30 Republicans Deny Anti-Rape Bill

[Le Libérer]

In 2005, a nineteen year old girl was raped by her Halliburton co-workers, but because of the small print in her contract, Jaime Leigh Jones was refused the right to sue Halliburton. After being raped , the workers held her in a container for 24 hours before allowing her out.This week Senator Al Franken entered into congress an Anti-Rape bill which would keep companies from entering such clauses into contracts ( i.e. Halliburton) that would allow for rapes to continue without fear of being sued. This would keep companies such as Halliburton from denying their victim her day in court.
Surprisingly (or not surprisingly these days) 30 Republicans, YES 30 REPUBLICANS voted no against this bill just because a democrat had entered it. Thankfully it passed.

And to top it all off, the President's Department of Defense agree's with the Republicans on this one!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ticRYiJI_oo

Here (http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/) is the list of the lawmakers that voted against this bill.

[9]

Oy... wonderful news. It's worth saying that the Republicans voting against it likely did not vote the way they did - or so it would seem to me, anyway - because a Democrat sponsored the legislation. I'd be more inclined to believe their votes were a demonstration of the fact that they represent the most absolute shit-reactionary elements of "business interests" (as does Obama), without any pretenses about the fact, unwilling to make so much as a token gesture (relatively speaking) such as this.
It's always amazing how such putrid pieces of shit manage to put on suits and ties and pass themselves off as humans.

[Le Libérer]

The US government only caters to Big Business. Haliburton, Insurance companies, Banks, and anyone else who can make big bucks raping anyone they can get their hands on. I still can't wrap my BRAIN around the IDEA that there were ANY votes AGAINST this AT ALL!

What pisses me the fuck off is some of these Republicans are assholes that prey on boys, gay but voted against AIDS funding to mask their sexuality and Vitter, oh fucking Vitter, that diaper wearing perv votes no to an anti-rape bill.

[Il Medico]

Yeah, I was pretty shocked when I heard about this as well. I mean Republicans have a knack for being reactionary assholes, but really? Just shows how much theses "leaders" care about people. Not a bit. Fucking sick really.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Here (http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/) is the list of the lawmakers that voted against this bill.

Wow, could be a white, male, upper class, ugly contest.

[Allegra]

AFAIK you can never enter a contract which outlaws the jurisdiction of a court; such a contract would be void. I’m sure the position is stronger in the USA where it is a constitutional right. Now, what you CAN enter into is a contract which has mandatory arbitration or mediation. Such a contract isn’t void because there is still recourse to the courts PROVIDED you undergo the arbitration or mediation. If you DON’T undergo that arbitration or mediation, then your proceedings can be barred. Typically a contract which purports to exclude court’s jurisdiction is void on the grounds of public policy. Nor can you enter a contract which has as its term something which is illegal (e.g. contract to murder someone). You cannot enter a contract with an employee which states ‘you have no recourse to sue if we break our contract.’ You CAN enter a contract which states ‘you only have recourse to sue if you first participate in mandatory arbitration.’

Of course, such arbitration clauses are typically aimed at other things; pay disputes, disputes over the contract, disputes over health and safety, workers compensation etc. I don’t think alleged rape should be a matter of arbitration, but one for the criminal courts.

[Luís Henrique]

AFAIK you can never enter a contract which outlaws the jurisdiction of a court; such a contract would be void.

This, at least, is commonplace juridical standing. A contract cannot void laws, much less constitutional rights.


Now, what you CAN enter into is a contract which has mandatory arbitration or mediation. [snip] Of course, such arbitration clauses are typically aimed at other things; pay disputes, disputes over the contract, disputes over health and safety, workers compensation etc. I don’t think alleged rape should be a matter of arbitration, but one for the criminal courts.
The question here, however, cannot be of criminal justice. The rapists, as individuals, are subject to criminal laws and can be (and I hope were) tried by the State on that grounds. Halliburton, not being a physical person, cannot be tried under criminal law - it can be sued under civil law for its responsibility in allowing crime to happen in its precincts, which is different.

