30 Repubs Vote to Decriminalize Gang Rape

Discussion in 'Politics' started by D_Tully Tunnelrat, Oct 16, 2009.

  1. D_Tully Tunnelrat

    D_Tully Tunnelrat New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ok, the headline is sensationalistic, but sadly all true. Just when you thought the Repubs could not get anymore twisted, they vote for this. In their minds the crux of the argument has do with requiring military contractors to be immune from employee civil suits, even ones for gang rape. Horrifically, there is even a test case. Isn't this the party that brought us the "Moral Majority?" Defense is truly the No. 1 sacred cow in the US.

    Rape case to force US defence firms into the open | World news | guardian.co.uk

    The gang rape and the Republicans / Behold, 30 U.S. senators who don't give a damn about battered women
     
  2. SilverTrain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,582
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
  3. Hockeytiger

    Hockeytiger Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    82
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Midwestern US
    Did you even read the articles?

    It has nothing to do with decriminalzation of rape or decriminalization of anything else.

    It involves whether government contractors can have arbitration clauses in their contracts.

    Right or wrong it is a standard clause in most contracts, government or otherwise.

    Republicans have done enough without having to make things up.
     
  4. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    They certainly know how to word a headline to get people talking, though. Yikes!

    But in all honesty, the person writing the column is trying WAY too hard to stir some controversy. It was supposed to be about Senator Franken's Bill to limit Federal funds to companies like Halliburton if they force their employees to sign certain arbitration clauses for certain issues. 30 people voted against it, as displayed by the link in the article. U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

    But really, to twist this into something about gang rape? Absolutely foolish... considering how some Congressmen & women are doing a perfectly good job to destroy their own chances of re-election on their own. I'm sure the 30 "Nay" votes, which were all Republican, will play itself out as a typical GOP maneuver to play politics in an attempt to block their opponents from passing measures. That speaks volumes on its own without the phony cries of gang rape.
     
  5. SilverTrain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,582
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Wow, that's a nice mild spin on what it really involves. Apologist, much?

    No, it's not "standard" for most companies to ask their employees to give up their rights to remedy for criminal injustice.
     
  6. D_Sir Fitzwilly Wankheimer III

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2007
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    0

    you want twisted? lets hear about your boy John Brennan -Safe School Czar?
     
  7. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    Was this done by starinvestor's evil twin?
     
  8. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Run! It's mooninfestor! The evil, shadow version of starinvestor from the Negaverse!!!!
    Heh... sounds like something from a Sailor Moon cartoon. Yes, I am an anime nerd. :biggrin1:
     
  9. JTalbain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,812
    Likes Received:
    5
    Criminal and Tort law are two different things. If she went to the authorities with a rape charge, no contract clause will deny retribution.

    However, I also find it highly likely that she could turn around and sue the company itself for nullification of contract, seeing as how being gangraped would prove a powerful incentive to declare the contract unjustly unilateral if the company tried denying a lawsuit. Also, arbitration could be just as good as a lawsuit, in that she still gets awarded damages. Again, this process actually doesn't affect criminal charges in any way.
     
  10. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    redundant, doesn't it?
     
  11. B_Enough_for_Me

    B_Enough_for_Me New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I hope it doesn't come as a surprise to you that people on this board don't read or understand what is happening.

    Of course, whats the real effect of Frankens 'action'? The legal transfer of rights between parties has been ended. Where as a company and employee used to be able to settle claims cheaply we now get to spend our savings on lawyers. Of course, this was the state of affairs before the mandatory arbitration clauses were enacted.

    On top of all this, liberals once again prove they are incapable of taking care of themselves. If the woman wanted to be able to sue her employer, why on Earth did she give up that right? Oh yeah, because it's far easier to be lazy and not read or understand contracts. So, the liberals say...."uhhh, we's not learnin' nuttin' dat ain't on duh Daily Show" and elect senators of equal quality to themselves.
     
  12. D_Tully Tunnelrat

    D_Tully Tunnelrat New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1
    The absurdity of the headlines can only be matched by the fact that this basic right of human decency had to come before Congress for a vote. The right to litigate, under the circumstances of Jones alleged rape, should never have been an issue limited by binding arbitration. To argue that it's a technicality, or she should have never signed the contract, and that her redress could have been handled in another venue, which it could not, ignores the egregious nature of the alleged violation. It's not only a question of civil decency, but also due process.

