Republicans for Rape

Ulaven_Demorte

Non-Prophet Organization
Joined
Apr 16, 2006
Posts
30,016
http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/

Below is the list of thirty legislators who were brave enough to stand up in defense of rape and vote against Senator Al Franken's anti-rape amendment to the 2009 Defense Appropriations bill. We applaud these courageous men!

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Kit Bond (R-MO)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
James 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)

For those of you unfamiliar with the case that spurred this piece of legislation:

KBR contractors drugged and gang-raped a co-worker, Jamie Leigh Jones, in Iraq, anally and vaginally, who suffered genital mutilation. She woke up bleeding from both orifices. After she was examined by a doctor, the evidence was handed back to KBR, where the rape-kit, photos, and notes disappeared. She was then locked in a shipping container, where eventually a guard gave her a cell phone to call for help. Agents were called at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, where they took Jamie out of KBR custody. The rape-kit was later recovered, but the photos and notes were gone, essentially letting the rapists go free.

No rapes were ever heard of at KBR because they use mandatory arbitration for rapes and assault, which include a non-disclosure agreements. Rapists are never brought to justice at this federal contractor because the corporation actively covers up rape, "protects their employees and the work environment," and makes evidence disappear to keep a good image.

The amendment stated that any government contractor who uses mandatory arbitration for rape and sexual assaults will not receive any more federal funding. In other words, any contractor who covers up rape and sexual assault by using a behind-the-doors non-disclosure agreement with the victim will not receive any more of your tax dollars.

It reads as follows:
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.

How anyone could side with a corporate entity against rape victims is beyond me. Especially considering the statements some of these very same Republicans made regarding ACORN..

"We've got to get corruption out of any organization who is taking tax payer money. ACORN is not above the law." - Sen. Richard Shelby

"It's unsustainable for any member of congress to continue funding this organization." Sen. Lindsey Graham

As Jon Stewart pointed out: "I guess it's an efficiency thing. You don't want to waste taxpayer money by giving it to someone who advises fake prostitutes how to commit imaginary crimes. You want to give it to Halliburton because they're committing real gang-rape. You cut out the middle-man. And they say government doesn't work.."
 
http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/

Below is the list of thirty legislators who were brave enough to stand up in defense of rape and vote against Senator Al Franken's anti-rape amendment to the 2009 Defense Appropriations bill. We applaud these courageous men!

Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
John Barrasso (R-WY)
Kit Bond (R-MO)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Richard Burr (R-NC)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
Tom Coburn (R-OK)
Thad Cochran (R-MS)
John Cornyn (R-TX)
Bob Corker (R-TN)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Jim DeMint (R-SC)
John Ensign (R-NV)
Mike Enzi (R-WY)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
Mike Johanns (R-NE)
Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
James 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)

For those of you unfamiliar with the case that spurred this piece of legislation:

KBR contractors drugged and gang-raped a co-worker, Jamie Leigh Jones, in Iraq, anally and vaginally, who suffered genital mutilation. She woke up bleeding from both orifices. After she was examined by a doctor, the evidence was handed back to KBR, where the rape-kit, photos, and notes disappeared. She was then locked in a shipping container, where eventually a guard gave her a cell phone to call for help. Agents were called at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, where they took Jamie out of KBR custody. The rape-kit was later recovered, but the photos and notes were gone, essentially letting the rapists go free.

No rapes were ever heard of at KBR because they use mandatory arbitration for rapes and assault, which include a non-disclosure agreements. Rapists are never brought to justice at this federal contractor because the corporation actively covers up rape, "protects their employees and the work environment," and makes evidence disappear to keep a good image.

The amendment stated that any government contractor who uses mandatory arbitration for rape and sexual assaults will not receive any more federal funding. In other words, any contractor who covers up rape and sexual assault by using a behind-the-doors non-disclosure agreement with the victim will not receive any more of your tax dollars.

It reads as follows:
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.

How anyone could side with a corporate entity against rape victims is beyond me. Especially considering the statements some of these very same Republicans made regarding ACORN..

"We've got to get corruption out of any organization who is taking tax payer money. ACORN is not above the law." - Sen. Richard Shelby

"It's unsustainable for any member of congress to continue funding this organization." Sen. Lindsey Graham

As Jon Stewart pointed out: "I guess it's an efficiency thing. You don't want to waste taxpayer money by giving it to someone who advises fake prostitutes how to commit imaginary crimes. You want to give it to Halliburton because they're committing real gang-rape. You cut out the middle-man. And they say government doesn't work.."
No one should be surprised. When's the last time a Republican voted to do anything good for the poor, the opressed, or women in general?
 
They are waiting for an amendment that allows arbitration for rape when the women working for the contractors are extremely hot.

But seriously, there must have been something else in the bill that made them vote Nay. Surely we can all agree that rape isn't necessary collateral damage in nation building.
 
No one should be surprised. When's the last time a Republican voted to do anything good for the poor, the opressed, or women in general?

This is when Karen will rush in to point out that the Republican party is the party of women's rights.
 
Why the hell was the evidence handed over to the company?

And can you seriously put mandatory arbitration in an employment contract? That's fucked up.
 
They are waiting for an amendment that allows arbitration for rape when the women working for the contractors are extremely hot.

But seriously, there must have been something else in the bill that made them vote Nay. Surely we can all agree that rape isn't necessary collateral damage in nation building.

I posted the amendment they voted against in it's entirety in the OP. the votes weren't against the Bill, but against the amendment itself.

You would think that we could all agree that rape, false imprisonment, and conspiracy to cover-up these crimes should be discouraged in all businesses, not just those who receive federal defense contracts.

Apparently at least 30 Senators feel differently.
 
