Comments on: Why Did 30 Republicans Vote To Shield A Military Contractor From Liability For Rape ? http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/18/why-did-30-republicans-vote-to-shield-a-military-contractor-from-liability-for-rape/ I believe in the free speech that liberals used to believe in, the economic freedom that conservatives used to believe in, and the personal freedom that America used to believe in. Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:57:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: James Young http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/18/why-did-30-republicans-vote-to-shield-a-military-contractor-from-liability-for-rape/comment-page-1/#comment-351656 James Young Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:36:43 +0000 http://belowthebeltway.com/?p=22102#comment-351656 I probably agree with that. Indeed, it's entirely probable. On the other hand, my guess is that the company didn't foresee having employees who rape other employees. I probably agree with that. Indeed, it’s entirely probable.

On the other hand, my guess is that the company didn’t foresee having employees who rape other employees.

]]> By: Doug Mataconis http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/18/why-did-30-republicans-vote-to-shield-a-military-contractor-from-liability-for-rape/comment-page-1/#comment-351652 Doug Mataconis Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:40:29 +0000 http://belowthebeltway.com/?p=22102#comment-351652 James, I'll bet she also didn't forsee working for a company that looked the other way while women were raped by men who worked for them James,

I’ll bet she also didn’t forsee working for a company that looked the other way while women were raped by men who worked for them

]]> By: James Young http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/18/why-did-30-republicans-vote-to-shield-a-military-contractor-from-liability-for-rape/comment-page-1/#comment-351644 James Young Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:34:46 +0000 http://belowthebeltway.com/?p=22102#comment-351644 Of course, they were negotiable: the victim had the option to walk away. More likely, she simply saw dollar signs, and didn't even bother to read the contract. But is that a valid excuse? A true libertarian would say "No." Of course, a faux libertarian will probably offer excuses about "unequal bargaining power," and the like, all as an excuse for bigger and intrusive government. Probably couched in fraudulent terms, of course. Of course, they were negotiable: the victim had the option to walk away. More likely, she simply saw dollar signs, and didn’t even bother to read the contract. But is that a valid excuse? A true libertarian would say “No.”

Of course, a faux libertarian will probably offer excuses about “unequal bargaining power,” and the like, all as an excuse for bigger and intrusive government. Probably couched in fraudulent terms, of course.

]]> By: Doug Mataconis http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/18/why-did-30-republicans-vote-to-shield-a-military-contractor-from-liability-for-rape/comment-page-1/#comment-351641 Doug Mataconis Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:11:06 +0000 http://belowthebeltway.com/?p=22102#comment-351641 James, Also, if KBR does business with the government they really don't have any place to argue when the government seeks to dictate how they do business, do they ? James,

Also, if KBR does business with the government they really don’t have any place to argue when the government seeks to dictate how they do business, do they ?

]]> By: Doug Mataconis http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/18/why-did-30-republicans-vote-to-shield-a-military-contractor-from-liability-for-rape/comment-page-1/#comment-351640 Doug Mataconis Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:10:02 +0000 http://belowthebeltway.com/?p=22102#comment-351640 James, Do you believe that the terms of that employment contract were negotiable, including the arbitration clauses ? I'm betting not. And if KBR was covering up for criminal activity, they deserve to be dragged into court James,

Do you believe that the terms of that employment contract were negotiable, including the arbitration clauses ? I’m betting not.

And if KBR was covering up for criminal activity, they deserve to be dragged into court

]]> By: Doug Mataconis http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/18/why-did-30-republicans-vote-to-shield-a-military-contractor-from-liability-for-rape/comment-page-1/#comment-351639 Doug Mataconis Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:08:43 +0000 http://belowthebeltway.com/?p=22102#comment-351639 Yes, but of KBR was covering up the sexual assaults, it leads to civil claims that Jones may have against them, which her employment contract was essentially forcing her to waive. Yes, but of KBR was covering up the sexual assaults, it leads to civil claims that Jones may have against them, which her employment contract was essentially forcing her to waive.

]]> By: Tannim http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/18/why-did-30-republicans-vote-to-shield-a-military-contractor-from-liability-for-rape/comment-page-1/#comment-351634 Tannim Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:34:43 +0000 http://belowthebeltway.com/?p=22102#comment-351634 Uh, that contract needs to be closely examined, because arbitration usually applies to civil disputes (like SH), not criminal activity like sexual assault. KBR cannot claim an arbitration route where a CRIME is concerned. If anything, the arbitration here is criminal conspiracy to cover up a crime and KBR is an accessory after the fact. This is why you ALWAYS sign contracts with your name, followed by "All Rights Reserved". The freedom to contract does not give any party to the contract the right to breach it by criminal activity. Uh, that contract needs to be closely examined, because arbitration usually applies to civil disputes (like SH), not criminal activity like sexual assault. KBR cannot claim an arbitration route where a CRIME is concerned. If anything, the arbitration here is criminal conspiracy to cover up a crime and KBR is an accessory after the fact.

