Obama signs Franken’s anti-rape amendment into law.
Obama signs Franken’s anti-rape amendment into law.
The White House Press Office sent out a statement today announcing that President Obama signed the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 into law on Saturday:
H.R. 3326, the “Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010,” which provides FY 2010 appropriations for Department of Defense (DOD) military programs including funding for Overseas Contingency Operations, and extends various expiring authorities and other non-defense FY 2010 appropriations.
Within the Appropriations Act is Sen. Al Franken’s (D-MN) amendment prohibiting defense contractors from restricting their employees’ abilities to take workplace discrimination, battery, and sexual assault cases to court. The measure was inspired by Jamie Leigh Jones, who was gang-raped by her co-workers while working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. Many Republicans opposed the legislation — saying it was an unnecessary attack on their allies in the defense contracting business — and faced intense political blowback over their positions.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Nice work Senator Franken :)
December 21st, 2009 at 1:51 pmIt’s too late for Jamie Leigh Jones to get justice (constitution…which this President follows…forbids ex post facto laws), but thanks to Senator Franken, no woman will suffer the same cruel torture and indignity that she did.
We need more senators like Al.
December 21st, 2009 at 1:52 pmGood! Thanks Al for your hard work!
December 21st, 2009 at 1:53 pmGood Job Senator>>>
way to make it about We The People,,, and not we the corp.
keep it up and you will be placed with the other grate Senators.
December 21st, 2009 at 1:55 pmRight on Senator Franken!
December 21st, 2009 at 1:58 pmThe amendment was a no-brainer, which explains why republicans didn’t vote for it.
December 21st, 2009 at 1:59 pmThis has to be the best thing passed and it is done by a freshman Senator that used to be a Comedian and writer for SNL. Does anyone else see how pathetic this makes every other member of Congress look?
I agree with EnnuiDivine, we need more Senator like Al Frankin, especially Democrats that have a spine.
December 21st, 2009 at 1:59 pmThis law might come in handy, you know, what with the 50,000 more mercenaries and contractors going into Afghanistan with Obama’s surge.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:01 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Audit-Fed: You’re full of crap, it’s squirting out your ears and mouth.
As for the Franken bill, will it be enforced? Were any funds supplied to make sure our contractors follow the law. Neh.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:06 pmAUDIT THE FED
I think that would be for the best for all concerned.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:06 pmNow that one leaves a mark. Good job, Senator. Anything that keeps trolls like audit out of the gene pool is great.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:08 pmAUDIT THE FED says:
“Well, I am now going relegate myself to wacking my own cock for the rest of my life.”
Yeah, like sex was an OPTION. At least it will stop you from passing your ignorance along through your genes.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:08 pmYou know, I have to respect Franken on this one. He may have been a comedian by trade early on, but he’s shown he’s got the stuff to be a great legislator. Yeah, he’s new, but he still knows why he’s there – he doesn’t have the perverse sense of entitlement and misdirected ambition that the bulk of our politicians have today.
Well done Mr. Franken.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:09 pmAUDIT THE FED says:
Well, I am now going relegate myself to wacking my own cock for the rest of my life. The decision is final… The lesbians at NOW are going to mandate that I get 25 years to life in prison if I say hello to a straight woman at my place of employment.
Sux to be a SUPPORTER of TREASON like YOU, huh???
December 21st, 2009 at 2:10 pmAn important and timely piece of legislation, eh?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:11 pmWay to go SENATOR Franken!
Eat it, Rush Limbaugh.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:12 pmAUDIT THE FED, you really shouldn’t be whacking your own cock when you say hello to a straight woman at your place of employment.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:12 pmif I say hello to a straight woman at my place of employment.
You might keep that in mind if you ever get a job.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:13 pmAudit the Fed, masturbation for the rest of your life? Good idea.
Guarantees you won’t procreate.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:13 pmAUDIT THE FED….
When you’re done with yours, give FNVY a hand would you? He’s another pathetic and lonely POS. You two are made for one another.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:14 pmAUDIT THE FED says:
December 21st, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Now looking at a woman is the same as raping her. I get it.
Only in your tiny world, f uckface.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:14 pmATF, if you aren’t wacking and saying hello at the same time, this law would not apply. Apparently, you have reason to worry.
Your stupid description of the bill makes as much sense as saying “laws against theft! now I won’t be able to steal the last ice cream sandwich out of the freezer before my wife gets it”.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:14 pmAUDIT THE DEF,
WTF are you even implying?
