Saturday, October 24, 2009
The Franken Ammendment
“America's state religion, [is] patriotism, a phenomenon which has convinced many of the citizenry that "treason" is morally worse than murder or rape.”
William Blum
Rape is a part of war; but it may be more accurate to say that the capacity for dehumanizing another which so corrodes male sexuality is carried over from sex into war.
Adrienne Rich
U.S. poet
b.1929
The appalling power with which metaphors of sexual lust illuminate the nature of war, and vice versa, proves that they are based on millennia of human experience. The poets of all time have used these figures. To conquer and loot a country is to rape it: to violate a woman is to conquer her by force and plunder her of her treasure. The violence that attends sex when it is unmitigated by love, and the sexual excesses that have attended war and been its aftermath, are the psychological and historical demonstrations of the consanguinity of the two.
Harold C. Goddard
U.S. educator, critic
1878-1950
"Without tenderness, a man is uninteresting."
Marlene Dietrich
On October 7, 2009, Jamie Leigh Jones testified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, relating to Minnesota's Senator Al Franken's Amendment to the FY2010 Defense Appropriations Bill. Senator Franken's Ammendment, which passed 68 - 30, withholds defense contracts from companies like KBR, "if they restrict employees from taking sexual assault, battery, and discrimination cases to court".
Franken's Amendment, more correctly identified as Senate Amendment 2588, to House Bill HR 3326, passed 68 to 30. All 30 nay votes were from Republican senators (in alphabetical order) : 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).
If you read to the conclusion of this post, you will perhaps better understand just why I am paying such close attention to those senators who voted against Amendment 2588. I intend not only to remember their names, but to observe their respective next senate races, even though I am a Minnesota voter. I intend to bring this specific vote to the attention of their opposition, in the hopes that it becomes the basis for political advertising against their re-election. As a usual thing, I oppose strongly the intervention, more precisely the interference, of people outside a state in another state's politics. But this vote was so egregious, that it has moved me to make the exception.
It is worth noting that a vote of 68 Senators in favor of the Amendment indicates some bi-partisan support, although clearly a majority of the Republican Senators voted against the Amendment, so those Republican Senators who voted for it are relatively few. The two Senators who abstained were Democrats Byrd of WV, and Spector of PA. Those Republican Senators who voted for the Amendment were Bennett (UT), Collins (ME), Grassley(IA), Hatch (UT), Hutchison(TX), LeMieux (FL), Lugar(IN), Murkowski(AK), Snowe(ME), and Voinovich(OH), along with Independent Senators Lieberman(CT) and Sanders (VT) . I will be following any re-election campaigns of those Senators as well, but more suportively. It is a justifiable speculation that had former Senator Coleman won the seat for Minnesota, we would not as a nation enjoy the benefit of this Amendment. I felt strongly enough to contact Senator Franken : http://franken.senate.gov/contact/
Excerpted from the Amendment (because, yes, I read these things as part of doing research for my articles), also known colloquially as the 'Anti-rape Amendment':
"AMENDMENT 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. "
It was sometimes reported that both the White House and the Department of Defense opposed this legislation. What was not as often reported was the reason; the DoD specifically wanted the purpose EXPANDED to include all contracts and contractors, and that the DoD worked with the sponsors to make the Amendment as enforceable as possible. I feel that the widespread use of contractors, especially no-bid contractors like Halliburton, by the Bush Administration, which is continuing under the Obama Administration (at least with better oversight), has been one of the worst decisions ever made in the history of our government, and second only to the decision to employ torture, is the worst decision in pursuit of the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts.
So, who is Jamie Leigh Jones, and why should anyone care?
At 19, Jamie Leigh Jones started working for Halliburton subsidiary KBR in 2004 as an administrative assistant in Houston TX. In July of 2005 she went to Iraq to work in their Overseas Administrative Services. A week after her arrival in Iraq, she was allegedly drugged and gang raped by seven men who were also apparently KBR employees.
The rape involved unprotected anal and vaginal sex while she was unconscious from the drug, leaving her bruised and lacerated and bloody. Jones was so viciously abused that her breast implants were ruptured, and her pectoral muscles had been ripped off of her chest wall. For anyone lacking sufficient imagination, it takes an amazing amount of force to rip a woman's breasts off of her chest; breast implants while designed to imitate fairly delicate tissue, are designed NOT to rupture easily. Jones required extensive reconstructive surgery, including the reattachment of her pectoral muscles. Suffice it to say that without more graphic detail, her lower torso was treated just as viciously as her upper body. This being national breast cancer awareness month, I cannot help but remember that breast tissue trauma is a predisposition to cancer, making this rape a horror that will keep on haunting Ms. Jones in yet one more way.
Even allowing for the differences in sexual response between men and women, and understanding that the act of rape is profoundly about dominance and violence more than it is about sex, I cannot fully wrap my mind around how these men (allegedly) could find gratification in sex with an unconscious woman, much less find pleasure in such violence. One of the men has come forward, making an apology to Ms. Jones, but only because he was confronted in her bedroom, still there from the crime, when she regained consciousness; the other six are still unidentified.
They are likely to remain unidentified, and none of the seven will be facing trial or jail for their actions. Jurisdiction would reside with the Department of Justice, which at least under the Bush administration, did not pursue the matter for criminal prosecution, in part because of the actions of KBR.
What happened to Ms. Jones after the rape was, in some respects, as bad as the rape itself. She regained consciousness, naked and injured. She fell unconscious again when she tried to make it to a bathroom. Jones was eventually examined by U.S. Army physician Jodi Shulz, who completed a rape kit in addition to providing care. The rape kit was given to KBR, and conveniently lost for two years; when it was recovered, key items were missing.
In addition, KBR on discovery of Ms. Jones did NOT provide her with medical care. They (allegedly) locked her up in a shipping container secured by armed guards, without food, water, medical care, or access to help. After some 24 hours, Jones was able to beg the use of a cell phone from one the armed guards imprisoning her, and called her father back in the U.S. Her father contacted his congressman, Republican Ted Poe. Poe in turn contacted the State Department, which then contacted the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. The embassy sent someone to rescue Jones from the custody of KBR and arranged for her medical care.