This is why you ALWAYS sign contracts with your name, followed by “All Rights Reserved”. The freedom to contract does not give any party to the contract the right to breach it by criminal activity.

]]> By: Cricket http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/18/why-did-30-republicans-vote-to-shield-a-military-contractor-from-liability-for-rape/comment-page-1/#comment-351633 Cricket Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:28:27 +0000 http://belowthebeltway.com/?p=22102#comment-351633 Read the bill. The company can maintain lucrative contracts by simply not requiring arbitration agreements IN THE FUTURE. The bill does nothing to punish this company or anyone involved in the rapes. Arbitration is only for civil cases, it can not be used for criminal cases. In this case, the victim is filing for damages. When she wins, no one will go to jail. Rape is criminal, destruction of evidence is criminal. People should go to jail for these despicable criminal actions! This bill does nothing to help past or future victims. This despicable company is allowing/condoning outrageous CRIMINAL activities but the bill does nothing to solve that. Arbitration or lack of arbitration can not be used in criminal cases. Congress should 1)launch a full investigation of CRIMINAL activities and 2)file full criminal charges against everyone who was involved and against the management who allowed it. 3)permanently deprive this despicable company of any government funds I hope the victims get a HUGE punitive settlement against the company and any persons who had anything to do with the rapes/cover up/destruction of evidence! Arbitration is cheaper and much quicker than civil court. In my experience, arbitration is much more fair than civil court. The bill as passed, is simply a make work bill for trial attorneys. Read the bill. The company can maintain lucrative contracts by simply not requiring arbitration agreements IN THE FUTURE. The bill does nothing to punish this company or anyone involved in the rapes.

Arbitration is only for civil cases, it can not be used for criminal cases. In this case, the victim is filing for damages. When she wins, no one will go to jail. Rape is criminal, destruction of evidence is criminal. People should go to jail for these despicable criminal actions!

This bill does nothing to help past or future victims. This despicable company is allowing/condoning outrageous CRIMINAL activities but the bill does nothing to solve that. Arbitration or lack of arbitration can not be used in criminal cases.

Congress should 1)launch a full investigation of CRIMINAL activities and 2)file full criminal charges against everyone who was involved and against the management who allowed it. 3)permanently deprive this despicable company of any government funds

I hope the victims get a HUGE punitive settlement against the company and any persons who had anything to do with the rapes/cover up/destruction of evidence!

Arbitration is cheaper and much quicker than civil court. In my experience, arbitration is much more fair than civil court.

The bill as passed, is simply a make work bill for trial attorneys.

]]> By: Debra http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/18/why-did-30-republicans-vote-to-shield-a-military-contractor-from-liability-for-rape/comment-page-1/#comment-351629 Debra Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:04:11 +0000 http://belowthebeltway.com/?p=22102#comment-351629 Your description of the amendment speaks of sexual harassment lawsuits. Rape is very different from sexual harassment and is covered under totally separate laws. Your description of the amendment speaks of sexual harassment lawsuits. Rape is very different from sexual harassment and is covered under totally separate laws.

]]> By: James Young http://belowthebeltway.com/2009/10/18/why-did-30-republicans-vote-to-shield-a-military-contractor-from-liability-for-rape/comment-page-1/#comment-351627 James Young Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:56:15 +0000 http://belowthebeltway.com/?p=22102#comment-351627 How can you possibly square this with your claim to be a Libertarian, Doug? I don't disagree with your suggested outcome --- this is despicable --- but the freedom to contract is a fundamental tenet of Libertarian thought. And the freedom to contract is the freedom to enter into foolish contracts, including one as foolish as this. If that freedom is not virtually absolute, then --- like the old lawyer's joke with the punch line "We've already established that; now, we're dickering over price" --- you're simply a believer in big, paternalistic government. How can you possibly square this with your claim to be a Libertarian, Doug? I don’t disagree with your suggested outcome — this is despicable — but the freedom to contract is a fundamental tenet of Libertarian thought. And the freedom to contract is the freedom to enter into foolish contracts, including one as foolish as this.

If that freedom is not virtually absolute, then — like the old lawyer’s joke with the punch line “We’ve already established that; now, we’re dickering over price” — you’re simply a believer in big, paternalistic government.

]]>