Jon Stewart on the ‘Franken Anti-Government-Contractor Rape Liability Bill’

Good for those 30 GOP Senators. Its a stupid piece of legislation.

Going into a warzone is a dangerous thing and the companies can't possibly expect to control all actions in a warzone. The employees are not forced to sign it, it is their choice. It is also an indicaor of just how dangerous the situation is and what the risks are. The women still can I believe take the rapists to court as individuals, and as long as thats the case I see nothing wrong with not allowing them to sue the company. Now if I'm mistaken and the individual rapists are protected from being put in jail, thats another matter entirely, they should be stung up and shot, or at least put away for a very long time. Bad things happen in warzones, thats why no one is there involuntarily, they are adults and should be able to decide if they are willing to take the risk and sign on the dotted line. They should know the risks. They wanted that big Warzone paycheck, well with it comes risks, I don't see it as the fault of the company, but the fault of the rapists..

Now if it dealth with positions outside of "war zones" the legislation would make perfect sense and I'd support it.

I do feel for the victims and hope that the rapists are put in jail forever.

People who go into warzones shouldn't have to expect to get raped by people on their own side. If they do get raped by people on their own side, they shouldn't have to expect being raped again metaphorically by their own bosses.

The women still can I believe take the rapists to court as individuals...

Haliburton and its subsidiaries didn't agree with you.

Here's the thing...

One of president Cheney's selling points for his illegal wars in the Middle East and elsewhere was that we should intervene in those cultures because of how badly they treat their women. So this gal was gang-raped, kept in a box so she wouldn't tell [I presume they pondered killing her to keep her quite but maybe there were too many breadcrumbs?] and then she is not allowed to sue the company for what happened. I mean, a jury would decide if her case had merit right? Why does the company get to decide the merit?

We really are factually, not idiologically, a nation Of the Corporations, By the Corporations and For the Corporations. Democracy is dead.


Maybe Dick Cheney's website [vicariously through his daughter Liz] should be called "Keep America Raped". And another thing about that website, that a father would exploit his own daughter to further his economic interests. Now what was I saying about Cheney's reasons for wanting to invade Iraq? Oh, yeah, that one of the most compelling ones was how they treat women, even direct blood relatives. Sure, Liz is probably into the arrangement, but then again she was probably raised from infancy to be "into the arrangement".

What a bunch of pathetic apologist crap. Are even the most basic, bottom rung standards of decency so easily brushed off by the GOP?

Leo -

I'm not sure I understand your logic. Gang rape occurring outside a warzone you would support being able to sue the corporation, but gang rape in a warzone you would not. Are you saying gang rape in a warzone isn't "rape rape" [credit Whoopie]? Why would a company be less responsible for discipline and supervision in one setting than another? When you say warzones have inherent risks that's true, but those risks should not include being gang raped by your fellow employees.

Giving a gang rape victim the right to sue the employer is only that, a right to sue...not a guarantee of winning the lawsuit. The company has the equal right to show why it should not be held liable if there is good reason for that position. Why not let a jury hear from both sides and decide whether the company is or is not responsible rather than artificially shielding the company from any consequences no matter what its role may or may not have been in an act of wrongdoing?

What JSpencer said!

Well, I guess we all know what should happen to Jeff Sessions. Maybe then he'd have an understanding of what Haliburton stands for. As for Leonidas, dude, I don't even know what to say.

Your opinion seems to be based in some idea that private contractors are somehow in the same professional situation as US soldiers. You can talk about war zone all you like, but these people are PRIVATE employees and are due the same protection as someone working in a cubical.

The 30 Senators should be ashamed of themselves. This is another example of Reps being obstructionist.

Franken has demonstrated again (as he did during the Sotomayor confirmation hearing) that he's an actor as well as a clown.

But as for this, well -- de-funding ACORN (in retaliation for it, as well as an example of Bush-Cheney-demonizing, which would be especially pathetic from the Funny Man) was fought as a possible bill of attainder. The same defense could conceivably be sought here, even if it's beyond the grasp of many and exposes the hypocrisy of others who understand but would choose to persist, nevertheless.

Franken would have been more than merely pathetic had he and others sponsored a bill that demands no employment-condition liability waivers (or agreement to submit to private-party binding arbitration, known disparagingly as the "corporate rent-a-judge" farce) of any kind, by any employer. That not only is more sound intellectually and logically than Franken's cheap far-left stunt (can he do and be no better?), but is a pre-emptive measure toward any future tort reform efforts by the GOP in the years to come. But such a thing is probably too much to expect from those to whom pettiness and extremism are paramount. (Lib Dems are making a remarkable reputation of that kind for themselves this year.)

