Lan, you replied to my comment below saying, "we are talking about corporate employees who can rape their coworker with impunity..."
I'm confused. Ms Jones did not sue a group of firefighters for rape, as far I know. But rather "her lawyers" --through her, by USING her -- are suing KBR in their (THEIR) ONGOING campaign to LOOT American business by attempting to outlaw ARITRATION. Am I wrong? How so?
She didn't sue them through the criminal law because she was pursuing her case through the Association of the United States Army for prosecution. Until the special aired on ABC, the AUSA had yet to bring her case to prosecution. Among the reasons given during her two year delay was that her prosecutor was on vacation.
But who are her lawyers NOW? I will look into that because this is the basis for all my comments. If I have misunderstood the motives of her PRESENT legal team I will apologize and fade to black. My reaction was an uninformed GUT reaction. I will check and let you know what I learn.
first Everyone just hold on count the months because Bush will be out of office before you know it. He totally screwed republican candidates for this election.
second Crimes happen in Iraq all the time and you ppl commenting obviously didnt know that Soldiers have been killed by other soldiers in Iraq and Afghan
(not from "friendly fire" either i mean like during their free time)
If, under ANY administration, something as horrible as a gang rape occurs in a war zone it is time to throw in the towel and drag our butts home (we Yanks, Brits and Aussies).
Clinton (either one) would never have allowed others to abuse women. Bad people should not be allowed to participate in any war. PERIOD!
Nor would I allow polar bears to be drowned JUST SO BUSH CAN DRIVE HIS GOLF CART!!!
Are you suggesting that men cannot control their sexual urges in a war? My grandfathers on both sides of WWII would find that extremely offensive. I also note that she wasn't raped by soldiers - she was raped by firefighters hired by a company. We aren't talking about combat troops here: we are talking about corporate employees who can rape their coworker with impunity simply because they're working in the right branch office.
This is really not about rape. This is about dirty politics. KBR should be allowed to limit exposure to GREEDY, CORRUPT trial lawyers by using arbitration clauses in its employment CONTRACTS (which doesn't even apply to THIS case UNLESS KBR broke US law somehow. If so, which one did they break?)
None. When the USA went into Iraq, there were no jurisdictional codes or policies drawn up to apply to contractors. Nobody knows who is supposed to have jurisdiction. The Justice Department has recently been cited as the responsible party - yet they had no investigational representatives in Iraq to oversee this case. They had no presence there.
I would ask: Why in the world does her contract say that she cannot seek a civil trial?! That obviously shows that the contracting company knows that something is going to happen, and they (the government and the company) don't do anything about it?
It's an arbitrage clause that was set up ostensibly to "improve communication" within the company, but in reality just moves decisions of guilt out of an impartial and open forum (the courts). Statistically, it reduced the number of complaints that resulted in payouts and reduced the size of those payouts. The company saw this as a benefit.
The practice was initiated while Dick Cheney was CEO.
I would not have signed a contract like that for all the money in the world. Nor would I seek employment with a business that can not put my safty first on the list. Wars are too dangerous these days. What was this woman thinking!?
I'm guessing she wasn't thinking she'd be raped by her own coworkers.
If a woman working IT in Houston for KBR is raped by firefighters working for KBR, in Houston, is she at fault for working there and are her rapists immune from prosecution? Does this principle change just because you switch Houston for Iraq? Do noncombatants in a warzone have a licence to rape?
And don't give me the "Oh, Iraq is more dangerous" line, John. Aside from the fact that Houston's pretty dangerous anyway, the argument is weak. Prosecution of severe crimes should now depend on the work environment? Take that to its logical conclusion and you find yourself letting killers walk free in New Jersey while you imprison burglars in Wyoming. Do lumberjacks get lighter sentences than office workers in rape cases?
My sarcasm was too subtle. My fault for failing to express myself clearly. I focus on this fact: Ms Jones signed away her right to sue KBR in traditional court. She signed it away! She signed it away. I don't know how else to say it... (Btw, got your message. Thanks, Pal. I still like you.)
