Objectively pro-rape

I’m not sure how else to describe some of these Republican Senators.

I honestly don’t understand the impulse to defend KBR/Halliburton here. Is it just because it pisses off hippies?






176 replies
  1. 1
    Comrade Jake says:

    I don’t know, but I’m kind of looking forward to Franken mocking them.

  2. 2
    cokane says:

    god, such a horrifying story, even after seeing it for the umpteenth time.

  3. 3
    handy says:

    Can Sessions just go ahead and DIAF now? Preferably through spontaneous combustion?

  4. 4
    Midnight Marauder says:

    Between this and schooling that DOJ lawyer on the 4th Amendment the other week, I feel confident in saying that I am going to thoroughly enjoy the Al Franken era.

  5. 5
    Mr. Tactful says:

    I’ve been a Franken fan for many years, and read his Limbaugh book, Lying Liars, and The Truth, and always thought his political instinct and humor was far sharper than he ever was on SNL doing tamer things.

    Franken has a very unique ability to frame things in such a way as to get to the ultimate core of the topic precisely and in very few words. Those that play semantics are especially ill-advised to fuck with Al Franken, and those who habitually underestimate his ability to shred his opponents with plain language that is anything but shrill are forever doomed to be embarassed publicly.

    He operates a little bit like a wonkier, not-quite-as-cocky Barney Frank.

  6. 6
    Brachiator says:

    Let me get this straight. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Polanski) spoke against the amendment?

    And it did not pass unanimously? Thirty senators voted against it?

    And these guys expect to pick up seats in the next round of elections?

  7. 7

    I wrote about this in the comments of Cole’s last post on the military not supplying out troops properly and family members trying to raise donations.

    What I find most interesting about the vote is that the 30 votes against this legislation were MALE Republicans. Kay Bailey Hutchison voted for this amendment!

    This is one of those votes that shoud be marked and used against them in the next election cycle. I see the ad now: “Senator _______ voted against prosecuting rapists.” Over the top? Maybe. But anyone voting against this legislation is a depraved and indecent human being.

  8. 8
    Demo Woman says:

    Both my senators voted against the amendment. GA must be so proud.

  9. 9
    The Moar You Know says:

    These are the same Republican senators in favor of Roman Polanski’s exoneration, right?

  10. 10

    BTW Franken is really doing some yeoman work in the Senate. He got the funding to provide companion dogs for vets suffering for PTSD and other war related maladies. Take that, all you liberals!

  11. 11
    dmsilev says:

    It boggles the mind.

    Over at the GOS, kos pointed out that 4 of the 10 GOP ‘ayes’ on the Franken amendment were all 4 of the female Republican Senators. They at least had some empathy for the victims that sparked this bit of legislation.

    -dms

  12. 12
    Kennedy says:

    A prime example of the GOPtards trying to act “conservative” just for the sake of the term.

    Remember kids, attempting to prohibit or punish rape limits personal liberties, which is bad, unless it harms teh gayz or keeps women from getting abortions. Then it’s okay. Also.

  13. 13
    camchuck says:

    In defense of the 30 Republicans, let me say, “Look over there! ACORN!”

  14. 14
    Violet says:

    Halliburton/KBR must own the Senators that voted against it. SATSQ.

    Good for Franken. He’s amazing.

  15. 15
    Comrade Dread says:

    Well, to be fair, many politicians have supported corporations figuratively raping us for years.

    It’s not surprising some would support them doing it literally.

    Though I find the hypocrisy and cynicism disgusting, given that they had the vapours and passed a bill defunding ACORN practically overnight for questionable and unethical advice dispensed by their employees, while wanting to keep on churning out tax dollars to their friends at KBR where female employees are being forced to go through corporate arbitration for redress of serious violations of law and decency.

  16. 16

    Bill Ayers wrote those last two comments for me.

  17. 17
    John PM says:

    As a lawyer, I do not view a vote against the Franken Amendment as necessarily making one “objectively pro-rape.” The employment contract makes arbitration the exclusive forum for claims against Haliburton. Employees with claims against Haliburton still have legal recourse, just not in a court. Of course, the exact rights of the employee depend upon the actual language in the arbitration provision.

    Having said that, I support the amendment. It should be against public policy to allow a company to require that claims involving sexual assault be arbitrated. I believe the public has a right to know what happened in these situations. And, in 2010, I would have no problem referring to all Republicans who voted against the amendment as being “objectively pro-rape.”

  18. 18
    Zifnab says:

    Legislation a long time coming. I’m more than happy to see Franken pushing this kind of bill along. Anyone who claims the Democrats and Republicans are the same party need only look as far as votes like this.

    We’ll have to wait and see how passionately this kind of thing gets enforced.

  19. 19
    gbear says:

    Franken has already introduced some great legislation. This one was passed:

    In his first piece of legislation as Minnesota’s junior senator, Al Franken is looking to expand the number of service dogs available to wounded veterans.

    Franken wrote…that his proposed pilot program will train “a statistically significant number of dogs” to measure the benefits to veterans living with devastating injuries sustained on the battlefield.

    The dogs’ companionship, Franken said, provides invaluable health benefits — both physical and emotional — to veterans suffering from debilitating injuries and psychological disorders.

    The service dogs will help “reduce the suicide rate among veterans, decrease the number of hospitalizations and lower the cost of medications and human care,” he said.

    (Edit: Italics fail. they were supposed to include all of the above)

    He’s VERY aware that his position was previously held by Paul Wellstone.

  20. 20
    JoyceH says:

    I support the amendment. It should be against public policy to allow a company to require that claims involving sexual assault be arbitrated.

    Especially THIS company – an Army medical exam said that Jones had been raped multiple times, both vaginally and anally, but multiple perps, but darned if the rape kit didn’t get itself disappeared after the Army turned it over to KBR Security.

  21. 21
    ed says:

    Is it just because it pisses off hippies?

    Isn’t pretty much everything Republicans do about that? If there were any lingering doubts (and how could there have been?), didn’t the Olympic Reaction Situation snuff those out?

  22. 22
    LD50 says:

    I look forward to seeing what inane way Makewi will find to claim that this actually reflects badly on liberals.

    Anyway, the GOP’s decision derives straightforwardly from two Guiding Conservative Principles:

    1) always do the opposite of what a Democrat wants.
    2) protect the GOP’s big donors.

  23. 23
    gopher2b says:

    How is this contract not legally unconsionable?

  24. 24
    Tom Hilton says:

    Yeah, shame on the Republicans who opposed it…but more importantly, good for Senator Franken for a) taking this on in the first place, and b) doing the work to get it passed.

    I had high hopes for him when he was elected (and elected again…and elected again), and I’m thrilled to see him live up to them.

  25. 25
    Legalize says:

    All issues are partisan. Including rape. Except for when Bill Clinton raped all those women the wingers claimed he raped. Then it was a matter of decency. I expect that the Village will be lamenting Franken’s lack of ability to land proper bipartisan support for this bill, i.e. 101 votes in the senate, plus Newt.

  26. 26
    SpotWeld says:

    I honestly don’t understand the impulse to defend KBR/Halliburton here. Is it just because it pisses off hippies?

    Those companies re-present the non-socilizaed solution to the Armed Forces

  27. 27
    danimal says:

    I’m trying real hard to come up with a justification for the GOP on this one. Could it be economic? I’m guessing that the payroll of these mercenary companies are filled with Southern good ol’ boys fresh out of military service. Maybe the senators know that mercenary work is preferable to having these young men come back to their jobless hometowns.