Rape, in any shape or form is unacceptable and should be punished to it’s fullest extent.
Your demeaning of rape victims by equating it to a courteous introduction just shows what a stupid muckin’ foron you really are!
And let me help you with your beginning sentence:
December 21st, 2009 at 2:15 pmWell, I am now going to continue wacking my own cock for the rest of my life!
shoeless says:
Does that apply if he is whacking someone else’s? Or if someone else is whacking his? I’m sure both audit and aaronk are curious about the protocols.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:15 pmAl Franken is terrific. He makes strong and valid points with good humor and a deep knowledge of our laws. I’m glad he outlasted Ms. Coleman’s delay tactics.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:16 pmHow bout a law stop Halliburton from raping the publics coffers?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:17 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Score one for the good guys!
December 21st, 2009 at 2:17 pmNow I see why all the Republicans were against this bill. Right-wingers equate saying hello to gang rape, kidnapping and imprisonment. If one of these wingnuts says hello to you, run!
December 21st, 2009 at 2:17 pmATF, women didnt want to talk to you BEFORE this legislation.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:18 pmAUDIT THE FED says:
She’s that fat lady from the Marx Brothers movies, right?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:19 pmAudit The Fed,
December 21st, 2009 at 2:19 pmSpoken like the misogynistic punk you truly are.
What IS it with some people? Am I to understand we have a troll here who believes that rape is as trivial as saying “hello” to someone?
He’s a sick individual. At least if he’s going to spend the rest of his life masturbating, I can hope he’ll do it far away from me.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:19 pmAUDIT THE FED says:
Spoken like the true Margaret Sanger liberal Malthusian/Eugenicist that you all are lol…
December 21st, 2009 at 2:17 pm
This is not a fetus-hugging thread, it’s an anti-rape thread.
Do try to learn the difference.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:20 pmOh I get it now.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:20 pmAUDIT THE DEF is a parody.
Normally I would say that it was well done, but not in the case of mocking rape victims.
Sorry.
Maybe try parodying something else.
AUDIT THE FED apparently was part of the pro-rape lobby
that whole ‘consent’ thing been a problem for you, eh?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:20 pmHow can any woman identify herself as a Republican?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:21 pmHow can any Republican who voted yea 9) not want to divorce the GOP?
How can the 30 men who voted nay look at their wives and daughters?
Senator Al Franken faced a huge challenge in his election.
Norm Coleman had the entire GOP & RNC backing him financially.
He had the media questioning Mr. Franken’s viability as a candidate while conveniently forgetting to mention Paul Wellstone’s death was the only reason Coleman won the election.
Now that he’s settled in, we’re beginning to see the man inside. He’s cosponsored several bills with Republicans, but had the cajones to deny Droopy Dawg an extension of time. Even McCain trying to intervene didn’t work, and as usual, just made McCain look like the simpleton he truly is.
As a Minnesotan, I’m proud to call Al Franken my Senator.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:22 pmSad when you think Margaret is a bad person. What a pathetic human you prove yourself to be.
Then you show your level of intelligence with LOL and it becomes all to clear that you have no idea what the words you posted mean.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:22 pmIf that’s the case, then there are a few dozen Republican Senators who are parodies.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:23 pmGee, Audit, you were the one who made the claim. I just agreed it was a great idea.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:24 pmI remain baffled as to how ANY felony level crime can restricted by contract to arbitration. Are there corporate contracts around that also oblige workers to submit murder, grand theft, assault with a deadly weapon, etc., to arbitration instead of a states attorney?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:26 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
when they pass an anti-rape bill, it’s very telling who objects.
reminds me of a ride on public transportation one day…
one rather mentally challenged guy says to another one -
‘Did you hear someone kids got raped down at john ball park zoo?’
the other one says –
‘wasn’t me, wasn’t me’
(true story.. creepy true story)
December 21st, 2009 at 2:28 pmSTORM says:
What a great use of time. The American people are much safer with this bill now signed. I hope the recruitment officers are working overtime after this monstrosity is passed. No company involved in an overseas war can now afford the insurance for such legislation.
When can we start suing the military for alleged sexual crimes committed while people work for them?
Hey, if you aren’t a RAPIST, you have NOTHING TO FEAR…
RIGHT???
