Jarlaxle 56 Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 http://www.alternet.org/blogs/healthwellness/143164/30_gop_senators_vote_to_defend_gang_rape/ DESPICABLE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electrophile Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Something about that struck me. Here are those who vote to protect a corporation over a victim of rape: Alexander (R-TN) Barrasso (R-WY) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Chambliss (R-GA) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS) Corker (R-TN) Cornyn (R-TX) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Gregg (R-NH) Inhofe (R-OK) Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kyl (R-AZ) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Thune (R-SD) Vitter (R-LA) Wicker (R-MS) And people wanted that man President? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 http://www.alternet....fend_gang_rape/ DESPICABLE! Halliburton again, no surprise there. The level of arrogance that the Halliburton people display amazes me sometimes. Locking the victim in a shipping crate so that she could not communicate with the outside world by those who assaulted Jamie Leigh Jones makes Roman Polanski look like an angel by comparison. At least Mr. Polanski drove his victim home to her parents and was otherwise courteous. I wonder if there were additional riders onto the bill that would have been controversial to conservatives. As for Senator Sessions' argument about overreaching into the private sector, why does the private sector need funds from the federal government in the first place? Because it is incapable of engaging in private enterprise without government assistance? It's interesting to see that conservatives promote socialism in this context. But I do not see why the taxpayers should fund rape. Arbitration has its place, but arbitration has its limits. -Senator Al Franken In the debate, Senator Sessions maintained that Franken's amendment overreached into the private sector and suggested that it violated the due process clause of the Constitution. To which, Senator Franken fired back quoting the Constitution. "Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the right to spend money for the welfare of our citizens. Because of this, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, 'Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds and has repeatedly employed that power to further broad policy objectives,'" Franken said. "That is why Congress could pass laws cutting off highway funds to states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21. That's why this whole bill [the Defense Appropriations bill] is full of limitations on contractors -- what bonuses they can give and what kind of health care they can offer. The spending power is a broad power and my amendment is well within it." God I love it when Senator Franken quotes the Constitution. Not every Republican was so clueless. Ten voted for the Franken amendment including the GOP's female contingent of Senators (Snowe, Collins, Hutchinson and Murkowski). "We need to put assurances into the law that those kind of instances [the Jamie Leigh Jones case] are not capable of being repeated," said Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who voted in favor of Franken's amendment. "I want to make sure that a woman, any individual who is a victim of a terrible act, knows that they have got protections." Murkowski said that she considered the arguments that Sessions made about the amendment being too expansive before she decided to vote for the legislation. "I looked at it," said Murkowski. "And, I tell you, you look at some of the things we do and you have to say, 'OK, you have a specific instance we're trying to address and does this go above and beyond?' But when you have to err on the side of protecting an individual, I erred on the side of greater generosity, I guess." Republican Sen. George LeMieux of Florida echoed some of Murkowski's sentiments. "I can't see in any circumstance that a woman who was a victim of sexual assault shouldn't have her right to go to court," LeMieux said. "So, that is why I voted for it." Although Franken chatted up LeMieux on the Senate floor before the vote, LeMieux said that he had already made his decision. But, LeMieux added, Franken's talk didn't hurt. "I had decided to vote for it before I came here, but I was happy to hear his argument for it," LeMieux said. "He did what a senator should do, which was he was working it. He was working for his amendment." I'll add, Al Franken is everything a United States Senator should be. As for Jamie Leigh Jones, she was nothing but elated and thankful. "It means the world to me," Jones said of the amendment's passage. "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." An amendment that would ban federal funds going to companies that require arbitration in the case of sexual assault passed the Senate on Tuesday. The amendment was offered by Sen. Al Franken and was added to the defense appropriations bill by a vote of 68 to 30. The amendment was offered after Jamie Leigh Jones, an employee of Kellogg, Brown & Root (formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton) was sexually assaulted by her co-workers in Iraq and then locked in a shipping crate when she tried to report the rape. Her return to the United States was facilitated by U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Tex., but upon her return, she learned that the fine print of her employment contract banned her from taking the case to