Last edited:
Why the hell was the evidence handed over to the company?

And can you seriously put mandatory arbitration in an employment contract? That's fucked up.

There is only one reason I can think of.
The doctor who performed the examination worked for KBR, they paid for the testing, the results belonged to them and were handed over.
 
They used common sense.

You punish the company under existing law and then cancel the contract. It's like the Byrd case, just adding another layer of criminality.

I'd be more worried about the Democrats and Republicans who supported it.
__________________
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
Cornelius Tacitus
 
This is when Karen will rush in to point out that the Republican party is the party of women's rights.

The Democrats sure did a good job of supporting Paula Jones from the top down, the signer of the law, to Carville, to the foot soldiers.

Then they told Dowd (the ears? Remember the ears?), Ferraro, and Clinton to get to the back of the bus while screaming mindlessly about how stupid Sarah was...

You tell me, other than abortion, what the hell the Democrats have been doing to support women?

Welfare?
 
They used common sense.

You punish the company under existing law and then cancel the contract. It's like the Byrd case, just adding another layer of criminality.

I'd be more worried about the Democrats and Republicans who supported it.
__________________
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.
Cornelius Tacitus

what about punishing the rapists?

and is this a bit of retrospective legislation or to prevent such horrific abuse happening in future?
 
I don't believe the OP for several reasons:

1. Arbitration is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one. The rapist and the victim would be subject to whatever criminal proceeding is available in the jurisdiction where the rape took place, without regard to any provision in an employment contract.

2. As for the arbitration, it would only apply as to her claims against KBR, not in a separate civil proceeding against her attackers.

I suspect a tad bit of partisan cherry-picking by the original poster. As if that would be anything new around here.
 
what about punishing the rapists?

and is this a bit of retrospective legislation or to prevent such horrific abuse happening in future?

No, it's political grandstanding at its best, a poor law offered up by a comedian who's said stuff way more offensive than anything Rush Limbaugh has said with the intent of creating a thread just like this one.

To PROVE Republicans are closet rapists...

It's really beneath the pale, and if one examines the law, probably not even a special case.
 
Similarly, we have Democrats like Grayson who stand up and say, Republicans are voting against Obama(Pelosi)care because they want you to die quickly...

And they want dirty water.

They want polluted air.

They worship Satan...

:rolleyes:
 
1. Arbitration is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one. The rapist and the victim would be subject to whatever criminal proceeding is available in the jurisdiction where the rape took place, without regard to any provision in an employment contract.

do those laws apply to crimes in other countries? this was in iraq, yes?
 
I don't believe the OP for several reasons:

1. Arbitration is a civil proceeding, not a criminal one. The rapist and the victim would be subject to whatever criminal proceeding is available in the jurisdiction where the rape took place, without regard to any provision in an employment contract.

2. As for the arbitration, it would only apply as to her claims against KBR, not in a separate civil proceeding against her attackers.

I suspect a tad bit of partisan cherry-picking by the original poster. As if that would be anything new around here.

If you sign away your rights to something as part of a contract, you can't sue. That's the legal precedent being questioned here. And the clause is saying that it's about the government not hiring these contractors.

The "nay" votes aren't even changing the original contract, it's about hiring contractors that utilize those contracts.

Check it out:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts

Or as John Stewart put it "It's not the government's business to decide who the goverment does business with?"

Look at the statements by the voters. Damning.

And then juxtaposed against the same voters discussing ACORN. Double damning.
 
do those laws apply to crimes in other countries? this was in iraq, yes?

The arbitration agreement in the employment contract would be a private agreement between KBR and the employee, so it would apply anywhere the employee was posted.

As for the criminal charges - rape is usually a matter of State law. Except for crimes committed on a military base, crimes committed on US Government property are prosecuted by the State in which the installation is located. I don't know the details of this case, and I haven't read Franken's bill, but if there is no provision for prosecuting rape committed on US government property, located in another country, that should be fixed.

Reading the thread though, it looks like the criminal act is being messed into the civil lawsuit by some of the posters here. It appears the issue is over civil compensation by KBR to the employee, not criminal prosecution of the rapists. I don't know how the Franken bill relates to that.

It always comes down to money.
 
The arbitration agreement in the employment contract would be a private agreement between KBR and the employee, so it would apply anywhere the employee was posted.

As for the criminal charges - rape is usually a matter of State law. Except for crimes committed on a military base, crimes committed on US Government property are prosecuted by the State in which the installation is located. I don't know the details of this case, and I haven't read Franken's bill, but if there is no provision for prosecuting rape committed on US government property, located in another country, that should be fixed.

Reading the thread though, it looks like the criminal act is being messed into the civil lawsuit by some of the posters here. It appears the issue is over civil compensation by KBR to the employee, not criminal prosecution of the rapists. I don't know how the Franken bill relates to that.

It always comes down to money.

The point is she's signing away legal rights.

Same way if you sign a contract with a company that requires drug testing, it's otherwise an issue where you don't consent to the testing, you're not employed. The company dispenses with warrants and the employee consents to be drug tested.

Or where you legally sign that if you have a driver's license, you consent to breathalyzer testing if required by law enforcement or you lose your license.

That's the legal precedent in action. Signing away a right that without the contract, wouldn't be questioned.

The point is - you shouldn't be legally compelled to sign away legal rights to defend yourself against rape. And the government shouldn't do business with companies who feel compelled to include that in a contract.
 
Any point in not signing a contract unless you are sure of what it says?




Or in an age where we vote for bills we don't read, is that no longer a "personal responsibility?"

How was I to know what I was signing? Nobody can understand that stuff, hell, we're Americans!
 
Back
Top