    Aw, forget it. They are just evil and corrupt–end of story.

  28. 28
    gbear says:

    Is it just because it pisses off hippies?

    More likely it’s because women don’t matter.

    Put them in their place.

  29. 29
    gwangung says:

    And so what if it’s punitive against one company? Shouldn’t we actually BE PUNITIVE against a company that aided and abetted rape?????

  30. 30
    SenyorDave says:

    I often wonder how Snowe and Collins can stomach being in the same party as people like Ensign, Vitter, Sessions, et. al.

    Many of the Republican male senators are almost caricatures of the old boy type (actually McCain seems to fit that to a tee, he certainly has never seemed very pro-woman)

  31. 31
    geg6 says:

    I said this when I posted on this in another thread.

    I will always love him for this. Always. For me, it really is the Al Franken decade.

  32. 32
    Kennedy says:

    As a lawyer, I do not view a vote against the Franken Amendment as necessarily making one “objectively pro-rape.” The employment contract makes arbitration the exclusive forum for claims against Haliburton. Employees with claims against Haliburton still have legal recourse, just not in a court. Of course, the exact rights of the employee depend upon the actual language in the arbitration provision.

    That’s great and all, but let’s not kid ourselves. Not a single one of the fucktards that voted against the amendment had thoughts running through their head that even remotely resembled this principle.

  33. 33
    Mnemosyne says:

    @John PM:

    The employment contract makes arbitration the exclusive forum for claims against Haliburton. Employees with claims against Haliburton still have legal recourse, just not in a court. Of course, the exact rights of the employee depend upon the actual language in the arbitration provision.

    Being a layperson, it seems very strange to me that an actual crime — not just an employment dispute, but actual criminal acts — could be forced into arbitration. Do the courts actually uphold those clauses? If one Halliburton employee murdered another one while working together, would the case go to arbitration instead of the court system?

  34. 34
    MikeJ says:

    To give the few non-repulsive on this issue Republicans credit, here’s the complete list of people who had to go against their party to say rape is wrong:

    Bennett (R-UT)
    Collins (R-ME)
    Grassley (R-IA)
    Hatch (R-UT)
    Hutchison (R-TX)
    LeMieux (R-FL)
    Lugar (R-IN)
    Murkowski (R-AK)
    Snowe (R-ME)
    Voinovich (R-OH)

  35. 35
    Sasha says:

    There must be something in Minnesota’s water:

    Vikings — Winning streak.
    Twins — Division champions.
    Franken — Kicking ass.

  36. 36
    binzinerator says:

    @John PM:

    As a lawyer, I do not view a vote against the Franken Amendment as necessarily making one “objectively pro-rape.”

    And, in 2010, I would have no problem referring to all Republicans who voted against the amendment as being “objectively pro-rape.”

    So which is it?

    And why would 2 1/2 months hence make it any different from right now?

  37. 37
    gopher2b says:

    @gopher2b:

    I just watched the speech. The 5th Circuit CLEARLY got it right. Though Franken is probably wrong that it doesn’t extend beyond the 5th Circuit (as every state has pretty clear rules that you cannot contract away your right to sue for intentional torts, etc).

    Nonetheless, his overall point is well taken. I really like Franken. I wish there were more Senators like him. I hope 12 years from now he’s still reasonable.

  38. 38
    MikeJ says:

    If one Halliburton employee murdered another one while working together, would the case go to arbitration instead of the court system?

    I would assume the employee would be tried in a criminal court but any claims against KBR would go to an arbitrator. Don’t expect them to help you with the prosecution though.

  39. 39
    LD50 says:

    @MikeJ: A disproportionate number of the GOP’s women and non-southerners there, I see.

  40. 40
    gbear says:

    @Sasha: Hey, the MN Wild (pro-hockey) won their season opener last night too.

  41. 41
    Anne Laurie says:

    It’s another facet of the failure to fund the troops John wrote about earlier. To these Banana Republicans, Halliburton is Dick Cheney and Blackwater/XE is Erik Price — their people. The warm bodies at the other end of the telescope, rape victims and freezing grunts, are just collateral. The objectively pro-rape Repubs have made themselves monsters in their heartfelt quest to “restore America” to their fantasies of a third-world nation where a tiny cadre of rich white men (THEM!) rule the vast masses of peons… and in that sick fantasy, the Plantation Partiers will need Price’s Christianist Crusaders to keep the peons in their places.

  42. 42
    Sue says:

    I’ve never been a Franken fan. Who knew I would become an almost immediate Franken-as-politician fan? Good for him; someone has to bring Minnesota back from the brink.
    And on a related note, in many states if you’ve had to look into nursing homes for a loved one lately, you might have noticed that you will have a lot of trouble finding one that doesn’t all but require you to sign away your loved one’s legal rights in favor of “arbitration”.
    And all this is happening BEFORE Chief Justice Roberts & Co. decide that corporations are actually people. Can’t wait to see what happens then.

  43. 43
    camchuck says:

    @Sasha:

    Michelle Bachmann offsets much of your list.

    – disgruntled Tigers fan

  44. 44
    BongCrosby says:

    Hell, I’m ready to move to Minnesota just so I can vote for the guy next time around.

  45. 45
    Legalize says:

    Being a layperson, it seems very strange to me that an actual crime—not just an employment dispute, but actual criminal acts—could be forced into arbitration. Do the courts actually uphold those clauses? If one Halliburton employee murdered another one while working together, would the case go to arbitration instead of the court system?

    Having not read the actual language of the provision, I would imagine it prevents women from bringing civil suits against Halliburton for negligent supervision / hiring (or something similar) when its employees commit certain acts. Criminal claims against the perps will then proceed in court. In any event, this seems to be a pretty unconscionable arbitration agreement in my opinion. It seems to be only about manufacturing the most stacked-deck possible in favor of the company and against the individual. It serves no other economic purpose. I don’t know what the choice of law is, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s Texas or some other absurdly “pro-business” state.

  46. 46
    gopher2b says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    You can bring a civil lawsuit when you are the victim of a crime (think OJ). The two cases are parallel but different.

    Victims tend to wait until the case has been prosecuted before they bring the suit but that is not happening here (which is itself egregious).

    That being said, you cannot contract away your rights to sue if you are the victim of an intentional tort. That has been the law of the land for quite some time — which is probably why the 5th Circuit didn’t enforce the arbitration agreement (I haven’t read the decision).

  47. 47

    @Sasha:

    There must be something in Minnesota’s water:

    Vikings—Winning streak.
    Twins—Division champions.
    Franken—Kicking ass.

    T-Paw–Governor
    Michelle Bachmann–Congress Critter

  48. 48
    gopher2b says:

    @binzinerator:

    I don’t think they are pro-rape; I think they are pro-Haliburton. If some raped Haliburton, I’m sure they would be going fucking bonkers.

  49. 49
    MikeJ says:

    @LD50: Population size is another interesting lens. Ohio, Texas, and Florida are the largest states that have Republican senators, and their senators are anti rape.

    One big state Senator, Cornyn, is pro rape, but Texas is a pretty fucked up state. The fact that half of their Senate votes are anti-rape would be more amazing if it wasn’t Kay Bailey Hutchison who cast the anti rape vote.

    Both of Utah’s Senator’s are anti-rape even though they’re a small state filled with extremists.