Your opinion seems to be based in some idea that private contractors are somehow in the same professional situation as US soldiers

Yes they are all voluntarily in a warzone.

ou can talk about war zone all you like, but these people are PRIVATE employees and are due the same protection as someone working in a cubical.

Outside of a warzone cubicles don't usually get bombed, people aren't running around shooting each other. People in a non war zone also do not get wartime pay for taking extra risks. Anyone who equates a warzone situation with one in downtown America, has lost sight of what the horrors of war really are. This is not a game, this is not a social gathering, this is not business as usual, this is war. If Haliburton is forced to be covering its butt all the time for fear of these type things, it may well put our soldiers who they are supporting at greater risk.

Now show me where the contract prevents them from being able to file suit against the individuals who committed the rape, or where company superiors ordered people to commit the rape, and I'll condemn the company and the contract.

People who go into warzones shouldn't have to expect to get raped by people on their own side. If they do get raped by people on their own side, they shouldn't have to expect being raped again metaphorically by their own bosses.

Agreed, but they should be aware of a greater risk of rape in a warzone. That provision in the contract is a clear warning. It was meant to protect the company financially for conditions that exist in a warzone. I'm sure they enemy was the rapist that was envisioned rather than people on our side, but the risk was always there. I am , of course supportive of all actions to bring those inhumans to justice, but that is not the company itself.

What kind of grades did you guys get in law school? Agreeing to use arbitration as opposed to suit is out there in spades in employment contracts for at least the last 10 years, not to mention double spades in commercial services contracts.

It is a question of contract law, not whether someone is sympathetic to the victim in this case.

I don't recall the victim saying she could not read English. And there seems to have been no coercion involved in signing away the right to sue. Let's go ahead and tear up all the contracts out there in the world.

"It is a question of contract law"

That's what makes it the object of legislation, and such legislation (which encompasses more than a particularly disfavored Bush-Cheney-related party) is an example of something that should be sought rather than a blatant political stunt by the Funny Man. I didn't say I favored it, simply provided it as a superior example (and explained why, already).

"Let's go ahead and tear up all the contracts out there in the world."

It's not like that hasn't already happened in the case of creditors and non-favored stockholders of GM and Chrysler, for example.

Giving a gang rape victim the right to sue the employer is only that, a right to sue...not a guarantee of winning the lawsuit. The company has the equal right to show why it should not be held liable if there is good reason for that position. Why not let a jury hear from both sides and decide whether the company is or is not responsible rather than artificially shielding the company from any consequences no matter what its role may or may not have been in an act of wrongdoing?

The lawsuit should be against the individual rapists, suing a company for events in a warzone that the workers had signed contracts specifically giving waning signs that such actions might occur is not something that needs a trail unless the company ordered the rape. The contract agreed to by the employees was legal and signed. Now if the victim wants to challenge the legality of the contract thats fine, but apparently there isn't a case there or Franken would not be proposing his legislation.

If he really wants to change things, what should be done is to go after these contracts themselves, but that would handicap the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and potentially other places in the future more and potentially put more soldiers at risk.

CO -

"What kind of grades did you guys get in law school?" Graduated fourth in my class. Does it matter?

Just some info: statutes subsume contract rights all the time. The best example of this is the Uniform Commercial Code which codifies commercial dealings, details contract interpretation and replaces the common law in determining commercial rights and obligations.

There is a heirarchy within our legal system: first the Constitution, then Treaties, then Statutes, then common law. That's simplistic I know. But, the point is that when a statute is passed that is inconsistent with common law, the statute prevails. You see it constantly (divorce, worker's comp, commerce, tort reform, on and on). That's what happened here, and it is not unprecedented. Decades ago, a similar law was passed for railroad workers because of he (then) inherently dangerous nature of their work, and coal miners.

As for Leonidas, dude, I don't even know what to say

Perhaps say "Companies don't commit rape in warzones" individuals do. Companies cannot control a warzone environment in the same way they can in an orderly society. Some people just don't seem to get that War is not business as usual. For the individual rapists, there is no and can be no excuse, for a company there can be, ie., trying to save as many of our soldiers lives as possible and to win a war. Same reasons we dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing multitudes of innocents, old men, old women, non combatants, babies. Should all those folk in Japan be allowed to sue the US military? the Japanese government? No. War is Hell, no matter how much Al Franken or John Stewart might try to deny it.