December 21st, 2009 at 2:29 pmWhat’s REALLY ‘eating’ the reThugs is that Franken cornered them, and, they got ‘caught’ voting their ‘corporate’ conscience (for once) and, held up against a backdrop of rape/violence against women, this ‘good ole boy’ vote has proved (at best) ‘inconvenient’ for those reThugs (that aren’t under-rock dwelling manufactured kill-bots) are actually, married, sons of women, and dads of daughters… boo-fu*king hoo.
Nice job, Al. Some small degree of ‘payback’ for the ‘with us or agin’ us’ votes that the reThugs used to paint dems as ’soft’ on terror for when they were’ selling out the constitution for BushCheneyWu et al on the patriot Act & ‘Terrorist’ Surveillance.
How do ya like them ‘apples’, reTugs?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:29 pmNo company involved in an overseas war can now afford the insurance for such legislation. -=STORM=-
AIG got alot of money to insure those companies workers and they also got a huge bailout that has been a loss for the taxpayer to the tune of 30 billion.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:30 pmStorm.
you are on crack..
December 21st, 2009 at 2:30 pmNo company involved in an overseas war can now afford the insurance for such legislation. -=STORM=-
I call BS. They have been making great profits.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:31 pmEverytime STORM posts his own opinion rather than his usual cut and paste, I regret suggesting that he do so. The stupidity is mind boggling.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:31 pmNo company involved in an overseas war can now afford the insurance for such legislation.
And this is a bad thing, how?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:31 pmSPERM says:
I challenge any piece of legislation that protects rape victims!
Doesn’t matter if the victim was gang raped repeatedly, and forced to spend a few days detained, and forced NOT to testify.
I’m for the criminals.
Nice SPERM. Nice.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:32 pmAl – Senator Al – THANK YOU!!
December 21st, 2009 at 2:32 pmSTORM says:
December 21st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Yes, this bill is a great use of time. Women working for federal contractors will be safer, and will have full rights to prosecute their rapists.
Who cares about the companies, you asinine troll? Your god is proud of your moral relativity.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:33 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
No company involved in an overseas war can now afford the insurance for such legislation.
Or they could just do a better job of oversight. Remember how lax Halliburton was, making sure our soldiers had clean drinking water?
When can we start suing the military for alleged sexual crimes committed while people work for them?
With the latest news that male soldiers will also be prosecuted for getting female soldiers pregnant, we’re there now, aren’t we?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:34 pmSTORM,
December 21st, 2009 at 2:34 pmCan I ask you an easy question?
I’m sorry, Stormy but are you bragging or complaining? Hard to tell with trolls.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:35 pmSTORM says:
December 21st, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Shorter Storm: Women who won’t f uck me deserve to be raped.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:35 pmApparently protecting private companies is more important than protecting women, eh Storm?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:36 pmSo Storm, you’re ok with criminalizing an act between two consenting adults, if they are in the military?
I’m curious what your view is.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:36 pmStorm, Audit the Fed ‘needs a hand’…could you please help him out?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:37 pm.
#9 FED,
We’re talikng about RAPE!
Not your imagined fear of teh gay…
… Or your dick.
GROW THE F_CK UP!
.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:37 pmSTORM says:
Nearly 3,000 members of the U.S. armed forces were involved in reported sex crimes in 2006, the most recent year for which statistics are available.
During fiscal 2008, there were 2,908 reports of sexual assault involving service members – an 8 percent increase from the year before, according to a Defense Department report released in March.
Yes, we know. It’s a horrible situation, but apparently you would rather just turn your back and pretend it doesn’t matter.
If contractors can’t afford to hire rapists, then maybe they should go into another line of work. It would indeed be wonderful if mercenaries were no longer working for the US.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:37 pmThe sick f uck troll seems to think that an 8 PERCENT increase in the number of reported rapes in one year isn’t much of an increase — and therefore does not matter.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:39 pmso STORN..
and your response to the victims is ‘you cost too much to keep people from raping you?’
you’re a fricken idiot.
how in the tank for corporations do you have to be to advocate the right of them to stick their dick into whatever they please without fear of repercussions.. you’re insane!
The corporations have been RAPING EVERYONE – figuratively AND apparently LITERALLY… storm says.. don’t hurt the poor rapists…
give me a break – you’re too much to even deal with.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:39 pm.
#44 STORM,
US Servicewomen and females working for US Contractors are…
… AMERICANS!
Why do YOU hate US Servicewomen and female US Contractors?
.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:40 pmI voted STORM’s post at #56 up!
