The Gaming Den

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained 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.” (Alas, Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR “if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.” Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Franken said:

The constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law … And today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts do deny women like Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. … The victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court [and] Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) spoke against the amendment, calling it “a political attack directed at Halliburton.” Franken responded, “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.” In the end, Franken won the debate. His amendment passed by a 68-30 vote, earning the support of 10 Republican senators including that of newly-minted Florida Sen. George LeMieux. “He did what a senator should do, which was he was working it,” LeMieux said in praise of Franken. “He was working for his amendment.”Appearing with Franken after the vote, an elated Jones expressed her deep appreciation. “It means the world to me,” she 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.”

Here's a list of the 30 Senators - all male, all Republican - that voted against this amendment and on the behalf of defending rapists everywhere. If you happen to be politically represented by one of these individuals, you may want to consider giving their political opponents a very large campaign donation the next time they come up for re-election - as if them being Republican wasn't reason enough to give their opponents money and cast votes against them.

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Kit Bond (R-OH)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsay Graham (R-SC)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
James Inofe (R-OK)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
John Kyl (R-AZ)
John "Maverick" McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnel (R-KY)
Jim Risch (R-ID)
Pat Roberts (R-KS)
Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
Richard Shelby (R-AL)
John Thune (R-SD)
David Vitter (R-LA)
Roger Wicker (R-MS)

Que the gaming den rape apologist squad telling us she deserved it.

Ganbare Gincun wrote:Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

This right here is bullshit (NOT in the sense that it isn't true, but in the sense that such clauses should not be legal, IMO). You should not be required to give up due process of law to obtain employment, nor should employers be able to demand it of you, nor should such clauses stand up in court.

Even if you signed something like this, you should totally be able to bring criminal charges, and the courts should back you up. Because allowing companies CYA contracts that allow them to evade prosecution for fucking crimes is (in case I didn't say it clearly the first time) bullshit. This is not "sexual harassment" or a civil matter; this is fucking rape.

PoliteNewb wrote: Even if you signed something like this, you should totally be able to bring criminal charges, and the courts should back you up. Because allowing companies CYA contracts that allow them to evade prosecution for fucking crimes is (in case I didn't say it clearly the first time) bullshit. This is not "sexual harassment" or a civil matter; this is fucking rape.

"You" (meaning a victim of a crime) can't bring criminal charges of any sort in any case, whatsoever (in the US. Other countries have other systems, which I can go into if necessary). The government brings criminal charges, and due to political protection from the previous administration, this was not prosecuted. Hopefully it now can/will be.

Neeek wrote:The government brings criminal charges, and due to political protection from the previous administration, this was not prosecuted. Hopefully it now can/will be.

EDIT: Actually, that is a bit unfair. This particular incident involved a WHITE WOMAN getting raped, so chances of any justice coming out of it whatsoever are higher than other previous atrocities.

PoliteNewb wrote:

Ganbare Gincun wrote:Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

This right here is bullshit (NOT in the sense that it isn't true, but in the sense that such clauses should not be legal, IMO). You should not be required to give up due process of law to obtain employment, nor should employers be able to demand it of you, nor should such clauses stand up in court.

Even if you signed something like this, you should totally be able to bring criminal charges, and the courts should back you up. Because allowing companies CYA contracts that allow them to evade prosecution for fucking crimes is (in case I didn't say it clearly the first time) bullshit. This is not "sexual harassment" or a civil matter; this is fucking rape.

Yeah, but this is the US, where corporations can get away with anything they want and the government is too pussy to do anything about it. Honestly for even having a contract like that, the government should come in and fine the fuck out of them, as well as jail whatever lawyer wrote that shit up.

Sometimes I think we need a dictator to just straighten this shit out. Somebody whose not going to back down and stick it to companies who do illegal stuff using completely draconian measures. Ya know like that whole bullshit with them spending bailout money on million dollar bonuses for CEOs. Find the guys who distributed the money that way, charge them with treason and publically execute them with shotguns to the back of the head. The ones who received the bonuses will have the option of returning the money or also getting shotgunned.

We need a leader who says, "I don't give a fuck how much money you have. This is the government and we don't put up with your shit."

RandomCasualty2 wrote:We need a leader who says, "I don't give a fuck how much money you have. This is the government and we don't put up with your shit."

American's won't vote for someone like that, though.

Here's the text of the Amendment in its entirety:

Franken Amendment wrote: 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.

(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.

I don't see any wiggle room on this. Do the NOs really think that this is unreasonable? Is the inclusion of the private arbitration clause really so important that they can't imagine removing it and maintaining our ability to utilize contractors?

RandomCasualty2 wrote:We need a leader who says, "I don't give a fuck how much money you have. This is the government and we don't put up with your shit."

Lots of luck finding that person; I don't think he or she exists. Clearly that person cannot be a politician; they have almost been breed to love the money.

mean_liar wrote:Here's the text of the Amendment in its entirety:

...

I don't see any wiggle room on this. Do the NOs really think that this is unreasonable? Is the inclusion of the private arbitration clause really so important that they can't imagine removing it and maintaining our ability to utilize contractors?

I don't see any wiggle room either. (Hmmm, Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it's potential application in countries dominated by Muslim based law ... still no wiggle room.)

I don't see any mention of this on the GOPUSA website. (Not that it matters.) And I see that there were 10 Republican senators who did vote for it. I have found the following link that has a link to his senate speech.