Leonidas, did you even bother to read what actually happened? The women weren't trying to sue because they were raped, they were trying to sue because KBR covered it up and threatened them!

One example from the link:

Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.

"Don't plan on working back in Iraq. There won't be a position here, and there won't be a position in Houston," Jones says she was told.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave. Jones described the container as sparely furnished with a bed, table and lamp...

Finally, Jones says, she convinced a sympathetic guard to loan her a cell phone so she could call her father in Texas.

"I said, 'Dad, I've been raped. I don't know what to do. I'm in this container, and I'm not able to leave,'" she said. Her father called their congressman, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.

I seriously doubt that your or DLS or casualobserver thinks that is kosher. Oh yeah and they can't bring suit against the individuals because contractors are outside the law in Iraq, which has been brought up tons of times including when they murdered Iraqis. So literally the only thing she could have done was try to bring suit against the company -- which later it turned out that higher up people had a policy to cover all this up. Take some time to actually read what happened before spouting off please.

There's no decency left. KBR and affiliates are defended by "serious" observers based that throw out legalisms and "think of the troops" arguments even though KBR is providing rotten food, killing our soldiers with faulty wiring, running vastly over budget, covering up rape, and stealing billions of dollars*.

*All these claims have been confirmed by government auditors and inspector generals.

Leo, the provisions are specifically about co-workers raping other co-workers. Are you suggesting that war zones are more likely to trigger co-workers attacking one another? The provisions are not about "the enemy". (I'm assuming the characterization in the post about the provision is correct.)

Going with tidbits, it's not clear that such a contract would hold up in court. You can't sign away certain legal rights. If a company takes actions that directly put its employees at unacceptable risk from its own employees, I'm not sure a contract can categorically protect that company.

Well, you have your perspective, and it is different from mine. But, a couple of points if I may.

1. 30 R's voted against this. That means 10 voted in favor, assuming the other 10 voted...that's a quarter of the R Senators.
2. This statute probably (I haven't read it) does not change this particular contract, but would not allow such provisions in future contracts...that's an assumption because it is usually the way legislation works, like the Lilly Leadbetter Act didn't help her but applied to future cases.
3. As one who sometimes goes conservative, particularly on fiscal issues or opposing Sotomayor's confrimation, I think conservatives and R's create a perception problem for themselves on issues like this. It may not be what they are actually thinking and I acknowledge that, but the perception is that they care more about protecting corporations than they do about protecting people. Make all the intellectual arguments you like. I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about perception.

Just food for thought.

" 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."

You folks keep talking about war zones being different. Really? I don't believe that women raped in the military are not required to sign away rights to sue the perpetrators, any commanding officers who turn a blind eye, or anyone else involved. Why should civilian women raped in a war zone by colleagues be any different?

If the clause in the contract did refer to enemy combatants, I can see that the company had a right to warn employees that it may not be able to protect them sufficiently against such incidents. That's all right. Obviously, the Army offers no guarantees to its women that it can protect them against the enemy's depradations. But this was friendly fire, folks. The company, like the Army, does have an obligation to control, discipline, etc., its own employees.

Thanks for finding the words for me Mikkel. I made the mistake of assuming (that dangerous word) Leo understood what he was going on about and therefore thought raping co-workers had something to do with being in a war zone.

"I seriously doubt that your or DLS or casualobserver thinks that is kosher."

No, Mikkel, I don't. I don't defend rape, or any company failing to provide reasonable security. My only involvement on this thread was to expose the stunt by Franken as the political far-left stunt that it is, and to provide an example of a more general alternative that would be a better way to approach this problem.

Thanks for digging this up and posting it...for those wondering about the legalities of the issue.

Thanks Mikkel. This appears to affect future funding of contracts, including existing contracts not yet fully funded, if the contractor has such provisions in its employment contracts. In other words, Halliburton will have to change its employment contracts going forward in order to continue being funded. It would, of course, have the freedom to walk away from the government contract if it believed deleting the provision would have too negative an impact on it.

Not meaning to make Leonidas's point for him, the language "any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment" concerns me a bit because it does restrict the language to exclude such acts committed by enemy forces or locals.

