GOP vote against appropriations bill misunderstood

[Kilgor]

Yesterday, 30 Republican senators opposed an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that would prohibit federal defense contractors like Halliburton/KBR from getting money "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace ****** assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

In other words, 30 GOP senators want to deny rape victims their day in court.

Think Progress has the story of the woman who prompted this amendment:

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." (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that ****** assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Senator Al Franken introduced the amendment to the appropriations bill last week to prevent such complete disregard for the rights of rape victims. Nine senators (Mary Landrieu, Benjamin Cardin, Amy Klobuchar, John Kerry, Jeff Merkley, Bill NElson, Dianne Feinstein, Sherrod Brown and Jeanne Shaheen) joined Franken in cosponsoring the bill -- and it passed with 10 GOP senators supporting it after a passionate speech from Franken:


All four Republican women (Susan Collins, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Lisa Murkowski and Olympia Snowe) voted for the amendment, and they were joined by Bob Bennett, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, George LeMieux, **** Lugar and George Voinovich. These GOP senators deserve our thanks for truly embracing bipartisanship to vote for a bill that is clearly a good idea.

Then there's the 30 who voted against it:

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)

Of particular note in this bunch? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Nominee for president John McCain. Senators intimately familiar with *** scandals David Vitter and John Ensign.

Really, guys? Opposing a bill intended to let rape victims get prosecution? That's truly a new low for the Republican party.

You can call them out on it! If you're a constituent of one of these members, we'll deliver your letter of outrage to them -- and if you're not, it'll go to Minority Leader McConnell, who speaks for all Senate Republicans. Send your letter today!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q5kVbiWnAQ

If this doesn't make you feel ill, then your moral compass is f8cked. Sorry.

http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/republicans-for-rape/

[budgie]

I'll be the first to come out in their defense: They may not have actually been voting against the 'rape clause'. Bills are laden with all sorts of rubbish and they may simply have wanted another aspect of it changed before voting again. This happens all time.

It's what allowed the GOP to claim Kerry was a flip-flopper and that he voted against providing gear to troops in the field. That was the part of the bill they singled out, but not necessarily the part he was 'for then against'.

So until these senators say why voted against it, we can't accuse them of being insensitive to women's issues. It may have been because of a completely unrelated section.

[bryanleu2002]

what did you expect from a already corrupt gov.??

"Money has no enemy.."

Moral compass? do you think any of the politicians right or left have any moral compass?



My upmost heart goes out to Jamie Leigh Jones.

bryan

[GregHJ]

Once again Republicans vote to protect corporations while giving the shaft to those they employ.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Ah yes, Republicans want to starve children, want you to die, and support rape. Hope and change, it's a new day in Washington.

None the less, this amendment already passed the Senate, with Republican support. Those who opposed the amendment did so because;
1. they opposed the broad language of the bill
2. they did not believe Congress should be re-writing existing employee agreements with contractors
3. courts already ruled that rape falls outside the scope of existing contracts and can be heard in court (vs via arbitration as the contracts say)
4. they just flat out love rape.

[Alpheus]

Damn it 2sheds, stop bringing logic and common sense into this thread.

[brainplay]

Yesterday, 30 Republican senators opposed an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that would prohibit federal defense contractors like Halliburton/KBR from getting money "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace ****** assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

This amendment has no business in this bill. It needs to be ripped out and propped up on its own in the form of a bill or a DoD policy.

[Soldat_Américain]

Is it possible to punish Halliburton for this as well as sending the jackasses that did this to a prison in Saudi Arabia?

[HK in AK]

As with all legislation, what is often reported are half-truths and slanted content. Multiple sections of legislation are rolled together. Maybe there was something else in the legislation that was why they voted the way they did. Before making a comment on the motive of any party (dem or repub) it would be best to go pull the bill and read it for yourself........then jump and condemn them.......

does the original poster have the bill number or any link to the legislative information?

[seraosha]

Is it possible to punish Halliburton for this as well as sending the jackasses that did this to a prison in Saudi Arabia?

I guess that would be acceptible if they decided to use Saudi requirements to file a complaint about rape...you know, two women eye witnesses to the actual act, vis a vis sharia law.

How about everyone take a deep breath and get a link to the bill in question before jumping to conclusions?

[LineDoggie]

How is someone Not allowed to bring Rape charges against another employee? and since Contractors in OIF/OEF are under UCMJ rules

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/01/dfn.ucmjcontractors070105/

Wouldnt Article 120 cover it?

ART. 120. RAPE AND CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of ****** intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of ****** intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.

[muck]

The title is misleading and biased.
Nonetheless I think they should have given their "Yay" for the bill.

