30 Republicans oppose Franken's Anti-Rape amendment

[think]

I can't comprehend law and order Republicans that did not vote to make sure military contractors don't put clauses in their employee contracts that forbid their employees to report and get help if they are raped.

Al Franken created the amendment after hearing the testimony of a woman who claims to have been drugged and gang raped by her fellow employees at KBR/Halliburton. At least one other KBR employee has now come forward with similar claims and other women may come forward to testify as well:

US defense firms are to be barred from lucrative government contracts if they refuse to allow employees access to the courts, after a woman working for a Halliburton subsidiary in Iraq was prevented from taking legal action over an alleged gang rape by fellow workers.

Al Franken, the Senate's newest member, has won an amendment to the defense appropriations bill prompted by the case of Jamie Leigh Jones. She alleges that she was drugged and raped by seven American contractors in Baghdad in 2005.

Jones, who was employed by KBR, which was fighting oil fires, says that a pattern of subsequent behavior 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://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...pe-claim-block

These 30 Republicans voted against this legislation:

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)

[Doc Com]

I am more appalled by the conduct of KBR/Haliburton.

I can not get over these representatives of KBR just brush this off!

Rape case to force US defence firms into the open
Senate passes measure prompted by case of woman prevented from suing over alleged rape by Halliburton/KBR colleagues

US defence firms are to be barred from lucrative government contracts if they refuse to allow employees access to the courts, after a woman working for a Halliburton subsidiary in Iraq was prevented from taking legal action over an alleged gang rape by fellow workers.

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.

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.

You've got to be kidding me!

Rape, kidnapping, holding someone against their will are ALL FELONIES!

Since when does company policy outweigh the courts of law?

[think]

Originally Posted by Doc Com

I am more appalled by the conduct of KBR/Haliburton.

I can not get over these representatives of KBR just brush this off!

Rape case to force US defence firms into the open
Senate passes measure prompted by case of woman prevented from suing over alleged rape by Halliburton/KBR colleagues

US defence firms are to be barred from lucrative government contracts if they refuse to allow employees access to the courts, after a woman working for a Halliburton subsidiary in Iraq was prevented from taking legal action over an alleged gang rape by fellow workers.

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.

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.

You've got to be kidding me!

Rape, kidnapping, holding someone against their will are ALL FELONIES!

Since when does company policy outweigh the courts of law?

I agree 100%. They also need to quit funding KBR as they have already killed at least 2 of our troops with their faulty wiring jobs in Iraq:

KBR gets $35M contract despite electrocutions

By Kimberly Hefling - The Associated Press
Posted : Saturday Feb 7, 2009 17:03:23 EST

WASHINGTON — Defense contractor KBR Inc., which is under criminal investigation in the electrocution deaths of at least two U.S. soldiers in Iraq, has been awarded a $35 million contract by the Pentagon to build an electrical distribution center and other projects there.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/0...ntract_020709/

[draggar]

Everyone knows by now that a lot of crap is thrown into these bills that have nothing to do with the name of the bill and the point of the bill.

I'm not defending the people who voted against it but I wonder what else was thrown into the bill.

[think]

Originally Posted by draggar

Everyone knows by now that a lot of crap is thrown into these bills that have nothing to do with the name of the bill and the point of the bill.

I'm not defending the people who voted against it but I wonder what else was thrown into the bill.

The vote was strictly on the amendment not the bill. For whatever reason the Senators voted against the amendment:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Franken Amdt. No. 2588 )
Vote Number: 308 Vote Date: October 6, 2009, 04:37 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 2588 to H.R. 3326 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010)
Statement of Purpose: 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.
Vote Counts: YEAs 68
NAYs 30
Not Voting 2

http://senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ro...n=1&vote=00308

[south]

Originally Posted by draggar

Everyone knows by now that a lot of crap is thrown into these bills that have nothing to do with the name of the bill and the point of the bill.

I'm not defending the people who voted against it but I wonder what else was thrown into the bill.

Yes, unfortunately. I doubt they were voting against that single point. Someone should hang for what they did to that girl.

On another note, It would appear ACORN's funding is set to resume November 1st. Gee, a month without taking our tax dollars is sure going to straighten them out... not!

[think]

Originally Posted by south

Yes, unfortunately. I doubt they were voting against that single point. Someone should hang for what they did to that girl.

On another note, It would appear ACORN's funding is set to resume November 1st. Gee, a month without taking our tax dollars is sure going to straighten them out... not!

No. It was specifically a vote on Franken's amendment. Please see the above post.

[south]

Originally Posted by think

No. It was specifically a vote on Franken's amendment. Please see the above post.

I see no results for any defending their reasoning for voting against it yet.

Edit:

Here's one:

Johanns:
Source: http://www.nebraska.tv/Global/story.asp?S=11320663

The Franken Amendment doesn't strengthen federal laws to protect Americans from violence. Instead, it bans contractors who have dispute resolution agreements with their employees from doing business with the Department of Defense. Unfortunately, this measure would prohibit a useful and efficient method for workers to have their grievances addressed.

It is incorrect that this amendment would have helped (the victim),* a victim referenced in the amendment. The facts surrounding her case were found to be outside of her employment agreement and the 5th Circuit ruled that (the victim)* will be permitted to have her day in court. Thus, this amendment simply missed the mark.

Shoulda been a slam dunk though. However, I can appreciate the cost savings of using arbitration vs lawyers in many cases, but obviously in legal matters such as this, there should be no way out of it for any company.

[Doc Com]

Originally Posted by south

However, I can appreciate the cost savings of using arbitration vs lawyers in many cases, but obviously in legal matters such as this, there should be no way out of it for any company.

Agree. This is not a dispute among employees. And these are not misdemeanor charges she is alleging. These are felonies.

It would be interesting if these charges, should they go as afar as being brought to court, if this would be a federal jurisdiction being that these charges supposedly happened in Iraq while performing as a federal contractor.