I still agree with the spirit of the legislation, but wish it were clearer on that point.

tidbits -- you are officially my hero of this thread.

Also, I think that a distinction needs to be made here. It's still perfectly legal for a contractor to put the we're-ok-with-our-employees-raping-each-other clause into their contracts with employees. The Franken amendment merely says that if you do so, the government won't be hiring you for the multi-billion dollar contracts. Kind of like how religious hospitals are perfectly able to discriminate against people they don't like -- say, gay people -- they're just not allowed to get out of taxes while they continue to do so.

I'd also like to point out that a few weeks ago, when the whole Polanski news hit, I was told quite literally to f--- myself for daring to suggest that Republicans often seem to stand in the way of justice for rape victims. This sort of story is *exactly* what I was talking about.

DLS, like other commenters have said before, you have a lot of good points but they are drowned out by your over generalization and ad hominem attacks to the point that it's nearly impossible to separate the information from the noise. I have to read your comments at least four times to figure out what they even mean most of the time.

In this case I have no clue what you meant by the alternative. It sounds like you think they should ban the liability waivers from all contracts by any company regardless of whether they are doing business with the government or not. I'm not sure why that's "superior" and even so, if you read the text of the amendment I'm not sure what you're objecting to.

Yes, I get the hierarchy argument, but who is talking about some future application?

Here is the real issue again.......if you sign a contract.......and at that time it does not run afoul of any statute.......you seem to be advocating let's have the government break the contract later on because they now think there should be a statute precluding one of the contractual terms. Is my interpretation of your view correct?

I accept it can be changed prospectively.

Tidbits, I'm not sure why that language concerns you. There are clearly occupational hazards associated with jobs and if an act was committed by enemy forces or locals that fell within those hazards then the case wouldn't go anywhere. However, if the company was negligent and it happened then of course they should be held accountable.

I remember reading that KBR was having supply lines go through more dangerous areas because it was cheaper for them (even including the trucks they lost) and they did this while lying to the drivers [edit:] and failing to provide them with enough[/edit:] security. They also did this:

Empty flatbed trucks crisscrossed Iraq more than 100 times as their drivers and the soldiers who guarded them dodged bullets, bricks and homemade bombs.

Twelve current and former truckers who regularly made the 300-mile re-supply run from Camp Cedar in southern Iraq to Camp Anaconda near Baghdad told Knight Ridder that they risked their lives driving empty trucks while their employer, a subsidiary of Halliburton Inc., billed the government for hauling what they derisively called "sailboat fuel."

Defense Department records show that Kellogg Brown and Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, has been paid $327 million for "theater transportation" of war materiel and supplies for U.S. forces in Iraq and is earmarked to be paid $230 million more. The convoys are a lifeline for U.S. troops in Iraq hauling tires for Humvees, Army boots, filing cabinets, tools, engine parts and even an unmanned Predator reconnaissance plane.

I think if a company lies to you about what's going on and/or risks your life while defrauding the US government, you should have the right to sue them if something happens to you.

How come the law is set up so that felonies committed in the course of another felony can be added to the accomplices (i.e. if you rob someone and your partner kills them then you are on the hook for murder regardless of whether you wanted to shoot them) but corporations can commit multiple felonies and suddenly contracts are sacred?

roro80 - Thank you; a high compliment indeed.

DLS,

I am quite sure you don't think rape is a good thing. However, it would be great if, for once, you reacted to things like this as it is: an acknowlegement that what happened to those women was a travesty and this legislation is designed to prevent it. Instead, you take everything as an attack on 'your side', as partisian. A company imprisioning a woman to cover up rape does absolutely NOTHING to protect or help our troops. In fact, this company has done a poor job of providing for our troops. They have charged tax payers ridiculous sums of money to provide cr@ppy food and support. They have put our troops in harms way with their reckless and irresponsible behavior, their utter lack of discipline, all enabled by being above the law. DO NOT defend them.

CO said, ".......you seem to be advocating let's have the government break the contract later on because they now think there should be a statute precluding one of the contractual terms. Is my interpretation of your view correct?"

It's really not my view, CO. It's just how the law works. Every time there is a new provision added to the UCC or some interstate commerce law, it has an effect on existing contracts. This is not new or extreme. Legislation impacts contracts. It's how the system works. The only thing I'm advocating is that, if you are gang raped by your fellow employees, you should have a right to sue both the individuals and the company.