[Soldat_Américain]

How is someone Not allowed to bring Rape charges against another employee? and since Contractors in OIF/OEF are under UCMJ rules

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/01/dfn.ucmjcontractors070105/

Wouldnt Article 120 cover it?

ART. 120. RAPE AND CARNAL KNOWLEDGE
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of ****** intercourse with a female not his wife, by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of ****** intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years, is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

(c) Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete either of these offenses.


Then where's CID and the MPs on this one?

[SoftLion]

In other words, 30 GOP senators want to deny rape victims their day in court.

Think Progress has the story of the woman who prompted this amendment:

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." (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that ****** assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Senator Al Franken introduced the amendment to the appropriations bill last week to prevent such complete disregard for the rights of rape victims. Nine senators (Mary Landrieu, Benjamin Cardin, Amy Klobuchar, John Kerry, Jeff Merkley, Bill NElson, Dianne Feinstein, Sherrod Brown and Jeanne Shaheen) joined Franken in cosponsoring the bill -- and it passed with 10 GOP senators supporting it after a passionate speech from Franken:


All four Republican women (Susan Collins, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Lisa Murkowski and Olympia Snowe) voted for the amendment, and they were joined by Bob Bennett, Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, George LeMieux, **** Lugar and George Voinovich. These GOP senators deserve our thanks for truly embracing bipartisanship to vote for a bill that is clearly a good idea.

Then there's the 30 who voted against it:

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)

Of particular note in this bunch? Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Nominee for president John McCain. Senators intimately familiar with *** scandals David Vitter and John Ensign.

Really, guys? Opposing a bill intended to let rape victims get prosecution? That's truly a new low for the Republican party.

You can call them out on it! If you're a constituent of one of these members, we'll deliver your letter of outrage to them -- and if you're not, it'll go to Minority Leader McConnell, who speaks for all Senate Republicans. Send your letter today!

If this doesn't make you feel ill, then your moral compass is f8cked. Sorry.

http://www.care2.com/causes/womens-rights/blog/republicans-for-rape/

See what Budgie said above (and 2Sheds). You do not understand how the process works.

This does not make me feel ill, nor is my moral compassed ****ed. The only thing ****ed here is your one-way regurgitation of HuffPo and lack of understanding of how charged amendments like this are added to a bill that stands for something altogether unrelated, so that when the entire bill is voted down, the party can count on the ignorant to jump to unsubstantiated conclusions like you did above.

Even if you don't understand how the process works, it is still pathetic that you actually believe that these 30 Republicans are pro-rape. But I know a certain Mr. Soros that would float you 100 large to spam your post around the country....

EDIT - most misleading title of all time, and based on the severity of the offenses I committed to get infractions, you should be caned then banned.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

How is someone Not allowed to bring Rape charges against another employee? and since Contractors in OIF/OEF are under UCMJ rules


Have you got some reference that states that? I tried to find one and came up empty. Everything I found stated specifically that employees of KBR and Halliburton (etc.) overseas are not subject to the UCMJ (since they are civilians). I think the only way to try them for offenses is through the State Dept. - then the jurisdiction becomes their home state maybe? Seems to be a bit of a legal blind spot.

As a condition of their employment, applicants sign papers stating that all disputes between them and the company will be settled via arbitration. It keeps costs down. That probably works fine for pay disputes etc. but not so well when somebody claims their company raped them.

[LineDoggie]

Well, this was what I found

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/01/dfn.ucmjcontractors070105/

Some UCMJ rules now cover U.S. contractors



During an argument, a U.S. civilian contractor utters a few unprintable words to a U.S. military officer. Under newly revised U.S. law, the contractor may be court-martialed.


The same new rules may apply to contractors who drink alcohol or possess ****ography in countries where it is forbidden, commit adultery or fraternize — the military’s term for having improper relationships.
A five-word revision of the U.S. legal code, passed virtually unnoticed by Congress last fall, would make U.S. civilians working for the U.S. military in Iraq, Afghanistan or other “contingency operations” subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).


Before the revision, contractors were governed by the UCMJ only in times of declared wars.
The change was intended to close a legal loophole that has enabled contract personnel to escape punishment for violating the law, said Peter Singer, a military scholar at the Brookings Institution.
But a result may be that contractors now can be punished for actions not ordinarily prosecutable under U.S. law, said Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, an organization that represents government contractors.

The legal change is the work of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who said it would “give military commanders a more fair and efficient means of discipline on the battlefield” by placing “civilian contractors accompanying the Armed Forces in the field under court-martial jurisdiction during contingency operations as well as in times of declared war.”


