Rape is bad, right?

[Sir Bandelot]

Whats disturbing to me is that the government appears to be washing its hands of the situation, and giving corporations full legal control over their employees in these circumstances. If funding were provided, it would not keep the government at arms length so they might be liable. Therefore the employee has no rights or protections, other than those granted by the corporation.

See fascism 101

[Guest American Woman]

Therefore the employee has no rights or protections, other than those granted by the corporation.

They have the right not to work for the corporation.

[punked]

They have the right not to work for the corporation.

This seems like a an ignorant statement, and a slippery slope. Corporations which make their own rules and do not follow American law have no place in America.

[sharkman]

No, an ignorant statement would be along the lines of the one that Whoopi made in regards to the topic of Roman Polanski's rape, "...but it wasn't rape rape."

[punked]

No, an ignorant statement would be along the lines of the one that Whoopi made in regards to the topic of Roman Polanski's rape, "...but it wasn't rape rape."

Yes that is also an ignorant statement, you know there can be more then one ignorant state in the world right? Two can exist at the sametime.

[ReeferMadness]

The entire thread is dancing around the issue. No corporation or individuals should be shielded from legal action resulting from this type of serious criminal offense under any circumstances. It sounds like Franken is trying an end-run to bring some sort of accountability to organizations that seem to be above it. But this is a criminal issue and should be dealt with, first and foremost, criminally.

First, KBR itself should be up on criminal charges. A corporation is legally a person and like any other person can be charged. Based on what I've read, the corporation could be charged with a whole list of offences including kidnapping, obstruction of justice, and accessory to rape after the fact.

Second, criminal charges should be laid against all employees involved. They can start with the guards who illegally held Jones against her will. "I was just following orders" won't shield a civilian employee from criminal prosecution. The prospect of facing serious jail time might convince the guards to bargain by testifying against higher-ups who gave the orders or against the rape perpetrators themselves..

You say they have immunity? Well, I'm not a lawyer but Congressman Ted Poe disagrees.

As a former judge and prosecutor, there is federal law that applies to this case and here's the reason. The jurisdiction of where this happened in the green zone, in Camp Hope in Baghdad is under the jurisdiction of the State Department and since it's under the jurisdiction of the State Department, federal law does apply and people can be prosecuted for crimes against American citizens.

Link

This whole case stinks.

It seems the US never has a problem twisting international law to justify attacking and invading another country. But it won't apply its own law to protect its own citizens.

Edited October 17, 2009 by ReeferMadness

[Guest American Woman]

This seems like a an ignorant statement, and a slippery slope. Corporations which make their own rules and do not follow American law have no place in America.

And I think signing such a contract seems ignorant. Corporations can get away with such things because people sign the contracts. Why? For the Big Bucks? If people refused to sign such a contract, refusing to work for such a corporation, the corporation would be forced to change the contracts.

[charter.rights]

And I think signing such a contract seems ignorant. Corporations can get away with such things because people sign the contracts. Why? For the Big Bucks? If people refused to sign such a contract, refusing to work for such a corporation, the corporation would be forced to change the contracts.

I'm not up on American civil laws but in Canada indemnity clauses do not protect people (or companies) from a tort (deliberately committed). Indemnity is meant to protect a a person or company from disagreements arising from the normal and reasonable execution of their duties. It would violate their rights if the courts attempted to interfere with this woman's right to hold the company liable for trying to hide and deny the rape occurred. Of course they could claim indemnity for the rape itself since the offender was not acting on the company's behalf.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out and whether the US system is as just and civil as ours.

[Guest American Woman]

I'm not up on American civil laws but in Canada indemnity clauses do not protect people (or companies) from a tort (deliberately committed). Indemnity is meant to protect a a person or company from disagreements arising from the normal and reasonable execution of their duties. It would violate their rights if the courts attempted to interfere with this woman's right to hold the company liable for trying to hide and deny the rape occurred. Of course they could claim indemnity for the rape itself since the offender was not acting on the company's behalf.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out and whether the US system is as just and civil as ours.

..... an appeals court recently ruled that Jones' lawsuit could go to court, in part because it is beyond the bounds of the contract agreement. link

And trust me. Our system is as "just and civil" as yours.