    That leaves Grassley and Lugar as small staters (who aren’t women) who voted for it, and Lugar would probably take offense at Indiana being called a small state.

  50. 50
    gex says:

    @The Grand Panjandrum:

    “Senator ___ voted against prosecuting rapists.”

    I don’t see how that’s going too far. That seems to be the plain language summary of what actually happened.

    Well, now that I think about it, it is more like this: “Senator ____ voted to keep paying companies with your tax dollars to rape your daughters, sisters, and wives.”

  51. 51
    gopher2b says:

    @JoyceH:

    BTW, this is one of the reasons she really NEEDS to be in court. Discovery and the rules regarding spoliation of evidence are very limited in arbitration. It is unlikely she would be able to discovery the identities of the other John Does if the case went to arbitration.

    Her lawyers will have a field day in federal court with this stuff.

  52. 52

    @Sue:

    And all this is happening BEFORE Chief Justice Roberts & Co. decide that corporations are actually people.

    That ship sailed long before Roberts made it to the court with Santa Clara County v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 118 U.S. 394 (1886).

  53. 53
    ruemara says:

    you know why they didn’t vote for it. if it was a decent woman, she’d have been safe at home, wearing out her feet bottoms in a kitchen, making biscuits and birthing babies. Besides, it’s only rape if a liberal does it.

    I wish we could sue all of those pro-rape douches for their congressional paychecks.

  54. 54
    Chad N Freude says:

    @MikeJ:

    Grassley (R-IA)

    I guess even a stopped mind is right once a lifetime.

  55. 55

    @gex: I like yours much better.

  56. 56
    mistersnrub says:

    The Dems should send a squadron of talking heads and congresspeople onto the chitchat circuit and HAMMER HOME the results of this vote. Instead, I’m sure they will just let it float off into the village ether. Sigh.

  57. 57
    Mnemosyne says:

    @MikeJ:

    I would assume the employee would be tried in a criminal court but any claims against KBR would go to an arbitrator. Don’t expect them to help you with the prosecution though.

    IIRC, in other criminal cases involving contractors in Iraq, it was decided that neither US nor Iraqi law applied to them so it was impossible to prosecute contractors for any crimes they might commit. So even if KBR hadn’t “lost” the rape kit, there was zero chance the criminal case would have made it to court. Which, to me, makes it even more unconscionable that a court would decide to uphold the arbitration clause since she literally has no other avenue for relief.

    (Note: I haven’t been following the case closely, so I have no idea if she actually was forced into arbitration or not.)

  58. 58
    gex says:

    @camchuck: Please forgive us for that. If you looked at Bachmann’s district, you’d see it has been gerrymandered within an inch of its life to ensure that a Republican, no matter how mind-bogglingly insane they may be, gets elected.

  59. 59
    Mnemosyne says:

    @gopher2b:

    That being said, you cannot contract away your rights to sue if you are the victim of an intentional tort. That has been the law of the land for quite some time—which is probably why the 5th Circuit didn’t enforce the arbitration agreement (I haven’t read the decision).

    Okay, good. It’s been really bothering me that contractors in Iraq are literally outside of the law and can’t face criminal penalties.

  60. 60
    Sloegin says:

    Don’t forget that for a lot of these gooncorps, the contract usually stipulates that the corporation gets to choose the ‘Arbitrator(s)’.

    A clear case of “I do not think that word means what you think it means”…

  61. 61
    MikeJ says:

    IIRC, in other criminal cases involving contractors in Iraq, it was decided that neither US nor Iraqi law applied to them so it was impossible to prosecute contractors for any crimes they might commit

    This is true.

    Whatever happened to that old winger chestnut, “an armed society is a polite society?” No place quite as polite as a war zone, eh?

  62. 62
    Molly says:

    ” I don’t know what the choice of law is, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s Texas or some other absurdly “pro-business” state.”

    Ding, ding, ding! Correct, Legalize!

    I used to work for Halliburton. I literally quit when we went into Iraq the second time. Hearing people walk through the halls talking about how their stock price was about to rise made me a wee bit itchy.

  63. 63
    Evinfuilt says:

    I’m trying to bend my noggin’ around the logic that will be used to defend those thirty votes.

    “They couldn’t force a private company to be liable for criminal deeds committed by their employees. It would be punishing a corporation before a trial even takes place.”

    I know this does force them to “forget” that the only reason a trial never occurred is because the company goes out of the way to prevent one. Basically I think republicans will say they’re against this not to be “pro-rape” but “jurisprudence has to be maintained.” That we would dare instill a penalty before a court has hearings. All you have to do is ignore the part about them preventing the court in the first place, and I doubt there’s a republican left who couldn’t do that mental gymnastic.

    Now to go clean my brain with bleach, I don’t want to think again how one becomes pro-rape.

  64. 64
    Sue says:

    GP@#52:
    Yes, but Roberts wants to make sure he says it, rather than some clerk putting words in his mouth. So much tidier.

  65. 65
    Ash Can says:

    I honestly don’t understand the impulse to defend KBR/Halliburton here.

    Government interference. And you can’t trust women not to lie about being raped. Unless a Democrat or other non-white non-Christian did it (in which case it’s automatically a capital offense and any trial that may be involved is just for show).

    And, as has already been said, these guys are probably getting bankrolled by KBR/Halliburton, among other military contractors. And, on top of everything, they’re abject dicks.

    The explanations are pretty simple, actually, not to mention obvious.

  66. 66
    slag says:

    You don’t get it, DougJ. Don’t you know we’re in the process of spreading freedom and democracy around the globe? That includes freedom from US and international laws. Obviously. So, why do you hate America so much?

  67. 67
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @Sasha:

    There must be something in Minnesota’s water:

    Favre backwash.

  68. 68
    jl says:

    @Kennedy: Conservatives voting no on a bill to ensure a person’s right to a court trial after sexual assault is ‘for the sake of conservatism’? I am no friend of conservatives, but even I would not slander the term that way. Unfortunately, at least half of the current GOP leadership (including the congressmen, as in MEN not congresswomen) is composed of nutballs, and scum.

    The increasingly tired and stupid Obama gimmick of being all postpartisan and nonpartisan and so forth with this gang of psychotics and socipaths is good for nothing.

    It won’t be good with the voters for the midterms. It is like being nice to a bunch of vicious petty criminals in your neighborhood and then wondering why normal people do not like you much. They reasonably begin to assume that you are either a coward or an accomplice.

    The cautious Obama and his sterile posse can do what they want. I do not have to play the game. Scum and nutballs, psychotics and sociopaths, that is what the current GOP has come to. Sad day for the country. We need an opposition party that has constructive ideas. We have vile idiots instead.

  69. 69
    Midnight Marauder says:

    I just have to say that “objectively pro-rape” rolls of the tongue surprisingly smoothly.

    Especially as a descriptor for the Republican Party today.

  70. 70
    kay says:

    They’re defending arbitration, not rape. They’re just really, really dogmatic people.
    Arbitration is GOOD. Civil suits are BAD. Full stop.
    If they use any independent judgment at all, or really any common sense, and veer away from the Right wing legal dogma their universe implodes. It’s narrow over on that side. Pure ideologues.
    Bravo to Franken for raising the bigger issue of arbitration where one side holds all the cards, and the (sometime) waiver of the right to a jury trial in the US Constitution, and whether signing that away is truly 1. informed and 2. voluntary.
    Because that’s what I think he intended to do, and he will succeed in starting that discussion, which is long overdue, in my opinion.
    He’s really and truly a liberal, that one, and smart, too. Now we’ll see if media will cover it. I doubt it.