CPA Order 17 provides immunity to U.S. contractors from the Iraqi government; this matter falls within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice for prosecution. Except that they haven't. I have not as yet been able to determine properly what the statute of limitations is on this crime, but so far it does not appear that the Obama administration's DoJ is pursuing it either. Congressman Poe, who is a former judge, and others before whom Jones testified in hearings in 2007 made the observation that the Department of Justice had appeared unwilling to pursue prosecution of contractors except when embarrassed into action beyond any excuse to avoid it, yet another instance of the apparent politicization of the Bush Administration DoJ.
So........why this Amendment? Halliburton and KBR had kept Ms. Jones from proceeding with a civil suit by demanding arbitration under her contract until a Court decision in mid September 2009. It is in response to the arbitration clause in the Halliburton, KBR and other contractors' contracts, in conjunction with the inaction by the Department of Justice, that this Amendment was deemed necessary by its supporters.
It is unfathomable to me that these corporations, responsible through the actions of its employees for not only this rape, but other crimes and tragedies such as the electrocution deaths of armed forces personnel, blatant fraud and overcharging, continue to receive lucrative contracts from our government. It is implausible to me that the individuals who (allegedly) raped Ms. Jones committed only this one act of violence. It seems to me far more likely that there were other incidents, possibly against Iraqi women, who would have had no legal recourse. This is not idle speculation; there have been allegations of such crimes and other crimes throughout the duration of the tenure of Halliburton and other contractors.
My friend Mitch Berg, on his blog Shot in the Dark, writing on another topic entirely, included a reference I will paraphrase to an unspecified and unattributed quotation,that an innocent man in jail for rape was a deterrent to those who were rapists. In the midst of researching this article when I read that, I couldn't help but think that while certainly any innocent man should never ever be incarcerated or executed for a crime he did not commit. I could appreciate how a sense of helpless rage and despair could provoke that kind of comment. I thought about those men who had not been strictly guilty of any crime, like the Republican Senators who voted against this Amendment, men whose actions contributed to the rapists going unpunished. While legally innocent they seem to me to be morally complicit.
I applaud Senator Franken for this, his second piece of legislation. I applaud Ms. Jones, for her strength in getting on with her life, including her education and marriage, for her strength in repeatedly appearing before our legislative branch of government to testify about her experiences despite their intimacy and the horror of them. Perhaps most of all, I applaud Jamie Leigh Jones for responding to her experience by creating a foundation to help others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To those who've read about the conduct of KBR, some of this story isn't surprising.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I doubt any of us forsaw a corporation quite so craven as to wilfully impede the prosecution of civil cases against employees when they've behaved in a way which is unquestionably illegal and immoral.
I suppose it goes directly to the point that in the end, all that matters is profit, and any inconvenience, whether it be gang rape, or the allowance of Indonesian Army soldiers to machine-gun innocent civilians on East Timor on company property (as Texaco management did) - we see through stories like this who truly RUNS american government - whether the party in power is conveniently called 'Democrat' or 'Republican' the truth is, it's the corporate masters leading things, and our votes are only for show.
As for any comment which suggests imprisoning the innocent creates a sense of fear among the guilty, perhaps so, but so does imprisoning the guilty - and I would hope as a society we would not desire to intimidate the populace with ideas of unjust police states.
Pen wrote:"As for any comment which suggests imprisoning the innocent creates a sense of fear among the guilty, perhaps so, but so does imprisoning the guilty - and I would hope as a society we would not desire to intimidate the populace with ideas of unjust police states."
ReplyDeleteThe topic of the other blog where the quotation appeared was in support of NOT executing innocent people under the death penalty. I have tried to track down the actual quote, and will continue to do so. It is a kind of quote that sadly has been used in the past by other people in other contexts to discredit feminists - NOT the way it was used in that instance btw.
I want to be clear the Ms. Jones has never advocated imprisoning any innocent individual, for this crime or crimes like it. I mentioned it only because as I read that sort-of quote, I was feeling such anger and a sense of futility at those corporate servants who had helped perpetuate and perpetrate this travesty.
A lot has been written about the white, male, Republican senators who voted against this amendment.
Not enough has been written about the Republican, Independent, and Democratic men and women, of a very American mix of races who voted FOR this amendment.
18 USC 3282 sets the general federal statute of limitations at 5 years. It may be the policy of the DoJ and/or it may have been the policy of the Bush administration to try to confuse the issue long enough for the statute of limitations to run so that the "men" responsible could not be held accountable before a US District Court. I hope that there is enough evidence available still and that the Obama administration's Department of Justice will expedite the case so that the individuals responsible, to the extent that they can be, will be brought to justice.
ReplyDeleteAs I confided privately to Pen and ToE, I was concerned in writing this not to appear to hate men in general, but rather to reflect a very specific antipathy towards the rapists, and towards those who provided cover to those rapists to get away with their crimes.
ReplyDeleteAs Ms. Jones was only in Iraq a matter of days when this took place, it is hard to understand the events as uniquely personal to HER. I can't imagine seven men conceiving a hatred that violent towards this yound woman in so short a time. But neither can I imagine that kind of violence other than as a reflection of some kind of hatred.
In a way, this event would have made more sense if it had been committed by our enemies than by our own people.
Those who provided 'cover' I suspect are motivated purely by greed,and selfishness, not by any hatred. I don't think they care enough about her to hate this woman.
It's shameful to think that policies and procedures that were originally intended to protect our citizens from frivolous prosecution while working abroad, which is most likely what the intent of the immunity from Iraqi law came from for the contractors, would be used to allow them to perpetrate crimes with impunity.
ReplyDeleteDG - Sorry but I can’t help but get a bit defensive that you saw fit to point out that those who voted against it were white males that fact should be irrelevant to the point. The fact that any human of any gender or race would vote against something that would allow individuals to get away with such heinous acts is deplorable. I myself am Caucasian, male and was at a time where they, from my perspective, stood for what I believed in politically, was a registered Republican. I am however in addition to that a man who believes in and follows the teachings of a carpenter from Nazareth who taught us to love our fellow man as he loved us. I do however have to agree that the constituents of those Congressmen who opposed the bill should give a second or third thought to whether or not they want to continue to have themselves represented by them.
