political ploy: a bill contains a measure to help crime victims, as well as other language that would remove people's rights to own a firearm. Then, when someone votes against the bill, a fraud (like phokus) can scream "see!! how heartless, they voted against helping crime victims!". :roll:

similar to claiming that people who vote against an $87billion appropriations bill are "against the troops". Course, you can also run an entire campaign around it and win, so I don't expect these tactics to stop anytime soon.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Cheesetogo

I know that, I just wondered why it wasn't possible for them to be brought to criminal court.

did it say it wasn't? maybe the US hasn't extended extra-territorial jurisdiction to US citizens raping US citizens abroad like it has US citizens going on sex-tourism trips. if so, she'd be left to the iraqi courts, and over there who knows? the woman may be considered the predator in a rape.

 

[waggy]

since is having the ability to take them to court wrong or bad?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Sorry, there's nothing more to this one. The Republicans who voted against this one are simply 100% wrong. The actual text of the amendment makes no mention of Halliburton. If in their minds they make the jump from rape to Halliburton, maybe they should think about that for a while.

Hey, I'm not saying I'm opposed to this. What I'm saying is that if one starts with the premise that Republicans are not pure evil, than logic suggests the opposition is something other than "support of the KBR gang rapists"

The text is right there for all to see. If you can think of some reason to object to the amendment I'd be interested to hear the rationale.

I'm not objecting to the amendment per se, but I am wondering why this is limited to federal contractors?

Here's the amendment as you quoted above:

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.

I,e, if abritration is the wrong avenue for title VI etc suits, why are they only 'outlawing' it for those working for fed contractors? What about the rest of us?

If it's truly that bad, it makes no sense (that I can see ATM) to only target fed contractors. Or does this have some other surreptitious objective?

I notice something else a bit odd - usually new rules are on a 'go-forward' basis. yet this is written to stop payments on existing contracts. So it's retroactive, that's not usualy considered fair. Regardless, I can imagine a huge administrative (and potentially financial) problems in trying to re-do thousands of contracts at every evel or tier of employees and subcontractors. You see, as the 'top-level' federal contractor I'd need to have access to, and examine, every contract any of my subs (or theri subs) has, even one defect contract would mean nobody in chain gets paid (or is subject to suit for repayment).

While the woman's story is a horrid one, I'm left wondering if this blunt and onerus approach is the correct one to solve the specific problem. The ramifictaions for any single faulty contract, even if that person has zero problems of the type they're addressing here, are enormous.

Why not just an amendment that says ALL contracts that mandate arbitration are not binding on anyone for these type title VII etc. cases?

Edit: Am I to understand from ElFenix that the inclusion of title VII cases amounts to some shennanigans?

Fern

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Phokus
But keep pretending that Republicans are decent human beings when they're not.

Except for the Republican Yeas.

Right?

We're talking about Phokus here -- if they're Republican, they're evil; if they're Democrat, they walk on water.

Congratulations to the RINO's (you know, the guys that conservatives reject and wish they weren't part of their party) for having a soul. It's almost like they're out of place and in the minority or something. There's really only a couple 'surprising' YEA votes from the GOP.

So would you say there are some good Republicans?

These few defectors are outside the mainstream of the GOP for the most part, with a couple exceptions. These guys are the type of Republican that the b ase (think Club for Growth) actually tries to kick out of the party for not being 'conservative enough'. Maybe, just maybe, these people just wear the republican nametage without actually having much to do with the mainstream republican ideology. The Republican party, as a whole, is terrible. Who cares about outliers. And FWIW, the outliers for the DNC, conservative democrats, are terrible (but apparently not terrible enough to vote against this amendment) and i've railed against them as well (especially for their non-support for healthcare reform). Are we going to be accusing Zell Miller of being a liberal now just because he was a democratic senator?

It's funny to watch you twist around, doing your best to avoid saying as simple as "There are some good Republicans."

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Fern
I,e, if abritration is the wrong avenue for title VI etc suits, why are they only 'outlawing' it for those working for fed contractors? What about the rest of us?

Al Franken covered this when he introduced the bill. Taken from the transcript quoted earlier in the thread:

Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, article I, section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the power to spend money for the welfare of our citizens. Because of this, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote:

Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of Federal funds, and has repeatedly employed that power to further broad policy objectives.

That is why Congress could pass laws cutting off highway funds to States which didn't raise their drinking age to 21. That is why this whole bill is full of limitations on contractors--what bonuses they can give and what kinds of health care they can offer. The spending power is a broad power, and my amendment is well within it.

They can pass this bill to limit federal funding to groups that don't follow this set of rules regarding arbitration in sexual assault cases as a spending bill. If they wanted it to apply to all companies, it would no longer be a spending bill because not all companies receive federal funds. I admit my ignorance surrounding the legislative process in regards to passing laws about how corporations may arbitrate with employees, but I imagine doing it in this way as a spending bill was done so that it could be passed quicker, and it had the graphic story to go along with it. If they want to change that for all corporations in the future, they can always point to this bill and say, "See, we already require it out of companies that receive federal funds, why not apply it to everyone..."; a convenient foot in the door argument.