Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
In April of 2008, KBR employee Dawn Leamon went public. A few months earlier, she had been raped and sexually assaulted by co-workers while deployed at Camp Harper, in Iraq, and after weeks of being pressured not to report the incident, forced to work alongside her attackers, and medically neglected, Leamon brought the story to a Houston attorney and to The Nation. Leamon joined a slowly building chorus of female defense contractor employees who'd been raped or sexually assaulted by co-workers while in Iraq, to utter impunity on the part of their assailants. In response, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee called a hearing to investigate why the Justice Department had not prosecuted any sexual assault allegations in Iraq since the going to war in the country.
When it turned out that defense contractors often required employees, as a condition of employment, to submit to binding private arbitration in disputes with the contractors (including allegations of sexual assault), instead of bringing complaints to public courts, and that the Department of Defense claimed they couldn't prosecute for this very reason (even though these clauses only prevented civil suits), Senator Ben Nelson, who called the hearing, offered a simple solution: "This might be something you want to require and include in your contracts--before you award them," Karen Houppert reported in The Nation.
Freshman Sen. Al Franken took Nelson's suggestion seriously, and has pushed through an amendment to a Defense Appropriations bill that would prevent the Pentagon from doing business with contractors who force employees into binding arbitration over rape and sexual assault charges. (As Jon Stewart put it, "How is that a loophole that needs closing?")
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Rape-Nuts | ||||
| ||||
After another KBR employee, Jamie Leigh Jones, began speaking out about her own gang rape in December 2005, she met other women with similar stories, and in response formed a non-profit to support women who experienced sexual assault at the hands of co-workers while employed by a defense contractor. When Houppert reported on Jones's organization in The Nation, by then supporting forty women, Houppert observed, "Most of these complaints will never see the light of day."
Adding insult to injury, the Department of Defense could prosecute these crimes under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act and the Patriot Act's special maritime and territorial jurisdiction provisions, but has opted not to. In the face of DoD inaction, survivors, meanwhile, had signed away their right to sue civilly and were left only with arbitration.
Predictably, Sen. Jeff Sessions, ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opposed Franken's bill. "Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts," he argued. The bill was, he maintained, a "political amendment at bottom, representing a political attack on Halliburton." In fact, the amendment only goes so far as to require contractors doing business with the government to permit employees to sue civilly in the "most egregious violations," Franken emphasized in a statement. (For less egregious matters, contractors can still require employees to waive their right to sue and submit to arbitration.)
No thanks to Sessions or most Republican members of the Senate, the bill passed, 68-30. And the next time you hear the Chamber of Commerce come out swinging against healthcare reform, remind yourself that they opposed this bill, too.
Upon hearing the amendment passed, Jamie Leigh Jones told the Minnesota Post: "It means the world to me...It means that every tear shed to go public and repeat my story over and over again to make a difference for other women was worth it." It's a reminder that rape survivors go public with their stories at a serious emotional cost, and the onus is on political leaders and advocates to make it worth what could be only in the most euphemistic sense be referred to as their while.
At the end of his segment on the bill, Jon Stewart tied it all up with a bow. Now we get it! Comparing this move to regulate government contractors to ACORN's frozen funding, he says, "You don't want to waste taxpayer money on someone who advises fake prostitute how to make imaginary crimes. You want to give it to Halliburton, because they're committing real gang rape. You cut out the middleman! And they say government doesn't work."
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Now it's even clearer why the GOP spent so much time & $$$ trying to prevent Franken from taking his Senate seat.
Posted by sloper at 10/16/2009 @ 2:36pm
Only in America! Where else can anyone seriously claim that the sanctity of a contract overrides a person's right to report a crime? Where else is it even LEGAL for a contract to prohibit the reporting of a crime?
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/16/2009 @ 2:51pm
Larry, Maasch, Happy, Rio, any comments here? Care to justify the GOP opposition here?
Posted by jmusolino at 10/16/2009 @ 3:00pm
Larry, Maasch, Happy, Rio, any comments here? Care to justify the GOP opposition here?
Posted by jmusolino at 10/16/2009 @ 3:00pm
of course I will, but not for reasons you might suppose.
This bill is indicative of how Democrats love to put layers of redundancy into law.
The solution is so obvious that it boggles the mind to think that the leftists here cannot fathom it.
All that has to happen is for Obama to issue an executive order (actually all he has to do is send a memo, but an EO is more impressive), directing the DOD and the Justice Dept to enforce current US law.
The contractors merely have boiler plate language on civil disputes and criminal complaints like these should never be an issue to begin with.
I don't think that any Republican member of Congress actually objects to prosecuting rape or sexual assault.
Finally Stewart's comments reflect what a low life he is. Haliburton hasn't raped anyone. They were raped by employees who engaged in a crime that should be prosecuted.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 3:11pm
Finally Stewart's comments reflect what a low life he is. Haliburton hasn't raped anyone. They were raped by employees who engaged in a crime that should be prosecuted. Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 3:11pm
Acorn hasn't raped anyone. They were raped by employees who engaged in a crime that should be prosecuted.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/16/2009 @ 3:30pm
Acorn hasn't raped anyone. They were raped by employees who engaged in a crime that should be prosecuted.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/16/2009 @ 3:30pm
ok bushfools, I'm dying to hear how Acorn is related to this topic.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 3:32pm
I agree with anti on this one. There is no need to add an amendment for this. It is US law. Contract law does not wave the prosecution of criminal acts. It's ridiculous that it has even got as far as the need for as Franken issuing a call for an amendment. This should have been taken care of when it first started happening when Bush was in office.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/16/2009 @ 3:39pm
ok bushfools, I'm dying to hear how Acorn is related to this topic.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 3:32pm
Looks like you skipped that actual part of reading the source story. At the end...
{At the end of his segment on the bill, John Stewart tied it all up with a bow. Now we get it! Comparing this move to regulate government contractors to ACORN's frozen funding, he says, "You don't want to waste taxpayer money on someone who advises fake prostitute how to make imaginary crimes. You want to give it to Halliburton, because they're committing real gang rape. You cut out the middleman! And they say government doesn't work."}
All you saw was John Stewart and jumped to your lowlife conclusion...or maybe to tie this to another post that since you don't like John Stewart your antisemitic?
Posted by Extraneous at 10/16/2009 @ 3:40pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/16/2009 @ 3:39pm
ditto
Posted by Benchrest at 10/16/2009 @ 4:45pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 3:11pmA
All the female repub senators voted for the Franken Anti-Rape Amendment because it was unnecessary to some male new con repubs...
Yeah, I think we all understand why that would be...
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/16/2009 @ 5:18pm
No, the amendment needs to stay.
Corporations have clearly found ways to get around all of the previous roadblocks. Think about it, fair minded people: These women have been GANG RAPED. Think about that for a second.
And they have no say in what happens next except to spend tons of money and time recounting the crime over and over again.
Get real. Unless there are further measures put in place the perpetrators will never be prosecuted. Ever. it should not be looked at as 'water under the bridge'. That of course, is the bridge to nowhere.