The only thing I would disagree with in this is that Halliburton and KBR are called no-bid contractors but they did actually submit bids. President Clinton took bids for services that might be needed in a war and awarded the contract to Halliburton and KBR. They had either a 10 or 20 yr contract for services as necessary so that in a time of war they could provide services immediately instead of going through a bidding process. Actually a really good idea by whoever in Clinton's admin came up with it. It would be interesting to know in what capacity the rapists were working. I just wonder because from what I have seen of the companies like Blackwater they are ex-military and mostly because the military did not want them back. On the whole US soldiers would not do something like this but most of the ones that would tend to go work for people like Blackwater. Not that it matters to her but I bet they were not cooks or something but some sort of security. What I don't get is if an Army doctor treated her why didn't the MPs pick up some people? Maybe ToE can answer but I thought Federal Criminal law still applied to contractors over there and I have seen news stories of Blackwater employees being charged for firing into civilians and stuff. I do want to research why Cornyn voted against this, he usually has better sense. I do also agree with the DoD that Franken should not have targetted Halliburton and KBR specifically but included all federal contractors. No one should be able to force you to arbitrate a criminal case.
ReplyDeleteTaveren said...
ReplyDelete"It's shameful to think that policies and procedures that were originally intended to protect our citizens from frivolous prosecution while working abroad, which is most likely what the intent of the immunity from Iraqi law came from for the contractors, would be used to allow them to perpetrate crimes with impunity."
No, from the way the contractors have behaved, as reflected in other complaints, it has been pretty obvious that there was no concern for simply avoiding frivolous prosecution. The intent seems to have pretty clearly been in fact to allow them to operate with impunity. It was especially egregious in the context of American hired contractors and native Iraqis, where there was absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever that the Iraqis or other native populations. These provisions appear to simply enable the contracting corporations to hold all the cards unfairly. If you disagree - do a little homework; it is shocking.
Taveran also wrote:"DG - Sorry but I can’t help but get a bit defensive that you saw fit to point out that those who voted against it were white males that fact should be irrelevant to the point. The fact that any human of any gender or race would vote against something that would allow individuals to get away with such heinous acts is deplorable."
Taveran, if I might point out - Franken is a white male. Many of those who voted for this amendment were white males, including a few Republican white males. My co-bloggers are white males, who hold both my affection and my loyalty. I am NOT anti-white OR anti-male.
That said, there is a difference in perspective. I cannot believe that any woman Senator, regardless of party affiliation, could bring herself to vote against this bill. I don't believe any Senator of color or ethnicity, who had experienced discrimination or intimidation, or personally known those who had been targets of it,could vote against this amendment.
I would put it to you Taveran that those who voted for this amendment, those same people who had prevented it being brought forward before now, were part of a certain good-ol'-boys style group that have consistently favored these contractors across the board -- and as such they deserve exactly the characterization I wrote, and probably a good deal worse.
This Amendment was not original to Franken. This same group, Republicans all, a previously somewhat larger group before the last TWO cycles of elections, had actively prevented any similar Amendment or separate legislation from being passed.
This despite the growing number of deaths due to KBR's work, this despite several previous sessions where Jamie Leigh Jones provided testimony to them, this despite widespread wholesale ripping off of the Federal government by these contractors.
It's an ugly story, a dishonest story, a brutal story. And it has a cast of characters who are Republicans, and for the most part, conservatives elected to Federal office.
This is NOT btw, to suggest for a moment that I think that all conservatives support that or Republicans either. But those in office, those working in cooperation with the Bush administration, particularly in the DoJ under Gonzales, they looked the other way so long and so hard it is amazing their necks still swivel.
But that is not in any way a reflection on you or men like you Taveran.
ttuck wrote: "but I thought Federal Criminal law still applied to contractors over there and I have seen news stories of Blackwater employees being charged for firing into civilians and stuff."
ReplyDeleteThis young woman was rescued through the good offices of her father and her congressman, Republican Rep. Poe. Poe, a former judge, was hugely critical of the lack of any kind of pursuit of criminal justice under the Bush admin. Poe apparently agreed with a fellow Congressman that the Bush DoJ would ONLY act when embarrassed into it past any way to avoid it. In other words - NOT under even moderate levels of embarrassment. You might want to look to former AG Gonzales, now teaching at Texas Tech for accountability.
tt: "I do want to research why Cornyn voted against this, he usually has better sense."
Don't just research his CURRENT reasons. Go backtrack the history of the Amendment pre-Franken. And DO remember this young woman is Texan, a constituent, as you research.
tt wrote: "I do also agree with the DoD that Franken should not have targetted Halliburton and KBR specifically but included all federal contractors."
While Halliburton and KBR are named, if you read the legislation, it DOES apply to other corporations. The provisions relating to 'tiers' is particularly interesting.
tt concluded with "No one should be able to force you to arbitrate a criminal case."
They can't, NOW. Not as of the September 15th court decision.
What they have done however is to obstruct justice with the handling of the evidence, to delay justice in the cours - these companies COULD have waived their arbitration rights, they chose to fight for them, in part because this is not a 'one-off' but one of many cases that should not be arbitrated. If you check out the arbitration rate of success, overwhelmingly it has been in favor of the corporations, apparently entirely because of the unique ways they worded these contracts to do so.
The criminal statute of limitations runs out in 2010. It should be interesting to see if there is any action before that.
Really? Seriously? I mean give me a break are you guys so extreme in your anti-capitalism. This woman was raped. I think that is a given. Those responsible should be put in a hole and forgotten about or worse. I'm quite sure someone will flame me but...oh well. How does a rape committed by individuals make a company which employeed these individuals culpable? I've got concerns about Haliburton and other such companies but from that to they should be responsible for the rape of a woman is a leap in logic. If the company was involved in a cover up to protect the rapist...then alright I can agree with going after the company. However, maybe proof should be presented before we march them to the hanging tree? No? I won't defend voting against the ammendment but without having read it I find it difficult to say whether I'd have voted for it or not. Have you read the ammendment in total? If not how do you chastize those that voted against it or laud those that voted for it? Though I personally question why the government should even be making such a ammendment. If two parties enter into a LEGAL contract and both are (or had the opportunity to be) aware of all the provisions of the contract then that's that. No one forced Ms. Jones to go to work for this corporation and sign a contract in which she agreed to not hold the corporate entity liable should she be raped. If the corporation attempted to detain her to cover up the rape she has a case against them because the cover up and detention are different from the rape and I would assume (though I haven't read the contract she signed) the corporation is not protected from such crimes. So yeah, there might be a case against the corporation regarding possible obstruction of justice and I'm guessing though not a lawyer the detention might amount to kidnapping. Not rape. So I fail to see how this ammendment is necessary or useful. A corporation doesn't rape an individual. No corporation I've ever heard of has a policy promoting rape. In fact, I purpose that such an ammendment will only make it more likely not less that cover ups will occur when rape occurs on the job. Why? Because now the corporate entity could be hauled into court even though it's not responsible. If a corporate entity discovered that rape had in fact occured on the job by it's employees I find it highly unlikely that it would cover it up if it was already protected from civil litigation. In addition, correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Jones waving her rights to civil litigation doesn't prevent criminal charges if the corporation was in fact culpable. So please show me how this ammendment is anything other than a trumped up bunch of nonsense. This is a feel-good law for politicians to use when they go before the voters to say...See I care! Maybe...only maybe...we might thank those that voted against it for trying to prevent more useless laws being put on the books.