Seriously, my respect for Al Franken grows by leaps and bounds.

In the end, Franken won the debate. His amendment passed by a 68-30 vote, earning the support of 10 Republican senators including that of newly-minted Florida Sen. George LeMieux. “He did what a senator should do, which was he was working it,” LeMieux said in praise of Franken. “He was working for his amendment.”

Clauses like this are usually included because they can limit discovery requirements and eradicate publicity and judicial review. They're a way to keep costs down when you know you're going to get sued for violation of the CRA or employment standards, and including them as a standard clause of your employment contracts pretty much means that you're a shamefully consistent asshole.

The DoD didn't like it, citing that enforcement would be problematic. US Chamber of Commerce didn't like it either for its mucking with employer-employee relations. The GOPs argument was that it contradicted the Constitution, though case law pretty much lays out that this is absolutely not the fact.

Fuck all three for their bullshit.

DoD = "We don't like it because we're a bureaucracy and this is a pain in the ass to actually follow through on, and our opposition to it takes zero account of justice."

CoC = "If they want to fuck, fuck them they play by our rules and fuck you for trying to fuck with that"

GOP = "We suck the Pentagon's dick and the CoC is giving us cover to complain about socialism and really even though the 7th Amendment is in the Bill of Rights the government has no real role in protecting that and if the contract said that you had to take it in the ass from your superior and wear a silly-ass hat then we'd be okay with that too, because anything that touches a business is socialism and they're allowed to do whatever they want."

Fuck these douchebags.

tzor wrote:

IMNSO my opinion of Al Franken has increased considerably.

Makes me glad that I voted for him. Anyway, the fact that 10 Republican did vote for it shows that it's not all party vs. party bullshit for everyone, which is a bit of a relief--although I think it's pretty amazing that anyone would vote against it. At least it looks like people won't be putting up with Richard Burr's bullshit any longer. Elections are in January and his future in the Senate isn't looking too bright.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Richard Burr

That name just sounds like a sandspur on your penis. How'd he ever get elected?

Meh, seems pretty party v Party to me.

30 Male Republican Senators voted against the amendment.

6 Male Republicans voted for the amendment.

I'm pretty sure if you picked out those 6, half of them would be on 2-3 conservative interest groups as evil liberals in disguise already.

I'll see what I can do to get Shelby and Sessions out next election.

I mean, they represent my state, they do an okay job, they don't make news by being jackasses...

But that's unacceptable.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:

tzor wrote:

IMNSO my opinion of Al Franken has increased considerably.

Makes me glad that I voted for him.

I can't help but notice that your location listing is North Carolina. Did you just recently move away from Minnesota? If so, uh, why? MN is a fantastic progressive state, filled with natural beauty, as well as art, culture, and great music. (We have the best goddamn radio station in the country, for example) And I'm not just spouting off out of hometown pride; I've lived all over the U.S. and I moved back to MN by choice. Admittedly, though, I've never been to NC - what's the draw?

I voted for Franken too, btw. And Keith Ellison and Paul Wellstone. But I can't claim any credit for Jesse Ventura; I was living in California at the time.

yet another righteous blow against defense contractors good job al franken. also i dont see any real reason a person with a shred of morality or decency would vote against this. then again they are the republican party

mean_liar wrote:Clauses like this are usually included because they can limit discovery requirements and eradicate publicity and judicial review. They're a way to keep costs down when you know you're going to get sued for violation of the CRA or employment standards, and including them as a standard clause of your employment contracts pretty much means that you're a shamefully consistent asshole.

Yeah, that shit is basically blackmail and obstruction of justice. The fact that it exists is intimidating employees into not reporting crimes. And the lawyer who wrote that thing should definitely be charged with criminal offenses, as well as being banned from practicing law ever again.

Sock Puppet wrote:I can't help but notice that your location listing is North Carolina. Did you just recently move away from Minnesota? If so, uh, why? MN is a fantastic progressive state, filled with natural beauty, as well as art, culture, and great music. (We have the best goddamn radio station in the country, for example) And I'm not just spouting off out of hometown pride; I've lived all over the U.S. and I moved back to MN by choice. Admittedly, though, I've never been to NC - what's the draw?

Well, there's the 'fact' that Durham is the "smartest city in the USA", and is at least as liberal as Minneapolis. And we're much nearer to the ocean. And it's 70 here while it's 50 in Minneapolis. But the real reason is my wife's graduate education.

Sock Puppet wrote:I voted for Franken too, btw. And Keith Ellison and Paul Wellstone. But I can't claim any credit for Jesse Ventura; I was living in California at the time.

I can't claim any credit for Ventura either (nor Wellstone), not because I was in Cali (my family had moved to MN by then), but because I was a few years short of voting. But boy, the whole Ventura thing was made worthwhile when those Californians who made snide comments about Jesse 'The Mind' elected the governator.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:And it's 70 here while it's 50 in Minneapolis. But the real reason is my wife's graduate education.

I fail to see the advantage here...

Kaelik wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote:And it's 70 here while it's 50 in Minneapolis. But the real reason is my wife's graduate education.

I fail to see the advantage here...

It gets to be an advantage as far south as here, apparently. My sister and I have or have had college professors from further north who moved to the Deep South (Pennsylvania in my case, Scotland in hers and down to the southern ends of Alabama and Mississippi, respectively) and decided they liked living here, especially in the winters.

Oh, and it was 81 degree at 8:30 when I got off work earlier tonight.