  71. 71
    geg6 says:

    OT, but in light of the media saturation coverage of the great GOP investigation of that criminal syndicate ACORN (which led to their being de-funded), I can’t wait until our MSM get ahold of this footage from real investigators about real illegal activities by real criminals:

    http://www.gunshowundercover.o.....;s=gunshow

    I am not a big Michael Bloomberg fan (his nanny tendencies toward smokers and food leave me cold), but this is good stuff. Now if only someone somewhere would go after these people.

  72. 72
    Zifnab says:

    @Evinfuilt:

    I’m trying to bend my noggin’ around the logic that will be used to defend those thirty votes.

    It’s not a big leap.

    “This law puts corporation profits at risk. Ergo, wrong.”

    Corporate Profits > Civil Rights. End of story. You might be able to sue for a polite verbal apology, if it doesn’t impact the company’s PR image. Otherwise, your petty concerns come a distant second to our capitalist enterprise.

  73. 73
    Molly says:

    And just because I think these assholes deserve to have their names printed for all to see, here is who voted against it. I was particularly thrilled to see Ensign, Vitter, Brownback, Sessions, and McCain on this list. Cornyn is mine, the bastard, but so is Kay Bailey.

    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)

  74. 74
    geg6 says:

    @Midnight Marauder:

    I agree. And I intend to use that lovely phrase early and often with all my wingnut co-workers. It will be such fun, watching their heads explode.

  75. 75
    geg6 says:

    @Molly:

    Thankfully, we have two Dems here in PA. And even before Arlen decided to switch hit, he’d have never voted for this.

  76. 76
    Splitting Image says:

    The Democrats ought to have their campaign strategy lined up on this one:

    “Senator, if your wife were raped while working for a defense contractor, would you favor an arbitrator hired by the company in lieu of prosecution for the rapist?”

    It worked for Bush the Elder in 1988.

  77. 77
    BeccaM says:

    Aye…as noted upthread, it’s not the ‘hippy’ angle but rather the reflexive GOP support for money, power, and corporations over the individual. They don’t want people to be able to take big corporations to court and win damages; the abuse and mistreatment is supposed to go the other direction only.

    You ask those 30 Republicans why they voted against the amendment, and every one of them will start blathering about frivolous lawsuits and tort reform and how mediation is better than litigation, etc. Not a one of them has any sense that regular, ordinary people need protection from huge, moneyed megacorps.

    They truly would be most comfortable under a feudal/corporate system — where people such as themselves, of course, call all the shots.

  78. 78
    Evinfuilt says:

    @Zifnab:
    That’s the truth, but it’s not what they’ll say. They’ll aspire to some loftier ideal on why allowing a trial to happen in case of rape is a bad thing.

  79. 79
    Makewi says:

    How is it that any company can force arbitration on a criminal complaint?

  80. 80
    The Saff says:

    @Molly: Just looking at those names on that list makes me want to wretch.

    And Voinovich has nothing to lose. He isn’t running for re-election next year.

    Yay on Al Franken! I don’t live in Minnesota but I contributed to his campaign last year. I love listening to him talk policy. And he used to be funny when he was on Letterman.

  81. 81
    Alan says:

    The interesting thing about Franken’s proposed amendment (God bless’em) is something that has not been picked up so far by anyone here — namely, that bars mandatory arbitration for sexual assault, battery and discrimination. Although it is fairly well-established that you cannot be compelled to arbitrate intentional tort claims, you can be required to arbitrate employment discrimination claims, and employers are increasingly slipping such clauses into employment contracts wherever possible. This bill eliminates that, for defense contractors, at least.

  82. 82
    Zuzu's Petals says:

    He got the funding to provide companion dogs for vets suffering for PTSD and other war related maladies. Take that, all you liberals!

    Franken was a big supporter of vets and active duty soldierslong before it was politically expedient to do so:

    There’s nothing better than doing a USO Tour. Every tour is exhausting, moving, inspiring, sad, and fun all at the same time. So far I’ve done six, starting with Bosnia and Kosovo in 1999. Of course, Clinton was president then. …………………..
    I’ve done four USO Tours while Bush was commander in chief – the last three taking us to Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Since I’ve been so outspoken in my criticism of Bush, a lot of people ask me if I ever get crap from our troops.
    ………………………
    The answer is “never.” Not once. Until you go over there, you have no idea how happy our soldiers, marines, and airmen are to have anyone come over to see them.

  83. 83
    gopher2b says:

    @Alan:

    I saw that too in the article but didn’t read the actual amendment. Is it really in the amendment? If so, that’s kind of huge.

  84. 84
    gwangung says:

    If the Court rules that corporations should have more rights like those of a “real persom”, shouldn’t those rights include being tossed in the slammer for behavior like this?

  85. 85
    jl says:

    @kay: Is it really reasonable to enforce a clause in an employment contract that says a company has the right to settle a criminal act by arbitration as if it were a contract dispute? Could they do that for criminal negligence too, if say, they electrocuted a person because of negligent wiring (which could never happen, bythe way and of course)? Or, how about extortion, if the company wanted to force an employee to break the law or commit unethical acts on behalf of the company?

    I do not see how that clause could be legal in the US, and I do not see the principle behind it, conservative or otherwise. I am not sure, I but think that at least one court has already disallowed that clause in this particular case, even though the crime (not civil dispute, but crime) happened in the famous Bush/Cheney law free zone of occupied Iraq.

    I do not see how this case has anything to do with private arbitration for contract disputes, and that has be reformed anyway, since it has become the contemporary equivalent of ‘company doctors’ who would investigate industrial accidents 100 years ago and always decide it was the dead guy’s fault.

    Any lawyers here can help me out on this?

    How can this GOP mindset be described as anything other than corporatism, a kind of fascism.

  86. 86
    Middlewest says:

    Kay is right, the repubs love binding arbitration. Binding arbitration is an excellent tool for robbing power from individuals and unions, while giving corporations what is essentially their own private legal system. As someone who works in civil law, I see that the power of corporations to force arbitration seems to expand every year, so it’s nice to see some pushing back for once.

  87. 87
    Middlewest says:

    I forgot to add: TWINZ RULE! YANKEEES SUK!

  88. 88
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @kay: Did you get my email address from the Marty Peretz thread?

  89. 89
    kay says:

    @jl: @<a

    The issue here is civil damages, not the criminal complaint. She can’t contract away a criminal complaint, because those are brought not on behalf of the victim, but on behalf of the state. It would be “contrary to public policy” in any event, and it will never happen, so don’t fret about that.
    She signed a (mandatory) employment contract that said she would submit disputes to arbitration, rather than bringing a civil suit to a jury.
    Other posters here have written that the right to sue on an intentional torts (like battery) cannot be waived with an arbitration clause. I’m assuming that’s true. I don’t know.
    THIS Franken amendment has value in any event, because it also states that a mandatory arbitration clause cannot be included that bars the way into a court for sexual harassment claims.
    My larger problem with arbitration is that I feel it furthers the conservative fiction that there is a “level playing field” between one sophisticated actor (the employer) and a perhaps less sophisticated actor (the employee). The mortgage crisis brought this home to a lot of people. Modern contract signings are NOT a level playing field. We should stop pretending they are.
    I don’t think ordinary people should waive the constitutional right to a jury trial on civil damages without long and careful consideration.
    Arbitration clauses are inserted all over the place. They’re everywhere.