ReplyDeleteNot to be too picky...but Penigma could you supply a link supporting your claim that Texaco runs the Indonesian government? I mean you state that because of the "allowance" of Texaco the Indonesian Army machine-gunned innocent civilians. So you would also claim that if Texaco denied the Indonesian Army access to it's property the Army wouldn't have been able to fire on the civilians? Ignoring the fact that the Texaco property was in Indonesia and ignoring the fact that the Indonesian Army is likely better armed than the Texaco employee's and ignoring that the "innocent" civilians were engaged in violent protests against Texaco I can see how Texaco has the ability to stop the Army. Before you start, I'm not trying to defend Texaco....just trying to keep you rooted in reality.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of corrupt corporate entities and what a great man Franken is I think we should all thank him for not paying his taxes. And what a man of the people he is...forget that he didn't carry enough worker comp. These things we can over look because he's a GREAT guy...who cares that his corp didn't pay takes or take advantage of his employees.
ReplyDeleteOh and here are some links for references:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/18160744.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/04/29/politics/p144139D56.DTL
http://www.kxnet.com/printArticle.asp?setCity=bis&ViewPrintable=True&ArticleId=229313
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/senate/16241067.html
DG - I don't believe (not for a moment), that women would have voted for this simply because they are women.
ReplyDeletePhyllis Schlaffly made a career out of saying and doing things which were denegrating toward women. I've certainly heard plenty enough women say things which indicated they thought rape was simply the conduct of 'boys being boys' or that women had brought it upon themselves. There certainly have been plenty of women in congress vote for things which were offensive in one way or another on their face.
In short, I think you give women too much credit to do the 'right thing' simply because of the violative and offensive nature of the crime.
Jas,
ReplyDeleteAsking questions the way you asked them really isn't productive. I was pretty clear about what I said, namely that Texaco wasn't to be held accountable - the point I was referring to was that Texaco was protected from prosecution by the Clinton administration under, effectively, national security protections - and protection from prosecution for doing NOTHING to prevent the slaughter of East Timorians. I made NO comment about the quality of the Texaco staff to 'fight' anyone, and obviously, that wasn't and isn't a logical point. I also made no comment about the location of the act - however, you are in error, East Timor was NOT the lawful domain of Indonesia, they had UNLAWFULLY occupied East Timor in 1975, and killed 200,000 of it's inhabitants (1/3rd of the ENTIRE population).
What Texaco COULD have done was to say 'no, you may not come onto our property and kill civilians', while they couldn't have actually STOPPED the Indonesian Army had push come to shove, the fact is, and I suspect you know it, Texaco had HUGE influence in Indonesia, and it would have been UNLIKELY that any local commander would have started pushing his way around on Texaco property - much less start shooting at Texaco staffers. Moreover, the point was about the fact that this never went to trial, where the conduct of Texaco staff would have been reviewed, and a decision about the reasonableness of their actions would have been made. If their conduct, as you seem to assert, was fully reasonable, doubtless nothing would have been found wrong - as has been the case in numerous similar trials in situations of duress during war. On the other hand, if the Texaco staffers were found to have been negligent, to have abrogatted ANY responsibility, then they'd have been held accountable, but CLINTON blocked this action - why?? Not to protect Indonesia certainly, but rather to protect Texaco - that was the NATIONAL SECURITY INTEREST.
The bottom line is that people had a choice on East Timor to take a brave stand, and it might well have been risky, and NO, I don't think they HAD to - but that would have been the most noble thing. But what Texaco did - and by the way, the fact that the Timorians were protesting Texaco makes no difference to me, Texaco was cooperative with the Government that had murdered 1/3rd of their populace - anyway, if Texaco essentially CALLED the Indonesian government, and HELPED the Indonesians find and kill the Timorians (as was alleged as I recall), that's a horse of a different color - and all of it is not really even about THAT, it is about the fact that Clinton protected an OIL COMPANY under national security policy - which ultimately is the point that corporations run the US - not us.
You are a good natured, bright, and spirited commenter, I welcome your comments, but let's keep the topic about the topic. Do you think Clinton should have protected Texaco from facing a trial about it's culpability - and if so, why? If they were as innocent and impotent as you say, then they had nothing at all to fear - if they weren't, then there was no justice in protecting them - but claiming it was a national security concern was hogwash on its face. That was the topic and point.
BTW Jas, I'm out trying to find the details..
ReplyDeleteBut here's a start:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/28/the_democrats_suharto_bill_clinton_richard
Always good to have you comment Jas, (and FYI, I'm the admin who moderated your comments this time):"If the company was involved in a cover up to protect the rapist...then alright I can agree with going after the company. However, maybe proof should be presented before we march them to the hanging tree?"
ReplyDeleteThere has been very compelling evidence that yes, the company hired these men, did not adequately regulate or supervise them - not only in this misconduct but many many other instances, subsequently falsely imprisoned the victim Ms. Jones without food, water, or medical care; and then obstructed justice with their handling of the rape kit, which they 'lost' until sufficiently pressured by the State Department, when it was turned over years later, some contents missing. They do not appear to have seriously, genuinely engaged in any efforts to go after the rapists, including not cooperating with our government.
I would refer you to the rather extensive damning information; this is NOT an effort to condemn without evidence.
I have read the Amendment, I have read the opposition position, I have read the history behind this amendment, and I have read quite a few of the Inspector General reports that have been made public - I refer you to Scribd.com if you want to do similar reading as a place to start. ToE was so kind as to email me the actual court decisions in which Ms. Jones recently prevailed against Haliburton and KBR to read as well.
So, Jas, when and ONLY when you have done that kind of research, are you justified in calling me anti-capitalist, or unfair and biased. Because, as I hope my two blogging associates, Pen and ToE will assure you, the one thing you can rely is that I DO make a good faith effort to research things fairly and thoroughly before I write about them.
