30 republicans vote against ban on mandatory arbitration

anyone responsible for crimes should be brought to justice. that is what laws are for.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

if people are brought to trial clauses they add arbitrarily dont help them at all...IF they are shown to be liable for damages.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. Giving my opinion, but it was based on fact. My understanding of the private security field is pretty extensive. And the indemnity clauses and legal loopholes are well known and have been reported.

That's bullshit. The government is the one granting the contracts, in many cases, and it oversees them, in some capacity. The government also chooses to interfere in contracts all the time. There's also the small matter that it is, in most cases, illegal to make contracts that contradict standing laws. Now, I am no lawyer, but I fail to see how can a person be asked or expected to surrender their civil rights or their right to prosecute, simply because they agree to work for company X -- and that company works overseas.

Look to Tiassa's example. The women in the cargo container was treated worse than many of the people the CIA picks up and sends to Gitmo. And yet, she seems to have less claim of damages and less legal rights. It's kooky.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The obvious

Okay ... then I'm loath to ask the obvious.

 

but isn't that essentially what they did? Regardless of their root reason for not getting involved in private contracts.

 

essentially no.

 

and believe me, i am not a republican or a conservative for that matter.

 

son ova!!!!!!
thats BS!! I think i will start doing background checks at my future jobs so this doesnt happen to me!! OMG!!

 

The underlying question

Well, I wasn't aiming for anything nearly so ... um ... witty.

Or, to wit ....

• • •​

General Consideration

Okay, now let's think about this for a minute. Simple question: Does the government have the right to set the terms upon which it will spend public money to hire the services of private enterprise?

Now, if one considers this basic sort of accountability within the purview of government, the next logical question in this case becomes, quite simply, Is it unreasonable to demand that people not be made to sign away their legal recourse in the event of sexual assault in order to earn this public money through employment with the private enterprise?

How is this unreasonable?

 

It that's what prompted this law, perhaps you could enlighten us with the details of that story?....

Edit: I followed the link from your earlier post and damn. That story is outrageous.

Moderator Note:
I've edited/deleted multiple posts in this thread. Keep it civil and stick to the topic. Further insults, off topic posts, or rule violations of any kind will result in punitive action.​

 

Yes, it does. And what's more, it already does, on everything from how employees are screened to how many minorities are employed, so the Republican dogma of non-interference is bullshit.

It's not.

To add a bit of anecdotal knowledge, I recently had a chance to attend a lecture by a British man (who shall remain nameless) who runs one of the largest private security firms in the world (also nameless). He has a HUGE contract in Iraq. HUGE.

Anyway, asked about regulation, he said he was puzzled by the US attitude, because all the British companies are heavily regulated at home and also self-regulate with a standards and certification board. Essentially, he WANTS the US to adopt a similar approach and finds that the US firms and various Congressmen always stop such moves. As a businessman, he wants to go ahead and do it now, rather than having something imposed later in a climate of hostility. But the Americans won't sign on...

 

that's what happens when corporations own politician through their donations

 

I think it's shortsighted on their part. At some point, they will be regulated. Better to do it now, and help put the legislation together, than have it imposed later after some disaster.

 

I think you are overestimating their constituencies.

The vote was 68 to 30. I presume, maybe wrongly that these Senators could guess the outcome of this vote prior to voting. If the Senators knew that they could not protect Brown and Root and the other contractors then why would they bother voting against the amendment if they thought it would hurt them politically? Would they vote against the amendment just to get brownie points for loyalty from the defense contractors in a situation where it does not their loyalty had no real impact?

Did they vote on principal? All the same guys voted to cut off ACCORN's funds for ACCORN's bad behavior so what principal are we talking about? I think most of these guys vote for farm subsidies so they are not exactly principled supporters of free trade and small government.

I keep on coming to the conclusion when analyzing peoples political statements and actions that we are wrong to look for rational motivations behind the political sentiments of unemployed morons and we are also wrong to always look for rational motivations behind the political sentiments of Senators.

Us against them is enough reason for anything that happens in politics and nothing more rational than that or complex than us against them is needed to explain the political behavior of Left, Right and Center. But hold on let me channel my inner Republican:

This was Al Franken's amendment. That is enough reason for those senators to vote against it and that was enough reason for for their constituents to support them. Besides KBR supports war and patriots support war; and this raped woman does not support KBR; therefore she is against patriots; therefore she is a traitor and deserves whatever happened to her. She should not be sabotaging the war effort.

Also, family values women like for men to be men and for women to be woman and therefore they don't do mens jobs which includes any job in a war zone; and therefore this woman who should have stayed home and been a baby sitter or maybe work at McDonalds until she finds a husband is not a Family Values woman. A family values woman would have been taught better by her mother than to put herself in a situation where she is to pretty for the men to resist and she has nobody to protect her. When non family values women get treated like the sluts that they are they should not be allowed to whine and complain that they were treated unfairly therefore these Senators voted correctly.

Furthermore all the liberal whiners want a nanny state that steals from good people who earned their money like the stock holders of KBR only to give the money to people who sign contracts and then complain that the contract should be invalidated as soon as it rules against them in some way. A contract is a contract. Bad things happen and strong people don't use the bad things that happen to them as excuses they just move on with their lives which is exactly what this woman should do. All this codling of whiners just makes the whiners weaker and still yet more irresponsible and they will become burdens on society. Sue this person sue that person; why can't liberals take responsibility for their actions instead of always looking for somebody to blame and always expecting hand outs. How is anybody supposed to run a business if they have to always be concerned about who is going to sue them? Without business are economy and way of life are finished. People should not be allowed to sue businesses.



No, I don't think these Senators will have any problem in their home states.

 

What KBR did wrong was not the Rape of this young lady. KBR did not do that; its employees did and I would only hold KBR responsible for that if KBR by how it structured its operations was as reckless and irresponsible as a driver who drinks and drives.

What KBR did do (if you believe the facts as presented and I do) is orchestrate a cover up of this rape which included wrongfully imprisoning the woman and destroying evidence.

As it stands now nobody will be punished for this crime and the US government and KBR and the Iraqi governments treaties and contracts make it impossible for justice to occur in this case and in other if these contracts and treaties are interpreted and enforced as they have been in recent years.