[weareone]

No.....I believe that rape and confinement exist. Being for or against is meaningless.

And being apathetic is what?

[Sir Bandelot]

And I think signing such a contract seems ignorant. Corporations can get away with such things because people sign the contracts. Why? For the Big Bucks? If people refused to sign such a contract, refusing to work for such a corporation, the corporation would be forced to change the contracts.

True, yet the larger problem remains that the government allows such conditions to exist, where people can operate completely outside of the law. So, is there law, or is there not law.

As I'm sure you know some corporations which have no inherent concern for their employees (beyond their ability to make profits) would prefer not to be fettered by laws or regulations. Thats one reason for all the outsourcing to the third world. In the perfect neofascist world, workers are all citizens of the corporation which sets its own laws for them to follow. The attitude will then be, if you don't like it you can be unemployed. Even self-employed is becoming a problem, as corporations form alliances and will only do business with other corporations that are on their list of preferred clientelle.

[Riverwind]

True, yet the larger problem remains that the government allows such conditions to exist, where people can operate completely outside of the law. So, is there law, or is there not law.

Governments can stipulate that certain items are not enforcable even if they are put into contracts. And, as AmericanWoman just noted, it appears that a court felt that this particular clause was once example. This is sounding more and more like grandstanding that has nothing to do with protecting victims of rape.

[Sir Bandelot]

Governments can stipulate that certain items are not enforcable even if they are put into contracts. And, as AmericanWoman just noted, it appears that a court felt that this particular clause was once example. This is sounding more and more like grandstanding that has nothing to do with protecting victims of rape.

I'm quite sure American Woman is capable of defending her views, as am I, and probably you.

If you have one. I don't get your point. This clause was once example? WTF

[Riverwind]

This clause was one example? WTF

One example of how the courts will often rule that certain clauses in contracts are unenforceable. Another example are liability waivers - courts will often ignore them if there is evidence of negligence.

It is also important to remember that she wants to sue the company - not the rapists. The company may or may not be liable depending on circumstances of the case. A lot of people getting exercised at this case seem to assume that since she was raped by other employees then the company is automatically guilty. It is not that simple.

[ReeferMadness]

Governments can stipulate that certain items are not enforcable even if they are put into contracts. And, as AmericanWoman just noted, it appears that a court felt that this particular clause was once example. This is sounding more and more like grandstanding that has nothing to do with protecting victims of rape.

It is also important to remember that she wants to sue the company - not the rapists. The company may or may not be liable depending on circumstances of the case. A lot of people getting exercised at this case seem to assume that since she was raped by other employees then the company is automatically guilty. It is not that simple.

Grandstanding?? WTF??? Have you read anything that's been written about this case?

This woman was drugged, gang-raped and assaulted by her co-workers. Her injuries required reconstructive surgery. The company's response was to lock her up and threaten to fire her if she didn't "get over it". Her father had to ask a congressman to intervene and the State Department rescued her from her own employer.

The army doctor who examined her handed the evidence over to KBR who then "lost" it. The State Department eventually recovered the rape kit but somehow, cirtical pieces (photographs and the doctors notes) were "missing". It's going to be interesting to see what legal contortions KBR uses to try to deny liability.

Since Jones went public, other women are starting to come forward with allegations that they too were victimized by assault and sexual harrassment.

But if you're looking to spread the blame, you're in luck. You could start with the Bush administration for effectively creating a lawless society in Iraq. US citizens are exempt from prosecution by the Iraq government, yet there appears to have been no provision for Department of Justice involvement. Apparently, the State Department investigated this case but they have no authority to lay charges.

And where, exactly are the so-called Department of Justice on this case? According to Congressman Poe and others, they have jurisdiction but haven't bothered to investigate.

[Riverwind]

Grandstanding?? WTF??? Have you read anything that's been written about this case?

1) the bill in question only denies government contracts to companies that have these anti-sue clauses in their contract. This means that any company that does not have government contracts is free to continue as normal. What is really needed her is a law that applies to all companies.

