[tlj009]

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. In an apparent attempt to cover up the incident, the company then put her 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.” Even more insultingly, the DOJ resisted bringing any criminal charges in the matter. KBR argued that Jones’ employment contract warranted her claims being heard in private arbitration — without jury, judge, public record, or transcript of the proceedings. - Think Progress Court rules that KBR employee’s gang rape wasn’t a personal injury ‘arising in the workplace.’

The summary does cite more mainstream news (abc) to establish it's claims: it's just what Google got me first.

It appears that there have been no criminal charges brought against anyone although there was an investigation. Everyone really should be made at this kind of failure from the justice system. At the very least charges should be brought against the person that mishandled the evidence. I mean the doctor actually gave the rape kit to KBR.

But it is also aggravating that this woman's tragedy is being used to run down political opponents or to further some sort of political agenda. It really shouldn't be a Republican and Democrat issue. I mean it was apparently a Republican who has been fighting to get the woman justice from the beginning.

Jamie Leigh Jones - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Congressman Ted Poe

[Ridley's Own]

Originally Posted by tlj009

She has pressed criminal charges though hasn't she?

To what court? The first thing the Coalition Provisional Authority did was make all US contractors exempt from Iraqi law, so the Iraqis can't prosecute. There's some question as to whether the US has any jurisdiction (which is why the DOJ isn't interested in pursuing the case).

The Bush Admin., with its sycophantic GOP congress, allowed this legal black hole to be created and allowed for other sorts of activities to largely be unprosecutable. The terror-industrial complex is real, and we allowed this sort of thing to happen.

[tlj009]

To what court? The first thing the Coalition Provisional Authority did was make all US contractors exempt from Iraqi law, so the Iraqis can't prosecute. There's some question as to whether the US has any jurisdiction (which is why the DOJ isn't interested in pursuing the case).

The Bush Admin., with its sycophantic GOP congress, allowed this legal black hole to be created and allowed for other sorts of activities to largely be unprosecutable. The terror-industrial complex is real, and we allowed this sort of thing to happen.

It appears that the US does have jurisdiction and the DOJ did pursue it (at least on paper). But like I said, they failed miserably. And the Bush administration did a great many things that I am oppose to. But this appears to be a case of using a woman's tragedy for political gain instead of seeking justice for her and trying to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. The bill is focused on this arbitration bill which is related to this woman's case. But why not attack the DOJ's procedures or at least jump start the investigation again? Criminal charges should be brought while the woman is pursuing her lawsuit.

I just don't like what appears to be a manipulation by using tragedy to vilify anyone who opposed the bill. I am sure they had reasons other than to let more women get raped. On second thought, it isn't even focused on the ones opposing the bill but on all Republicans, which would include Congressman Ted Poe even though he has been fighting for Ms. Jaime Jones from the beginning. He is the one who called the DOJ.

[JerryLove]

Used by whom and focused by whom?

[tlj009]

Used by whom and focused by whom?

They, them, those, pick one.

I don't really know but like I said, I don't believe that Republicans are voting against this just so more women will get raped. And that does seem to be a issue (at least in my own head). It sure seems like it is being billed as anyone who voted against this ought to be shot because they are allowing more rapes to happen.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I don't really know but like I said, I don't believe that Republicans are voting against this just so more women will get raped. And that does seem to be a issue (at least in my own head). It sure seems like it is being billed as anyone who voted against this ought to be shot because they are allowing more rapes to happen.

Not all Republicans voted against it, but a majority in the senate did.

I don't think a single republican did it in order to allow more rapes, but I think they knew it was a consequence. I believe they voted against it to protect the profits of companies like Haliburton from being sued.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by tlj009

She has pressed criminal charges though hasn't she?

she can't. They weren't in the US when it happened. And I doubt that if she tried in to press charges in Iraq, that the US would extradite those accused to Iraq. So, criminal charges aren't an option.

Originally Posted by the article

The rape occurred outside of U.S. criminal jurisdiction,

and did it ever end up before an arbitration panel? or did she just assume she wouldn't get anywhere and gave up?

[tlj009]

she can't. They weren't in the US when it happened. And I doubt that if she tried in to press charges in Iraq, that the US would extradite those accused to Iraq. So, criminal charges aren't an option.

Turns out that it is an option but the DOJ just dropped the ball.

[jthomas1600]

OK, I'm just playing the devils advocate here simply because this thread is one sided. Someone posted earlier, "why would anyone vote against such a bill?'.

It's not unheard of for a democratic President to veto a bill that increases funding for education or low income housing. Is it because he does not support those things? Of course not. It could be he he is not happy with the way the bill is funded or he thinks it weakens other programs he supports. At any rate, his desire is not to keep this type of legislation from passing, and his hope it that congress will bring him an improved version of the bill.

Also, it is not uncommon for people to vote no on a bill they know will pass just to make sure the majority is aware that some members have some concerns about portions or aspects of the bill. Often people will chose this option when they are sure the bill would pass, but would not cast a no vote if they thought their vote would be the deciding vote. Another option would be to just vote present I think, or abstain from voting.

We can't know the hearts or intentions of all those that voted no, but I for one am hopeful that the majority fall into some similar category as the ones I've mentioned.

[Skeeter]

The reasons given by the Republican senators that I've heard were incredibly weak.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

We can't know the hearts or intentions of all those that voted no, but I for one am hopeful that the majority fall into some similar category as the ones I've mentioned.

We can know that some spoke out specifically against Frankin's ammendment.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

OK, I'm just playing the devils advocate here simply because this thread is one sided. Someone posted earlier, "why would anyone vote against such a bill?'.

It's not unheard of for a democratic President to veto a bill that increases funding for education or low income housing. Is it because he does not support those things? Of course not. It could be he he is not happy with the way the bill is funded or he thinks it weakens other programs he supports. At any rate, his desire is not to keep this type of legislation from passing, and his hope it that congress will bring him an improved version of the bill.

Also, it is not uncommon for people to vote no on a bill they know will pass just to make sure the majority is aware that some members have some concerns about portions or aspects of the bill. Often people will chose this option when they are sure the bill would pass, but would not cast a no vote if they thought their vote would be the deciding vote. Another option would be to just vote present I think, or abstain from voting.

We can't know the hearts or intentions of all those that voted no, but I for one am hopeful that the majority fall into some similar category as the ones I've mentioned.

we aren't talking about the defense appropriations bill. We are talking about an amendment to that bill. 30 republicans voted against the amendment to the defense appropriations bill.

[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by Bryan

we aren't talking about the defense appropriations bill. We are talking about an amendment to that bill. 30 republicans voted against the amendment to the defense appropriations bill.

I'm aware of that. But my earlier points still may be valid. Again, I'm just playing devils advocate. The amendment was written to give women the right to take their employers to civil court correct? To take away some of the protections an employer has against being sued by employees, correct? Is it possible that an amendment of this nature could go to far? Part of our health care issue is the need for tort reform. Is it possible that some of the dirty 30 ( I just made that up, like it?) wanted to see limits set on damages? Is it possible they wanted language included that would give the accused recourse if it was later found that the claim of rape was bogus? That happens you know. Again, I'm not saying that anyone should have voted against this. Just putting some other ideas out there.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

I'm aware of that. But my earlier points still may be valid. Again, I'm just playing devils advocate. The amendment was written to give women the right to take their employers to civil court correct? To take away some of the protections an employer has against being sued by employees, correct? Is it possible that an amendment of this nature could go to far? Part of our health care issue is the need for tort reform. Is it possible that some of the dirty 30 ( I just made that up, like it?) wanted to see limits set on damages? Is it possible they wanted language included that would give the accused recourse if it was later found that the claim of rape was bogus? That happens you know. Again, I'm not saying that anyone should have voted against this. Just putting some other ideas out there.

well if someone could post a copy of the amendment we armchair supreme Court Justices could make our lofty egostistical rulings!!

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

I'm aware of that. But my earlier points still may be valid. Again, I'm just playing devils advocate. The amendment was written to give women the right to take their employers to civil court correct? To take away some of the protections an employer has against being sued by employees, correct? Is it possible that an amendment of this nature could go to far?

1) Suing someone who wronged you is a civil right. Making giving up your rights as a condition of employment should be illegal.

2) And this is really important. The bill would not have outlawed such contracts... it would merely have told the pentagon to forbid such contracts in its own contracts.

Haliburton can remove the right to sue if they want, but they won't get the defence contracy.

Part of our health care issue is the need for tort reform. Is it possible that some of the dirty 30 ( I just made that up, like it?) wanted to see limits set on damages? Is it possible they wanted language included that would give the accused recourse if it was later found that the claim of rape was bogus? That happens you know. Again, I'm not saying that anyone should have voted against this. Just putting some other ideas out there.

So would good tort reform mean that you could not hold an incompitent or downright malevolent doctor or hospital responsable for the harm they infict? That seems bad tort reform to me.