  90. 90
    trollhattan says:

    I just want to point out Norm Coleman would have gotten this done months ago! The Dog thing, Also. Wolverines!

    I saw nothing in any of the related articles on what happened to the rapists (none of that namby pamby “alleged” stuff for me). Are they out stocking up on ammo, spending their vast sacks of bonus bucks?

  91. 91
    kay says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    I did and I’m embarrassed. It took me like 4 hours to get your health care joke.
    My snarky sister sometimes idly muses that I might be “on the autism spectrum” and she may well be right :)
    I don’t get sarcasm, all too often. Sadly. So if that’s what it was, I didn’t “get it”. I actually emailed you, thinking you had a question.

  92. 92
    kay says:

    @jl:

    And I don’t know why my response to you is all screwed up.

  93. 93
    Just Some Fuckhead says:

    @kay: I don’t recall making a health care joke. I actually have a few health care questions that I feel you may be able to help me with based on what I’ve seen from you so far. There is also something of an urgent nature to this.

    I didn’t get an email from you. My email address again is jack.jackson0512@gmail.com

  94. 94
    ironranger says:

    It appears that Tim Pawlenty was just far too liberal a gov for the MN GOP. From Strib editorial R “candidates preparing to offer voters a hard-right turn”.
    Rep. Marty Seifert, who won GOP convention straw poll last saturday wants to:
    roll back business taxes
    undertake a “wholesale elimination of business permits & regulations, many that pertain to health, safety & environmental protection
    would deny state aid to any city that didn’t actively enforce fed immigration laws
    Seifert also said he would have made deeper cuts in aid to the poor & disabled than Pawlenty did
    Rep. Tom Emmer, 2nd in straw poll. favors:
    stopping any more planned construction on light-rail transit
    direct election of dist court judges
    Former State Auditor Pat Anderson wants to drastically reduce state aid to cities.
    Sen. David Hann wants to end policies to encourage wind, solar, biomass energy development. He would lift moratorium on new nuclear power plants.
    Rep. Paul Kohls wants the 2012-13 budget the size of 2004-05 version which had deep cuts to higher education, early childhood education & health care for the poor.
    Norm Coleman hasn’t said whether he will run for governor or not yet but I’m afraid he might just look quite moderate next to this bunch to some people.
    I am so relieved Franken is our senator.

  95. 95
    Makewi says:

    So why haven’t criminal charges been filed against the alleged rapists? The statute of limitations hasn’t run out, and there is room to move under the existing law with the Iraqi government, so is it because the Obama DOJ is objectively pro-rapist?

  96. 96
    Joshua Norton says:

    When the Franken/Coleman steel cage death match was still in its infancy, the Repigs circulated flyers depicting a smirking Franken in a beanie, warning that he was going to tell rape jokes to all our children.

    Clearly, rape is no joke to conservatives: it is a very serious and useful weapon to be deployed only when the bitches insist on, you know, occupying public space.

  97. 97
    ironranger says:

    @Joshua Norton:
    I had forgotten that disgusting episode.
    R’s are mighty selective about what they freak out over & when.

  98. 98
    kay says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    Okay, then. I’ll email you again.

  99. 99
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Makewi:

    Christ, you are an uninformed ijdit Scarlett. Because it happened over seas and the rapists were exempt from Iraqi justice by quirks of contractm and by fine print and flukes of constitutionality, they can’t be tried in the US.

    And for the Shameful 30 sub-human cretins who voted for KBR and against basic human rights.. GFy’s and then DIAF.

  100. 100

    I confess that I only took Franken half-seriously as a candidate. Dug his books, thought he seemed like a smart guy, but always had this image of Senator Franken as a kind of tongue-in-cheek smartass, you know?

    But then I see the videos of the guy at work. And then I hear about him kicking ass like this. And this other thought starts creeping into my head:

    “Is Al Franken going to be president someday?”

    I know, I know. I’m going from one extreme to the other like I’m off my meds. WAAAAAAY too early to say such things with any degree of seriousness. Kinda like projecting the rookie who hits two homers on opening day to hit 324 for the year.

    But the thought is there.

    I’m paying attention.

  101. 101
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @Makewi:

    So why haven’t criminal charges been filed against the alleged rapists? The statute of limitations hasn’t run out, and there is room to move under the existing law with the Iraqi government, so is it because the Obama DOJ is objectively pro-rapist?

    And the streak of weak sauce from Makewi continues…

  102. 102
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    “Is Al Franken going to be president someday?”

    Dear Gawd.

  103. 103
    jl says:

    @kay: thanks very much, that clarifies things. I got the criminal and civil aspects confused. To a non-lawyer, situations like this can be confusing, especially cases arising out of the snake pit of the law free zone that was occupied Iraq.

    I would like to know more about this issue. It seems to me that there are some issues that should just be allowed to be limited to private arbitration, whether civil or ciminal. Another example would be laws and contract provisions that limit liability of health plans when they deny care. Not saying that there has be a court case ( I don;’t want to be flunky of those notorious trial lawyers). Maybe publicly sponsored arbitration, Seems to me that private arbitration systems should be strictly limited to certain rather narrowly defined kinds of contract disputes.

    Any law experts around here have a good introduction to the issue, please let me know. I will read it.

    PS: a certain troll’s comments are both silly easily countered and nasty. B.O.B. sets a high standard, for trolling which whould be respected.

  104. 104
    Glidwrith says:

    Far less serious than forced arbitration because of rape, but a clear abuse of corporate power is a report on arbitration clauses everywhere: your credit cards, mobile phone, car dealership and mortgage.

    http://www.fairarbitrationnow......ywhere.pdf

  105. 105
    handy says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    Playing devil’s asshat, couldn’t the DOJ pursue criminal charges against them as they were (presumably) Americans? My knowledge about U.S. crime law as it applies outside the U.S. is sketchy, particularly in cases where crimes are perpetrated outside the U.S. in a war zone.

  106. 106
    kay says:

    @Glidwrith:

    I like when they’re IN THE BOX and by opening the box you agree to mandatory arbitration.

    Yeah. That’s fair. Christ. When did we let these creeps make all the rules? Was that smart?

  107. 107
    Zifnab says:

    @Joshua Norton:

    Clearly, rape is no joke to conservatives: it is a very serious and useful weapon to be deployed only when the bitches insist on, you know, occupying public space.

    You know what would go a long way towards eliminating all these rape crimes in the US? Tort reform.

    Get Paul L. in here. He’s got a delightful story to tell about this Duke Lacrosse team and an ensuing rape scandal. Accusations of rape are a major concern of conservatives, and they’ll go to any length when prosecuting the person they feel is to blame.

  108. 108
    kay says:

    @jl:

    There’s a broader term you should know if you’re interested in reading about this.
    “ADR”. Alternative dispute resolution.

  109. 109
    Makewi says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    Nope, I’m not so sure about that. Since CPA Order 17 limits the Iraqi government’s ability to pursue charges against foreign contractors, essentially removing them from their jurisdiction, then Title 18, Part I, Chapter 1, § 7, paragraph 7 should be applicable, and it states that the US has jurisdiction over:

    “Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States”

    In any case, this is wrangling that the court should decide. If there is a case to be made, then the DOJ should file charges.

