JPF Home Page Forums Republicans Oppose Law on Protecting Victims of Gang Rape

People sue over criminal matters all the time. If someone steals your car and wrecks it, you wouldn't press criminal charges and then a civil lawsuit to make them pay for it?
If you didn't, I guarantee your insurance company would.

Bill. Beats me why the Justice Department hasn't arrested anyone. Politics, maybe? You'd be surprised?
Besides, after her rape kit was turned over to KBR/Halliburton, it disappeared for two years, and a good amount of what was supposed to be in it was missing when it "turned up" again.

Joyboy

I don't think I meant a lawsuit wasn't justified. I said under her contract it wasn't. Do away with the contract an arbitration clause and she could sue the pants off them. And should.
Fact is she signed a contract with the clause in. Therefore she can't sue. Now if the court overturns the contract or rules otherwise then good. She wins.
I don't think I meant to say It isn't enforceable. I was going by what the DOD and Inoyhe had to say.
I am not a lawyer, judge, or law maker. And I don't think I am smart enough to say one way or t'other.
BTW. If Inoyhe is pandering to the contractors in his district rather than doing what is right it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

but if as you say

Then where is the problem. If Jone's case was outside the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator why the amendment. It is being settled in the courts is it not?

Now to the language of the amendment.

did you read this? Where does it stop. There could be several layers (tiers)of subcontractors in this kind of work. Some may be outside the jurisdiction of the US. How do you enforce that kind of law?
or this


Have you read title VII of the civil rights act? I tried, finally gave up. It was giving me a headache.
How will this be enforced in foreign countries? Iraq isn't going to abide by our civil rights act. What American contractor will subcontract to a foreign company with this provision?
I don't disagree with the intent of the amendment but I don't think this is well written.

Or this


Like I said, I am not a lawyer but this is really open ended to me. Negligent hiring? Emotional distress?

I support the intent but this thing needs to be looked at really careful.
As a conservative I don't want government intruding into every aspect of our lives. I also think there should be careful limits on the Governments interference with private companies and the contracts they write with their employees.

Then the last section "B". It exempts anyone not under US jurisdiction?
So how will it help anyone employed in a foreign country?

Maybe Franken shoulda called Perry Mason.

I'll add this
I don't think these big companies like Haliburton give a damn what happens to people in these situations. It's a buyer beware kind of thing. They leave you to rot if it is going to cost them anything.
What happened to this young lady is despicable. The people in question should have been arrested and tried. If guilty they should be in prison.
And yes, Haliburton and any other employer who allows this kind of situation to exist should be sued for millions.

I certainly hope the Senators that voted against the amendment did it for all the right reasons but given the corruption in our government I doubt it.

It's the stockholders and officers of Haliburton who should be tried for rape with the individuals. EVERY stockholder.

I agree, but I think it goes higher than that. I think every human should be responsible for every sin and should pay for them. And it even goes higher than that. God created us, I think God should pay for every sin. Oh...wait a minute....He did!

God didn't he sent his son (Jesus) to pay for our sins.

Not in the sense that He was responsible for them, or owned them. But He paid for our redemption.

Galatians says He, "...gave himself for our sins..." and 1 John says He, "...is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

"Propitiation" means conciliation or appeasement. Jesus took on the sins of the world to appease God who is offended by sin. In that sense, he "paid" the price of death to "buy" us eternal life.

Bill,
It can be settled in the courts now if Jones pursues it, because the Fifth Circuit decided that what happened to her doesn't fall under the arbitration clause in her contract. It already took her years in court to get to that point.

There's nothing hard about the "tiers." If a company hires a subcontractor, foreign or domestic, they make sure the contracts they sign don't require a mandatory arbitration clause. If they don't do that, they don't get paid.
It's essentially giving defense contractors an incentive to protect their employees -- the court system can be a pretty big stick.

Yes, Title VII is complicated. Defense contractors are very large companies. They have attorneys that are well versed in employment law.

The B section isn't talking about where someone is employed. It's talking about who hires them. In other words, sign a contract with a foreign contractor that's not getting paid with U.S. tax dollars, and U.S. law doesn't apply.

I think that really weakens the amendment and makes it problematic.


Why would you even bother putting in a clause that says the amendment doesn't apply to Foreign contractors that are not being paid with US tax dollars?

I think this means if a company like Haliburton subcontracts work to foreign companies they are exempt because it is unenforceable. That way Haliburton cannot be sued by someone because of something a foreign contractor did if you are working for them. It doesn't say anything about Tax Dollars. This is where the enforcement problem comes from. IMHO.
I might be wrong though.
Either way I hope they get it sorted out and can come up with a way to protect these workers.
No one should have to go through what this young lady endured.

They could simply eliminate section B by requiring all work be done by American companies if US tax Dollars are being used to pay for it.

"They could simply eliminate section B by requiring all work be done by American companies if US tax Dollars are being used to pay for it."
Now there's an idea.

But I think that section applies to, for example, an American working for Boeing on a project the company was doing for Germany. In that case, the U.S. courts wouldn't be the jurisdiction for contract disputes.

Joyboy
That might be it. I am not a lawyer nor a legislator. That we are both looking at the language with a different perspective tells me there might be a problem with the language of the amendment.
Or like you said; A Red Herring

Lets hope they can clear it up and get it right.
Hopefully it won't add a few hundred pages to it.