Why Would United States Senators Vote to Protect Corporations Over Rape Victims?

[Gonz]

and how is the federal gov't stepping out of it's bounds my being particular with who it does business with.

Awww, Daniel-son, that is the right question.

The government may, and can, have requirements as to whom they may do business. In fact, I wish they had more. However, Al Franken is not asking for the gov't to have additional requirements for it's own contractors. It is making law that says nobody may (fill in the particualr wording).

 

[Gato_Solo]

So, is that a she deserved it, or is it "good thing she is american, so she ONLY got raped"?

So...since you are against the war in Iraq, you think she deserved it?

Anyway...we have no SOFA agreement with Iraq. Which means that Iraqi law takes precedence over US citizens working under contract in their country. If a crime is commited on Iraqi soil, then the Iraqi courts hold sway. Every argument here other than that is 'tilting at windmills'. If you think that it is not possible for a foreign court to convict a US citizen of anything, you need to check on how many US citizens are in jail in other countries.

 

[spike]

If only Gato would have read a little bit up
http://www.expose-the-war-profiteers.org/archive/media/2008-4/20081015-1.htm

 

[paul_valaru]

Awww, Daniel-son, that is the right question.

The government may, and can, have requirements as to whom they may do business. In fact, I wish they had more. However, Al Franken is not asking for the gov't to have additional requirements for it's own contractors. It is making law that says nobody may (fill in the particualr wording).

no, it says the USA will not contract with businesses that have this or that wording in there contracts.

Recently, newly appointed Senator Al Franken (D-MN) introduced his first bill to Congress, a very narrow addition to the Defense bill that said that the US would not contract with any companies that made arbitration the only way to handle internal crimes of sexual assault or rape.

 

[Gonz]

Have you read the bill or only an interpretation? I haven't seen the bill.

 

[paul_valaru]

Have you read the bill or only an interpretation? I haven't seen the bill.

read a bunch of interpitaions.

they all agree it's about who the USA will contract with, and that is all.

 

[paul_valaru]

read a bunch of interpitaions.

they all agree it's about who the USA will contract with, and that is all.

and now I have read the amendment

it's about contracting.

For the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; as follows:

On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

Sec. 8104. (a) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

 

[Gonz]

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing

Can't change contract midstream.

Wher did you find the bill? I couldn't seem to locate it.

 

[paul_valaru]

Can't change contract midstream.

Wher did you find the bill? I couldn't seem to locate it.

from here

link

led me here

link2

and it is the US gov't they can change whatever contract they want.

also It was a bi-partisan success, just a few hold outs.

I can guess who they get their campaign funding from

 

[Gonz]

and it is the US gov't they can change whatever contract they want.

Not when we used to uphold the Constitution.

 

[Winky]

Get with the program, Holmes
That time is long past.

 

[spike]

Not when we used to uphold the Constitution.

When was that? How long did it take to break contracts with Indians?

 

[spike]

yeah, I can see where your motivations come from.

It's the Jesus love coming out. See Jesus loved him some rape. He was all like "go on man give, her teh raping".

 

[ResearchMonkey]

It's the Jesus love coming out. See Jesus loved him some rape. He was all like "go on man give, her teh raping".

It's the Religion hating socialist coming out.

 

[spike]

I like much of what Jesus had to say. You apparently have no respect for most of what he taught.

Jesus was a much more of a socialist than a capitalist you may notice.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

I like much of what Jesus had to say. You apparently have no respect for most of what he taught.

 

[spike]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Is it some sort of excuse for you ignoring the teachings of Jesus?

 

[ResearchMonkey]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. Is it some sort of excuse for you ignoring the teachings of Jesus?

lololol, I just thought it might be good way for you to pull your head out.

You hate religion and like those man boy lovers, why is that son?

 

[Winky]

Les is gonna have a lot of moppin' to do.

 

[spike]

You hate religion and like those man boy lovers, why is that son?

I don't hate religion or like man boy lovers. Why do you disrespect the teachings of Jesus?