    Certainly no tax payor dollars should continue to go to firms, such as Halliburton/KBR, (who instituted the policy under then CEO Dick Cheney) who do not support their employees basic legal rights, especially when violated so horrifically by fellow employees, who presumably the company has some measure of control. On top of it all, neither the DOJ, or the military investigate the action during the Bush admin, and because of the policy, Jones was obstructed from suing. And yes, all 30 nay voters were Republicans. One can only hope their no votes were more of a personal rebuke of freshman Sen. Franken, rather than an attempt to nullify anyone's civil rights, or decriminalize a clearly indefensible act.
     
  13. SilverTrain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    4,582
    Albums:
    8
    Likes Received:
    404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    Claro que si.

    I was using the phrase "criminal injustice" colloquially. But I shall be on vigilant watch to avoid using any legal phraseology that could possibly be misconstrued by eager forum members in future.
     
  14. B_Enough_for_Me

    B_Enough_for_Me New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm sorry, but your point is lost here. The people reading this don't want to hear that their martyred victim wasn't actually as mistreated by the system as they claim. As you can see by the repeated claims (with absolutely no proof) that Dick Cheney is responsible, they are looking for a 'victim' so they can feel right about their political positions.

    They also do not understand the basics of law, which compounds the problem. For them a clause in the contract that says "ye shall arbitrate" means Dick Cheney is the boogeyman. See the breakdown in logic there? This woman will get to lay her accusations in court just like everyone else; but that doesn't get the same emotional orgasm of hate that blaming Dick Cheney does.

    Please, don't get frustrated.
     
  15. D_Tully Tunnelrat

    D_Tully Tunnelrat New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1
    This hasn't happened so far, that's why it's called Mandatory Arbitration (MA), which means no jury trial. Even her MA was delayed and stone walled by Halliburton, even though it is cheaper, since no jury trial awards can be made for damages. This is an ideal defense for companies with track records of poorly treating both employees and shareholders, like Halliburton.

    Halliburton resorted to MA after their ill-advised take-over of asbestos ridden Dresser Industries, which was not fully disclosed to shareholders, under then CEO Cheney. They did this because they had previously lost numerous lawsuits, under the jury trial system at an avg. cost of $200K per.

    24 months into arbitration Jones still had no resolution, hardly due process by any standard, and certainly not the moral or legal stance the Senate wants companies with large military contracts to take, as evidenced by their 68-30 vote for the Franken Amendment.

    Halliburton has subsequently moved to Dubai. Coincidence?

    More info, less opining... make up your own mind, afterwards.
    Cheney Justice? | Mother Jones
    YouTube - Jamie Leigh Jones - KBR Gang Rape ABC 20/20 Report
    YouTube - Jamie Leigh Jones - KBR Gang Rape Keith Olberman Countdown
    YouTube - Jamie Leigh Jones remarks on mandatory arbitration
    Republicans and Halliburton are OK with Rape, but not Jamie Leigh Jones - Story Ideas - The Daily Show Forum
    CorpWatch*:*Halliburton
    Halliburton Employee Finally Gets Attention for Rape Case
    Gang Rape Cover-Up by US, Halliburton/KBR | AfterDowningStreet.org
     
  16. SeeDickRun

    SeeDickRun New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2005
    Messages:
    235
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Indianapolis, IN
    It seemed to me that the original poster believed what he read. Unfortunately, at some point, you have to consider the source in accepting blindly what's in print.....and perhaps, god forbid, actually read the bill yourself that was being voted on. (I know, I know... why should the general population read the bills when those voting on them don't feel obligated to do that.) Silly me.
     
  17. D_Tully Tunnelrat

    D_Tully Tunnelrat New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1
  18. B_Enough_for_Me

    B_Enough_for_Me New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    1) There is nothing to say that a jury trial would have lower damages. Nothing. It is a cheaper and easier process, but that doesn't mean the "victim" gets less.

    2) There is nothing to say that Halliburton "has a track record" of treating its employees or shareholders any worse than anyone else. According to the facts here, the US government appears to be responsible for not conducting a proper investigation. If Jones had a prosecution here MA would be a much more lucrative event. If a company has a 'poor track record' the last thing it wants to do is give its employees a cheap way to hold them responsible. Without arbitration the only recourse is to sue the employer. This is much more difficult on every level.