court. On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., called it "a political attack directed at Halliburton." Franken rebutted, "This amendment does not single out a single contractor. This amendment would defund any contractor that refuses to give a victim of rape their day in court." The amendment was supported by a number of Minnesota organizations including Advocates for Human Rights, Breaking Free, Casa de Esperanza, Mid Minnesota Legal Assistance, the Minnesota Coalition against Sexual Assault, the Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center, the Minnesota Indian Women's Sexual Assault Coalition, the Minnesota National Organization for Women, Minnesota Women Lawyers and the Sexual Violence Center. "I'm proud of what we accomplished today. Victims of sexual assault deserve their day in court and no corporation should be able to deny them that right," Franken said. "Jamie's courage in telling her story will help women all over this country and I'm honored to have been a part of that." Jones also praised passage of the amendment. "This amendment makes all the hard times that I have gone through, when going public with such a personal tragedy, worth every tear shed from telling and retelling my horrific experience," she said. "I am highly honored that Senator Franken and his wife have created this amendment to ensure that others do not have to endure the suffering that I have." -Andy Birkey, reporting for the Minnesota Independent 10/6/09 5:33 PM minnesotaindependent.com/46483/franken-amendment-to-protect-victims-of-sexual-assault-passes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 From what I have read, I too, support Sen. Franken's amendment, much as I dislike Sen. Franken. However, it's pretty obvious the opposing senators were voting based on the Constitutionality of the amendment. To say they favor gang rape is simply inflammatory rhetoric. It certainly was a despicable act carried out by a few individuals. But I'm pretty sure Halliburton doesn't have those contract stipulations because they support rape. Overall, Franken's amendment looks like the proper and moral course to take. Glad to see him being relevant. He's good enough, he's smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like him. lulz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~tangerine~ Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 From what I have read, I too, support Sen. Franken's amendment, much as I dislike Sen. Franken. However, it's pretty obvious the opposing senators were voting based on the Constitutionality of the amendment. To say they favor gang rape is simply inflammatory rhetoric. It certainly was a despicable act carried out by a few individuals. But I'm pretty sure Halliburton doesn't have those contract stipulations because they support rape. Overall, Franken's amendment looks like the proper and moral course to take. Glad to see him being relevant. He's good enough, he's smart enough, and dog-gone it, people like him. lulz. It's wonderful that Al Franken got this to pass. I don't think there is any excuse for those who opposed it. Even if your explanation is true (and seems to me they have more personal reasons) they should all be ashamed of themselves and feel total embarrassment. It's not that they approve of gang rape, it's that some other motivation is more important to them. Strange how it was 30 republicans, the "moral" party, who voted to allow violence and horror to go unpunished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joao Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 A bit out of topic here but since it's about a corporation has anyone seen this documentary about the big corporations in America, The Corporation? It really opened my eyes, I had no idea of the power and lack of morality these corporations have and I guess it helps to explain this case. You can watch the whole documentary it's divided into 23 parts but its all there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deborah J Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Something about that struck me. And people wanted that man President? Can you imagine!! They are all a bunch of greedy, self serving idiots IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I have got a horsey Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 It's absolute nonsense for a corporation to stipulate that a sexual harrassment case cannot be taken to court and it can only be dealt with by arbitration. No corporation has the right to impose something like that on anyone by subverting the natural right of people to seek justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L 7 Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 This is what happens when you hire a bunch of ex-military cowboys under the guise of "Security". I`m sure they felt free to rape and pillage, even shoot civilians with impunity under the blanket protection of KBR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BonzoLikeDrumer Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I hope this does not make anyone feel that there will never, ever, ever be another rape or sexually driven maniac to walk the earth. You guy's have got to get it through your head's that a true Republic is a big, mean and nasty large corporation driven government. Yes, it was a terrible thing to happen to anyone! But, it will keep on happening no mater what (any of the ) the senators vote on. It smell's like a snow job of some kind! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redrum Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Strange how it was 30 republicans, the "moral" party, who voted to allow violence and horror to go unpunished. Yeah, we all know the Democrats are as pure as the driven snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spalove Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I just added them to my "don't vote for" list Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~tangerine~ Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Yeah, we all know the Democrats are as pure as the driven snow. I'm not saying that at all. Just pointing out how fake the Republicans are in comparison to what they "claim" to be. There shouldn't have been any decision to make in this case except to do the right thing. They are so against abortion, but human rights don't matter. Bogus. We all know why they voted against this... pure greed. Let's be realistic, nobody is pure as the driven snow, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rock Action Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 The point missed here....ANY party would have asked to cover for their own. Don't kid yourself. All this pointing purely at Republicans is just to cover up with a smokescreen what their own political parties are doing, or simple blindness. ALL politicians are crooked as Lombard Street. I trust NO Republicans OR Democrats. And don't even get me started on liberalism.... Personally, I've had it with politics, politicians, and these stupid right vs. left battles. Childish bullshit. Unless someone runs for President in the next election that I feel has some sense of competence and right vs. wrong, regardless of party affiliation, I won't even bother. Fuck it. No personal offense meant towards any posters here. But I've had it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 It is unconscionable to put party politics ahead of the basic rights of citizens. To have the arrogant gall to even suggest that the only redress available to a victim of a crime should be limited to arbitration merely to convenience private industry is about the same as telling the mafia that they can do whatever the hell they want and get away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 It is unconscionable to put party politics ahead of the basic rights of citizens. It was a constitutional issue, not a party politics issue. To have the arrogant gall to even suggest that the only redress available to a victim of a crime should be limited to arbitration merely to convenience private industry is about the same as telling the mafia that they can do whatever the hell they want and get away with it. The clause already existed by way of Halliburton - the Senators didn't create it. This falls along the same principle as negotiating with those who take hostages. The government has to stand firm lest it open the door to more people taking Americans hostage. If it's your loved one who's been taken hostage it's difficult to understand the "larger issue" of the government not negotiating with the people who are holding your loved ones. It's the same with constitutional issues. If legislation regarding a specific instance would set precedence that would violate constitutional rights, whether personal or corporate, the larger issue cannot be ignored, regardless of how despicable the specific instance is - in this case a brutal gang-rape. And quite frankly, Liberal Democrats vote similarly all the time on issues that could affect abortion. Most Democrats refuse to vote against even the most heinous types of partial-birth abortions in order to avoid setting precedent that could weaken established abortion legislation. And that's PURE party politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 This was a crime and there is no excuse to limit redress to arbitration. Criminal law prevails. To deny the people their right to redress when someone has committed a crime against them is unconscionable. Halliburton is not strictly private enterprise, or it would not be taking government funds, probably taxpayer funds, to conduct its business. To attempt to reduce this issue to one of mere constitutionality while pretending that the rape was less significant demonstrates the caliber of the individuals who had the gall to suggest it. It's a little like arguing that the mafia has the constitutional right to rob banks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDAN Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 The point missed here....ANY party would have asked to cover for their own. Don't kid yourself. All this pointing purely at Republicans is just to cover up with a smokescreen what their own political parties are doing, or simple blindness. ALL politicians are crooked as Lombard Street. I trust NO Republicans OR Democrats. And don't even get me started on liberalism.... Personally, I've had it with politics, politicians, and these stupid right vs. left battles. Childish bullshit. Unless someone runs for President in the next election that I feel has some sense of competence and right vs. wrong, regardless of party affiliation, I won't even bother. Fuck it. No personal offense meant towards any posters here. But I've had it. Me Too Rock, Dont look for Honour in a Colony of Snakes. All Politicans Crawl on their Bellies. It doesnt matter which side you Vote For if One is a Lizard and the Other is a Snake, their both Reptillian in their Ways and Can Never Be Trusted. There is No Way for Us to Win, and what if Nobody Votes? Anarchy? As the "Who" Once Said, "We wont Get Fooled Again" but we do every time, and Dont Forget "New Boss, Same as