Saying that this SHOULD have been taken care of does not address the problem. I don't agree with anti or Cc on this one. They are off base. If these women were relatives of yours - or daughters - you'd be singing a completely different tune.
.........................
Haliburton hasn't raped anyone. They were raped by employees who engaged in a crime that should be prosecuted. Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 3:11pm
.........................
How and when could that ever happen? They signed a document taking away those rights, so they'll never be prosecuted. That's what the issue is here. So, since the individuals are immune to prosecution you have to go after the company policy.
Posted by ficheye at 10/16/2009 @ 5:38pm
Of course it makes perfect sense in the wacky world of war for profit but how about regular war too. How about disallowing soldiers to go to war without an honest reason? How about disallowing human beings to be cannon fodder for the government or faceless corporation?
Posted by wildthing at 10/16/2009 @ 6:04pm
"Finally Stewart's comments reflect what a low life he is. Haliburton hasn't raped anyone. They were raped by employees who engaged in a crime that should be prosecuted"
antisocialist, listen here: through the insterstices of a legally-bound, contractual agreement, a very serious problem has arisen, whether it was intentional or unintentional.
a woman was gang-raped, and imprisoned in a baking-hot shipping container for 24 hours, without food or water, and was prevented from reporting it, and then was (legally) prevented from pursuing the rapists in court.
that is so disgusing, it makes me cry. and it will happen again, unless the law is changed.
so, basically, antisocialist, folks, is DEFENDING GANG RAPE. it's really that simple.
this rape was PERMITTED by law, to happen.
literally permitted to happen, by law.
thanks antisocialist, we now know that you are certainly, undoubtedly, not a christian.
Posted by darladoon at 10/16/2009 @ 6:39pm
"They were raped by employees who engaged in a crime that should be prosecuted"
yeah, they should be prosecuted, anti, that's exactly why franken penned the bill, you freakin' moron.
but the contractual arrangements are preventing that from happening. god you're vapid!
Posted by darladoon at 10/16/2009 @ 6:43pm
When I heard this story it did make me cry, and it is so obviously WRONG, go after the employees and the corporate bigwigs and anyone who stands in the way, get them, prosecute them, throw them in jail and throw away the key!
Posted by Denise29 at 10/16/2009 @ 6:57pm
How and when could that ever happen? They signed a document taking away those rights, so they'll never be prosecuted. That's what the issue is here. So, since the individuals are immune to prosecution you have to go after the company policy.
Posted by ficheye at 10/16/2009 @ 5:38pm
That is not true. The author of this blog even notes that the contract language applies to civil arbitration, not criminal complaints.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 7:40pm
that is so disgusing, it makes me cry. and it will happen again, unless the law is changed.
so, basically, antisocialist, folks, is DEFENDING GANG RAPE. it's really that simple.
this rape was PERMITTED by law, to happen.
literally permitted to happen, by law.
thanks antisocialist, we now know that you are certainly, undoubtedly, not a christian.
Posted by darladoon at 10/16/2009 @ 6:39pm
that's a lie Darla and just part of your usual hysterics.
I pointed out that the way to quickly resolve this and bring these people to trial is by either Obama writing a memo or an Executive Order. If he did that, they could be charged tomorrow under current law.
<All that has to happen is for Obama to issue an executive order (actually all he has to do is send a memo, but an EO is more impressive), directing the DOD and the Justice Dept to enforce current US law.
The contractors merely have boiler plate language on civil disputes and criminal complaints like these should never be an issue to begin with.
I don't think that any Republican member of Congress actually objects to prosecuting rape or sexual assault.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 3:11pm
Here is Ms Douglas's statement and I concur completely. So why isn't Obama and Holder acting on this?
<Adding insult to injury, the Department of Defense could prosecute these crimes under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act and the Patriot Act's special maritime and territorial jurisdiction provisions, but has opted not to.>
Do you get it Darla? Obama could prosecute them right now but has not taken any action.
The fact that the Bush Administration did not take action either is inexcusable. Am I clear now Darla?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 7:44pm
"Do you get it Darla? Obama could prosecute them right now but has not taken any action"
should obama issue an executive order, it will still not prevent crimes like this from happening again.
the contract law must change.
in fact, numerous other female contractors have come forward with complaints of rape and harrassment, but our still stuck without the ability to sue.
so, no, antisocialist, you are not clear. you are a supporter of gang rape.
sickening.
Posted by darladoon at 10/16/2009 @ 8:16pm
"Do you get it Darla? Obama could prosecute them right now but has not taken any action"
should obama issue an executive order, it will still not prevent crimes like this from happening again.
the contract law must change.
in fact, numerous other female contractors have come forward with complaints of rape and harrassment, but our still stuck without the ability to sue.
so, no, antisocialist, you are not clear. you are a supporter of gang rape.
sickening.
Posted by darladoon at 10/16/2009 @ 8:16pm
You are just plain wrong Darla. How am I supporting gang rape when I specifically said I want these people prosecuted?
The contract language as Ms Douglas points out ONLY APPLIES TO CIVIL DISPUTE. It is standard language in all independent contractor agreements. IT DOES NOT ELIMINATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
Why aren't you speaking out for Obama to prosecute these men? I am.
These men could be in jail awaiting trial tomorrow if Obama simply ordered the DOD or the Justice Dept to prosecute.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 8:31pm
WAY TO GO AL! Keep up the good work. A few more of those and we'll be looking at FRANKEN for PREZ in 2016!
Posted by thanksbutnothanks at 10/16/2009 @ 9:37pm
Of course anti is defending gang rape, he also defends the use of depleted uranium for use even on his own family. Why not a little gang rape for desert! But just a a little hate crime for an appetizer... Christ is this anti-guy sick or what!?!
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/16/2009 @ 10:30pm
LOL Jesus Christ. I now find myself defending Antisoc.
No he wasn't advocatging or defending Gang Rape. He thinks the amendment is not needed. and it isn't for criminal prosecution.
I disagree with it not being needed. Not only should the people involved be prosecuted, but a suit should be allowed if the contactors in question didn't make efforts (STRONG EFFORTS) to prevent those occurences.
And if they knowingly hired thugs, then they should have to pay dearly for damages.
Posted by SoundGuyChris at 10/16/2009 @ 11:08pm
Okay, all you people who have such passionate objections to "redundant" amendments...
Tell me what harm they would do.
For my part, I believe that as long as we have New Federalists serving on our Supreme Court, no "redundant" amendment that guarantees ANY right to ANYONE who is either not white or not male is really redundant at all.
This is not in any way to excuse the Obama administration from its responsibility to enforce civil rights legislation as it has already been written.
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/16/2009 @ 11:23pm
...that is not true. The author of this blog even notes that the contract language applies to civil arbitration, not criminal complaints. Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 7:40pm
No. You are using a flaw in this legal 'contract' much the way that KBR is.
How long ago did this happen, this crime? Over a year ago already.
When will this woman get her day in court using the laws that are in place now? Uncertain.
