Not sure any of you have seen this.  So much for just a stupid comic running for senate.  :)  What is amazing to me, that there were Republicans who voted against this bill.  I don't know, but do they honestly agree that rape is ok in any situation and that Americans shouldn't get a right to a trial? 

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/

Comment #29 -
“..because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.�

That’s insane and we’re fortunate to have someone like Senator Franken (and those who voted in the affirmative) to put an end to such lunacy.

One can only surmise Haliburton (or whomever) knowingly hires (potential) rapists and assorted sexual deviants (hence, the “stipuolation�) and accept that as part of “doing business�.
Spot on - having a clause like that in an employment contract shows weaselliness on a scale that makes me feel physically sick to contemplate.

I had my doubts about Franken until I heard him(I forget where) and was completely taken over by him.  He is a "good Democrat" and I can't wait to see if he holds up in congress  :)

Gee, I can't wait to hear what Glenn Beck, has to say about this...

::)

I had my doubts about Franken until I heard him(I forget where) and was completely taken over by him.  He is a "good Democrat" and I can't wait to see if he holds up in congress  :)


I've admired him since Reynolds pointed me to a video showing him engaging in civil conversation with people who are against healthcare reform and he got them to LISTEN. :o

One certainly cannot argue against the intent of this bill.  However...

Two people cannot enter into a civil contract that contravenes CRIMINAL LAW.  When rape charges are pursued, it is not a case of "Rape Victim versus Rape Suspect" but rather it is "The Government versus Rape Suspect".

The only thing that the victim and KBR can agree to in a contract is how CIVIL DAMAGES are addressed in a generic lawsuit governing behavior not otherwise covered or prohibted by established civil law.

Likewise, sexual discrimination or harassment laws cannot be contravened by any contracts that employees or employers sign.  Established public laws supercede any civil contract that "you and I" agree to sign.  No employer can be let off the hook for sexual discrimination in the workplace by forcing employees to sign away their rights, this is a basic point of law.

The government can press charges in this case with or without the new bill.

That said, passing this bill in my opinion is "no harm no foul" anyway, so pass it and enforce it.

That said, passing this bill in my opinion is "no harm no foul" anyway, so pass it and enforce it.


No it goes further than just re-enforcing an existing law.  It imposes financial penalties against government contractors in addition to the criminal penalties. 

I guess if it was just targeted ACORN the republicans who voted against it would have been happy to vote for it.  Since it could affect their big cash donors however, it's a different story.

The component that defunds the contractor is beyond the contravention of criminal law.  It in affect poses penalties against a company for egregious behavior, and I would bet that that is why the 30 voted against it. 

Unfortunately, I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to aggravated rape and sexual harassment among contractors such as Halliburton and Blackwater.  These places fostered an atmosphere of cruelty and savagery.

:(

Unfortunately, I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to aggravated rape and sexual harassment among contractors such as Halliburton and Blackwater.  These places fostered an atmosphere of cruelty and savagery.

:(


Maybe Roman Polanski can get a job there after he gets out of the slammer.  ;D

I've admired him since Reynolds pointed me to a video showing him engaging in civil conversation with people who are against healthcare reform and he got them to LISTEN. :o


That and he can draw the U.S. in under two minutes. :)  Franken is one of those rare natural diplomats.  I think Franken surprised everyone with his ability to be a wonderful Senator.

Unfortunately, I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg when it comes to aggravated rape and sexual harassment among contractors such as Halliburton and Blackwater.  These places fostered an atmosphere of cruelty and savagery.


Yeah, but according to Whoopi Goldberg, it's only cruel-cruelty or savage-savagery when it's a Republican-allied contractor.

I guess all rapists are equal, but some are more equal than others.

Man...  just when you think you have a good idea of just how evil Halliburton is, they never fail to exceed your expectations of pure vileness....

Yeah, but according to Whoopi Goldberg, it's only cruel-cruelty or savage-savagery when it's a Republican-allied contractor.

I guess all rapists are equal, but some are more equal than others.


have you got any examples of Democrat allied contractors that are being let off the hook?  no, I didn't think so...

have you got any examples of Democrat allied contractors that are being let off the hook?  no, I didn't think so...


He's referring to Roman Polanski.

One certainly cannot argue against the intent of this bill.  However...

Two people cannot enter into a civil contract that contravenes CRIMINAL LAW.  When rape charges are pursued, it is not a case of "Rape Victim versus Rape Suspect" but rather it is "The Government versus Rape Suspect".

The only thing that the victim and KBR can agree to in a contract is how CIVIL DAMAGES are addressed in a generic lawsuit governing behavior not otherwise covered or prohibted by established civil law.


That is exactly right.  And something that a lot of people miss when they first hear about this bill.

Like those of us in the military, when DoD civilians and contractors deploy overseas, they also fall under the SOFA.  And since they are outside of the United States, legal matters often times change.  Criminal activities are either turned over to local civilians, held locally under a military tribunal, or are defered until return to the US.  And often times they are heard by a Government-Concractor board where penalties are assessed and contracts terminated.

But once returned to the US, there is nothing that prevents the victim from fileing a criminal complaint.  And any person that was penalized is already protected by "Whistle Blower" laws.

To me, this is nothing but a law to try and create crap where there is none.  It is blatently partaisan and political, simply phrased and presented in a way to make it look other then what it is.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/1009/Tough_vote_for_Vitter_Burr.html?showall

And as should be known, but I will say it again so it is not missed.  There are already laws in place to protect people that are terminated for fileing lawsuits against employers.  Federal Whistle Blower laws are already in place, along with many other laws that protect people who are terminated without cause (or with improper cause).

And if Mr. Franken thinks this law is a good idea, wait until it passes.  Then every corporation with a Government Contract from IBM and Boeing to McDonalds and Subway will be found to have cases where people have sued for improper termination of all sorts of causes.  And I have to wonder how it is going to be implemented. 

Maybe we should just stop all contracts with US companies, and hire contractors and contractor companies from Russia or China.  After all, who cares if they break their laws, just so they do not break ours.