I don't think it is asking too much in turn for you to do the same before making an unsupported crtiicism.
Further, this statement you make Jas, suggests you do not understand correctly what I wrote:"If a corporate entity discovered that rape had in fact occured on the job by it's employees I find it highly unlikely that it would cover it up if it was already protected from civil litigation."
ReplyDeleteThat is your first false assumption. There was already good reason to believe that this company, because of both its specific conduct and its larger pattern of conduct, was NOT going to be safe from civil litigation. The best they could hope for was to delay and impede criminal proceedings to hamper civil litigation, and to make civil litigation as expensive as possible in hopes of it being dropped due to lack of funds on the part of Ms. Jones.
Jas write: "In addition, correct me if I'm wrong, Ms. Jones waving her rights to civil litigation doesn't prevent criminal charges if the corporation was in fact culpable."
Actually, Ms. Jones did NOT waive her right to civil litigation. The actual court decision notes that the arbitration clause only pertains to Ms. Jones' employment. No part of her job description included being a rape victim. Litigating the arbitration was never anything more than a tactic, a gamble that the expense of that litigation would be smaller than the money they might pay out in judgments, judgement from this event, and from the many other criminal events that occurred in Iraq.
And lastly, Jas wrote:"Though I personally question why the government should even be making such a ammendment. If two parties enter into a LEGAL contract and both are (or had the opportunity to be) aware of all the provisions of the contract then that's that."
ReplyDeleteThat was the same reasoning proffered when companies used to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, and gender - that they should be able to hire whom they wanted, including in a discriminatory manner. The Federal govenrment has a long history of putting certain conditions of fairness on the issuance of contracts to companies who are dong business paid for by federal money. This is consistent with those provisions, and it was the opinion of the DoD and members of Congress, and the White House, that this was a provision needed to be made stronger.
Jas, corporations are made up of people making decisions. Sometimes those people make very good, right, honest decisions. And sometimes, just as there are people who act badly, those people who comprise corporations act badly. I think I'm fair here in challenging your point of view, that you are not willing to accept that businesses can act badly.
I would argue that businesses like individuals, need to be held accountable for their actions, without giving them a free pass just because they are a business. Neither should there be any unfair presumption against them just because they are a business entity EITHER.
So, I will make you a challenge here Jas. YOU go do the research, and if you find me in substantive error, YOU write a post in opposition to the Franken Amendment, and I'll publish your opposition piece right here, on condition you document your statements and that they are verifiable.
Penigma said...
ReplyDelete"DG - I don't believe (not for a moment), that women would have voted for this simply because they are women."
You are correct Pen. You make a good point about women who have not been supportive of other women who have been raped.
I don't believe that women would have voted for this simply because they are women - that wouldn't have explained why the other Republicans and Independents voted for it, nor would it explain whyso many men voted for it either.
It wasn't ONLY because of being women that these women senators voted in favor of this.
I can assure you however that I had a very visceral reaction to the experiences of Jamie Leigh Jones however, that I don't think can be fairly dismissed either, and that was part of what I tried to include in tihs post.
I whole heartedly commend those MANY good men who are sympathetic and who try to be empathetic to what this woman experienced. I would argue only that men cannot quite fully appreciate this in the same way, that there are a few unbridgeable gaps between the male and female experience.
Given not only the statistics of reported rapes, hate-crime rapes (those specifically against lesbians), and the number of rapes that go unreported, the number of women (nearly all) who have had encounters with men who tried to use some degree of force, or coercion, or intimidation to pressure them for sex, I would still maintain that women have a unique and different view point that men can only share indirectly.
I am intending that this post be a lead in to one on the experiences of female military personnel and their experiences with rape and sexual harrassment. There are some disturbing parallels between the military and the contractor experiences of women in the recent two wars.
Pen....
ReplyDeleteActually, it wasn't something committed by a "local commander". It was an act ordered by the Vice Chief of Staff of the Indonesian Army, Johny Lumintang.
http://ccrjustice.org/ourcases/current-cases/doe-v.-lumitang
I'm a little confused as to how you can possibly believe that ANY company or individual apart from the Indonesian government can be held responsible for the actions of the Indonesian military. No one and nothing could've prevented the slaughter of those people apart from another military force.
DG...
ReplyDeleteThis ammendment is less than useless. As are many of the "regulations" which dictate how a business must conduct itself in order to do business with the government.
Is rape illegal? Yes
Is obstruction of justice illegal? Yes
Is falsely imprisoning someone illegal? Yes
Is discrimination illegal? Yes
Why then is it necessary to add specific legislation regarding how a business is conducted with the government is these things are already illegal? I don't need to do research about a law to understand it's frivilous. I know what kind of law this is. It's pure fluff that gives politicians feel-good legislation to present to their constituents. This way they can say...oh look see what a great guy/gal I am. This won't stop rapes, it won't stop bad companies from trying to cover up. In addition, and most importantly, it's clear (and please note I do believe you've done your research I just don't think you've arrived at the right conclusion) from what you've stated that Ms. Jones got justice EVEN though this ammendment didn't exist until AFTERWARDS. So...tell me again how this is IMPORTANT legislation and not smoke and mirrors?
One last request please don't misrepresent what I put here. Call me out on what I type not what I didn't type. You even quoted me and then some how go all the way around the quote without addressing the quote....takes a lot more work I would think. I never stated Ms. Jones waived her rights. I stated that Ms. Jones waiving her rights wouldn't preclude a criminal case...and I find it humorous you completely avoided the point of my statement to attempt to undue it. It goes to the heart of the discussion.
Furthermore, I suggest that these "regulations" are anti-capitalist. They put hurdles in place that most medium and small businesses can never get over. Only large corporations that have large legal teams are able to compete for these government contracts as a direct result of these government regulations. In addition, regulations like this ammendment create opportunity for corruption in our government. I KNOW for a fact that our elected officials have used EEO and the EEOC's influence to get donations to political campaigns. I won't go into details because I can't link to it to prove it you'll just have to take my word for it that GOVERNMENT shakes down private companies ALL THE TIME. It goes like this...Oh gee, Joe Business doesn't have enough employee's of X minority. You need to hire more employee's of X minority or we'll have to fine you and you will be denied the right to do business with the government. The result of this specific shakedown was a donation of over $500,000.00 to this politicians and several others political campaign and the company was obliged to hire 3 people of this politicians choice. These 3 employees were paid a salary of $100,000.00 a year to show up for 1 hour in the morning. They did no work and produced nothing for the business. It took a year to work out this back room deal. During that year this business who's entire method of making money was via government contracts was prevented from doing business with the government. Three years after this deal was brokered this business went bankrupt. Between loosing that year of work (by the way during that year the owner refused to fire any of his employee's and continued to pay salaries) and having to pay out about 1 million US$ they just couldn't recover. Trust me, I was personally involved in this I know these details very well. So I see this ammendment as just another attempt for future pocket lining, and the steady errosion of access to goverment contracts by small and medium size businesses.