What interest does KBR have in keeping this out of the court system, even as a criminal complaint? Plenty, because it will set 'precedent', and then the cracks will form in the contract itself and ultimately will prove the undoing of their legal protections because it can happen again. They will be aiding and abetting because of their now recognized foreknowledge of likelihood.
Even though the author 'notes' specifics in the contract language, she doesn't support the limitations it presents to effective prosecution.
There are certain things, pastor, that are wrong. And they sometimes fall way outside of some 'g-damn piece of paper' ( a much better usage of this term). This companies hiring policies and the structure of command which controls the employees are flawed - THEY are responsible, ultimately for the conditions that arose as a consequence of those policies. No contract clause should protect them from being where the buck stops. No, no, no.
You can struggle with this all you like. G-d knows who should be held to account for this. It's the company AND the perpetrators both. The hell with the clause.
Posted by ficheye at 10/16/2009 @ 11:46pm
And as an addendum, Obama should not have to step in and demand that they prosecute these guys.
The normal (?) system of justice should suffice. Calling the president out to make sure common logic is followed is kind of lame. It's like asking G-d to come down and referee your divorce. You'll have to give me a freaking break.
Posted by ficheye at 10/16/2009 @ 11:51pm
ok bushfools, I'm dying to hear how Acorn is related to this topic.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 3:32pm
Maybe this way:
Didn't Franken only win by around three hundred or so votes? I wonder how many of the thousands of illegal registrations ala ACORN went his way. Just asking. At least Franken is funnier than Norm Coleman.
Seriously though, I agree that women who are gang raped or raped perion need someone to look out for them. Haliburton doesn't need anyone's defense. The women do.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/17/2009 @ 12:21am
Acorn again. Nuts.
I will be the first to admit that they had a level of sleaze in some of their departments.
But not all.
However...
Will someone point out to me the actual, verifiable instances of voter fraud (votes actually counted) that they were responsible for? I haven't heard of any. It's an urban myth, perhaps. Republicans in Ohio were involved in more dubious voter interference, yo.
And is ACORN, who's main task is involved with Social welfare programs, any worse than Wall Street and the Banking system - who are involved in taking advantage of corporate welfare programs and have a verifiable and serious level of sleaze and excess?
I'm just asking. Name ONE case of vote fraud attributable to ACORN.
Or shut the hell up about it.
Posted by ficheye at 10/17/2009 @ 12:49am
Larry, Maasch, Happy, Rio, any comments here? Care to justify the GOP opposition here?
Posted by jmusolino at 10/16/2009 @ 3:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
First, I am not registared Republican and never have been so that is a mote question.
Second, as antisocialist points out there is NO need for the amendment which is nothing more than a redundent Demoncrat POLITICAL ploy not unlike all the other useless maze of useless laws our Demoncrat friends enact.
If Franken wants to prevent a crime against humanity let him offer an amendment preventing the use of federal funds paying for ABORTIONS under the healthcare legislation! It won't be redundent as it would prevent the Hyde amendment for not being renewed by the Demoncrat congress when voted on next year?!?
Posted by BigPasture at 10/17/2009 @ 05:37am
This is not something that needs to be "discussed"; if women are being raped and sexually abused, the perpetrators need to be held accountable. Long prison sentences, long enough to keep them out of society, preferably for life. Those who have not yet figured this out, rape is a crime of extreme violence, there is no excuse for it, and the penalty should be harsh.
Posted by rasputin195 at 10/17/2009 @ 07:08am
Thank you, Ms. Jones and Ms Leamon (and all the others unnamed here), for your courage and your profound sacrifice.
Thank you Sen. Franken (and all the others in and around Congress who helped), for taking action.
Posted by kparcell at 10/17/2009 @ 07:49am
Again we see it.
If you oppose this healthcare reform, then it is because you hate poor people and are racist.
If you consider Franken's bill an unnecessary layer of government bureaucracy, it is because you are defending rape.
Doesn't matter if you state over and over again that you want the criminals prosecuted RIGHT NOW and that no vote in Congress is necessary for that to happen.
Nope. Doesn't matter. Because the Left has abandoned reasoned discourse in favor of inflammatory hyperbole and ad hominem attacks. The only reason to EVER oppose some new government process or restriction is because you simply hate the target group of people it is intended to "help".
You are not supposed to consider what the unintended consequences are or whether or not the new layer of government is even necessary.
It is mean to do that.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/17/2009 @ 08:29am
Again we see it.
If you oppose this healthcare reform, then it is because you hate poor people and are racist.
If you consider Franken's bill an unnecessary layer of government bureaucracy, it is because you are defending rape.
Doesn't matter if you state over and over again that you want the criminals prosecuted RIGHT NOW and that no vote in Congress is necessary for that to happen.
Nope. Doesn't matter. Because the Left has abandoned reasoned discourse in favor of inflammatory hyperbole and ad hominem attacks. The only reason to EVER oppose some new government process or restriction is because you simply hate the target group of people it is intended to "help".
You are not supposed to consider what the unintended consequences are or whether or not the new layer of government is even necessary.
It is mean to do that.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/17/2009 @ 08:29am
Gotta side with Anti here...sort of. He's right in that this step is unnecessary, he's made perfectly clear that gang rape isn't something he condones, and of course Obama could bring down his iron fist and force prosecution. Of course, he hasn't, and seemingly wont unless someone (say congress) decides to step in and force his hand. So yes, if we lived in a world where the military respected women's rights this whole thing would be completely unnecessary. We clearly don't though, as has been shown by quite a few reports from The Nation over the years, and it's good someone is finally starting to take the first steps to reform the system.
Posted by shink at 10/17/2009 @ 09:03am
Second, as antisocialist points out there is NO need for the amendment which is nothing more than a redundent Demoncrat POLITICAL ploy... If Franken wants to prevent a crime against humanity let him offer an amendment preventing the use of federal funds paying for ABORTIONS... Posted by BigPasture at 10/17/2009 @ 05:37am
Last 1st, why didn't the repubs do that when they were in power for 8-12 yrs?
Second, why did all the repub women senators vote for the Franken Anti-Rape Amendment if it was simply redundant? Or is it that the repub women senators are perhaps just a little more equipped in this particular case to have a semblance of a heart and a brain.
It's easy to say fuck'em when it ain't you that's 'em.
Or is your view then that repub women senators are spineless and weak minded-- useless to the superior male new con repubs? That would definitely explain a lot... cough-closet-cough
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 09:38am
#
Only in America! Where else can anyone seriously claim that the sanctity of a contract overrides a person's right to report a crime? Where else is it even LEGAL for a contract to prohibit the reporting of a crime?
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/16/2009 @ 2:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person
It's illegal. Any member of the government who signed off on the contract committed a felony.
Posted by Milhaus at 10/17/2009 @ 10:23am
Second, as antisocialist points out there is NO need for the amendment which is nothing more than a redundent Demoncrat POLITICAL ploy not unlike all the other useless maze of useless laws our Demoncrat friends enact.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/17/2009 @ 05:37am
If you had a mind of your own... medical science would be interested. They've been looking for it for years!