The RAPIST OR RAPISTS should be taken off the streets and/or punished by either Uncle Sam or by the Iraqis. (If I was dictator I might blow their brains out with a shot to the temple of each perp.)
KBR's role (if any) is a separate matter. This being "Bush's War" is also irrelevant.
I think Bush's involvement is very relevant. He was asked the question a year ago. A congressman from his own party has looked after Jamie's case from the beginning. We have a reasonable right to ask what he has done to remedy the situation in the year he has had to delegate the problem.
The Bush administration is evil, greedy, and rotten to the core. They wipe their asses with the U.S. Constitution, preform wiretaps and surveillance on U.S. citizens, and if the citizens ask questions, they say, "if you don't have anything to hide then what are you worried about?" yet the administration, which is supposed to represent the people, is about as transparent as tar. I fully understand why we are hated across the globe, and I pray for revolution.
Yeah, its time for revolution alright and I have already armed myself and am ready to die if need be. I understand exactly "why we are hated across the globe." The USA wants to rule everything and spy on everyone! Before the god damned Yanks came along the world was a happy paradise.
Lan, you replied to my comment below saying, "we are talking about corporate employees who can rape their coworker with impunity..."
I'm confused. Ms Jones did not sue a group of firefighters for rape, as far I know. But rather "her lawyers" --through her, by USING her -- are suing KBR in their (THEIR) ONGOING campaign to LOOT American business by attempting to outlaw ARITRATION. Am I wrong? How so?
opchidexio 4 years ago
She didn't sue them through the criminal law because she was pursuing her case through the Association of the United States Army for prosecution. Until the special aired on ABC, the AUSA had yet to bring her case to prosecution. Among the reasons given during her two year delay was that her prosecutor was on vacation.
LanysNevelesser 4 years ago
But who are her lawyers NOW? I will look into that because this is the basis for all my comments. If I have misunderstood the motives of her PRESENT legal team I will apologize and fade to black. My reaction was an uninformed GUT reaction. I will check and let you know what I learn.
opchidexio 4 years ago
Soldiers are regular ppl, they commit immoral acts just as ppl everywhere do.
Lanys please do not compare Iraq to Houston.
RIPPPtheJacker 4 years ago
Then soldiers should be held accountable just like regular PEOPLE. ALso, please learn to type out your God damn words.
randomoddnumbers 4 years ago
first Everyone just hold on count the months because Bush will be out of office before you know it. He totally screwed republican candidates for this election.
second Crimes happen in Iraq all the time and you ppl commenting obviously didnt know that Soldiers have been killed by other soldiers in Iraq and Afghan
(not from "friendly fire" either i mean like during their free time)
RIPPPtheJacker 4 years ago
Thanks for posting videos. You seem quite intelligent and a good bloke and I value your viewpoint.
compostwormbin 4 years ago
I agree!
opchidexio 4 years ago
If, under ANY administration, something as horrible as a gang rape occurs in a war zone it is time to throw in the towel and drag our butts home (we Yanks, Brits and Aussies).
Clinton (either one) would never have allowed others to abuse women. Bad people should not be allowed to participate in any war. PERIOD!
Nor would I allow polar bears to be drowned JUST SO BUSH CAN DRIVE HIS GOLF CART!!!
...or, was that Clinton who plays golf? I forgot.
opchidexio 4 years ago
Are you suggesting that men cannot control their sexual urges in a war? My grandfathers on both sides of WWII would find that extremely offensive. I also note that she wasn't raped by soldiers - she was raped by firefighters hired by a company. We aren't talking about combat troops here: we are talking about corporate employees who can rape their coworker with impunity simply because they're working in the right branch office.