I get the sense that you work with contracts. Are you familiar with common contract provision that "if any provision of this contract should be unenforceable, the remainder of the contract shall remain in full force and effect"? One of the reasons for that provision is to keep contracts viable in the event of contravening legislation or court action that would otherwise render the entire contract null and void if that provision were not in the contract.

Wow Leonidas,
"Good for those 30 GOP Senators. Its a stupid piece of legislation.

Going into a warzone is a dangerous thing and the companies can't possibly expect to control all actions in a warzone. The employees are not forced to sign it, it is their choice."


This has to be the dumbest comment i've ever seen made. I was going to post some witty remark to this but as i read above he has already been tore a new one.

This amendment should have taken it one step further not only making the government not hire companies that have a clause like this as to make it illegal to put a clause like this in their contract.

Any other employee signing this and realizing what they are signing would then be inclined to commit rape knowing full well there isn't much that will be followed up on or done.

Mikkel -

I'm probably being over-technical in suggesting cleaner language. Your point is well taken about conditions within the company's control or misrepresentation.

Show me a statute and I act like a lawyer. It's an occupational disease.

Yes, OK, I understand your point now.

However, should not the evaluation of "unenforceable provisions" be handled through the legal system of due process as opposed to Congress?

My .02. Anyone can sue anyone for anything regardless of whatever contract one signed, including rights and appeals waived. A sharp lawyer will find a way, and for the most part, there aint no dummies in law school. It's a harsh and rigorous 3-4 years not to mention the baby bar and big boy bar.

Our courts, districts and appelates, are overflowing with cases with merit and without. Meaning, suits brought that are frail, and those that are substantive or clearcut. From my brush with law school, I know one can sue and sue and sue (see "immam" vs sliwa verdict yesterday), in fact, there's an old saying in the trade of lawyering, 'Gonna sue you so long and so hard even if you win, you lose.' All it takes is a lawyer willing, aggressive, sharp, to keep other party tied up,

leading to grief for the alleged criminal(s), which leads to ongoing and sustained bad pub for their employer if they are involved even tangentially, and those who support either... The suit, regardless of initial perception of merit (and sometimes shakey legal standing), can grow long legs to story for investig. media to pore over endlessly. Too for a corp associated with same, there is a losing of perceived rep, not to mention often enough, shares, etc.

Contract law/torts. Some of the most brilliant lawyers I've met, say no contract is watertight given time, determination and either money, or lawyers pro bono work ongoing for years in exchange for years of ongoing nat'l / regional pub.

Lawyering is a business that has its own view of marketing, not only a business of defending people, making charges, and seeking justice. That marketing component, not spoken about usually, but root deep in every legal situation that has 'news legs'... Marketing possibilties re a plaintiff or defendant can set all sorts of players and actions into motion.

"'Gonna sue you so long and so hard even if you win, you lose.' All it takes is a lawyer willing, aggressive, sharp, to keep other party tied up, leading to grief for the alleged criminal(s), which leads to ongoing and sustained bad pub for their employer if they are involved even tangentially, and those who support either..."

That takes money. A lot. A ton. Unless there are hundreds or thousands of women whom this happened to and form a class action, there is no way that the damages will be enough to justify a lawyer to do it on their own dime and I doubt that any of the victims have enough to fund it out of pocket.

I've read a lot of instances where corporations (or the government) have done much worse than this, including stuff that led to thousands of deaths, and they managed to bleed the plaintiff dry before judgement came.

"your over generalization and ad hominem attacks"

None such. The politics here, the point I was addressing, are clearly evident.

"I have no clue what you meant by the alternative"

???

[DLS: "... a bill that demands no employment-condition liability waivers (or agreement to submit to private-party binding arbitration, known disparagingly as the "corporate rent-a-judge" farce) of any kind, by any employer."

"I'm not sure why that's 'superior'"

???

[DLS, continued: "That not only is more sound intellectually and logically than Franken's cheap far-left stunt (can he do and be no better?), but is a pre-emptive measure toward any future tort reform efforts by the GOP in the years to come."]


"I'm not sure what you're objecting to."

[DLS: "Franken's cheap far-left stunt"]

* * *

"However, it would be great if, for once, you reacted to things like this as it is"

I did. See above, if you still have questions. In no way am I failing in joining this thread without saying the obvious, that rape is wrong; there is no "prerequisite" or compulsion to do this on this or any other thread.