You are wrong. This is about a gang rape, not about your lame 'demoncrat' obsession. You are making someone's like more miserable while dicking around with your ridiculous partisan crapola.
Talk about redundant. And we all know that you are not a 'registared' republican. I wish to g-d you had spell check.
Posted by ficheye at 10/17/2009 @ 10:32am
Finally Stewart's comments reflect what a low life he is. Haliburton hasn't raped anyone. They were raped by employees who engaged in a crime that should be prosecuted.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 3:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
They engaged in a conspiracy to conceal a crime, which is also a crime. Prior knowledge that their actions will conceal a future crime is covered under RICO among other things. Corrupt government officials who went along with it also need to be prosecuted since they shed any legal protections the moment they knowingly used their office to engage in the crime.
You're trying to have your cake and drink republican cool-aid at the same time which has always been an impossible position to argue.
Posted by Milhaus at 10/17/2009 @ 10:32am
antisocialist, you are basically opposed to the one method of making sure this doesn't happen again.
sure, you support going after these four guys with an "executive order" (as if that is so, so simple), but what about all the other criminals, both past and future?
the legal protections in place NOW arent' sufficient?
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 10:42am
RICO. A powerful tool much underused. Should have sent Catholic bishops & Philip Morris senior execs to prison, but they bought & bullied their way out. Ditto some pharma mfrs. Ditto HBR. And more than a few members of W's admin.
Posted by sloper at 10/17/2009 @ 12:38pm
antisocialist, you are basically opposed to the one method of making sure this doesn't happen again.
sure, you support going after these four guys with an "executive order" (as if that is so, so simple), but what about all the other criminals, both past and future?
the legal protections in place NOW arent' sufficient?
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 10:42am
Wrong. The legal protections are already in place. The govt chose not to prosecute and they were and are wrong. They could prosecute right now if they want to without Franken's legislation.
that applies to anyone else, past, present, or future.
And I'll repeat, the Bush Administration was wrong to not prosecute these men (are you reading this CCC or Mask?)
Posted by antisocialist at 10/17/2009 @ 12:45pm
Like I said;
If Franken wants to prevent a crime against humanity let him offer an amendment preventing the use of federal funds paying for genicidal ABORTIONS under the healthcare legislation!
It won't be redundent or frivalous politicizing like his amendment as it would prevent the Hyde amendment from NOT being renewed by the Demoncrat congress which would legalize federal funds for abortion when voted down next year by the Demoncrats?!?
(Hmmmm....expecting a Demoncrat congress to pass legislation to protect taxpayers and future taxpayers...it will never happen!)
Posted by BigPasture at 10/17/2009 @ 1:15pm
I should have done this sooner. I just googled these cases and it appears that the Nation is lying about the women being able to take this to court.
<Iraq Halliburton 'rape victim' can go to court
Published: 1:05AM BST 12 May 2008
A federal judge has ruled that an American woman who claims she was drugged and gang-raped by co-workers in Baghdad while employed by Halliburton/KBR, a defence contractor, can take her case to trial.>
http://tinyurl.com/yzxj7nk
I cannot find any update as to the actual trials though.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/17/2009 @ 1:20pm
"The legal protections are already in place"
this is so obviously not true, that it really begs the question: on what planet does the reverand live?
why am i even bothering to respond to this absolute nutcase?
this particular victim has no legal recourse. her contract specifically prevents her from reporting a gang rape. that's what the actual contract states.
and you are defending that particular contractual arrangement.
there is verifiable, documented, empirical evidence of four men gang raping and imprisoning a woman, as well as a contract which prevents the victim from reporting the crime and pursuing the company.
antisocialist has defended an amendment which would prevent that sort of crime from happening again.
so, therefore, antisocialist is defending not only this particular GANG RAPE, but future gang rapes as well.
this is bullet-proof logic. and antisocialist is, we now officially know, not a christian by any stretch of the imagination. he is, in fact, an imposter. just like...........the devil.
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 1:33pm
This is the most amazing correspondence. The liberal posters CALL IN the conservative posters they perceive as mindless fools. Anti-Socialist makes a reasonable posting in reply, and is misunderstood and misread! Some other conservatives log on, also in response to being called in, and the conversation degenerates into name-calling. This barroom brawl was started, nurtured, created out of nothing by the liberal posters, apparently because that's the kind of conversation they like. Meanwhile at THE NEW REPUBLIC, whose views are too far to the right for me, the conversations are far more civilized and well-informed. Maybe it's because every poster has to give their real name. This place is weird. Even vanden Heuvel has complained about it.
Posted by posterboy at 10/17/2009 @ 1:33pm
to the conservatives who supported legislation to defund acorn, do you now wish to defund KBR?
after this, this is a real scandal (gang rape, abduction and imprisonment), not a fake prostitution "scandal."
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 1:59pm
"Meanwhile at THE NEW REPUBLIC, whose views are too far to the right for me, the conversations are far more civilized and well-informed"
that's because it's all conservatives over there. liberals don't waste their time commenting on conservative sites. and in fact, it's nearly impossible to be able to login at many of them (see: malkin).
i agree, it's pretty uncivilized over here. but does anyone really care? there is an 'ignore' option.
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 2:00pm
If the Franken Anti-Rape Amendment is so unnecessary for the new con repub male senators-- why did ALL the women repub senators vote FOR it?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 2:03pm
First, I am not registared Republican and never have been so that is a mote question.
Second, as antisocialist points out there is NO need for the amendment which is nothing more than a redundent Demoncrat POLITICAL ploy not unlike all the other useless maze of useless laws our Demoncrat friends enact.
If Franken wants to prevent a crime against humanity let him offer an amendment preventing the use of federal funds paying for ABORTIONS under the healthcare legislation! It won't be redundent as it would prevent the Hyde amendment for not being renewed by the Demoncrat congress when voted on next year?!?
Posted by BigPasture at 10/17/2009 @ 05:37am | ignore this person | warn this person
Would this include, perhaps, those abortion recipients (particularly prevalent , somehow, in the morally pure "red" States) who are dragged by commie liberals, kicking and screaming, to the abortion clinics?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/17/2009 @ 2:06pm
WHATTABUNCHACRAP
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/17/2009 @ 2:07pm
"If Franken wants to prevent a crime against humanity let him offer an amendment preventing the use of federal funds paying for ABORTIONS under the healthcare legislation!"
abortions are not crimes.
gang rapes are crimes.
that i even have to say this is fascinating.
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 2:19pm
Would this include, perhaps, those abortion recipients (particularly prevalent , somehow, in the morally pure "red" States) who are dragged by commie liberals, kicking and screaming, to the abortion clinics?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/17/2009 @ 2:06pm
Sure, why wouldn't it include them? Having taxpayers fund abortions when at least half (currently, a bit more than half) of the country disapproves of abortions is hardly democratic.