The link brought up a very important issue, one that pertains to this new law:
First, experts warn that sex crimes are notoriously underreported, and that may be even more true for crimes involving members of the military – particularly in war zones. Working in close quarters or in isolated units, victims may be less likely to report a crime for fear of ostracization or retaliation.
Now, with this new law, victims won’t have to be as fearful, and the criminals can be brought to justice.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:40 pmThanks STORM!
I’m guessing it would matter to the troll if MEN were the majority of rape victims.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:40 pmLooks like Stormy has blown away.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:40 pmI admire Al Franken after his performance so far in the Senate. He’s learned his role to perfection, and he’s smart enough to do it really well…I think he’d be GREAT as majority Leader in a couple of years. He definitely made the Pukes pay for their blind, blinkered patriarchy.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:40 pmStormy>> if you enjoy being raped by your follow cult members (gop n supporting cast) thats your choice and decision to enjoy it.
However normal people believe that rape in not right under any circumstances.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:40 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
For people who don’t have a problem with torture, rape would be considered an employment perk. Why any women would sign such an obscene contract is beyond me. And I’m surprised Stormy isn’t filling out an application for employment as we type.
We know why Audit isn’t. He already has a date.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:42 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Thank You Senator Franken.
and yet again, I have to remark about some dipshyt troll.
Why am I hearing the soundtrack to Deliverance.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pmAnd I’d be willing to bet that the trolls look just like those
” Country Boys” from Deliverance.
Banjos commence to pickin!
Rapists, especially child molesters, deserve only execution.
I’d be more in favor of life without parole. Then they would be living object lessons, for those contemplating such acts.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pmtim.ned says:
So do you want to know the impact of this legislation and why so many voted against it?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Yeah, I was really fascinated by the trial of Jamie Leigh Jones’ rapists.
Do go on…
December 21st, 2009 at 2:44 pmFVNY says:
The only problem with this bill is that it didn’t make gang rape a capital crime! Rapists, especially child molesters, deserve only execution. The recidivism rates for these animals is very high. Stop wasting the American people’s money on rehabilitation that doesn’t work!
George W. Bush was 25 when he got his girlfriend, Robin Lowman, age 15, an abortion.
Start with HIM…
December 21st, 2009 at 2:44 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
I’m guessing it would matter to the troll if MEN were the majority of rape victims.
Only if they didn’t like it. You know, secretly.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:45 pmRemember this. Liberals are only judged by intentions not results.
Bush’s intention for tax cutting was to rev up the economy.
But we all know what really happened – worst recession since the great depression.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:45 pm.
#78 FED says:
So, you’re an expert on knowing nothing.
.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:45 pmAHA!
So far SPERM and AUDIT THE DEF have defended the criminals and mocked the victims.
When confronted, instead of sticking to their guns (so to speak), the revert to the standard “You LIBERALS…”
In other words,
GAME
SET
MATCH!
Muckin’ forons!
December 21st, 2009 at 2:46 pm.
#38 FED,
SEXIST MUCH?
.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:47 pm” Many Republicans opposed the legislation — saying it was an unnecessary attack on their allies in the defense contracting business ”
Me thinks the case of the KBR employee raped, held in solitary confinement without even a phone call home, etc. would indicate that there was a need for this law.
I certainly hope the repubs will be listed and called out in their next election.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:47 pmAUDIT THE FED says:
December 21st, 2009 at 2:45 pm
This is not an abortion thread, halfwit.
I know your momma tried to get you with that hanger…too bad she missed.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:47 pm“Abortion Rights,” is a big depopulation scheme funded by our ruling class bankster elite’s.
To do what? Shrink the tax base? Sounds stupid from an economic standpoint.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:48 pmAu contraire, Zooey at #90.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:50 pmI think it’s perfectly clear that the end of the hanger DID penetrate the cerebellum.
And destroyed whatever future cognitive skills it may have developed.
This comment has been voted down. Click to read.
Audit, we already know your answer to lowering the population. Does it bother you that it also raises the average IQ?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:51 pmThis legislation is for personal law suits not criminal justice
Reading isn’t a real strong suit with you, is it?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:52 pmThis legislation is for personal law suits not criminal justice, want me to go on..
Who exempted the contractors from such criminal prosecution?
G.e.o.r.g.e. B.u.s.h.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:52 pmRemember this. Liberals are only judged by intentions not results.
The results will be that people will know they don’t have a right to rape someone at these contracted jobs.