Jas wrote:"This ammendment is less than useless. As are many of the "regulations" which dictate how a business must conduct itself in order to do business with the government.
ReplyDeleteIs rape illegal? Yes
Is obstruction of justice illegal? Yes
Is falsely imprisoning someone illegal? Yes
Is discrimination illegal? Yes
Why then is it necessary to add specific legislation regarding how a business is conducted with the government is these things are already illegal? I don't need to do research about a law to understand it's frivilous. "
So, am I correct that you haven't READ this amendment yet Jas?
You certainly haven't read any of the court decisions, like the ones relating to the court cases of Jamie Leigh Jones, where the legal precedent cases are identified in the legal decision.
The other cases relating to arbitration where other women, before Jones, had sued Halliburton and KBR for being raped, and imprisoned, and denied medical care? The other cases where women had sued because they had signed arbitration clauses that they were contesting because Halliburton and KBR had misrepresented both the job and circumstances, especially the circumstances relating to their housing and their safety, and to the policies of Halliburton and KBR in exercising discipline over matters of sexual conduct. The other cases that address the MISCONDUCT of Halliburton and KBR in maintaining an environment where rape was regarded as "boys will be boys".
You clearly haven't read the earlier decision; the one where the court addresses the need for congress to pass pertinent legislation IN THE COURT DECISION to remedy the problems they faced in making the respective legal outcome.
That would be the one that gave Jones only some redress from the arbitration clause, the one about which the court expressed a lot of concerns for the abuses of these arbitration clauses, but couldn't give her redress in others despite their concerns for the abuses of these clauses.
You have no idea what the jurisdictional issues are Jas, or the pattern of conduct by these HUGE companies was that was so egregious.
These actions that you dismiss so cavalierly without researching any of this.......they were routine. They happened A LOT. And NO, just because it was illegal activity, there was NOT adequate protection for these women, because of the jurisdictional issues and because of the lack of pursuit by our Justice Department and State Department. There was not adequate protection for other abuses EITHER.
Here's a thought for you Jas. The business situation you described, with the employees showing up an hour a day for an outrageous salary? That sounds like extortion to me, and that is illegal. So,using YOUR analogy, it shouldn't be happening.
Um, Jas, since you have all this informaion about that incident, why wasn't it reported to authorities? Why were these business men going along wit it?
Could it have been an enforcement problem? Maybe they just didn't fight this occurrence enough using the existing system?
So, Jas, I'll let ToE weigh in on the content of the legal documents he forwarded on to me. IF you care enough about any facts instead of only spouting your "anti-government is pro-capitalist bias" nonsense when it is NOT applicable OR appropriate.
And since you apparently can't be bothered to acquaint yourself with the facts before making an argument, I'll post the amendment HERE for you.
But frankly, you are writing as someone who doesn't CARE what the facts are; you have your opinon, and no MERE facts are going to change it. Shame on you.
What you don't understand Jas, because YHOU didn't do the research, is that without companies - big companies, like Halliburton and KBR - being able to force their employees to sign contracts with this specific kind of arbitration clause, YES, companies like these HAVE to act differently.
ReplyDeleteSo yes, women will be safer; other employees WILL be safer than they were before.
YOU are wrong, which you might actually REALIZE if you did your homework.
I think it is equally important to underline that you Jas are NOT THE ONLY PERSON WRITING HERE WHO HAS EXPERIENCE IN THE SPHERE OF BUSINESS. To assume that the three of us, Pen, ToE, or I must simply be writing from a lack of that experience, because otherwise we would have to share your viewpoint is hugely arrogant...and of course also WRONG.
And that part where you 'call me out' on something I didn't address:
" I never stated Ms. Jones waived her rights. I stated that Ms. Jones waiving her rights wouldn't preclude a criminal case...and I find it humorous you completely avoided the point of my statement to attempt to undue it. It goes to the heart of the discussion."
You completely miss the point Jas.
Ms. Jones was denied any justice so far under the criminal jurisdiction for her case; it has not gone to trial, and may well not. The other cases - and there are many - have not either, for similar reasons.
That leaves only the civil process available to the victims, and the arbitration clauses in these contracts in conjunction with the reliance of the companies involved that there would be no accompanying criminal legal decisions by the courts, were used to prevent these women who were so brutaly raped, and falsely imprisoned, the cases where the company was clearly complicit over and over and over----- those were stuck in arbitration where the companies involved 'despite unclean hands' and where they clearly had 'disproportionate power in the proceedings', kept the victims from receiving justice and getting compensated for what was done to them.
The arbitration clauses in conjunction with the lack of action on the criminal side of the legal system meant that these companies were off the hook, could do as they pleased, without any restraint under the law effectively.
Thank you Bush administration, thank you politicized Gonzales DoJ, for that heinous failure of justice.
Thank you Senator Franken for removing the loophole that allowed THAT vicious obscenity to continue.
The Jas Syllogism:
ReplyDeleteGovernment regulation is always bad;
Business is always good;
Therefore, the Franken Amendment can't possibly work, because it is a anti-business, AND it was proposed by a Democrat.
Wow! To think I could have saved myself all that work of reading up on both sides, the history, the court cases, tracking down the amendment itself, looking at who voted for and against it. Looking at the pattern of outrageous violence that prompted this amendment. What was I thinking?
I was thinking that approach is simplistic, satifyingly biased for some, but just plain the WRONG thing to do.