And why would it matter what "color" their state is? And really, whole states are rarely all "red". I think in this last election only Oklahoma has that distinction. If you look in "red" states, you'll find large cities that are 'blue". Take Kansas for example. Mostly red except for maybe Topeka and Witchita. Both of which contain most of the Kansas black American populations.
So yes, abortions do take place in "red" states. Care to guess where in those "red" states they mostly occur? Yep, in their "blue" cities.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/17/2009 @ 2:25pm
Would this include, perhaps, those abortion recipients (particularly prevalent , somehow, in the morally pure "red" States) who are dragged by commie liberals, kicking and screaming, to the abortion clinics?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/17/2009 @ 2:06pm
Sure, why wouldn't it include them? Having taxpayers fund abortions when at least half (currently, a bit more than half) of the country disapproves of abortions is hardly democratic.
And why would it matter what "color" their state is? And really, whole states are rarely all "red". I think in this last election only Oklahoma has that distinction. If you look in "red" states, you'll find large cities that are 'blue". Take Kansas for example. Mostly red except for maybe Topeka and Witchita. Both of which contain most of the Kansas black American populations.
So yes, abortions do take place in "red" states. Care to guess where in those "red" states they mostly occur? Yep, in their "blue" cities.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/17/2009 @ 2:25pm
After months of waiting for criminal charges to be filed, Jones decided to file suit against Halliburton and KBR.
KBR had moved for Jones' claim to be heard in private arbitration, instead of a public courtroom, as provided under the terms of her original employment contract.
Ellison, however, wrote in his order Friday that Jones' claims of sexual assault, battery, rape, false imprisonment and others fall beyond the scope of her employment contract.
"The Court does not believe that Plaintiff's bedroom should be considered the workplace, even though her housing was provided by her employer," Ellison wrote.
Ellison did, however, rule that a sexual harassment claim that Jones included in her case against her supervisor in Texas would have to be decided in arbitration.
Over the two years since she was allegedly attacked, no criminal charges have been brought in the matter.
http://tinyurl.com/yjhvp5m
An arbitration act passed by Congress, Leahy said, was meant to "provide sophisticated businesses an alternative venue to resolve their disputes" but instead has "become a hammer for corporations to use against their employees."
"There is no rule of law in arbitration," Leahy said. "There are no juries or independent judges in the arbitrations industry. There is no appellate review. There is no transparency. And…[for] Jamie Leigh Jones there is no justice."
Jones told the committee that the system of forcing employees to sign employee contracts that contain clauses for mandatory, confidential and binding arbitration – before any potential disputes even arise - keeps evidence from ever coming to public light and enables large corporations like Halliburton to adopt arbitration as a venue to wipe the record clean of disputes.
http://tinyurl.com/yb9ukre
It's the EVIDENCE
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 2:37pm
And I'll repeat, the Bush Administration was wrong to not prosecute these men
Posted by antisocialist at 10/17/2009 @ 12:45pm
i wonder if dick "so?" cheney had anything to do with that.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/17/2009 @ 2:44pm
Obama could bring down his iron fist
Posted by shink at 10/17/2009 @ 09:03am
you mean like he's done with wall street?
hmmmmm.........
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/17/2009 @ 2:47pm
"[Alternative Dispute Resolution] is an effective tool for both management and employees," de Bernardo said. "The opponents of arbitration have simply not demonstrated that the drastic, sweeping changes they seek to enact are necessary and/or appropriate. To the contrary, for the average employee, the elimination of arbitration will do more harm than good."
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), who sponsored the amendment, clashed repeatedly with de Bernardo, questioning how arbitration could possibly help someone in Jones' situation.
"This took place in Iraq, at that time she had no recourse, sir!" Franken roared. "She has not had her day in court, she has litigated for four years to have her day in court. She was drugged, she was raped, and she had to have reconstructive surgery. If that's a better workplace, what was the workplace like before?"
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 2:52pm
So yes, abortions do take place in "red" states. Care to guess where in those "red" states they mostly occur? Yep, in their "blue" cities.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/17/2009 @ 2:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Sorry you missed the sarcasm, CC.
Anyway, those are some finely-tuned abortion trackings you have there.
Where from?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/17/2009 @ 2:58pm
Her legal saga started after Halliburton failed to take any action against her alleged attackers, and the Justice Department and military also failed to prosecute. Jones then tried to sue the company for failing to protect her. But thanks to an employment contract created during the tenure of former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney, Jones was forced into mandatory binding arbitration, a private forum where Halliburton would hire the arbitrator, all the proceedings would be secret, and she'd have no right to appeal if she lost.
Data from the American Arbitration Association showed that Halliburton won more than 80 percent of its cases in arbitration, and when I looked at the data two years ago, it showed that out of 119 cases Halliburton arbitrated over a four-year period, only three resulted in the employee actually winning any money. The deck was clearly stacked against Jones from day one.
After 15 months in arbitration, Jones and her lawyer realized the same thing and went to court to fight the arbitration agreement in the hopes of bringing her case before a jury. Jones argued that the alleged gang rape was not related to her employment and thus, wasn't covered by the arbitration agreement. Finally, two years later, a federal court has sensibly agreed with her. Tuesday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 ruling, found her alleged injuries were not, in fact, in any way related to her employment and thus, not covered by the contract.
http://tinyurl.com/phnpwl
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 3:02pm
One of the judges who ruled in her favor, Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, is a West Point grad, Vietnam vet, and one of the court's most conservative members, a sign, perhaps, of just how bad the facts are in this case. It's a big victory, but a bitter one that shows just how insidious mandatory arbitration is. It's taken Jones three years of litigation just to get to the point where she can finally sue the people who allegedly wronged her. It will be many more years before she has a shot at any real justice.
In the meantime, her case may bolster pending legislation that would ban mandatory arbitration clauses in employment and other consumer contracts. Jones' victory comes as yet another body blow to a practice that has come under serious fire in recent months as heavily rigged against consumers. In July, the Minnesota attorney general sued one of the nation's biggest arbitration firms, the National Arbitration Forum, after discovering that it had financial ties to debt collection companies that used its services to collect credit card debts. Not surprisingly, the NAF ruled in favor of the credit card companies in virtually every case, and fired arbitrators who sided with consumers.
The lawsuit led to NAF's agreement to stop arbitrating consumer debt collection cases. Since then, Bank of America and other financial firms have said they will stop using arbitration clauses in their credit contracts. All that hasn't stopped the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from continuing to insist that forced arbitration is still "cheaper, faster, and fairer" than the civil courts, and from fighting the federal legislation. But with Jamie Leigh Jones as the poster child for the opposition, it's hard to see how the business group can continue with the pretense.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 3:03pm
Jones, who was employed by KBR, which was fighting oil fires, says that a pattern of subsequent behaviour by the firm, including allegedly locking her in a container under armed guard and losing forensic evidence, amounts to a cover-up.
Halliburton/KBR used a clause in her contract requiring disputes to be settled by arbitration to block legal action – a policy which, her lawyer says, has encouraged assaults by creating a climate of impunity.