    So my problem isn’t so much being uninformed as you being a kneejerk reactionary ass who thinks rapist should get away with their crimes. Which is not unlike the Obama DOJ, and the Bush DOJ before them.

    Of course, this assumes that the DOJ hasn’t decided the charges are crap.

  110. 110
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @handy:

    I’m not sure exactly the complex legalities in this case, but I think the part about us occupying a country in a war zone is paramount in how it is, or isn’t adjuticated. When this first happened, I followed the situation some, and as Kay points out, the contract for KBR is the legally controlling element, But I believe they tried to bring charges here in the states but it was dismissed, I think.

  111. 111
    Makewi says:

    @Midnight Marauder:

    Oh please, that was a clear answer to DougJ’s weak sauce snarky title.

  112. 112
    HyperIon says:

    @kay wrote: They’re defending arbitration, not rape. They’re just really, really dogmatic people.

    Thanks for the succinct and unique analysis. You always bring something pertinent and insightful to the table.

  113. 113
    HyperIon says:

    @jl wrote: Any law experts around here have a good introduction to the issue, please let me know. I will read it.

    I think Kay is a lawyer.
    Aren’t you, Kay?

  114. 114
    soonergrunt says:

    For anyone who doesn’t understand why charges were never brought–KBR locked her in a shipping container for three days, destroyed the evidence that was collected, and terrorized her.
    She was raped, imprisoned, and terrorized during the Bush administration. The Bush DOJ was too busy protecting KBR by fighting against rules or laws that would hold contractors accountable to help this woman.
    Most of these contracts were let by agencies other than DoD because until the law changed making contractors subject to US law in any circumstance that local law does not apply, the law only provided for prosecution of civilians who were ‘accompanying’ US forces in the field.
    Anyone hired by the Department of the Interior, as I knew one guy to be, was immune under the law as it was then written.

  115. 115
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Makewi:

    I’m pretty sure that criminal charges in the states is a no go. However, a couple of weeks ago, the Fifth Cir. COA’s gave the green light for Ms Jones to pursue civil suit against KBR in US Fed. court therefore bypassing the arbitration clause in her contract. Of course, KBR will likely appeal to the Supremes.

  116. 116
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Makewi:

    Actually, contractors in Iraq were immune from prosecution thanks to Paul Bremer. That only changed in 2007 when a new agreement was signed between the US and Iraq. One of the big movers in trying to make contractors in Iraq accountable to the law? The junior senator from Illinois.

    Really, can you at least learn to use the google? This is getting embarrassing.

  117. 117
    Molly says:

    @HyperIon: Re Kay: “Thanks for the succinct and unique analysis. You always bring something pertinent and insightful to the table.”

    Seconded, Kay. Thanks for your elucidation.

  118. 118
    Zifnab says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    Christ, you are an uninformed ijdit Scarlett. Because it happened over seas and the rapists were exempt from Iraqi justice by quirks of contractm and by fine print and flukes of constitutionality, they can’t be tried in the US.

    Don’t get mad at Makwei. He hasn’t even bothered to verify that the rape occurred in 2005, meaning that he’s neglected to blame Nancy Pelosi for not passing this bill in 2007 (which, btw, probably makes everyone in the 110th objectively pro-rape – just as bad as the Republicans, but worst!)

    Makwei knows that this isn’t about rape or profits, this is about scoring cheap political points at all costs. That’s why he may not be clearly for or against a manager raping his employees overseas in a legal dead zone, but he is definitely 100% pro-Jeff Sessions. What with Sessions having an (R) after his name and all.

  119. 119
    handy says:

    @General Winfield Stuck:

    Well I found this thanks be to teh google. So the Bush DOJ didn’t even bother to attend the original hearings in 07 nor gave Jones’ rep any status on any criminal investigation, implying of course that this was perhaps within their purview.

    He’s quite the pugnacious troll, but Makewi brings up what appears to be a legitimate question in this, namely whether DOJ has the option to pursue criminal charges against the individual perps. Time will tell what they do with it.

  120. 120
    Don says:

    The R defense for their vote is likely a simple “the DoD said this would be bad.” Here’s the full extent of their floor debate on it:

    Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, first of all, with regard to this lawsuit, although it took some time, the court, the Fifth Circuit, has ruled that this matter is not arbitrable and this lady is entitled to a court trial because it goes outside normal employment matters.

    The Department of Defense let me know to oppose this amendment. There are a number of reasons: because it goes far beyond the issue raised by my colleague from Minnesota. It eliminates arbitration for any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act, any claim resulting from negligent hiring, negligent supervision or retention of an employee–virtually any employment dispute that is now resolvable under arbitration, which the U.S. Supreme Court has said is good. Statistics show that employees get final judgment and actually win more cases under arbitration than they do going to the expense of a Federal court trial.

    I think we should listen to the Department of Defense and vote no on this amendment.

    He leaves out that – I believe – while they may win more often in arbitration they often get less.

    In fairness to the Rs, this is a rather limited assault on the over-extension of arbitration in our society. We really should have better limitations on when people can be pushed into it, period, rather than this weak sauce treatment of one specialized area. If nothing else it would have been nice to see law restricting the ability of arbitration for certain subjects, period, rather than this defunding manuver that only protects workers at government contractors. Apple could still require this kind of agreement, for example.

  121. 121
    MikeJ says:

    Not saying that there has be a court case ( I don;’t want to be flunky of those notorious trial lawyers).

    Hahahah!!

    You think there aren’t lawyers involved in arbitration? One thing many companies are learning the hard way is that it’s not really any cheaper to pay $600/hr lawyers to argue in front of an arbitrator than it is to have him argue in front of a judge. This is what the people I know whose practice include arbitration tell me anyway.

    Which weighs less, a pound of hammers or a pound of feathers?

  122. 122
    Molly says:

    And by the way, folks, the Halliburton/KBR arbitration policy? Was put in place by CEO Darth himself….Dick Cheney.

    They’re so CUTE, aren’t they?

  123. 123
    scarshapedstar says:

    “I honestly don’t understand the impulse to defend KBR/Halliburton here.”

    In a word:

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

  124. 124
    Ruckus says:

    @kay:
    You beat me to the punch that almost any contract a person has to sign today has arbitration clauses. Cell phones, cars, real estate leases/purchases, and on and on. Read any contract you have signed for consumer purchases in the last 10 years, or even more and you will see them. Mother Jones ran a piece a while back about buying a car without one.
    Maybe this amendment is a first step to getting rid of, or making this practice much harder for a corp to do to a consumer. Done in a contract among equals it may be acceptable but in contracts not among equals (almost anyone buying a car or cell phone and the company selling it) it is crap.

  125. 125
    Joshua Norton says:

    Big bucks corporations want arbitration because they get a say in who the arbitrator will be. Any arbitrator who wants to make points with the party with deepest pockets will bend over backwards to accommodate them so they’ll get lots of repeat business.

    Arbitration may be cheaper for the plaintiff, but they have a better chance of getting screwed big time (absolutely no pun intended) or a lousy settlement if they win anything at all. And there’s no appeals process once judgment has been made.

  126. 126
    mai naem says:

    Don’t mean to sound political about this but goddamn it, Reid,Pelosi and every Dem talking head should be screaming about this at every opportunity. This is the kind of stuff that the Repubs make up and spread around. Listened to Fresh Air yesterday with the Max Cleland interview. I had no idea that a couple of Repubs convinced a female friend of Cleland’s to tape some phone sex conversations with Cleland and that’s what stopped him fron running for Gov. before he ran for Senate the first time around.