Jas,
ReplyDeleteI was pretty clear about why Texaco COULD be held accountable, namely, if it assisted with the slaughter of civilians, it could be. I also was clear that if it did nothing at all, it couldn't/wouldn't be, but that a brave stance MIGHT have staved off the slaughter. Further, I was clear that I wasn't talking about the specific acts of Texaco staff as the primary thrust of the disussion - but rather, that IF they were innocent, meaning couldn't have done anything as long as the things they did weren't complicit - then there was NO need for the protection of Texaco by Clinton - because they were innocent, but instead of allowing a trial - Clinton protected Texaco under national security objections - objections which CANNOT be overruled. There was no need (certainly not if, as you claim, Texaco could do nothing and did nothing wrong), and it was therefore another example of how, no matter which party is in power, the US government is controlled by large, corporate interests. Nothing so far that you have said assuages that complaint for, as I've been clear about, this isn't about the FACTS of what happened -- and I believe you have made some claims which are factual/correct (as have I in further research), but rather it is about the FACT that the President of the United STates stepped in to protect a company on falacious grounds.
BTW, Jas, I am a Director of Client Relations and Operations at a reasonably well respected banking services firm - a very high growth, and highly regulated firm at that - I think I speak with a reasonably significant amount of expertise about entreprenuership and business acumen.
So what's with the personal attacks? I think I'll take a pass from commenting or reading this blog any longer. I'm sure you all couldn't care less and that's ok. Lots of anger here. I don't see much interest in having a conversation. It seems you're all terribly interested in picking up where certain others which you've banned from here have left off. Hope you have fun with it all. Good bye.
ReplyDeleteJas wrote:"Jas said...
ReplyDeleteSo what's with the personal attacks?"
Jas, you are not being personally attacked. No one is saying your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries, or making any similar statements to attack you.
You are being pretty strongly criticized for your assumptions, and should be.
You were offerred not only the opportunity in comments to assert where I was wrong and how, supported with actual informaiton - I offerred you a separte authorship on the subject.
Your reaction?
Your first response:"Really? Seriously? I mean give me a break are you guys so extreme in your anti-capitalism."
I think I may am justified in feeling this response was dismissive at the very least, and insulting in attributing motive.
You then wrote Jas: "This woman was raped. I think that is a given. Those responsible should be put in a hole and forgotten about or worse. I'm quite sure someone will flame me but...oh well."
Those responsible should be put in a hole? Well, as long as you think they were bad, anything else you write is ok? Those responsible aren't going to be put in a hole Jas, because of how an entire corporation acted to ensure they wouldn't face ANY consequences, regardless of the fact they 'should' face a court of law. And not ONLY this woman was raped, MANY women were raped, and then apparently similarly falsely imprisoned, threatened, etc.
"How does a rape committed by individuals make a company which employeed these individuals culpable?"
I will leave it to ToE to elaborate on the law, but it is called vicarious responsibility, in the civil suit papers, along with negligent hiring and supervision, and numerous other charges.
The reasons are many to support the charges, which I found very compellingly established. The entities did that by lying to the women they hired about where they would be housed and how they would be made secure, by specifically lying in response to questions about previous accusations of rapes they knew a bout. They did that by how carelessly they hired men where they should and could reasonably have expected this behavior from them. They did this by callously ignoring complaints to them about problems reported to them before this individual rape happened, like complaints about sexual harrassment, and requests by women NOT to be housed in otherwise all-male housing where their rooms were not secure, asking for housing instead that was consistent with the housing promises under which they agreed to employment. And there are the pretty well established conduct of these entities in not making any attempt at investigating and not stopping the sexual abuse by the supervisors of these women towards them. And that doesn't get anywhere close to what these companies did AFTER the rapes, plural, occurred. The threats, the imprisonment, the harrassment by HR personnel, the handling of the rape kits, etc.
But you ignore all that information, avoid examining it entirely. You dismiss it out of hand, Jas, as apparently just inconceivable as anything other than bias on my part when you write:"but from that to they should be responsible for the rape of a woman is a leap in logic." and "maybe proof should be presented before we march them to the hanging tree?"
ReplyDeleteA lot of proof has been presented Jas, which you would know if you knew anything about this; yet you have no problems apparently with assuming I would write this without knowing what that proof was or if proof existed. That is insulting to me Jas, a real slap in the face, especially after how hard I worked to understand what I was talking about.
You seem to think that you can be more correct than I am, without doing anything, not even reading the amendment itself. I will ask you Jas if that isn't just a little arrogant on your part? And biased? Isn't that in essence saying that I am wrong automatically purely because you don't like what you perceive as my political point of view. Isn't that in essence stating that someone you think is liberal can't be right, can't correctly understand the facts, purely because they are liberal - in other words, different and therefore not as correct as you?
If you can make another interpretation here of what you have written, DO SO. Please!
But you don't stop there Jas; you continue.
"So I fail to see how this ammendment is necessary or useful. A corporation doesn't rape an individual. No corporation I've ever heard of has a policy promoting rape."
Jas, you will neve hear of a corporation that does, so long as your adamantly refuse to look at the evidence when they do. Your argument boils down to "oh, I don't think they would do that so I don't need to consider any proof they might have done that".
Shocker Jas, they did that, and not just once, not just "A rape", multiple rapes, beatings, and worse.
And then on this invalid base of no-facts, just assumptions, you construct further conclusions about the impact of this amendment:
"In fact, I purpose that such an ammendment will only make it more likely not less that cover ups will occur when rape occurs on the job. Why? Because now the corporate entity could be hauled into court even though it's not responsible."
In complete disregard of extensive evidence, you exonerate corporations and make them the victims here. That is BAD of you Jas.
"If a corporate entity discovered that rape had in fact occured on the job by it's employees I find it highly unlikely that it would cover it up if it was already protected from civil litigation."
Refusal to believe evidence, extensive evidence, refusing even to look at it before coming to a conclusion, and instead preferring your own unwarranted assumptions is intellectual dishonesty Jas.
I don't think you have been flamed here at all, or "attacked". I think you were simply, horribly wrong, and called on it, fairly, for where and how you were wrong.
ReplyDeleteYou can re-examine my statements, and your own, and respond. Or you can pick up your marbles and go home in a sulk.
But before you go, let me address another mis-statement you made."Lots of anger here. I don't see much interest in having a conversation."
I do research, I present the arguments, you do no research, and present assumptions which are not only not supported by fact, but ignores the facts, and WE are the ones not interested in discussion?
You then further insult us with "It seems you're all terribly interested in picking up where certain others which you've banned from here have left off."
Not others, plural. One person has been banned.
You cannot know the legitimate reasons for that ban because the most egregious comments were never posted, they didn't make it past moderation. You have not seen the obscenties, the insults, the implied horrible utterly unjustified accusations made not only in comments but in emails, nor are you aware of the obsessive pattern of both.