That’s not a questionable result – it’s a simple fact.. it’s made RAPE which was already AGAINST THE LAW against the law in all cases.
Storm… how do you feel about child molestation? Do you think maybe day care centers should be able to exclude it from their liabilities? After all… a law suit might cost them money!
Making it illegal in all cases will lower the number of incidents… and if it DOESN’T then more rapists will be charged for rape.
It’s a win/win.
and if you expect me to cry for the corporations…. you gotta be kidding. No one will be put out of business from this.. mark my words.
and what the hell are you talking about liberals aren’t judged on results – conservatives are infamous for never citing FACTS – because the FACTS never help their case – They live off of ideals and how they ‘feel’ about things.. not charts and graphs and figures.. we’re the ones that use those.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:53 pm“Abortion Rights,” is a big depopulation scheme funded by our ruling class bankster elite’s.
Honest to Dog, that takes the cake as THE single most retarded thing I have ever seen posted by a troll anywhere.
Are you fcking *serious*???
December 21st, 2009 at 2:54 pmSTORM says
December 21st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
No company involved in an overseas war can now afford the insurance for such legislation.
____________________________________________________________
Gee — what do you think companies here at home do? Most of them have a zero tolerance for rape, and if any employee rapes another employee, they make sure the attacker is fired and prosecuted. They don’t imprison and silence the rape victim, and they certainly don’t wring their hands fretting about insurance.
One way to keep your liability insurance rates down is to be as little of a liability as possible. Which means don’t create a culture where rape is acceptable. Don’t imprison victims of gang rape. And don’t prevent rape victims from charging their attackers.
And now, thanks to Al Franken, any business who wants a wartime contract with Uncle Sam will have to live by these rules. And if Halliburton/KBR complain they can’t operate under these conditions, there will be others who can.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:54 pmI believe there are a number of qualified contractors who wouldn’t mind doing the right thing in order to get government business.
tim.ned says:
This legislation is for personal law suits not criminal justice, want me to go on..
December 21st, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Maybe you could explain why special legislation needed to be passed to allow a woman to file a lawsuit against her rapists or employer?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:55 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
well it seems our CULT/Trolls seems to have picked up a few newbies,,, well at lease new names.
So newbies you trying for a leadership position with your CULT backers (GOP and supporting cast)?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:55 pmI repeat my statement. This legislation does not have anything to do with criminal law! Can you google or should I clarify it for you?
Because they were exempted from prosecution in a war zone by Bush. We all know republican senators would never agree to that, so your point, she is moot.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:56 pmI wonder if I can get in for an abortion before Christmas?
I really feel like indulging in brandy-laced eggnog….
December 21st, 2009 at 2:57 pmNice Bill, Mr. Franken, and thank you, Mr. President.
And screw you, trolls.
Does ATF sense that women are able to pick up, just from his visage, that he’s a scumbag?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:58 pmAnd by “that,” I mean republican senators would never agree to criminal prosecutions of contractors for rape in a war zone.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:58 pmtim.ned says:
…should I clarify it for you?
December 21st, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Knock yourself out, timmeh. Do include links and shit, but not from wingnut sites.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:58 pmtim.ned says:
No crime can be directed to arbitration. Let me repeat this for those of you who have no idea what this legislation is about. I repeat; crimes cannot bypass the criminal courts and be sent to arbitration. Criminal actions go to criminal courts.
Oh, good, another lawyer. Explain how no one can sue for “wrongful death.”
December 21st, 2009 at 2:58 pmRape is a CRIME — not subject to negotiation or bargaining — it is a felony, punishable by law.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:58 pmThat is an example of how many in power view women — they are subject to arbitration.
It’s cute that timmeh begs for permission.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:59 pmStormy and company, just how many companies operating in the US have these clauses written into employment contracts? I’ll give you a hint…think of Mother Theresa.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:59 pmSTORM says
December 21st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
No company involved in an overseas war can now afford the insurance for such legislation.
GOOD!@ If they employ scum sucking morons that do this kind of stuff, then they should go out of business..period. dork.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:59 pm#
#
tim.ned says:
barfly says:
——————————————————————————–
This legislation is for personal law suits not criminal justice, want me to go on..
Who exempted the contractors from such criminal prosecution?
G.e.o.r.g.e. B.u.s.h.
I repeat my statement. This legislation does not have anything to do with criminal law! Can you google or should I clarify it for you?
Yes, please CLARIFY.