On the other hand, evidently, it does not seem reasonable to extend mandatory arbitration beyond strictly labour-related issues (not that mandatory arbitration is a good thing even in such cases).

Luís Henrique

[Danni]

Halliburton, not being a physical person, cannot be tried under criminal law - it can be sued under civil law for its responsibility in allowing crime to happen in its precincts, which is different. Generally this is correct. However, there are cases where directors of companies can be held criminally responsible for the actions of that company (excluding fraud and whatnot). For instance, in certain states in Australia there exists the crime of industrial manslaughter (and in the UK AFAIK) where individual directors can face prison time and/or substantial fines. In such cases the directors can be held liable, notwithstanding the fact that a company is a separate legal personality.


The question here, however, cannot be of criminal justice. The rapists, as individuals, are subject to criminal laws and can be (and I hope were) tried by the State on that grounds. Certainly, which points out the sensationalism of this thread; the individuals involved can still be tried under criminal law. The question is whether the company can be held liable for whatever. Generally, companies have vicarious liability; they are liable for the actions of their workers. For instance, if an employee sexually harassed another employee that employee could seek action both against the employee who sexually harassed them and the company (there are circumstances where a company can avoid liability i.e. if the company can prove they took reasonable steps to deal with/prevent that sexual harassment).


On the other hand, evidently, it does not seem reasonable to extend mandatory arbitration beyond strictly labour-related issues (not that mandatory arbitration is a good thing even in such cases). This can only come from someone totally ignorant of the modern legal system.

Mandatory mediation clauses are pretty much a standard thing in most large commercial contracts (for instance, the vast vast majority of construction contracts have compulsory mediation clauses). That is a good thing; around 90% of matters that go to mediation settle. A matter can arise, go to mediation on the same day, and be resolved on that day. On the other hand, if you were to go to the courts it is a process that can take numerous months, possibly years, and pretty much destroys the former commercial relationship between the parties. The standard cost of mediation is far lower than the costs you would pay to go to trial (where they can easily reach six figures). Moreover, mediation aims at reaching an agreement that both parties accept (if one party doesn’t accept it, its worthless). Its confidential, whereas most court proceedings are not. Strict rules of evidence do not apply, nor does the formal nature of courts. Mediators are selected by agreement of both parties. Most courts also have powers to order mediation. Contract law, personal injury/tort law, family law, trusts, corporation & partnership law, health law, trade practices, employee relations, indigenous law, construction law etc all use mediation, often compulsory. Criminal law is the exception; most see it as prudent for the state to pursue court proceedings in the majority of circumstances. Of course, there are circumstances where mediation is inappropriate; e.g. a case of domestic violence, or where the matter is of significance public importance (e.g. concerning the constitution).

However, in almost all circumstances the last place you want to be is a court. Most of the time it’s only the lawyers that win.

[Luís Henrique]

Mandatory mediation clauses are pretty much a standard thing in most large commercial contracts (for instance, the vast vast majority of construction contracts have compulsory mediation clauses).
I was talking about contracts between employers and employees, not about commercial contracts.

Luís Henrique

[Stand Your Ground]

The US government only caters to Big Business. Haliburton, Insurance companies, Banks, and anyone else who can make big bucks raping anyone they can get their hands on. I still can't wrap my BRAIN around the IDEA that there were ANY votes AGAINST this AT ALL!

What pisses me the fuck off is some of these Republicans are assholes that prey on boys, gay but voted against AIDS funding to mask their sexuality and Vitter, oh fucking Vitter, that diaper wearing perv votes no to an anti-rape bill.
The U.S. govt. is a disgusting shithole. I'm ashamed everyday for things my govt. does.

[Rjevan]

Wow, what disgusting scumbags!
Really, this should produce a storm of outrage! May I ask what the official statement of those brave senators, fighting their just struggle for the right to rape, is? I mean, they must have justified their vote in some way, right, or am I just too naive and dumb to comprehend the as superior as obvious thoughts of these representatives of the people?

