Disgusting Senate Vote? Your Opinions.


You might be interested

Comments

Reply Attach
  • 2

    But rape is not one of them

    Reply
  • 1

    Dude I saw this on TV and thats frickin retarded. Of course they should be able to sue the company because Rape is something that scars you for life. Soemtimes I am just disgusted by things that happen in this world, and this definatly pisses me off.

    Reply
  • 1

    That is disgusting. Now we must keep in mind that congressional bills sometimes have other things added to them so maybe the other things were so bad that those congressmen could not vote for it. I hope that was it.

    Reply
  • 1

    The video isn't available in my country, can someone give me the basics?

    • Dannyl
    • January 19, 2010, 11:08 pm
    Reply
  • 1

    Essentially, a woman was raped by federally contracted employees while working in Iraq. She was 19, and was raped by multiple KBR workers, then locked in a crate when she tried to report them. When she was finally returned to the us, she was told she could not sue KBR because, in the contract, there was a section that said employees could not sue the company if they were raped.

    Al Franken proposed to remove the clause that disallowed suing for rape.

    The final vote was 68-30, and all no votes came from Republicans.

    People are crazy. Who votes for rape? Answer: Senate Republicans.

    Reply
  • 1

    Hmmm. As far as i can see suing is remarkably 'overdone' in the US, and now in the UK :(, why the hell would she sue? The people who raped her should go to prison. I don't see how money will make her feel better? As harsh as this sounds it strikes me that she might not even be that upset by the ordeal if she's only got money on her mind, rather than wanting those bastards to go to jail or, ideally, die.

    Sniff sniff, i smell an argument coming.

    • Dannyl
    • January 20, 2010, 5:43 am
    Reply
  • 1

    Wow i actually agree with dannyl.

    Reply
  • 1

    Amazing, the universe hasn't imploded :P

    • Dannyl
    • January 20, 2010, 6:05 am
    Reply
  • 1

    The main deal is that the act occurred outside legal jurisdiction I believe. The suing would not only provide her money, but force the company to take action against the employees, change their policy/ general workings to prevent such happenings ever occurring again, and force an official investigation of the employees and any other case in any way similar to this.

    A lawsuit does more than just win money: that is not in question ; P.

    Reply
  • 1

    but logo you can't just say that they voted for rape. Like I said there might have been unessecary "pork" in the bill. I don't know got sure cause I haven't read the bill but that would take me days knowing congress these days. But they really should change that. But Dannyl was right people do sue way too much here.

    Reply
  • 1

    Maybe, but I read the bill. It was made by Al Franken, and had no "Pork." Their reason was that the senate shouldn't meddle in government contracts with private companies. When in reality, they are the only body that can.

    Reply
  • 1

    But the company shouldn't take action against the employees, the police should. Rape is a crime and is punishable with life imprisonment here (though that rarely happens because prisoners are expensive and we like to let them out after they've served about 10% of their sentence ><). Getting money won't help her with her psychology scars and that's all she gets. The other effects of a lawsuit, such as being punished by your employer, are pathetic when these people should have just gone to prison. Ironically to be raped.

    • Dannyl
    • January 20, 2010, 11:25 pm
    Reply
  • 1

    I did some more research, and not only does the contract restrict a lawsuit, it in fact restricts employees of the contracted companies of seeking any kind of public arbitration (going to court). The raped employees can, in fact, be fired and sued themselves for reporting the rape.

    Reply
  • 1

    Haha that'd be a shit week wouldn't it?

    I concede victory on this debate to you good sir.

    Congratulations.

    • Dannyl
    • January 21, 2010, 5:55 am
    Reply
  • 1

    Haha, no victory necessary. And yes, a shit week.

    More like now that I did the full research necessary, I was able to articulate information on the subject correctly.

    All we did then was agree.... surprise ; ).

    Reply
  • 1

    That surprises me. But I do see their point on not meddling in the contract. But I don't nessecarily agree with what they did.

    Reply
  • 1

    How can that point be valid? The contract is a government contract. Who evaluates/ edits government contracts? The senate. So when senators vote against what is known as the "Al Franken Anti-Rape Bill" because they think the Senate shouldn't do the Senate's job, there is no validity in the point.

    Reply
  • 1

    But the senate doesn't regulate all govt contracts ex. CIA private security contracts/mercs. I do understand your point. They should have voted for it.

    Reply
  • 1

    It is part of their job though. And thanks : ).

    Reply
  • 1

    Well there are some things organizations like the FBI, CIA, and millitary should keep secret from congress and not ask for approval.

    Reply
  • 1

    I've always loved the saying, i think of it whenever i debate (if i think i'm right)

    'But if i agreed with you then we'd both be wrong'

    • Dannyl
    • January 21, 2010, 11:16 pm
    Reply
  • 1

    • Dannyl
    • January 22, 2010, 3:41 am
    Reply
  • 1

    Well yes I already agreed with you. Nice discussion though.

    Reply
  • 1

    Does that saying apply in this case?

    And that's horrific. Simply horrific.

    Reply
  • 1

    No, it's just the frame of mind i have when i start a debate, when i'm right i'm right. But then when someone shows me otherwise i accept that. And i just liked the saying

    And yes it's horrid isn't it? Thought you'd want to see that, this world is falling apart.

    • Dannyl
    • January 22, 2010, 5:38 am
    Reply
  • 1

    Wow...This takes mental retardation to a whole new level.

    Reply
  • 1

    Completely understandable : ).

    And that's very possible. : (

    Reply
  • 0

    same

    Reply
Related Posts