the Old Boss". Nuff Said. Regards, Danny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 This was a crime and there is no excuse to limit redress to arbitration. Criminal law prevails. As it should. Nonetheless, loopholes such as this exist, and closing them with no regard to constitutional influence is careless. You are ignoring objectivity. To attempt to reduce this issue to one of mere constitutionality while pretending that the rape was less significant demonstrates the caliber of the individuals who had the gall to suggest it. It's not "pretending" the rape is less significant. It's the consideration of ALL instances that will be affected rather than ignoring all for the one. I find it interesting this isn't splashed all over the newscasts. I think that's the reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 It's just one more question that I would get right on the bar exam. Convoluted theories about "objectivity" are a smokescreen. The real issue is criminality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bong-Man Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 It's just one more question that I would get right on the bar exam. Convoluted theories about "objectivity" are a smokescreen. The real issue is criminality. Except when it comes to Hollywood directors. **sorry....just couldn't resist** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 There is no exception. But the issues involving Mr. Polanski are varied, including his right to a fair trial. It's a balancing process with the different issues, and his lawyers are not trying to throw out years of stare decisis. In the case of Jamie Leigh, those who committed criminal acts want us to believe that they had the right to do so, and withholding her right to redress just because they had her sign a document so they would hire her. The criminal courts will never look kindly on that kind of situation, because it is simply bad law. They don't want to see any more cases of this kind, so they will uphold the same criminal law that has applied in the past and maintain the right to redress as usual. They will not allow people to sign that right away just because they needed employment to make a living. But in this case it is not the judicial arm of government, but rather the legislative one. Yet it is the same basic principle of providing redress to victims of crime that guides both. Neither will allow you to sign that right away. Arbitration was never intended to apply to criminal issues, only civil ones and then with the intent to limit awards of monetary damages in order to reduce costs. And if "constitutionality" were truly more than a smokescreen issue, you would see Democrats voting along with Republicans. Here the Republicans have engaged in party politics, and to some of them, Halliburton is like a sacred cow. I notice that Lindsey Graham also voted against passage. He has been taking heat lately for his support of environmental legislation favored by Democrats. He may have wanted to be seen as loyal by other Republicans in regard to the Franken amendment. If it had been Republicans who had introduced the bill instead of Franken, then they would have all supported it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TypeO Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 It's just one more question that I would get right on the bar exam. Convoluted theories about "objectivity" are a smokescreen. The real issue is criminality. I was talking about you specifically - you refuse to look at it objectively, and at this point I'm not surprised. There's no "convoluted theories". Franken's amendment gives Congress too much power to alter employment contracts of private companies, and that will affect ALL private companies, not just big, bad Halliburton. Nothing convoluted about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 I understand and of course I can see it objectively. Senator Franken's amendment is entirely appropriate and consistent with criminal law and the United States Constitution, as he has stated. But even without the passage of this amendment, Congress would still have the right to supersede a criminal contract, because it is unlawful to enforce a criminal contract. That is basic contract law. Rape is a crime. A business contract will not protect anyone from criminal prosecution for rape. Arbitration law was never intended to apply to damages resulting from criminal matters. Congress could pass an amendment that would allow the mafia to rob banks and then submit the loss issue to arbitration, but it would run into the same problem, that is, basic contract law. You cannot enforce an illegal contract. To which, Senator Franken fired back quoting the Constitution. "Article 1 Section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the right to spend money for the welfare of our citizens. Because of this, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, 'Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds and has repeatedly employed that power to further broad policy objectives,'" Franken said. "That is why Congress could pass laws cutting off highway funds to states that didn't raise their drinking age to 21. That's why this whole bill [the Defense Appropriations bill] is full of limitations on contractors -- what bonuses they can give and what kind of health care they can offer. The spending power is a broad power and my amendment is well within it." minnesotaindependent.com/46483/franken-amendment-to-protect-victims-of-sexual-assault-passes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.