And provide LINKS to your “clarification”, so that we can see whether YOU are telling the TRUTH.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:00 pmAl Francin hatz concervitives, why does he mak a stoopid law lik that? How ar mi frends at Xe gonna hav any fun now? If girlz weers sexy clothes then they want it. My sicter weers sexy clothes, and she wants it all the time. My cussins and I like her alot. Storm like her to, but he likes mi cussins also. Audit the Fed is reel smarte lik me, maybee not as smarte, but he knowes yu libz are bad, yu allways helpin peeple, dont thosse peeple have boot strapps? And nowe Al wants to macke rape illegall, macke it illegall for libz, us concervitives we like it, my congres man rapes Amireeka everiday.
Ther I showe yu libz a theng or too, so thar.
Storm yu my hero
December 21st, 2009 at 3:00 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
No crime can be directed to arbitration. Let me repeat this for those of you who have no idea what this legislation is about. I repeat; crimes cannot bypass the criminal courts and be sent to arbitration. Criminal actions go to criminal courts.
Did you just wake up there, Rumplestiltskin? That is exactly what happened and why this law was passed.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:03 pmDo insurers sell ‘I hope to shit my male idiot employees don’t go around raping my female employees’ policies?
December 21st, 2009 at 3:03 pmOr maybe an insurer will offer:
December 21st, 2009 at 3:04 pm“Go ahead an create a work environment where the rape victims will get locked up in a shipping container, and we’ll cover your ass” policy.
Only when you admit that this legislation means the animals who rapped this poor girl will not face criminal charges with the exception to one.
Uh HUH….
CONDITIONS before your “clarification”, eh???
Another MORON supporter of Bush TREASON (TM), ain’t cha???
December 21st, 2009 at 3:05 pmtim.ned says:
barfly says:
——————————————————————————–
This legislation is for personal law suits not criminal justice, want me to go on..
Who exempted the contractors from such criminal prosecution?
G.e.o.r.g.e. B.u.s.h.
I repeat my statement. This legislation does not have anything to do with criminal law! Can you google or should I clarify it for you?
If a company was negligent in allowing for an environment where rape is permissable, then yes, by Chloe, it should be sued…sued into oblivion…
December 21st, 2009 at 3:05 pmtim.ned says:
Only when you admit that this legislation means the animals who rapped this poor girl will not face criminal charges with the exception to one.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I get it. You can’t clarify anything.
Thanks.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:06 pmtim.ned says:
Only when you admit that this legislation means the animals who rapped this poor girl will not face criminal charges with the exception to one.
This is from two years ago:
This is the reason the woman brought it to a civil court. PAY ATTENTION!
December 21st, 2009 at 3:06 pmI’m thinking the mercenary companies will just go to a single line contract.
‘I, _____________, do hereby renounce my US citizenship so I can make money while taking my own chances overseas and praying my employer hasn’t made a deal with the Devil. Amen.’
December 21st, 2009 at 3:07 pm.
Dear Tim.ned,
This Law limits how Contractors can use fine print to exempt them from lawsuits. i.e. RAPE! Whodathunk that RAPE ON THE JOB SITE and IMPRISONMENT was NOT grounds for Justice. Sen. Franken is ensuring that US Contractors CAN be sued.
.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:08 pmfor gods sake she was gang banged and locked in a shipping container –
Anyone even vaguely familiar with the case would see it as incredibly disgusting.
and due to her contract she had no recourse.. there was no punishment.. and no possibility of justice.
this is what you idiots approve of??.. because it might cost them money… I’d say if the extra cost prevents it even happening ONCE in the next decade it was worth it.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:13 pmAll of this should not even be happening. The US should not be employing or subcontracting military duties. And even if they do, those companies have to be US based companies and have to be subject to all US laws. I don’t care if they are operating overseas, they are doing so under the paid auspices of the US government and have to be subject to all US law.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:13 pmTim.ned – you prove, we’ll admit.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:16 pmThat’s how debate is supposed to work. Although if and since you watch the current crop of Republicans in Congress, you can be excused for not knowing that.
Al for President – why do we have so few in those hallowed halls that actually do the right thing?
December 21st, 2009 at 3:17 pmBarlas. #128
has that spam EVER worked?
December 21st, 2009 at 3:20 pmThis comment has been voted down. Click to read.
timmeh…?
We’re waiting for that clarification.
Do you need to be gang-raped and held prisoner in a shipping container before you’ll do what you promised?