Franken described it as a denial of justice. "Contractors are using fine print to deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court," he said in a Senate debate.
http://tinyurl.com/yzdblrd
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 3:07pm
Jones was treated by a US army doctor who gave forensic evidence to company officials. She says the firm placed her under guard in a shipping container and she was released only after her father asked the US embassy to intervene. When the forensic evidence was handed to investigators two years later, crucial photographs and notes were missing.
Jones says she identified one of the men who attacked her after he confessed, but that Halliburton/KBR prevented her from taking legal action against him or the company by pointing to a clause in her contract requiring disputes to go to arbitration.
She told a Senate committee: "I had no idea that the clause was part of the contract, what the clause actually meant, or that I would eventually end up in this horrible situation."
Her lawyer, Todd Kerry, said that by forcing earlier assault cases to arbitration, Halliburton and other defence firms had created a climate in which some workers came to believe they could get away with sexual assaults and other crimes.
"I've received upwards of 40 calls to my office [about assault cases] in the past two years. A good number had been disposed of under arbitration," he said."Had there been public scrutiny to prevent such things happening and these cases taken to court, they might not have been repeated. Instead one of the men who raped Jamie was so confident that nothing would happen that he was lying in bed next to her the morning after."
Halliburton and KBR divided into separate companies in April 2007. Halliburton declined to comment on the case.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 3:09pm
Does this mean Roman Polanski is off the hook? I can't tell... The smoothness of multiple ACORN operatives indicates to me they have experience that goes a bit further than just 'entertaining' the thought of child prostitution. These are the real pros.
Posted by pyeatte at 10/17/2009 @ 3:11pm
But I do anti-commend the anti-christian his ant-intelligence to blame even this on his anti-Obama.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 3:28pm
I can't tell... Posted by pyeatte at 10/17/2009 @ 3:11pm
Yep, you can't tell much of anything. You stick with that-- you can't go wrong.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 3:32pm
If the Franken Anti-Rape Amendment is so unnecessary for the new con repub 'male' senators-- why did ALL the 'women' repub senators vote FOR it?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 3:42pm
Hey, you nailed it. It HAS to be a simplistic reason that automatically puts male Republican Senators in the worst possible light.
Like they are actually trying to protect rape as a corporate institution.
Look, the story said it clearly. The contract clauses do not protect individual members of the corporation from criminal prosecution.
The accused rapists should've been arrested, charged, tried, and convicted if found guilty. That is a criminal case. Not a "civil" case as outlined in the contracts.
Congress, the White House, basically a lot of people could at any time directed the Department of Defense to arrest those men.
Interpreting the contract in that obviously incorrect way was inexcuseable.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/17/2009 @ 4:02pm
Hey, you nailed it. It HAS to be a simplistic reason that automatically puts male Republican Senators in the worst possible light.
Like they are actually trying to protect rape as a corporate institution.
Look, the story said it clearly. The contract clauses do not protect individual members of the corporation from criminal prosecution.
The accused rapists should've been arrested, charged, tried, and convicted if found guilty. That is a criminal case. Not a "civil" case as outlined in the contracts.
Congress, the White House, basically a lot of people could at any time directed the Department of Defense to arrest those men.
Interpreting the contract in that obviously incorrect way was inexcuseable.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/17/2009 @ 4:02pm
If anyone here has read any of the documentation posted by some of the more studious folks above it would be clear that Bush didn't do anything and Obama is going to sit on his hands.
So the obvious move, at this point, is to put into place an amendment that forces legal actions so that we can evade the endless bitching and finger pointing that goes on while these women's psychological condition and self esteem goes down the toilet.
But that's the America I know. It's 'Those guys over there'... THEY should do something. Or it's the incumbent president... HE should do something, and if he doesn't, well, I told you so. That's a lame and counterproductive 'philosophy'. But it's repeated over and over on this blog.
And hsuBfools makes a final and damning point... why DID all the women Republicans vote for it? They probably remember all of those frat parties - and they now take prozac to forget.
Such heartlessness wrapped in political dogma is a strain on the word 'incredulous'.
.................
Posted by pyeatte at 10/17/2009 @ 3:11pm
You love to talk about ACORN. Your fascination with nuts is interesting, but what does it have to do with anything besides you not having anything constructive to say?
Posted by ficheye at 10/17/2009 @ 4:09pm
"If the Franken Anti-Rape Amendment is so unnecessary for the new con repub 'male' senators-- why did ALL the 'women' repub senators vote FOR it?"
well, it starts with an 'h' and ends with a 't', and rhymes with 'tart.'
sometimes, the heart must take a stand. and those 30 republican senators, and antisocialist, are basically and seriously disgusting people.
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 4:59pm
<i>Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/17/2009 @ 4:02pm </i>
So your argument is now...that a system of civil litigation is worthless. Fascinating.
Posted by Thrawn at 10/17/2009 @ 6:31pm
just the other day, anti-christian, er, antisocialist, sorry, used the issue of women's rights to justify the escalation of violence in afghanistan.
now, he's defending gang rape of american women by american men.
wow!
folks: mark you calenders. on a mainstream news site, a republican actually DEFENDED multi-billion dollar gang rape.....a devil is in our midst!
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 7:03pm
Bringing U.S. sponsored health initiatives into this as an anti-abortion argument is just stupid. First you should worry about the hundreds of thousands of already born children we have killed in the last decade as a result of our wars, the the continued killing from military action and starvation or neglect that still goes on today.
Posted by Milhaus at 10/17/2009 @ 7:58pm
No matter what Obama does the new con repubs would blame him for not doing the other thing. Just imagine the stink new con repubs would be spewing if Obama usurped our judicial system by telling the DoJ to go to trial with disappeared evidence-- before a case could be built? Then it'd be his fault if it was dismissed. Not to mention the unconstitutional executive reach into the judicial branch by forcing a trial.... And BTW what would pres Obama be thinking, doesn't he already have too much on his plate!?!?! No wonder nothing is getting done... On and on with the new con repub idiocy of being anti-whatever; kinda like new con repubs have been infected by the hsuB/cHeney idiocrasy blood sucking tick disease legacy.
Lastly, if the Franken Anti-Rape Amendment is so unnecessary why aren't the new con repubs here not excommunicating all the female repub senators for voting FOR it?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 8:51pm
But I do anti-commend the anti-christian his ant-intelligence to blame even this on his anti-Obama.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 3:28pm
How do you get that when I specifically blamed Bush?
Posted by antisocialist at 10/17/2009 @ 9:20pm
now, he's defending gang rape of american women by american men.
wow!
folks: mark you calenders. on a mainstream news site, a republican actually DEFENDED multi-billion dollar gang rape.....a devil is in our midst!
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 7:03pm
Darla, you are a first class idiot and a liar.
I have stated here repeatedly that the rapes were despicable and that these men need to be prosecuted immediately
How your twisted drug damaged mind can twist that into defending those scum is beyond all reason.
I won't expect an apology because you aren't capable of it.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/17/2009 @ 9:22pm
folks: mark you calenders. on a mainstream news site, a republican actually DEFENDED multi-billion dollar gang rape.....a devil is in our midst!