I see your points mikkel. And, because of the potential in this case for all the tenets of high drama, I would suggest right now there are any # of attys weighing how they might make their stones on this case pro bono, in fact an entire team. As I said, there is a marketing component to legal firms, a deep one... they know they could never buy in dollars the huge publicity for their firm that comes ongoing with certain kinds of cases that capture public imagination.

dr.e

dr. e you bring up a more general point that I question. Basically, the news cycle has been condensed to approximately 12 hours, and revelations after the fact are shrugged off. There is undeniable evidence that torture policies were crafted at the highest level of government. Multiple ex-Bush officials said explicitly that his team had been jonesing to invade Iraq from day one and the whole WMD was a pretext. William Jefferson was caught (literally) with a freezer of payoffs and still got reelected. Nearly every single top contractor with the US government has been caught stealing hundreds of millions to billions of tax payer money -- multiple times!

These days, those things have captured the public imagination at most as much as the manufactured hot story of the day about some inane celebrity.

Now I am sympathetic to the idea that in the legal circles the type of fame and publicity is different, and if they could get to the Supreme court...well. That said, I'd be really interested in whether the PR calculus has changed over the decades. If this is a hotly contested legal issue that they could advance through the courts and get a new ruling about these matters, that's one thing, but if it's just a one and done, I wonder if it'd even be worth it for them.

Thanks mikkel. I dont know which 'stories' gain traction between the law and media (they make money on the long legged legal stories too, and that factor has to be weighed into what rises to the surface too) plaintiffs and defendents. But, I think we can know some of the factors that go into long-lived stories. If we stacked ten of the most followed legal 'suspense' stories over the last ten years, and looked for their congruent points, I think we'd see a dozen or so factors tthey all carry... longevity/imagination/twist and turn factors... that at least are compelling in imaginations of those who daily pursue cable news/ legal, mags, nps and specific case sites/ blogs.

Having been in proximity to a couple such cases, those hooks or factors seem to me, to defy the rational sometimes. In those terms, but also in terms of how far some lawyers will go, and for years, to pursue one case only.

"Instead, you take everything as an attack on 'your side', as partisian"

Actually, I don't. While I've been more willing than before to push back, hard, it's not partisan in any sense that I'm a Republican, for I'm not. The real explanation is that I'm not hesitant to sidestep the superficialities and zero in on the _real_ issue, which may disappoint those who are preoccupied with what has them so upset or what they otherwise consider much more pressing or important, to them.

In this case, it's another example of Franken demonstrating the kind of politician he wishes to be, which lies in a context of similar, left-wing Dems feeling increasingly ambitious and eager to flex their political muscles (to the point of overreach and liability among all but the farther-left public), which includes agenda that features a Bush-Cheney-revanchism "motif" or theme. ("Truth commission" revival, soon?)

"I don't defend rape, or any company failing to provide reasonable security." ~ DLS

Nice to see you finally make a concise and coherent statement on this. Thank-you.

My only involvement on this thread was to expose the stunt by Franken as the political far-left stunt that it is,

That's what I love about you DLS and the other Republicans/Conservatives, the cheer predictability...

If the "Dirty F**ken Hippies" came out in favor of Motherhood and Drug Criminalization, you would rail against them and come in favor of Abortion and Cheap Drugs...

My dear misguided waif -

Truth told, I agree with much of what you say, but I really liked that salutation. :-)

Much in legal marketing of the type you describe depends on the sensitivity of the case and the skill of the lawyer in dealing with the press. Some are very good. Some god-awful. And, some, unable to win their case in court will use their skills to raise a public firestorm in hopes of getting legislative action, as in the Lilly Leadbetter case and, I suspect this one.

Big Corps and Big Ins have the bucks for most of the brightest and the best from major law firms who will throw a team of 10-20 lawyers, clerks, investigator, paralegals, etc. at a case like this. It's hard for a lawyer or two to keep pace. Burying plaintiffs lawyers in paper, motions, etc. is part of the game, and all you need is one sympathetic judge to get it thrown out of court.

You are clearly correct though. There is no such thing as a contract that can't be broken. This one sounds like an "adhesion" contract...i.e. company wrote it, you sign it if you want the work, no negotiating the terms allowed. Adhesion contracts are generally construed against the party writing the contract, so there should have been some room to attack the contract for the plaintiff. Would be interesting to know what happened. Of course, my first professional acclaim came when I won a case by proving a railroad isn't a railroad. Go figure. The law is a stranger to logic sometimes.