December 21st, 2009 at 3:21 pmThat’s cute, timmeh.
Now, back it up with language from the bill, and links to said language.
If you can’t, I’ll understand. But only if you admit it.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:25 pmtim.ned says: Unfortunately when crimes occur in foreign lands, you are subject to their laws.
Wrongo, bucko. The crimes were committed by US citizens, in the employ of a US company operating under the auspices of the US DoD.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:25 pmand even more disgusting was the Republican reason for objecting to the amendment
‘it’s an unnecessary attack on our allies in the defense contracting business’
our good friends Halliburton.. we’d hate to hurt their feelings.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:26 pmDick says – Grrrr, I knew we should have dealt with Al along time ago, just like Connell, sputter-sputter-sputter…rrrrrrrrrrrrrr….boom, problem over. Al should have rethought this, why in the hell would he do this to our independent contractors? Why does he think we have these contractors anyway? It’s to get around laws, we are conservatives and we don’t need to and don’t want to follow any laws. Now they are going to have to have those stupid “Don’t Rape Your Fellow Employees” Classes, and that is expensive. I don’t need this stinking crap, I’m going to invite Al to a little “Bird Hunt”, that should keep the profits up for all those War Profit Companies I invested in…where’s my blood, Moron?
George says – Al is always thinking about the little guy, how sick is that? Here’s you fresh blood from cute kittens and puppies, I squeezed it myself, I love having blood on my hands, makes me sleep better at night.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:26 pmThe details I read somewhere indicate that anytime a contractor signs a new contract with the government the law is implemented for all contracts that that company holds. Thus the victim in this case will have recourse to hold the company responsible when it signs a new contract. Of course the company can refuse future government work to avoid the law applying to them, but that isn’t going to happen unless they are going out of business.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:27 pmtim.ned says:
…arbitration virtually costs nothing. I
December 21st, 2009 at 3:20 pm
The bottom line with this one.
Tell it to your daughter, idiot.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:29 pmWell then perhaps they’d better make sure their female employees aren’t in danger from their male employees, huh?
December 21st, 2009 at 3:29 pmYes, you are right and this was the finding of the court. I stand corrected.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:31 pmtim.ned says:
Yes, you are right and this was the finding of the court. I stand corrected.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:31 pm
There you are, without a leg to stand on.
Dismissed.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:33 pmtim.ned says:
Keep that in mind the next time you decide to follow blindly. That leads to steep drop offs.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:38 pmThe fact that the teabagging hicks are having a hissy fit in this thread about the bill is only more proof that teabaggers do hate America and Americans.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:39 pmI work near the WTC site downtown . .
I think I hear splotchey face Falafel’s head exploding at faux midtown . .
Thank you Senator Franken!!
December 21st, 2009 at 3:39 pmtim.ned says: Unfortunately when crimes occur in foreign lands, you are subject to their laws.
—
December 21st, 2009 at 3:40 pmMaybe he ment that spoiled brat kid in Singapore. Oh that’s right the US government intervened…
tim.ned says: arbitration virtually costs nothing
Reminds me of the slogan: “If you think education is expensive, try ignorance”.
December 21st, 2009 at 3:45 pmI stated you were correct in my opinion pertaining to the responsibilities of the DOJ. But I remind you they did nothing! Jamie leigh jones will have her civil day in court which is right. But a women who considers an employment agreement should speak to an attorney as their right to arbritration has been eliminated.
December 21st, 2009 at 4:09 pmHey, Tim. I have to wonder where you got so all-fired up about this Franken amendment without knowing exactly what precipitated the legislation. Perhaps this would be a nice opportunity to re-evaluate where you’re getting your information.
December 21st, 2009 at 4:20 pmFVNY says:
Stop wasting the American people’s money on rehabilitation that doesn’t work!
You’ll be calling for public beheadings next, I suppose. Why don’t you just get it over with and move to Saudi Arabia?
.
AUDIT THE FED says:
The lesbians at NOW are going to mandate that I get 25 years to life in prison if I say hello to a straight woman at my place of employment.
Based on what you call “saying hello,” that was already mandated. I look forward to your incarceration, and hope you don’t hurt too many people before the police catch up with you. Obviously, you’ve never had consensual sex in your life.
.