[Le Libérer]

Wow, what disgusting scumbags!
Really, this should produce a storm of outrage! May I ask what the official statement of those brave senators, fighting their just struggle for the right to rape, is? I mean, they must have justified their vote in some way, right, or am I just too naive and dumb to comprehend the as superior as obvious thoughts of these representatives of the people?


Republicans point out that the amendment was opposed by a host of business interests, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and applies to a wide range of companies, including IBM and Boeing.

“This misleading, partisan attack makes clear yet again just how out of touch Democrats in Washington are with the serious issues facing average Americans," said National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Brian Walsh.

"Our country is facing rising unemployment, a record federal debt and and more government spending than at any point in history. Yet, the Democrats are talking about Halliburton."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1009/Tough_vote_for_Vitter_Burr.html?showall

Big business and adhering to party lines. The obvious reasons.

[ls]

Wow, could be a white, male, upper class, ugly contest.

Yep, though that's true for bourgeois politics in general too.

[The Ben G]

Wow. John Mcpain and "Worst first name in the world" Graham. Shows that facism is strong in the "best country in the world" comrades.

[Dante the Marxist]

Wow, could be a white, male, upper class, ugly contest.
Using the words "white" and "male" as insults could be potrayed as sexist and rascist. Apologize.

[9]

Using the words "white" and "male" as insults could be potrayed as sexist and rascist. Apologize.

Hopefully you are kidding. If you are not, the fact that most (all?) the congresspeople mentioned are white men ought to be sufficient to convince you otherwise....:rolleyes:

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Poor woman having to go on TV and speak about that whilst dirty reactionary Republicans vote against an anti-rape bill.

[spiltteeth]

Hopefully you are kidding. If you are not, the fact that most (all?) the congresspeople mentioned are white men ought to be sufficient to convince you otherwise....:rolleyes:

Your words could be construed to portray that these men were human. Apologize.

Also, of course I was STUNNED, but where is the public outrage? Human rights organizations ought to be all over this.

And those same republicans were outraged at Acorn's abuses, demanding it be shut down!

What is really insane is that Halliburtan is subsidized by MY tax dollars! Instead of going to health care they go to Dick Chaney's buddies!

[Rjevan]

“This misleading, partisan attack makes clear yet again just how out of touch Democrats in Washington are with the serious issues facing average Americans," said National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Brian Walsh.
Funny, just what I was thinking about the Republicans...
Really embarrassing but a very good example that people like that value the interests and rights of companies more than the interests and rights of human beings.

[Psy]

I find it odd the doctor didn't get the US Army military police involved since they would be the ones in Baghdad that would have the authority to arrest US citizens, mercenaries don't have this right thus KBR have no authority to arrest any US citizens.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

What are you fools rambling on about? It was in her contract? Do you hate liberty? Contract law is supreme. Markets are perfect. Thomas Jefferson was infallible. Rinse and repeat.

[TC]

I think people in this thread are forgetting that mercenaries in Iraq are immune from both US military and Iraqi criminal law under Bremmer's order #17. The rapists themselves are literally immune to prosecution. That's why it can only be addressed in a civil suit.

[TC]

I find it odd the doctor didn't get the US Army military police involved since they would be the ones in Baghdad that would have the authority to arrest US citizens, mercenaries don't have this right thus KBR have no authority to arrest any US citizens.

US Army MPs can only arrest US soldiers (except on military bases), not any citizens, and mercenaries don't count as soldiers for these purposes.

[Psy]

US Army MPs can only arrest US soldiers (except on military bases), not any citizens, and mercenaries don't count as soldiers for these purposes.
Us Army MPs can arrest US citizens in theaters of operations which Iraq is.

[TC]

Us Army MPs can arrest US citizens in theaters of operations which Iraq is.