  127. 127
    Mnemosyne says:

    @MikeJ:

    One thing many companies are learning the hard way is that it’s not really any cheaper to pay $600/hr lawyers to argue in front of an arbitrator than it is to have him argue in front of a judge.

    Especially since they have to pay for the arbitrator, too. At least if it goes to court they don’t have to pay the judge’s salary on top of the lawyers’.

  128. 128
    Sidslang says:

    “Objectively pro-” ought to be in the Lexicon. I’m not the one to do it, but just sayin’…

  129. 129
    kay says:

    @Ruckus:

    I think it’s ridiculous to pretend that people know what they’re signing away. “Mandatory” and “arbitration” should not be in the same sentence.
    What’s wrong with juries for civil claims? They put that provision in the Constitution for a reason, presumably because they weren’t nearly as naive as Republicans are about the profit motive, and limiting the ability for individuals to be made whole.

  130. 130
    LD50 says:

    @Makewi: Right on schedule, my question in #22 is answered…

  131. 131
    Makewi says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    It’s funny that you think you schooled me in some way, or added some piece of contrary information. Seriously, I’m like some sort of Pavlovian bell to you guys.

  132. 132
    LD50 says:

    @Makewi: Ah, and it gets even stupider…

  133. 133
    Gwangung says:

    @LD50: Not stupider. Lazier. A much worse sin in my book.

  134. 134
    LD50 says:

    @Zifnab:

    Don’t get mad at Makwei. He hasn’t even bothered to verify that the rape occurred in 2005, meaning that he’s neglected to blame Nancy Pelosi for not passing this bill in 2007

    The day is still young.

  135. 135
    LD50 says:

    @Gwangung: Careful, Gwangung, Makewi has ‘no faith in your ability to be objective’.

  136. 136
    Makewi says:

    @LD50:

    A bit of a stretch to say I’m either defending the GOP or castigating the Democrats. Not that actual truth means much to you.

  137. 137
    celticdragon says:

    @Makewi

    So why haven’t criminal charges been filed against the alleged rapists? The statute of limitations hasn’t run out, and there is room to move under the existing law with the Iraqi government, so is it because the Obama DOJ is objectively pro-rapist?

    Chist, what a dripping tool.

    That dawn, naked, covered in blood and feces, bleeding from her anus, she found a US soldier she did not know lying naked in the bed next to her: his gun lay on the floor beside the bed, she could not rouse him and all she could remember of the night before was screaming and screaming as the soldier anally penetrated her while a colleague who worked for defense contractor KBR held her hand–but instead of helping her, as she had hoped, he jammed his penis in her mouth.

    Over the next few weeks Leamon would be told to keep quiet about the incident by a KBR supervisor. The camp’s military liaison officer also told her not to speak about what had happened, she says. And she would follow these instructions. “Because then, all of a sudden, if you’ve done exactly what you’ve been instructed not to do–tell somebody–then you’re in danger,” Leamon says.

    As a brand-new arrival at Camp Harper, she had not yet forged many connections and was working in a red zone under regular rocket fire alongside the very men who had participated in the attack. (At one point, as the sole medical provider, she was even forced to treat one of her alleged assailants for a minor injury.) She waited two and a half weeks, until she returned to a much larger facility, to report the incident. “It’s very easy for bad things to happen down there and not have it be even slightly suspicious.”

    J

    amie Leigh Jones, whose story made the news in December–when she alleged that her 2005 gang rape by Halliburton/KBR co-workers in Iraq was being covered up by the company and the US government–also initially believed hers was an isolated incident. But today, Jones reports that she has formed a nonprofit to support the many other women with similar stories. Currently, she has forty US contractor employees in her database who have contacted her alleging a variety of sexual assault or sexual harassment incidents–and claim that Halliburton, KBR and SEII have either failed to help them or outright obstructed them.

    Most of these complaints never see the light of day, thanks to the fine print in employee contracts that compels employees into binding arbitration instead of allowing their complaints to be tried in a public courtroom. Criminal prosecutions are practically nonexistent, as the US Justice Department has turned a blind eye to these cases.

    Hey genius! The DOJ never prosecuted anybody for anything…ever(!!!) in the Green Zone or FOB’s under the last administration!

    It was a free rape zone, and the criminals knew it.

  138. 138
    Makewi says:

    @Gwangung:

    Be decent, explain to me how I’m being lazy in this case.

  139. 139
    LD50 says:

    @Makewi:

    Oh, snap!

    The statute of limitations hasn’t run out, and there is room to move under the existing law with the Iraqi government, so is it because the Obama DOJ is objectively pro-rapist?

    Be decent, explain to me how I’m being lazy in this case.

    Suddenly you have ‘faith’ in Gwangung now? Why the change of heart?

  140. 140
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @Makewi:

    Be decent, explain to me how I’m being lazy in this case.

    Your “work” speaks for itself.

  141. 141
    Makewi says:

    @LD50:
    @Midnight Marauder:

    Two idiots who don’t really know the answer, but want to be on the record as opposed to one who has been marked as inherently wrong. You guys are such followers.

  142. 142
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Makewi:

    A bit of a stretch to say I’m either defending the GOP or castigating the Democrats.

    Yes, that’s why you said, “So why haven’t criminal charges been filed against the alleged rapists? The statute of limitations hasn’t run out, and there is room to move under the existing law with the Iraqi government, so is it because the Obama DOJ is objectively pro-rapist?” Because you weren’t castigating the Democrats or defending the GOP, merely demanding to know why the Democrats haven’t cleaned up Republican shit yet.

    So tell us all, Makewi, what jurisdiction does the DOJ have to bring criminal charges in this case?

  143. 143
    Makewi says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Another kneejerker, that explains it. If you look at my very next comment you will see the answer to your question.

  144. 144
    Midnight Marauder says:

    @Makewi:

    Two idiots who don’t really know the answer, but want to be on the record as opposed to one who has been marked as inherently wrong. You guys are such followers.

    Others have already addressed the deficiencies of your “arguments,” so now you’re moving on to the people who called you out for your recent string of lameness. And the other “idiot” you referenced engaged in the time honored BJ tradition of prognosticating when you would rear your ugly head and get with the obtuseness and misanthropic retorts.

    Your initial response was patently nonsense, so I found it a waste of time to say anything other than “Uh oh, here’s Makewi being an idiot/weak troll again.”

    But why don’t you do us all a favor and answer Mnemosyne @ 141. In the meantime, I’ll get back to “following,” whatever the fuck that means in your world.

  145. 145
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Makewi:

    That’s right, I forgot that you insinuated that the victim made it all up and that’s why it hasn’t been prosecuted:

    So my problem isn’t so much being uninformed as you being a kneejerk reactionary ass who thinks rapist should get away with their crimes. Which is not unlike the Obama DOJ, and the Bush DOJ before them.

    Of course, this assumes that the DOJ hasn’t decided the charges are crap.

    I do love the touch of on the one hand claiming that we think rapists should get away with their crimes and then in the very next paragraph claiming that the victim probably wasn’t even raped, anyway. Very slick, I must say.

  146. 146
    Makewi says:

    @Midnight Marauder:

    No, others have assumed and not bothered to read beyond their own preconceptions. I covered quite neatly the applicable law, and I also covered why I used the Obama snark. Not that it matters, because you don’t really give a shit about what I really had to say, just what you can use as a bludgeon against me. Maybe it’s a character flaw.