You don't know the extensive efforts that we made to resolve the problems without resorting first to brief bans, and finally this last ban.
You may not like what I have written Jas, but that does not justify you being inaccurate, ill informed, unfair, and insulting in your response. I hope you will re-examine your assumptions, your own responses, and reconsider leaving.
You should also know that not only did I myself re-examine what I wrote in my previous comments before today's, I ask my co-admins to assess it for fairness, thoroughness, and critical thinking. So, do understand that I am not asking you to do something that I have not also done. They both thought I was a bit rough on you, rougher than they would be, but fairly and justifiably so. They also made a few comments about more clearly estabishing my gender that made me laugh, but....oh, never mind about those.
Jas,
ReplyDeleteI don't think you were 'attacked', perhaps responses to you were strong, but your comments were strong too.
You bear little relationship to the person who was ultimately banned. You engage in disussion, answer points, and mostly at least, don't engage in repetitive invective to the detriment of all else.
Yet, you accused me of believing that Texaco employees should have fought the Indonesian Army in a rather sarcastic comment which was not particularly addressing the point that Texaco was protected needlessly by Clinton.
Anyway, I'm sure no one meant you any offense, but clearly you appear offended, and for that, I apologize. Please feel free to comment, but understand you'll be treated as roughly, but in what is meant as a friendly roughness, as you are rough, no more, no less :).
Regards,
Pen
from the online american heritage dictionary for tautology:
ReplyDelete"Logic An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.
[Late Latin tautologia, from Greek tautologiā, from tautologos, redundant : tauto-, tauto- + logos, saying; see -logy.]
tau'to·log'i·cal (tôt'l-ŏj'ĭ-kəl), tau'to·log'ic (-ĭk) adj., tau'to·log'i·cal·ly adv.
from the etymology dictionary:
"Word Origin & History
tautology
1579, from L.L. tautologia "representation of the same thing" (c.350), from Gk. tautologia, from tautologos "repeating what has been said," from tauto "the same" + -logos "saying," related to legein "to say" (see lecture).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
the tautology here: "No corporation I've ever heard of has a policy promoting rape." So, no company would ever have a policy that promoted rape, so we can properly dismiss the assertion that a company has had policies in place that promoted rape when we subsequently hear of it.
Ergo, I have never heard of a company with a policy promoting rape, so when I hear of a company with a policy promoting rape, it can be disregarded as false. If it is not true, any remedy cannot therefore work.
If there is an inaccuracy or flawed analysis of any kind in my critical thinking, I would invite ANYONE, not just Jas, to demonstrate the error.
Pen, let me second your comment.
ReplyDeleteJas, it was my intention to engage you vigorously, and to make my point, well, sharply, so as to NOT be further treated dismissively.
It was not my intention to attack you personally, only to fault your arguments, and to a degree beyond that, to identify and argue what I took to be problematic underlying attitudes.
Please take it as a compliment that my intent was to engage you as a fully competent equal, not someone to be coddled like a child, taking my tone to you from your own comment.
For offending you rather than engaging you, as I intended, accept my apology.
Rather than leave, I hope you not only accept that apology but also will accept my offer - my challenge - to research the facts, and if you still feel this amendment is a mistake, to post an alternate view as a guest author.
Capitalism is not by any means a benevolent system. Unbridled capitalism relies on a principle that business will look out for the workers it employs because somehow its good for the business to do that. It also bases itself on the principles of trickle-down economics, and history has shown that this principle just doesn't work. The result of trickle-down economics is that the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, and the middle class shrinks.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I'm not anti-capitalist, but I do firmly believe that large corporations, if not thumped with enough of an economic incentive, will not act as good corporate citizens and will get away with whatever they can. That is why large financial penalties, such as the denial of lucrative contracts, are necessary in order to get the attention of these organizations. A 2 or 3 person business generally obeys the rules because there is enough personal control that the owners want to be lawful. A large corporation is amoral. It is interested only in profit for its stockholders and if its possible to bend or ignore the law, it will do so as long as its profitable and the risk of financial penalties for doing so are low.
Ms. Jones in this case is alleging a variety of claims against KBR and its subsidiaries. These include various forms of fraud in the inducement to contract as well as their complicity in her rape, false imprisonment and other torts.
Ms. Jones has alleged that KBR is responsible under a theory of vicarious liability. Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary party liability that is founded in the common law principle of respondeat superior An employer is responsible for the tortuous acts of its employees if they commit those acts during the course of employment. It will be a stretch to determine that the employees who raped Ms. Jones were acting in the course of their employment. However, it will be less of a stretch to determine that the false imprisonment and other tortuous acts alleged were in the course of employment.
Another doctrine of potential liability is qui facit per alium facit per se or one who acts for another acts in his/her own interests.
KBR tried to have the entire matter subjected to arbitration under Ms. Jones' employment contract. While her employment contract does call for arbitration, it only calls for arbitration as to acts incident with employment. The US District Court found that the allegations of rape, false imprisonment, etc were not in the scope of her employment. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, and a request for re-hearing en banc was denied. (they are rarely granted) Its doubtful that the SCOTUS will accept this matter for hearing if its appealed.
Jas, I have read the comments you made, and the comments made back. I don't think it was DG's intent to offend you. We welcome your comments, as they remain on topic and they are relevant to the arguments presented. It is inaccurate to posit that there was any shifting of attention to you rather than K-Rod. For the record, there is only one person on ban. I should note that you were one of the people that was used in illustration of the type of discussion: those who will discuss a matter without the need for obscenities and other detrimental language. I hope that you will continue to read and participate on Penigma.
I have a good friend who was a marine captain in the first gulf war. About 4 months or so after the fighting ended a female reporter came out to where his tank platoon (or whatever 5 tanks and the men to run them are) was camped. Whenever she interviewed any of the men he went with her. She asked him why he did this and he told her that they were in an area with no laws, his men had been out in the desert away from any females for 6 months and whoever had a gun was the law. Having an officer present reminded them that there were still laws and rules in place that had to be followed and by doing so kept her safe. This is the problem with civilian contractors in an area like this. In the military an officer can have you tossed out, arrested, and although it has not been done since WWII (I think) they can in some instances have you shot. A manager can send you home. You should not have a bunch of people who are not in the military and not subject to the local laws.
ReplyDeletePen - I have not read about the Timor Texaco thing but even if Texaco was innocent it could cost them millions to defend themselves in court. It is possible Clinton had the full story and granted them immunity to save the time and expense of a trial.