AUDIT THE FED says:
And women’s lib was funded because the ruling elite banksters couldn’t TAX women when the sexism was going on . The same thing happened with slavery…
Why yes, having an expanded workforce of people who can freely exchange their labor makes for a much more powerful economy for all. Among the many other economic benefits include dramatically expanding both the financial industry and the tax base. Also, bankers don’t levy taxes. I’m sorry, but you have failed to explain why a feudal system where only white males control their own labor could possibly be better in any way, for anybody.
And this isn’t even getting into the morality of such developments. Which is to say, I find how stupid you are to be far more remarkable than how evil you are. You should be in a museum of natural history so that children can come and see the humble beginnings from which civilization evolved.
December 21st, 2009 at 4:23 pmtim.ned says:
But a women who considers an employment agreement should speak to an attorney as their right to arbritration has been eliminated.
A process which protects only the abusive party is not a “right” for the abused. And Eemployees would still have the option of arbitration, but would also have the option of suing.
December 21st, 2009 at 4:26 pmI see timmeh, you had to go off and get spanked by the head troll and then come back and whine some more. But the fact is, a contract signed does not negate citizenship or rights. Criminal law cannot be abrogated by private arbitration and YOU KNOW THAT!
December 21st, 2009 at 4:55 pmObama signs former liberal talk show host and present Sen. Al Franken’s anti-rape amendment into law . . .and “conservative” talk show hosts are still trying to convince themselves and their audiences that Obama is not a real American. Liberals talk show hosts get elected and influence policy–conservative talk show hosts bellyache and whine about perceived slights.
December 21st, 2009 at 5:00 pmNellre asked the question: How can the 30 republicans who voted against the bill look at their wives and daughters?
December 21st, 2009 at 7:41 pmSimple answer: It is quite possible those in question are gay, assuming all were male voters, or in the closet, and themselves hoping to get gang raped. This GOP (God’s Overlooked People) is the worst gathering of slime since the Exxon Valdez, with a captain (Limbaugh) who is even slimier. Imagine how he would vote if in Congress….horrors!!!!!
Circlejerks.
December 22nd, 2009 at 12:00 amThe names bear repeating. These are the 30 Republicans senators who voted against the Franken amendment:
Alexander (R-TN)
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:11 amBarrasso (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)
Rape in the workplace always was a Federal Crime under US Code Title 18 Section 245 Federally Protected Activities.
How can a corporation make “contracts” that can prevent anyone from enforcing the laws that we have now? That is a violation of Federal and Constitutional law in the first place. Not even the States are allowed to do that.
A rape victim should take a rape case to a Federal Court.
That is the law. That is why we have Federal Courts, to enforce the laws that we have.
Rape in the workplace is a Federal Crime, and should be prosecuted by Federal Courts.
I have been trying to do that for four years.
You have no idea how bad the victim abuse is until you report a rapist to the government and ask the government to put one rapist in prison.
You have no idea how far the government will go …to protect a man that raped more than a dozen women, IF his collar is “white”
I have a Federal Court telling me that workplace rape is not a Federal Crime. They are wrong. And they know it, because they are Federal Court Judges.
They are allowing workplace rape, in violation of Federal Law, and that is CRIMINAL.
Is it possible that the entire Federal Government, the DOJ, the Federal Court system FORGOT the laws that we have now?
No, they know the law….but, for more than a decade, corporations have been allowed to rape women.
AND THAT IS CRIMINAL.
I am still trying to make the courts, the police, federal law enforcement, simply enforce federal law, and put one rapist in prison.
No woman should have to leave her job. It is the assailant that must be removed from the workplace, and sent straight to prison. So far, in four years, that has not happened.
If anyone has mercy, on the thousands of women sexually abused in the workplace each year…
Make the Federal Courts, federal law enforcement , simply enforce the law…..PUT RAPISTS OUT OF THE WORKPLACE, PUT RAPISTS IN PRISON. As it should be, under the laws that we have right now.
If a Federal Court Judge will allow rape in the workplace, HE should go to prison as well, because rape in the workplace is a Federal Crime under Title 18 Section 245
I am still trying to have rape laws enforced.
I could have been spared from the rapes if anyone had simply removed one rapist from the workplace, and sent him straight to prison.
It is CRIMINAL, that they are allowing corporations to rape women. They know the US CODE , felony rape in the workplace is a FEDERAL CRIME. Title 18 Section 245 Federally Protected Activities…
Try getting the laws enforced if you are poor.
I can be reached at beverlyprather1@verizon.net
December 24th, 2009 at 3:59 pmThank you for your sharing.!
December 27th, 2009 at 12:30 am