2) It appears that one court is already ahead of the legislatures and has allowed the suit to move forward despite the contract wording. That means that current laws may already protect victims of such the one in this case meaning that the law is unnecessary.

There are probably many words for politicians that latch onto a sympathetic victim and use that to pass laws that are unecessary and don't actually address the claimed problem. Grandstanding is certainly one of them.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Riverwind

[Sir Bandelot]

1) the bill in question only denies government contracts to companies that have these anti-sue clauses in their contract. This means that any company that does not have government contracts is free to continue as normal. What is really needed her is a law that applies to all companies.

2) It appears that one court is already ahead of the legislatures and has allowed the suit to move forward despite the contract wording. That means that current laws may already protect victims of such the one in this case meaning that the law is unnecessary.

There are probably many words for politicians that latch onto a sympathetic victim and use that to pass laws that are unecessary and don't actually address the claimed problem. Grandstanding is certainly one of them.

Ahhh. NOW I understand what you're saying.

->What is really needed here is a law that applies to all companies.

I agree, and tried to say essentially the same thing.

[bush_cheney2004]

And being apathetic is what?

A right.

[Guest American Woman]

Ahhh. NOW I understand what you're saying.

->What is really needed here is a law that applies to all companies.

I agree, and tried to say essentially the same thing.

The law does apply to all companies.

[naomiglover]

http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/

I would like to check to see how much funding each of these legislators receive from KBR and other companies who have "you can't punish company rapers" rules in their contracts.

Also, I am convinced that this person, "American Woman" is not a real woman. I have never met any woman who would, in any way, try to justify voting against or try to downplay voting against this amendment. Disturbing.

Edited October 20, 2009 by naomiglover

[Guest American Woman]

http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/

I would like to check to see how much funding each of these legislators receive from KBR and other companies who have "you can't punish company rapers" rules in their contracts.

Also, I am convinced that this person, "American Woman" is not a real woman. I have never met any woman who would, in any way, try to justify voting against or try to downplay voting against this amendment. Disturbing.

And I'm convinced that your inability to comprehend what's actually said, along with your inability to engage in a civil discussion, makes further explanations/refuting your ignorant accusations/'interpretations' a waste of my time.

Edited October 20, 2009 by American Woman

[Sir Bandelot]

The law does apply to all companies.

I don't know if its much of a "law", but it seems to focus on only those companies that get federal funding. I say its not much of a law, because for punishment all they do is cut the funding. My view of this is that all it does is keep the government at arms length, so they are protecting themselves, not the person. Companies that don't get the funding don't have any restrictions. But you know that

Edited October 20, 2009 by Sir Bandelot

[Guest American Woman]

I don't know if its much of a "law", but it seems to focus on only those companies that get federal funding. I say its not much of a law, because for punishment all they do is cut the funding. My view of this is that all it does is keep the government at arms length, so they are protecting themselves, not the person. Companies that don't get the funding don't have any restrictions. But you know that.

I agree. That's why I pointed out that the Congressmen who voted against it weren't voting on whether or not rape victims get their day in court or not, all they were voting on is whether or not companies with such an arbitration clause could get federal contracts. So this law, such as it is, does apply to all companies as no company with such a clause would get federal contracts.

[naomiglover]

And I'm convinced that your inability to comprehend what's actually said, along with your inability to engage in a civil discussion, makes further explanations/refuting your ignorant accusations/'interpretations' a waste of my time.

You've tried to downplay these lawmakers' vote from the beginning. Their vote was against an amendment that would prevent companies, who try to disable employees from receiving the right to take rapers to court, from receiving funds from the federal government.

It is a big deal. Anyone who tries to justify their vote or downplay their vote is advocating rape. There should be zero tolerance for such people.

Edited October 20, 2009 by naomiglover

[M.Dancer]

Anyone who tries to justify their vote or downplay their vote is advocating rape.

That is absurd. No one is preventing anyone from filing criminal charges against a rapist. What they voted for was to limit litigation against a company the alleged criminal may work for, arguing most probably that a company should not be responsible for the felonious behavior of employees.

Should a mugging victim sue Rogers if they are robbed by a Rogers employee?