    You could try to do better.

  147. 147
    Makewi says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    I insinuated nothing. In fact, it is laughable that you take that one bolded bit out of the larger comment and twist it to mean the most nefarious thing possible.

    I’m thinking at this point that the problem is that you are objectively pro-rape. Because you are working awful hard to misconstrue my pro rape prosecution as something evil.

    Maybe your just a dick.

  148. 148
    gwangung says:

    @Makewi:

    No, others have assumed and not bothered to read beyond their own preconceptions.

    These kind of comments are indicative of someone who clearly doesn’t know many of the relevant facts. THAT’S how you’re being lazy.

    How many cases get tried when evidence somehow disappears? And when the people involved in the disappearance are tied to the case and conceivably can be prosecuted for crimes committed? Someone who’s lazy could try to bring charges on the one count without bringing charges on the other—but no one who’s competent would do so.

    DO BETTER. It takes only minimal effort, which you’re clearly not doing. It’s pretty insulting to us to make these lameass comments.

  149. 149
    LD50 says:

    But why don’t you do us all a favor and answer Mnemosyne @ 141. In the meantime, I’ll get back to “following,” whatever the fuck that means in your world.

    I assume the definition is ‘not agreeing with Makewi’.

    Maybe it’s a character flaw.

    Yes, the character flaw that you’re a predictable, hypocritical wingnut.

  150. 150
    LD50 says:

    I’m thinking at this point that the problem is that you are objectively pro-rape. Because you are working awful hard to misconstrue my pro rape prosecution as something evil.

    See, there’s that dishonest weasel thing again.

  151. 151
    gwangung says:

    @LD50: Her only goal is to piss off liberals–and any idiot can do that. It’s no great feat, because I can piss off conservatives with just as little effort.

    I actually respect conservatives who can piss me off while making substantive points.

    Not going on here, though.

  152. 152
    LD50 says:

    Her only goal is to piss off liberals—and any idiot can do that. It’s no great feat, because I can piss off conservatives with just as little effort.

    Her haughty “I’m on such a higher plane than all you haters” posturing is kind of amusing, tho.

  153. 153
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Makewi:

    I insinuated nothing. In fact, it is laughable that you take that one bolded bit out of the larger comment and twist it to mean the most nefarious thing possible.

    So, in your world, referring to rape charges as “crap” really means “having an extremely strong case”? Because out here in reality land, people who refer to rape charges as “crap” generally mean that they think the charges are, well, crap that the victim made up. Let’s look at it again:

    Of course, this assumes that the DOJ hasn’t decided the charges are crap.

    Yeah. Still not figuring out where that comes across as anything other than saying that the DOJ looked at the charges and decided the victim was lying.

  154. 154
    Makewi says:

    @gwangung:

    So you are suggesting that a rapist should get away with it if the evidence is cleanly enough destroyed. Rapes are prosecuted with only victim testimony.

    You guys just don’t want to see this prosecuted is all. In fact, you’d all rather have a rapist go free than to admit I have a point on this.

    @LD50:

    At least I’m not pro-rape, like you. In fact, you probably hate gay people too since that is what you were accusing me of yesterday.

  155. 155
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    Her haughty “I’m on such a higher plane than all you haters” posturing is kind of amusing, tho.

    It reaches it’s zenith right about this time of day, when the Queen of Tara wrinkles her little nose and sweeps offstage in a huff. Funny as hell.

  156. 156
    AhabTRuler says:

    @mai naem: In Maryland, that would be a felony. Both parties to a phone call must consent to taping.

    In fact, Linda Tripp actually committed this crime in MD by taping Lewinsky (although not convicted). IIRC, she was living in Prince Georges County at the time.

  157. 157
    Makewi says:

    @gwangung:

    Dude, your whole argument is that prosecuting rape is hard, so I don’t think I’d be celebrating your ability to be substantive.

  158. 158
    Makewi says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Again, I didn’t insinuate anything. Only a total dick would take that comment in which I laid out why there could be a prosecution and then twist the last statement to be taken as my thinking it was all made up. Because you are a total dick is why.

  159. 159
    LD50 says:

    At least I’m not pro-rape, like you. In fact, you probably hate gay people too since that is what you were accusing me of yesterday.

    This seems a trifle desperate. I recommend you take some time out and work on your material.

  160. 160
    LD50 says:

    @Makewi:

    Because you are a total dick is why.

    Jeez, Makewi, why do you sound so angry?

  161. 161
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Makewi:

    I’m rubber and you’re glue.

    Not to mention that you’re projecting hard enough that we could be showing Star Wars on the wall in front of you.

  162. 162
    Makewi says:

    @LD50:

    Says the gay hating friend of rapists. I’ll be sure to give that some great thought.

  163. 163
    LD50 says:

    @Makewi:

    so I don’t think I’d be celebrating your ability to be substantive.

    Hmmm. So Gwangung is neither ‘objective’ nor ‘substantive’. Any other Latinate adjectives that (s)he hasn’t earned?

  164. 164
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Not to mention that you’re projecting hard enough that we could be showing Star Wars on the wall in front of you.

    Pretty good. Though I’d go with Big Top Pee Wee.

  165. 165
    LD50 says:

    @Makewi: Makewi, when you descend into self-parody like this, it’s time to take a step back.

  166. 166
    Makewi says:

    @LD50:

    I’m not angry, I just don’t like lying gay hating rape apologists.

    It’s OK, just some of you don’t want to see this go to trial, so you’ll lie about what I’ve said in order to deflect that fact. Somehow you’ve found a way to live with yourselves.

  167. 167
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @Makewi:

    It’s OK, just some of you don’t want to see this go to trial,

    I’ve been offline for a couple of hours and am too lazy to read the entire thread, but wtf are you talking about. Who on this thread wouldn’t want these animals tried for rape? I must have missed something. Or you have gone completely off your rocker Scarlett.

  168. 168
    LD50 says:

    @Makewi: Makewi? A hint. Repeating a retarded argument over and over does not magically make it unretarded.

  169. 169
    Spork says:

    Damn, Makewi, I could kinda see a point in your diatribe. In a strictly legal sense, you may have identified a legal issue that wasn’t being accounted for in the discussion. No one is mocking you for that. You’re being mocked because you can’t even bring up a simple point without acting like a jackass.

  170. 170
  171. 171
    General Winfield Stuck says:

    @AhabTRuler:

    Meet the Straw Man.

    I should know better. Think I’ll give my brain a break and exit this semi surreal debate. Aliens – The Collectors Edition just came today so I want to see some real monsters, and of course Ripley’s, believe it or not.

  172. 172
    Makewi says:

    @Spork:

    It’s nice that you think I have a point, but what you say clearly isn’t the case. Although I do believe they think I’m a jackass.

  173. 173
    Molly says:

    @LD50: “Makewi? A hint. Repeating a retarded argument over and over does not magically make it unretarded.”

    Thread winner.

  174. 174
    kay says:

    @Just Some Fuckhead:

    I got distracted, but I responded, and now I’m fretting about your deadline, so check your email.

  175. 175
    mp1900 says:

    I will have to call Sen. Voinovich and congratulate him on being anti-rape.
    That’s probably the nicest thing I’ve ever told anyone in his office.

  176. 176
    Persia says:

    @The Grand Panjandrum: But they did vote against prosecuting rapists. Nothing unfair or over-the-top about the truth.

Comments are closed.