The new law appears to impose the UCMJ — the military’s “code of behavior” — on contractors working for the U.S. military in contingency operations, Soloway said.
The UCMJ’s “behavioral requirements are very different and potentially in conflict with contract law and criminal law,” Soloway said.
New Reasons To Prosecute Civilian contractors now might be punished for disrespecting an officer, disregarding an order or committing adultery — actions that are not prosecutable under U.S. law, Soloway said.


“If a general or colonel directs a contractor or government civilian to do something that is outside terms of contract, under U.S. procurement law, the contractor does not do it without authority from the contracting officer,” Soloway said. But under the UCMJ, “that might be failure to follow an order.”
Singer, who has studied the use of civilian contractors in contemporary wars, called Graham’s amendment “long overdue.”


Without the new law, “whenever our military officers came across episodes of suspected contractor crimes in missions like Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq or Afghanistan, they had no tools to resolve them,” he said. Alleged contractor misdeeds range from theft and fraud to mistreatment of prisoners, operating *** rings, rape and murder. But according to Singer, contractors are almost never prosecuted.


Contractors have escaped through a legal gap, he said. They were not covered by the UCMJ, and while they are subject to local laws, often, as in Iraq, there is no functioning legal system to prosecute criminal activity.


Soloway said U.S. contractors are subject to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA).
“If you are working under a DoD contract at a U.S. military facility and you commit a crime, that is considered a crime in the United States and you can be prosecuted under U.S. law,” he said.
But Singer said, “the reality of MEJA is it has not been activated for Iraq.” Despite atrocities by contract interrogators and killings by contract security guards, no contractors have been prosecuted under MEJA, he said.


“We have had contractors involved in all sorts of stuff, but the military has said there’s nothing we can do,” Singer said. “Many JAG [judge advocate general] officers and contracting officers have wanted this.”
“For the longest time, there has been a legal vacuum and a lack of political will on part of the Bush administration and Congress to do anything about it,” he said.


Concern that contract personnel will be prosecuted for disrespecting an officer, fraternization or other actions that are not violations of civilian law are probably exaggerated, Singer said.
Although it has not been determined yet, it would be reasonable to prosecute civilians under the UCMJ for felony violations, but not for lesser offenses, he said. That is the level at which prosecution occurs under MEJA.


Soloway agreed that “there needs to be a way that contractor and government employees can be prosecuted for criminal acts.” But the Professional Services Council would prefer to have MEJA expanded rather than have contractors subjected to the UCMJ.


“We’re deeply concerned that the broad and arbitrary application of the UCMJ imposes a whole range of behavioral requirements” on contract employees, Soloway said.
But Singer said for too long, contractors have taken advantage of “the unregulated marketplace.”
If private individuals want to do military jobs for profit in war zones on behalf of the U.S. government, then they should agree to fall under the same laws as U.S. soldiers, he said.

[LineDoggie]

Now the rape mentioned at the Beginning of this thread happened in 2005 so what law will apply?
UCMJ?
US Criminal Code?

Maybe the Legal Eagle can clarify.

[acuhater]

the law about civilian contractors being posecuted under the UCMJ wasnt on the books until after 2005, so the contractors who comitted the crime couldnt be charged under it. also, since her contract stipulates that she cant file ****** assault charges against haliburton, even though there is now a law in effect banning contracts that prevent ****** assault charges, her contract was probably grandfathered in and thus doesnt count. I am no lawyer, but as near as I can figure, this is why.

[Lazuris]

I heard that the republicans are gonna use Obama's stash to fund the "Rape Tunnel"

http://www.artlurker.com/2009/09/the-rape-tunnel-by-sheila-zareno/

[James]

Is it possible to punish Halliburton for this as well as sending the jackasses that did this to a prison in Saudi Arabia?

In SA I think the woman would actually be imprisoned for fornication. I think we should be thankful that these dastardly Republicans didn't trample over more of her rights.

That was sarcasm for the 90% of you who wouldn't have recognized it.

[James]

The title is misleading and biased.

I amended it.

[Soldat_Américain]

In SA I think the woman would actually be imprisoned for fornication. I think we should be thankful that these dastardly Republicans didn't trample over more of her rights.

That was sarcasm for the 90% of you who wouldn't have recognized it.

Let's just not tell the Saudi's what we're jailing them for.

[LineDoggie]

Interestingly,the Obama Administration opposed this as well.

The Department of Defense, the prime contractor, and higher tier subcontractors may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic, especially in cases where privity of contract does not exist between parties within the supply chain that supports a contract. It may be more effective to seek a statutory prohibition of all such arrangements in any business transaction entered into within the jurisdiction of the United States, if these arrangements are deemed to pose an unacceptable method of recourse.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/defense-department-oppose_n_326569.html

[Soldat_Américain]

So I think there needs to be law passed in regards to contracts and ****** assault clauses. If it happens the purps get drawn and quartered with the companies being fined into oblivion.