October 20, 2009

Department of Defense pro-rape you say?

Sigh. So, apparently my state is pro-rape somehow as both senators voted against Sen Franken's anti-rape amendment. You know, it passed anyway but I'm still horrified that 30 republicans decided to split hairs on rape, dude. Really? Way to value women you fucking cases.

Ohhh but it's not over yet, look at this HuffPo article.

When thirty Republicans lined up against an amendment that would have required defense contractors to allow their employees access to U.S. courts in cases of rape or sexual assault, Jon Stewart ripped them to pieces.

"I understand we're a divided country, some disagreements on health care. How is ANYONE against this?" he wondered.

It's a question, it turns out, best addressed to the White House.

The vote against the amendment, sponsored by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), has sparked outrage at the all-male, all-white bloc of thirty Republican senators. HuffPost readers have been particularly infuriated by the GOP opposition and have regularly posted the names of the offending thirty in the comment section of even unrelated stories. A mock website - www.republicansforrape.org -- has sprung up.

The men had an ally in opposition that has so far gone unreported: the Department of Defense.

"The DoD opposes the proposed amendment," reads a message sent from the administration to the Senate on October 6, the day the amendment passed by a 68-30 vote.

Do you feel safe yet? Here's the incredibly shady & sleazy reason why:

"The Department of Defense, the prime contractor, and higher tier subcontractors may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic, especially in cases where privity of contract does not exist between parties within the supply chain that supports a contract," reads the DoD note. "It may be more effective to seek a statutory prohibition of all such arrangements in any business transaction entered into within the jurisdiction of the United States, if these arrangements are deemed to pose an unacceptable method of recourse."

Franken's amendment is intended to address the type of Kafka-esque treatment Jamie Leigh Jones received from the U.S. justice system after she was gang-raped by fellow KBR workers. The defense contractor argued that her employment contract required that her claim be heard in private arbitration rather than in open court.

A White House spokesman said that the DoD opposition is overstated in the message sent to Congress. "We support the intent of the amendment, and we're working with the conferees to make sure that it is enforceable," said spokesman Tommy Vietor when asked about the DoD statement.

Well, frankly I'm kind of scared and mostly disgusted. And now, a word from my state:

HuffPost also asked the thirty Republicans why they opposed the amendment. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) was the only one to provide a statement when this story was first posted. We'll update it with further statements when they come in.

"This vote has been grossly misunderstood, oversimplified, and misreported. Senator Corker, the father of two daughters, believes what happened to Jamie Leigh Jones is abhorrent and that the culprits should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law;

REPUBLICAN law *nod not*

further, he agrees that rape, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress should not be arbitrated, but the Franken amendment went far beyond the ill it was trying to remedy to encompass most possible employment claims," said Laura Lefler Herzog, communications director for Corker.

Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) both provided statement to the Sun News in Macon.

"This would be a major, fundamental in U.S. labor law and I believe it would be very detrimental to employees to eliminate arbitration as an option," Isakson said.

Because then they might get prosecuted and stuff.

The statement is not only missing a word somewhere between "fundamental" and "in," but also inaccurately portrays Franken's amendment. Employees would still be able to elect to use arbitration; they simply wouldn't be forced into it.

Chambliss added, also inaccurately: "If that happens, these employees' only recourse will be to litigate suits in court, which is a very lengthy, expensive and time-consuming process."

...soooo you voted against the amendment without even fully understanding what it entailed?

Mike Stark, a blogger with The Crooked Dope, filmed hallway interviews with Sens. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) and asked them about their no votes. Cochran told Stark that rape victims deserve their day in court, but it's not the government's place to dictate the terms of employment contracts. Thune said that he might have supported the amendment if it had been narrowed to cover rape rather than extended to cover other sexual-related abuses.

On the Senate floor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said that he opposed the amendment because it "would impose the will of Congress on private individuals and companies in a retroactive fashion, invalidating employment contracts without due process of law." However, because the amendment applies to the fiscal year 2010 defense bill, it would not apply retroactively.

Sessions added one more reason for opposing it. "I think we should listen to the Department of Defense and vote no on this amendment," he said.

Well, as I say in my neck of the woods sometimes, "IS THESE [Republicans] FOR REAL?" Not only did at least two or three of them fundamentally misunderstand the amendment and proceed to make gross arguments against it, but then...well, just gross arguments against it, condescension towards rape & assault victims (lol @ "going too far" from a WOMAN even). You're taking this small government shit too far, [Rebublican] shut the fuck up. God. DAYUM.

blog comments powered by Disqus