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 7:03pm
And just another little lie. I'm not a Republican. I've stated for years here that I'm a libertarian who sometimes votes Republican.
Honesty seems to be difficult for you to embrace.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/17/2009 @ 9:24pm
Would this include, perhaps, those abortion recipients (particularly prevalent , somehow, in the morally pure "red" States) who are dragged by commie liberals, kicking and screaming, to the abortion clinics?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/17/2009 @ 2:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Abortionist prey on the poor, the unsophisticated, the irreligious and the uneducated reguardless of a states politics like the vultures they are, so your reply is pointless unless you are trying to revel in your bias and hatred!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/17/2009 @ 9:37pm
All that has to happen is for Obama to issue an executive order (actually all he has to do is send a memo, but an EO is more impressive), directing the DOD and the Justice Dept to enforce current US law. Posted by antisocialist at 10/16/2009 @ 3:11pm
But I do anti-commend the anti-christian his ant-intelligence to blame even this on his anti-Obama. Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 3:28pm
How do you get that when I specifically blamed Bush? Posted by antisocialist at 10/17/2009 @ 9:20pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 11:52pm
A secret Republican? No, just another Demoncrat protected by Demoncrat because a Republican would be hung by the media and leftist!
The House Ethics Committee is continuing its 16-month investigation into House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-New York), who is accused of failing to disclose more than $600,000 in previously unreported assets, and tens of thousands of dollars in unreported income. He also failed to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income on his villa in the Dominican Republic. Those are just a few of the 14 allegations of tax or ethics violations by Rangel the committee is looking into.
All but two Democrats in the House (Gene Taylor and Travis Childers, both of Mississippi) recently voted against a resolution that called for Rangel to step down from his position on the Ways and Means Committee. The unsuccessful resolution was brought by House Republican Conference Secretary and former judge John Carter (R-Texas), who sees Rangel getting special treatment.
"This is something that speaks very badly to the average American who has to follow the tax rules," says Carter. "If [that citizen] doesn't follow the tax rules, he gets serious punishments and he possibly could go to jail if he does something really bad and fraudulent.
"And yet he sees this guy [Rangel] gets to put his stuff in a committee of the House, where it could end up being deadlocked forever and never really answer to the issues," the congressman continues. "And all I said was until it's resolved -- and it needs to be resolved -- he needs to step down from that committee."
When an MSNBC reporter recently asked Rangel about the ethics probe, he shooed the reporter away with a roll of papers and told her that she was being "rude."
Posted by BigPasture at 10/18/2009 @ 01:54am
We need the amendment. Get over it.
Any other point of view is just posturing for the sake of it. The present legal remedies don't work or the case would have already been resolved. Per - i - od.
Then there's the lasting value of obfuscation.
Let's bring up ACORN.
Next, Charlie Rangle.
A circuitous mountain road with idiots at the wheel, radio blaring loudly so no one can hear. Ted Nugent playing 'Cat Scratch Fever'.
Again, the America I know. You gotta love it. Or hate it. Especially when there's such a shortage of ammunition.
Posted by ficheye at 10/18/2009 @ 02:07am
Lastly, if the Franken Anti-Rape Amendment is so unnecessary why aren't the new con repubs here not excommunicating all the female repub senators for voting FOR it?
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 8:51pm
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/18/2009 @ 02:12am
'You are not supposed to consider what the unintended consequences are or whether or not the new layer of government is even necessary.'
Look, "Citizen_Carrier," I asked you what harm a redundant amendment, such as the one Senator Franken proposed, does. One thing it does NOT do is create a "new layer of government." It merely requires already existing organs of government to do what they always should have done.
So... where's the harm in that?
Posted by JakobFabian at 10/18/2009 @ 04:27am
Halliburton hasn't raped anyone? Are you serious? They've only raped the American, and Iraqi people. The defense of this corrupt corporation truly makes me ill. I guess some of you also feel Cheney would make a great President! Good grief get a clue. Where are the millions unaccounted for that was given to Halliburton?
Posted by sheila60 at 10/18/2009 @ 08:03am
Santi-I have seen nothing that says you have approved of the rape of the woman. You commented as such,said because it was on Bush's watch he should have taken action etc. Seems it was your other statements that caused the firestorm. John Stewart isn't a low life ,he is a political commentator with a razor sharp tongue. If Rush,Sean, or Glenny had his smarts they would be capable adversaries for the left. Perhaps you think Haliburton is held in high regard by the majority of posters here. We both know differently and that was part of the napalm you threw on the fire. The support for the corporation by you was like hosing the fire down with gasoline. The anger it seems in this situation and the timeline supports that going through this shows that neither Administration has shown the guts to prosecute. Was Franken making a political "play", perhaps but for the future he was trying to put in basic ground rules that just say no Republicans couldn't bring themselves to vote for. Thank you for waking up DuNcE because I was captivated by his railing against abortion. He also got to bring up Charlie"Throw me Out" Rangel. By the way evangelical of the week how is your pal Mark Sanford doing. I just thought since it was so related to the topic that I would bring him up.
Posted by whatozz at 10/18/2009 @ 09:03am
Where are the millions unaccounted for that was given to Halliburton? Posted by sheila60 at 10/18/2009 @ 08:03am
Last time I saw a number it was $9 billion disappeared unaccounted for in Iraq. And we can multiply that number by 100, for lack of usage necessity. Future costs for nearly 100% disability for almost 100% of our war vets that do not 'die quickly' from their injuries/depleted uranium, as new con repubs would prefer, and we're talking several trillions to come.
As for anti-humanity, he's corporate bought and paid for-- like most new con repubs posting here. One should never be surprised at the soulless comments that come out of their finger tips as they lovingly stroke their golden calf's BS g-d to its pleasure: moral morons-- definitely, soulless idiots-- priceless.
One can only smile knowingly as the new con repub idiocrasy spend their golden bribes watching 'Zombieland', never quite understanding that it's simply a social comment on themselves...
May silver linings on the dark clouds that new con repubs are, abound.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/18/2009 @ 09:46am
Posted by ficheye at 10/17/2009 @ 4:09pm:
ACORN is very relevant - it is a criminal organization. The obsession with Halliburton and KBR is rather odd and borders on a mental disorder. Binding arbitration concerning rape? That is completely meaningless. Rape is a crime and the people committing it should be prosecuted - pretty simple. There are bad people in all organizations, including your beloved ACORN, and when found should be dealt with through the criminal justice system, not the media hogs in congress. There is nothing the buffoon Al Franken could do here to justify himself.
Halliburton is, at its core, an engineering company, specializing in difficult and dangerous projects few others are willing to do. Many Halliburton employees died trying to do the job.
Posted by pyeatte at 10/18/2009 @ 11:17am
Where are the millions unaccounted for that was given to Halliburton? Posted by sheila60 at 10/18/2009 @ 08:03am
Right on Sheila! And hsuB.