Thats generally not true. See 57 Corpus Juris Secundum Military Justice § 22 Persons not in Service. The exception is for people actually serving with the military forces (described in 57 C.J.S. Military Justice § 22 Persons accompanying armed forces) not people who just happen to be in the theatre of conflict operating independently (which...I'm pretty sure was the case in this situation). If you see 57 C.J.S. Military Justice § 20 Generally, its clear that personal jurisidiction for military justice applies to people based on military status, not based on location (except the military installation exception).

[Psy]

Thats generally not true. See 57 Corpus Juris Secundum Military Justice § 22 Persons not in Service. The exception is for people actually serving with the military forces (described in 57 C.J.S. Military Justice § 22 Persons accompanying armed forces) not people who just happen to be in the theatre of conflict operating independently (which...I'm pretty sure was the case in this situation). If you see 57 C.J.S. Military Justice § 20 Generally, its clear that personal jurisidiction for military justice applies to people based on military status, not based on location (except the military installation exception).
The US used military police to police occupied Germany and Japan (with help from general infantry) after WWII so why not in Iraq? They did by just declaring martial law in the occupied zones which I thought they already did in Iraq, basically the US army has the legal authority to arrest anyone in a occupied zone that is operating under martial law. It is not just US law that gives the US army supreme authority over occupied territories but most armies have supreme legal authority over occupied territories, for example the UK army has the legal authority to arrest anyone in areas the UK Army occupies when it is given martial law over them that it usually automatically gets in time of war.

[TC]

The US used military police to police occupied Germany and Japan (with help from general infantry) after WWII so why not in Iraq?

Because those had specific occupation legal regimes set up to do that in Germany and Japan, otherwise they would not have been able to. No such legal regime exists in Iraq.



They did by just declaring martial law in the occupied zones which I thought they already did in Iraq, basically the US army has the legal authority to arrest anyone in a occupied zone that is operating under martial law. Iraq is not under martial law. Even though Iraq is defacto occupied, it has not been de jure occupied since 2004.


It is not just US law that gives the US army supreme authority over occupied territories but most armies have supreme legal authority over occupied territories, for example the UK army has the legal authority to arrest anyone in areas the UK Army occupies when it is given martial law over them that it usually automatically gets in time of war.1.US soldiers are explicitly prohibited as a matter of statute from certain law enforcement activities
2. The US does not recognize itself as the occupying power for legal purposes (otherwise they would not, for instance, have been allowed to execute Saddam Hussein in the manner that they did.)

To further explain, US troops remain in Germany and Japan but they don't consider themselves a military government, if a US citizen does something illegal in Germany or Japan, unless on a military base, the US military has no jurisdiction to arrest them, only the German or Japanese police would...but this is not an option in Iraq because the Iraqi government is prohibited from arresting US mercenaries under Order 17 when power was transferred to it.

[Pogue]

i'm with the IRA on this one, knee cap the raping bastards.

[Psy]

1.US soldiers are explicitly prohibited as a matter of statute from certain law enforcement activities

Domestically, there isn't prohibitions for the US Army to police territory the US occupies outside its borders and the US military has regularly policed rebellion in its occupied territories for example the US military 'policed' the Dominican Republic in 1965 to crush the independence movement and keep the Dominican Republic a satellite nation of the USA.



2. The US does not recognize itself as the occupying power for legal purposes (otherwise they would not, for instance, have been allowed to execute Saddam Hussein in the manner that they did.)

The US didn't recognize itself as the occupying power in many cases where it gave itself martial law over the territory, it just gave itself martial law through its puppets.




To further explain, US troops remain in Germany and Japan but they don't consider themselves a military government, if a US citizen does something illegal in Germany or Japan, unless on a military base, the US military has no jurisdiction to arrest them, only the German or Japanese police would...but this is not an option in Iraq because the Iraqi government is prohibited from arresting US mercenaries under Order 17 when power was transferred to it.
The US has no interest in policing Germany and Japan anymore and those states are powerful enough to prevent the US from policing within their boundaries. Anyway if the state is officially subservient to the US that means it is officially occupied by the US, if they are not that means order 17 is not valid in Iraq and Iraqi forces can arrest mercenaries as US law does not apply to independent states.