LanysNevelesser 4 years ago
This is really not about rape. This is about dirty politics. KBR should be allowed to limit exposure to GREEDY, CORRUPT trial lawyers by using arbitration clauses in its employment CONTRACTS (which doesn't even apply to THIS case UNLESS KBR broke US law somehow. If so, which one did they break?)
opchidexio 4 years ago
None. When the USA went into Iraq, there were no jurisdictional codes or policies drawn up to apply to contractors. Nobody knows who is supposed to have jurisdiction. The Justice Department has recently been cited as the responsible party - yet they had no investigational representatives in Iraq to oversee this case. They had no presence there.
LanysNevelesser 4 years ago
And Americans think that the thought of our government ramming it's own planes into buildings on 911 is loony. HAHAHA.... Americans are fools.
Banghouse 4 years ago
I would ask: Why in the world does her contract say that she cannot seek a civil trial?! That obviously shows that the contracting company knows that something is going to happen, and they (the government and the company) don't do anything about it?
madthrawn21 4 years ago
It's an arbitrage clause that was set up ostensibly to "improve communication" within the company, but in reality just moves decisions of guilt out of an impartial and open forum (the courts). Statistically, it reduced the number of complaints that resulted in payouts and reduced the size of those payouts. The company saw this as a benefit.
The practice was initiated while Dick Cheney was CEO.
LanysNevelesser 4 years ago
I would not have signed a contract like that for all the money in the world. Nor would I seek employment with a business that can not put my safty first on the list. Wars are too dangerous these days. What was this woman thinking!?
opchidexio 4 years ago
Also, Iraq is a very dusty place. There are smelly people over there.
opchidexio 4 years ago
I'm guessing she wasn't thinking she'd be raped by her own coworkers.
If a woman working IT in Houston for KBR is raped by firefighters working for KBR, in Houston, is she at fault for working there and are her rapists immune from prosecution? Does this principle change just because you switch Houston for Iraq? Do noncombatants in a warzone have a licence to rape?
LanysNevelesser 4 years ago
And don't give me the "Oh, Iraq is more dangerous" line, John. Aside from the fact that Houston's pretty dangerous anyway, the argument is weak. Prosecution of severe crimes should now depend on the work environment? Take that to its logical conclusion and you find yourself letting killers walk free in New Jersey while you imprison burglars in Wyoming. Do lumberjacks get lighter sentences than office workers in rape cases?
LanysNevelesser 4 years ago
My sarcasm was too subtle. My fault for failing to express myself clearly. I focus on this fact: Ms Jones signed away her right to sue KBR in traditional court. She signed it away! She signed it away. I don't know how else to say it... (Btw, got your message. Thanks, Pal. I still like you.)
opchidexio 4 years ago
The RAPIST OR RAPISTS should be taken off the streets and/or punished by either Uncle Sam or by the Iraqis. (If I was dictator I might blow their brains out with a shot to the temple of each perp.)
KBR's role (if any) is a separate matter. This being "Bush's War" is also irrelevant.
opchidexio 4 years ago
I think Bush's involvement is very relevant. He was asked the question a year ago. A congressman from his own party has looked after Jamie's case from the beginning. We have a reasonable right to ask what he has done to remedy the situation in the year he has had to delegate the problem.
LanysNevelesser 4 years ago
this situation is so digusting...
just leaves me speechless.
CohanDigitmatta 4 years ago
The Bush administration is evil, greedy, and rotten to the core. They wipe their asses with the U.S. Constitution, preform wiretaps and surveillance on U.S. citizens, and if the citizens ask questions, they say, "if you don't have anything to hide then what are you worried about?" yet the administration, which is supposed to represent the people, is about as transparent as tar. I fully understand why we are hated across the globe, and I pray for revolution.
JimmyK76 4 years ago
Yeah, its time for revolution alright and I have already armed myself and am ready to die if need be. I understand exactly "why we are hated across the globe." The USA wants to rule everything and spy on everyone! Before the god damned Yanks came along the world was a happy paradise.
opchidexio 4 years ago