CO -

You asked, "However, should not the evaluation of "unenforceable provisions" be handled through the legal system of due process as opposed to Congress?"

The way it works is that it can be handled by either the legal system or the legislature. That's why my prior comment referred to "contravening legislation or court action".

Leo, the provisions are specifically about co-workers raping other co-workers. Are you suggesting that war zones are more likely to trigger co-workers attacking one another?

Can you produce them please since I have not read them and you seem to have?

As for rapes by co-workers being more or less likely in a warzone, I'd guess yes, War is hell and some of those co-workers might not be American citizens but Iraqis who have a lesser regard for women. Also it really doesn't matter so much whether its more or less likely, the point is that the company recognizes there are dangers in a warzone due to the fact that they can't manage the enviroment like they could in a more stable place. They have other jobs to do such as supporting the troops who are putting their lives on the line and can't devote the same type of time and resources to personel issues. A warzone is not Park Avenue.

I don't believe that women raped in the military are not required to sign away rights to sue the perpetrators, any commanding officers who turn a blind eye, or anyone else involved. Why should civilian women raped in a war zone by colleagues be any different?

If this was directed at me you misread my comments I suggest you revisit them. As I said there I do not believe that the women in question here signed away any rights to sue the perpetrators, just the company they worked for. Two very different things.

Wow. I can not believe what I am reading here, albeit I stopped reading after someone said something to the effect that we should not expect companies to protect women employees from being raped because they are in a war zone; that these women were not forced to sign a piece of paper; that bad things happen in a war zone, that these women are adults,that these women wanted a big paycheck, so they should accept the risk of being raped.....



Perhaps I should have read more, Perhaps such comments were later retracted...

I am sorry, guys, Rape is Rape! War zone or no war zone! Signed piece of paper or no piece of paper! Contract or no contract Big company or no big company

If companies can not provide adequate security for their women employees in a war zone, then they should not hire women, or they should be forced to provide such protection

Justy an opinion. have at it

Leonidas, did you even bother to read what actually happened? The women weren't trying to sue because they were raped, they were trying to sue because KBR covered it up and threatened them!

Did you even bother to read the actual complaint filed?

You see, the complaint was filed not for a coverup but for the assault and what is described as the company's "boys will be boys" attitude and her not being aware of the dangers involved. A coverup is not mentioned in the complaint section that was filed.

You can read the filed complaint itsself here:
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-c...

The complaint suggests that the company excuses if not encourage rape, some pretty heavy allegations that seem a bit ridiculous. When it uses terms like negligent, its a lot more believable. What it seems like to me is that there was indeed a danger and she was told that she would have to deal with some of it because they couldn't make special provisions for her. This was also something that the contract she signed carried a clear warning sign of. After the even happened is where I fault the company most, but were only heard the one side of the story thus far. I can see putting her in the container with guards for her own saftey, but denying her a phone, if true, seems a very poor decision warzone or not.

That being said, did the company behave badly? certainly in some regards, if the allegations are indeed true.

I think the case she realistically has vs the company is in Count VII Breach of Contract. If she can show the company did not fulfil their contracted responsibilities, she does have a valid calim to be afforded a settlement from the company for that.. So I will backtrack a bit and say she has that right to challlenge the company in court on that matter after learning that that is part of her suit. The contract negotiation had nothing to do with warzone conditions. Also Count VIII if she can provide evidence of fraud, but that will have to be documented I think as the contract she signed giving up some rights kinda runs counter intuitive to it, as it indicates a pretty big danger.

Another thing she could do, if her suit fails is seek a settlement for sexual harassment that happened when she was working at the company in Houston when, according to her Claim, she had given sexual favors due to such harassment and had obtained evidence of the harassment. The overseas regulations would not apply for that.

"the cheer predictability..."

Catcalls at me from the peanut gallery are nothing new, I know.

"Rape is Rape!"

That never was disputed. That never was even the real issue here. Emotive fuel by the lefties, though, for legislation sought for other reasons, and developing a predictable pattern of behavior in Congress, though (the _real_ issue -- [sigh]).

I guess I got what was coming to me since I hadn't read the thing. Normally I go out of my way to do so, since the media is often wrong, but this time I remembered the case from way back when and it was consistent in what they were saying. Anyway if that stuff wasn't affected by the contract I'm not sure why the focus isn't on that.