Halliburton. The gift that keeps on giving. Or taking, in their case. Another scale on the dead carp of the previous administration... and one of the many reasons that even conservatives threw the gold ring to the other side, for better or for worse.
But our system no longer works. Can we get a new one at Toys-R-Us? It's a very sad thing indeed.
Posted by ficheye at 10/18/2009 @ 11:24am
John Stewart isn't a low life ,he is a political commentator with a razor sharp tongue. If Rush,Sean, or Glenny had his smarts they would be capable adversaries for the left.
Posted by whatozz at 10/18/2009 @ 09:03am
I suspect that John Leibowitz, I mean "Stewart" is far, far more dependent on his staff of comedy writers than those others you mention. They all pretty much do their thing solo.
Rush delivered a lengthy speech to a political convention this year without a teleprompter or writers, relying only on some notes with a few ques for talking points on it. I seriously doubt Stewart could manage that.
And if they weren't "capable adversaries of the left", then we'd hardly hear about them, would we? We certainly wouldn't be considering bringing back the Fairness Doctrine if shows on Air America were capable of drawing audiences or advertisers like that.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/18/2009 @ 12:10pm
John Stewart isn't a low life ,he is a political commentator with a razor sharp tongue. If Rush,Sean, or Glenny had his smarts they would be capable adversaries for the left.
Posted by whatozz at 10/18/2009 @ 09:03am
I suspect that John Leibowitz, I mean "Stewart" is far, far more dependent on his staff of comedy writers than those others you mention. They all pretty much do their thing solo.
Rush delivered a lengthy speech to a political convention this year without a teleprompter or writers, relying only on some notes with a few ques for talking points on it. I seriously doubt Stewart could manage that.
And if they weren't "capable adversaries of the left", then we'd hardly hear about them, would we? We certainly wouldn't be considering bringing back the Fairness Doctrine if shows on Air America were capable of drawing audiences or advertisers like that.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/18/2009 @ 12:10pm
But thanks to an employment contract created during the tenure of former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney, Jones was forced into mandatory binding arbitration, a private forum where Halliburton would hire the arbitrator, all the proceedings would be secret, and she'd have no right to appeal if she lost.
Posted by hsuBfools at 10/17/2009 @ 3:02pm
It's pretty clear this is a privatized system of justice, serving, in this case, a privatized military. My sense is that this is why the "conservatives" are so in favor of this manner of adjudication, and why they see Senator Franken's bill as so unnecessary, in that it may begin to undermine a system that has so clearly been abused. I don't think the issue is one of whether final justice is ultimately served (in this case, it hasn't been), but rather the barriers corporations can throw up to avoid responsibility for their actions, knowing full well that most individuals will not have the resources to see the legal battle all the way through to the end.
Privatizing what should be part of our civic commons does not save money (see comments of Halliburton's overbilling) - it only whittles away our rights as citizens.
Posted by Dwight Wall at 10/18/2009 @ 12:11pm
Hey CC you can make all the arguments you want to defend companies like KBR. You can try to even sound intelligent doing it. However, if you cannot figure out how to stop double posting all that intelligence is suspect. Unless of course it is involuntary as in most (99.9) neo-con positions on any thing i.e. repeat the lie repeat the lie repeat the lie, that will make it true
Posted by bascaville at 10/18/2009 @ 1:15pm
Halliburton is, at its core, an engineering company, specializing in difficult and dangerous projects few others are willing to do. Many Halliburton employees died trying to do the job. Posted by pyeatte at 10/18/2009 @ 11:17am |
Halliburton, at its core, does not provide a safe work environment for its employees, nor does it apparently wish to do so in the future.
I know I'd never let any woman in my family anywhere near these miserable profiteering assholes.
Hopefully, news of this case will allow many talented females to direct their energy somewhere other than KBR's "engineering projects".
Posted by snowball777 at 10/18/2009 @ 1:49pm
Hopefully, news of this case will allow many talented females to direct their energy somewhere other than KBR's "engineering projects". Posted by snowball777 at 10/18/2009 @ 1:49pm
And that is a nice summation to this blog. Why anyone would resist this amendment is beyond me.
Sure, the system should work. But my apple iPod protection plan did not give me a new ipod even though it doesn't work either. Wishful thinking is just that. A fantasy with no basis in reality.
Posted by ficheye at 10/18/2009 @ 4:25pm
Cit Car-Top cable news channel,Fox News would you agree. Top rated radio network Rush's show would you agree. Murdoch had the deep pockets to absorb huge losses to put Fox where it is . Tell me that Sean,Glenny,and Bill are intellectual giants. Rush and his network gave his show away to hinterland stations to fill programming space years ago. Another good business decision. You really think Rush is that good,if you talk for a living why can't you give a good speech. Does the Daily Show have good writers? It sure does,why doesn't Rush then? He said ,"I am not in a recession",does that mean he is a great writer? You think he talks off the cuff for 3 hours each day,don't kid yourself.Fox News is the conservative channel,do you think that is my thought or it's tone?
Posted by whatozz at 10/18/2009 @ 4:48pm
"There are bad people in all organizations, including your beloved ACORN, and when found should be dealt with through the criminal justice system, not the media hogs in congress"
then why did congress de-fund acorn, if the criminal justice system could prosecute the handful of "criminals" at acorn?
"ACORN is very relevant - it is a criminal organization. The obsession with Halliburton and KBR is rather odd and borders on a mental disorder"
(quote of the day)
Posted by darladoon at 10/18/2009 @ 10:46pm
ACORN is very relevant - it is a criminal organization.
Posted by pyeatte at 10/18/2009 @ 11:17am
But it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. 'Relevancy' is only obtained because you don't want to address it.
There is so much data about both KBR and Halliburton that outline their less than savory business practices in many facets of their work. If you want to protect them in some way it's your business, but you really have no idea what you are talking about except you want to protect them in some strange way.
I'm not going to defend ACORN... go ahead, have at. But try to stay somewhat on topic. You just wandered over to the field of nuts all by yourself. Acorn doesn't even come close to doing any of the nasty things that these two companies have been involved in. It's just misdirection.
And to take the comment you made above at face value... if "ACORN is relevant because it's a criminal organization"... then that must mean that you are saying KBR and Halliburton are criminal organizations as well. Strange.
Posted by ficheye at 10/18/2009 @ 11:55pm
(quote of the day)
Posted by darladoon at 10/18/2009 @ 10:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
"deaths of soldiers don't bother me as much as civilian deaths."
"soldiers are trained to kill. so if they die, oh well."
Posted by darladoon at 10/17/2009 @ 12:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
QUOTE OF THE CENTURY! from the most honest leftist HATER we know! ?
you still rule darlaloon!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/19/2009 @ 01:02am
bigpasture,
if you so, so love the troops, then perhaps you should have tried to prevent their deaths by marching against the afghani and iraq wars.
now, it is too late. over 7,000 have died, with tens of thousans more injured.
and that doesn't include civilian deaths, which as i have pointed out, bother me more than soldier deaths.
Posted by darladoon at 10/19/2009 @ 10:31am