It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Frankins Anti Rape Amendment receives little bi partisan support.

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:06 PM
link   

SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.


Basically Republicans are ok with KBR employees raping and imprisoning members of the opposite sex.

I'm not freaking kidding here folks, Republican lawmakers tried to vote down an anti rape amendment.

The final vote on this amendment. 68-30 all nay votes? Republicans.

Don't believe me?

thomas.loc.gov...

#9


9. S.AMDT.2588 to H.R.3326 To prohibit the use of funds for any Federal contract with Halliburton Company, KBR, Inc., any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, or any other contracting party if such contractor or a subcontractor at any tier under such contract requires that employees or independent contractors sign mandatory arbitration clauses regarding certain claims.
Sponsor: Sen Franken, Al [MN] (introduced 10/1/2009) Cosponsors (9)
Latest Major Action: 10/6/2009 Senate amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment SA 2588 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 68 - 30. Record Vote Number: 308.


If this isn't political madness I don't know what is.

[edit on 10/15/2009 by whatukno]




posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure kidnapping and rape are already illegal. Have been for quite sometime now.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
in order to get a government contract, every employee in your company has to sign a contract agreeing to resolve through arbitration any claim of sexual harassment or discrimination, rape or assault.

doesn't this just mean that civil cases in these areas can't be settled out of court?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Yes, you are correct, however this amendment to this bill which was passed despite 30 Repubicans voting against an anti rape bill states that funds will not be appropriated to companies that make employees sign a contract that states they will not sue in case of rape.

Basically these Republicans are fine paying KBR Haliburton money when they force employees to sign waivers saying they won't sue KBR Haliburton in the event they are gang raped by other KBR Haliburton employees.

So these 30 Republicans are quite alright with our government money going to a company that forces their employees to sign a Rape waiver. That's fiscal responsibility.

And you wonder why I intentionally put this in US political madness?

Who are these Republicans who voted against an anti Rape amendment? I think the people should know who these people are. That way they know not to vote for these idiots in the future. These people are pro rape.

[edit on 10/15/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


Right it means that these companies can't use federal money (YOUR AND MY TAX DOLLARS) to hush up gang rapes.

Are you saying it's ok for your and my tax dollars to go to arbitration (basically paying off the person that has been gang raped by other employees) So it's ok for an employer to force a person to sign a contract saying that they will not sue the company in case they are raped by other employees, and this company is paid by taxpayers through the US government? So in essence you want your tax payer money going to a company to shut up rape victims by paying them off instead of people going to jail?

[edit on 10/15/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


They all love Halliburton. Even the ones who claim to hate it. The gov's been giving them our money for as long as I can remember. Even through the Clinton years.

Funny thing is, should an assaulted employee successfully sue the company for what another employee did that suing employee would be awarded our tax dollars through Halliburton.

I never understood suing an employer for the actions of an employee anyway. Unless the employer is training its employees to kidnap and rape of course.

It's like suing a town because some traffic guard was drunk on the job. The town didnt make that guard drunk. As far as I know Halliburton didnt make anyone a rapist.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by pieman
 


Right it means that these companies can't use federal money (YOUR AND MY TAX DOLLARS) to hush up gang rapes.


uuhhmm..where does it say that? i've re-read it a couple of times to see if i missed something...i did not see what you just referred to.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I would say that Republicans like rape but then everyone would freak, so I'll just give Jon Stewart's thoughts on this

www.huffingtonpost.com...




[edit on 15-10-2009 by pluckynoonez]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 



Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.


Find a lawyer to translate it for you. It basically says that government money won't be paid to KBR Haliburton to hush up rapes.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pluckynoonez
 



In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. In an apparent attempt to cover up the incident, the company then put her in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and “warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she’d be out of a job.” Even more insultingly, the DOJ resisted bringing any criminal charges in the matter. KBR argued that Jones’ employment contract warranted her claims being heard in private arbitration — without jury, judge, public record, or transcript of the proceedings. After 15 months in arbitration, Jones and her lawyers went to court to fight the KBR claims. Yesterday, a court ruled in favor of Jones.” Mother Jones reports:

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.

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.

“We do not hold that, as a matter of law, sexual-assault allegations can never ‘relate to’ someone’s employment,” wrote the court. “For this action, however, Jones’ allegations do not ‘touch matters’ related to her employment, let alone have a ’significant relationship’ to her employment contract.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


thinkprogress.org...



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


Ok, imagine you are a boss.
You get a contract to do something.
It's a lot of something, and you cant do it alone.
You hire somebody to do the something.
He screws up, and the guy who already payed you money to do something is pissed, because he cant use the something your employee did.

Now: The pissed guy has no contract with the guy who screwed things up, but he has one with you. So of course he will go to you to make sure you return his money, unscrew down the something, or do something else to make him less pissed. Even though *you* didn't screw anything up yourself, you are the one who made the promise to do something, and didn't keep it.

On the other hand You are completely entitled to be pissed at the guy who screwed things up, and pass on any trouble you had to him. Now if you realized that he was drunk as a sailor when he screwed things up and let him screw things up anyway, you will have a harder time with passing the blame on, than if you didn't realize or sent him home before he could do any damage.


When I read this today i was seriously amazed. To my european ears the idea that a *contract* can waive your right to have matters settled in court *In advance* sounds positively insane! In a way it defeats the purpose of a contract, doesn't it?