    3) There has been no trail. Criminal or otherwise. We have no idea if this girl was actually raped or not. The Dept. of Justice refused to try the case. Why? Because they "don't have jurisdiction"? Sounds fishy to me. She met with an FBI agent and the State Department did an investigation, yet the US has refused to prosecute. Prosecutors avoid cases they can't win, this is to avoid prosecuting innocent individuals. Women make these stories up all the time. The frequency of women lying about sexual harassment, then suing their employer would shock you.

    4) The lawyers are circling. The lawyers and their clients are fully aware of the extremely deep pockets of Halliburton. People are always trying to get big companies into court. The lawyers are fully aware that if they can just get enough media pressure there will be a huge settlement.

    The MA problem here is secondary to the failure of the government (again) to prosecute properly. If she laid these claims then they need to investigate. Throwing the case to the media, as was done here, just serves as character assassination.

    Halliburton can't "resort" to mandatory arbitration. It isn't something they can just elect to do. It is a term in a contract. Either it is in the contract and the employee agrees to it or it isn't and the employee agrees to it at a later time. They can't force it on you.

    Don't talk about things you don't understand. Due process doesn't apply to contracts between private parties.

    Let me get this straight: companies put a clause in a negotiable contract and they are being "immoral"? You understand that arbitration is beneficial to everyone involved?

    As to the "legal stance," I have no clue what you are saying. Companies shouldn't be able to shift rights between them and their employees? That is precisely what the Constitution says we can do; and a whole body of contracts law beyond that.

    If they did I would suspect your governments ridiculous corporate tax structure is to blame, then a thousand other things, before you could blame mandatory arbitration.

    I enjoyed the 20/20 piece. What kind of crap reporting was that? They claim things they never prove, then use the interview of the "victims" as their only basis. That piece was only about character assassination. Who knows what happened or by whom. All we know is what 2 women claim.

    Of course some amazing facts came out during the Congressional hearing:
    - Jones can't identify, or even claim to know, that she was raped by several men. She says she was unconscious and never saw them. Yet she has named 7 men. This is suspicious at the deepest levels. This was validated by only naming one man in the complaint she later filed. I suspect the lawyers have gotten to her. The more Halliburton employees she accuses the more the jury awards her; justice be damned.

    - The man that "raped" Jones told her the next day that he had sex with her. That is not typical behavior of a rapist. That isn't typical behavior of any felon. "Hey, I raped your ass last night. Just thought you'd like to know. Oh, and be sure to use this admission at trial to convict me." That makes perfect sense.

    -The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Jones could sue Halliburton. After giving me a lecture on "less opining" you should take time to ponder why you didn't know this fact and how it completely undermines your argument.
    Appeals court sends KBR rape case to court | National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) This link also makes me wonder what you meant by "moved to Dubai". I think you have nothing to base that on.

    The Injuryboard article is also great. Well, a great example of why journalists shouldn't write about legal matters. That failure to disclose part had me rolling.

    Thanks to our joke-of-a-senator Franken we now have an over-broad and unnecessary law on the books that restricts the right of people to contract.

    Too bad the company wasn't PETA, then we'd see all the leftists come out defending MA, rape, or anything else.
     
  19. B_Enough_for_Me

    B_Enough_for_Me New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Do you just write things? Mandatory arbitration has nothing to do with protecting big businesses, small businesses, charities, unions or anything else. Mandatory arbitration is an agreement between two parties as to how they will resolve conflicts; period. Mandatory arbitration is used all the time by entities that don't qualify (under the emotional liberal hate standard) as 'big business'. These clause show up everywhere from family law to maritime. The Republicans see the obvious idiocy in Frankens bill: these parties can still arbitrate, and agree to arbitrate, but they can't agree that the arbitration is mandatory. Not only do people have the right to agree to whatever arbitration agreement they want, eliminating the mandatory clause makes the arbitration useless. If either party doesn't like the result they just sue. So, why would you arbitrate? You won't. Franken is stepping right on the toes of employees who can't afford to bring a claim in court. Typical liberal behavior: we're going to burn the village to save it.



    I'm amazed no women have weighed in on this bill...[/QUOTE]
     
  20. Bbucko

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,413
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    58
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sunny SoFla
    Women don't usually hang in the Politics forum: and, no! Trannity doesn't count.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted