Jim Bunning/other republicans vote in favor of abritration clause concerning rape

The KBR Corporation (military contractor) has fine print in their contract that says that if someone is raped by fellow KBR employees, they can not sue. A woman was gang raped by several KBR men. She came back to the US (un-aware of this insane contract tidbit) and tried to sue for what happened to her. Al Franken called for a new law that would keep corporations from being able to enter legal language regarding rape out of their contracts. Republicans including our incredibly senile representative, Jim Bunning, voted against it because they saw it as an attack against one of their big supporters. Bush and his administration ignored this problem and let the rapes continue. Why in the heck would anyone who hasn't sold their souls to their party vote against something like this? It just blows my mind how partisan these people can be, even if it means people are getting raped. Unreal. Thankfully Franken's bill passed but it was 68-30. 30 people actually voted against it including Bunning. These dinosaurs need to go NOW. Notice how many republicans voted for it. The republican party has proven once again they will only vote for something if they propose it, no matter how important it may be. They are useless at this point.

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---68
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kirk (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
LeMieux (R-FL)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---30
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)

Link

It wasn't the company that raped the woman and the accused are awaiting trial... Very mis-leading thread title.. NOBODY fought in favor of rape.. Total LIE....
If you work for a corporation you probably have a contract that says if you are injured in someway while at work that you will handle all civil issues through arbitration.

This would be the same for Obama's National Health care plan. Meaning if you are injured by a Dr. you will seek arbitration and not sue.

The CRIMINAL part of any case is still pursued according to LAW. The Franken Amendment is a whiplash reaction directed at an incident involving a Halliburton employee.

Was the victim of the rape an employee/sub contractor of KBR Corp hence why she agreed to the contract? Or an innocent civilian who was raped by the KBR employees and if so how could she be held to a contract she did not sign?

Something in here does not make much sense. The contract SPECIFICALLY mentiones rape? Or states offenses in general.

If she is an employee/sub contractor how could she sue KBR? If I raped one of the women I work with they wouldn't sue the school (assuming the school administration was not involved in the rape such as evidence of a hostile work environment existed), they would testify against me at my trial to assist the prosectution. If I were to rape an innocent bystander on the street, that person could not sue the school (again assuming the school administration not involved in any way).

This whole story seems to be becoming more cloudy the more the media reports on it. And the media still hasn't addressed how KBR is responsible for these acts. Unless there is something I am missing in the story, I don't see where Bunning and company are at fault.

I amended the title of the thread to more accurately reflect the issue.

gringaloca wrote:

Bush and his administration ignored this problem and let the rapes continue.

Exactly how common where the rapes? The quote above makes it seem rather common. If so, prosecution of rape is what should be pushed, now suing anyone.

Wyatt Earp wrote:

gringaloca wrote:

Bush and his administration ignored this problem and let the rapes continue.

Exactly how common where the rapes? The quote above makes it seem rather common. If so, prosecution of rape is what should be pushed, now suing anyone.

So you think it's ok to have a policy in a company that basically ok's rape? Sure, they should press criminal charges but the company is at fault for caring so little for their employees who are victims of other employees, especially since the rapists are allowed to continue working there with no recourse whatsoever.

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

Link 5

Link 6

This is a widespread problem where the companies helped the criminals out and the Bush administration did everything in the power to keep the wheels of justice from turning.

Where did I say I was OK with a policy that OK's rape? I asked in the thread how the company could be held responsible for the rape unless they were some how involved. If the supervisors mentioned in the first two links did pressure the victim to keep quiet instead of reporting the rape, then the supervisors should be prosectuted for felony obstruction of justice. If upper management knew this was going on, they too should be prosecuted.

The thing that baffles me the most is why the Justice Department is not prosectuting any of these crimes? You can't blame Bush for this, Bush is gone, has been for ten months unless Obama is protecting these contractors just has Bush is being accused for.

The abitration clauses in the contracts are being blown out of proportion. Just because that clause is there does not mean justice is thrown out the window, it just means if a case were to arise, it must be determined in arbitration in front of an arbitrator rather than through litigation. The same justice will be administrated, just at a diffferent venue. Read your home owners/ car owners insurance policy. There is a good chance there is a clause in there stating that if you want to take legal action against the insurer, you must do so through arbitration. Arbitration clauses are very common. I have signed employment contracts which had arbitration clauses also and it didn't bother me since they do not take away any of my rights. In most cases, if the case is criminal a judge can through out the clause but unfortunately the Justice Department is not prosecuting the cases.