But if i understood this correctly it was only possible with a little nudge and wink from the government. So it's a good thing that is over with.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
in order to get a government contract, every employee in your company has to sign a contract agreeing to resolve through arbitration any claim of sexual harassment or discrimination, rape or assault.

doesn't this just mean that civil cases in these areas can't be settled out of court?


Actually, if you settle disputes through arbitration, it doesn't go through the traditional court routes and may be made completely private from the people. It does not have to be made a matter of public record. This is why many corporations prefer to arbitrate disputes.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
So the govt is creating a new law specifically to trump a private company's policy? Good God how many laws do we need to cover the same crimes?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


>they are gang raped by other KBR Haliburton employees.

>These people are pro rape.

[edit on 10/15/2009 by whatukno]


It doesn't call out "gang rape"... so you're exaggerating a bit there! It only specifies "rape"... so "gang rape" is still OK … not to worry


I think the republicans should come back with a bill that states that a contractor will only get money if all their employees ARE raped during the interview.... As you said, they are "pro rape". Aren't they? They should counter this legislation with their own “pro rape” legislation. I forgot that it is a basic tenant of the conservative movement to be pro rape. They always campaign on that platform. In fact, maybe that’s why I am a conservative… I love rape, I just didn’t know it. I should go out and rape today!

No… you know what… I’m going to go the extra mile and go out and Gang Rape today!

Give me a F**KING! BREAK!!!!

I wish there was an ANTI-STAR and an ANTI-FLAG. I can't believe I was admiring your profile picture in another thread. You have stretched the truth of this story to absolute obnoxiousness and so my response must also be extremely obnoxious.

(BTW, the reason some voted against it wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact that it’s our tax money goes to those companies who then pay it out in big civil suits for various indiscretions, is it? I’m wondering if they were trying to limit liability of the companies. I really don’t know why they voted against this, honestly, but I’m SURE that it wasn’t because they were Pro Gang Rape and you are really kind of a knob for suggesting something so ludicrous. )

[typo]


[edit on 15-10-2009 by JonInMichigan]



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
The other scary thing about these arbitration clauses in employment contracts or any other corporate contract is that the Corporation drawing up the contract is the one paying the arbitrator. So, what are the chances that the arbitrator will hold in favor of whomever is suing the Corporation? Not much. So, not only is it NOT a matter of public record it is completely skewed in the corporation's favor.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Know what? I'm retracting my post above. While I was typing my reply I missed your post of a legitimate gang-rape / imprisonment story.

Holy crap.

Ok... I get it. My apologies. You did NOT exaggerate and are not a knob.

Maybe a little bit because you're a lib, but not as much as before.



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by JonInMichigan
 


Thank you (I think
)

Just to set the record straight, I am a conservative, but not a Republican. I just don't think that our tax money should be spent on covering up gang rape through arbitration. I know I might seem a little tight wadish, but I just don't think that is a good way to spend tax payer money.
 


jjkenobi


So the govt is creating a new law specifically to trump a private company's policy? Good God how many laws do we need to cover the same crimes?


Really? When it's our tax money that is going to that private company you don't think we have any right to dictate that they don't cover up gang rapes with arbitration and won't receive money for forcing employees to sign contracts to the same? So KBR Haliburton and companies like that should be allowed to force their employees to sign a contract that states they can't sue the company when they get gang raped and imprisoned in a box?



posted on Oct, 15 2009 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
I would say that Republicans like rape but then everyone would freak, so I'll just give Jon Stewart's thoughts on this

www.huffingtonpost.com...




[edit on 15-10-2009 by pluckynoonez]


From the Huff synopsis of Stewart's bit:



He went on to show video of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) arguing that it's not the government's place to decide who the government does business with and juxtaposed that with Republican sentiment on how the government should deal with ACORN. "I guess it's an efficiency thing. You don't want to waste tax-payer money giving it to someone who advises fake prostitutes how to commit imaginary crimes, you want to give it to Halliburton because they're committing real gang rape."


This is EXACTLY what the 30 nay votes are saying. EXACTLY.

You are not in a nightmare folks. This is the American reality today.



posted on Oct, 16 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by JonInMichigan
 


> I am a conservative, but not a Republican.


I'm not a Republican [sic] either. I'm a conservative.

I guess it just came off as another praise Obama thread.

I see you commenting on another thread that the Anti-Obama rhetoric on here is out of control. That's because Obama is out of control and I would like to see him stop while there is still something left of this country.

Everytime a conservative makes a remark like that, ten libbys jump up and say, "Oh yeah and George Bush was all that?!"

No... he wasn't all that. No one said he was. I didn't like him. I didn't like the Patroit act and other unconstitutional BS.... but just because I didn't like him, doesn't mean I need to like Obama!

Just like everytime I speak out against the current health care bill, people immediately say, "but there are people suffering and you are for big insurance companies!" Again, I never said that. I said I don't like THIS legislation. Something needs to be done, yes, just not this. We need to slow the eff down in this country and think carefully about what we are doing. Bush rushed to pass TARP. Obama rushed to pass the stimulus. What's the rush? The health care system has been effed up for a long time...what's the rush? Do things right! Get bipartison concensous, etc... which means including the other side's ideas like interstate competition and tort reform. Anyway... I'm way off topic.

[typo]

[edit on 16-10-2009 by JonInMichigan]

[edit on 16-10-2009 by JonInMichigan]



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join