GoP defends gang rape.

[Leif]

Fake victim.

[Khajit]

The lady should kill the people who gang raped her with a gun and then hide behind her contract to say that she cant settle things outside of the company for the lulz.

[Correction]

Fake victim.

And your evidence she's faking is...?

[Sepukku]

And your evidence she's faking is...?

And your evidence she isn't...?

[Correction]

And your evidence she isn't...?

Golly got me there, I've changed my mind, immunity and no-strings attached for all corporations with government contracts accused of covering up rape! After all, nobody can prove she didn't want it!

[Sepukku]

Im not even asking for proof she didn't want it. I'm asking for proof a penis even touched her. Too many false rape accusations in the news the past few years.

[FNH]

Im not even asking for proof she didn't want it. I'm asking for proof a penis even touched her. Too many false rape accusations in the news the past few years.

A physician did a rape kit test on her and confirmed evidence of rape.

[Baelorn]

Im not even asking for proof she didn't want it. I'm asking for proof a penis even touched her. Too many false rape accusations in the news the past few years.

Psst, it doesn't matter if she's lying or not. She tried to report the rape, got locked in a shipping container and was denied due process. By law, KBR and other companies with defense contracts are allowed to do that. This amendment would change that so she at least gets a day in court.

[archibaldcrane]

Wow guys.

It doesn't matter whether this particular victim was gang-raped or not. This bill will not affect her at all.

I hope everyone realizes that. New laws don't get retroactively applied to old cases.

[Correction]

Are you trying to say that the odds she is lying is dictated by the ratio of false rape accusations, and as such should steer the debate on whether or not it's valuable to hold government contractors to standards of behavior regarding any accusation?

Slate Column Examines Research On False Rape Accusation Rates

Guess it depends on whether 1 in 10 is cause for alarm or not.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Psst, it doesn't matter if she's lying or not. She tried to report the rape, got locked in a shipping container and was denied due process. By law, KBR and other companies with defense contracts are allowed to do that. This amendment would change that so she at least gets a day in court.

Psst, she didn't sign away her right to her day in court.

[FNH]

Psst, it doesn't matter if she's lying or not. She tried to report the rape, got locked in a shipping container and was denied due process. By law, KBR and other companies with defense contracts are allowed to do that. This amendment would change that so she at least gets a day in court.

She wasn't denied due process. This has nothing to do with criminal proceedings. She couldn't get a "day in court" because 1.) she signed a contracting stating she would settle with through a 3rd party arbiter and 2.) Criminal charges were not pursued by the USDOJ and Iraq officials due to lack of evidence.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You guys seem to only care about the money that she could have gotten, not the justice that can still be served.

[Baelorn]

Psst, she didn't sign away her right to her day in court.

Do you always make shit up when you can't argue facts?

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and "warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job." (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

[Xno Kappa]

You guys seem to only care about the money that she could have gotten, not the justice that can still be served.

Yeah, we're all screaming wherez teh big bucks!

I just don't get some of you. Besides die-hard party affiliation, there's absolutely no reason to even remotely try to defend this.

[FNH]

Do you always make shit up when you can't argue facts?

Civil charges dumbass, she can't bring civil charges. She was still able to file criminal charges, they were dropped however.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Do you always make shit up when you can't argue facts?

Wow. I've already stated that you can not impliedly sign away constitutional rights. The only reason she could not bring criminal charges was if she expressly signed them away, which what you bolded does not do. Thanks for citing the reason your wrong, you saved me some work.

[Baelorn]

She wasn't denied due process. This has nothing to do with criminal proceedings. She couldn't get a "day in court" because 1.) she signed a contracting stating she would settle with through a 3rd party arbiter and 2.) Criminal charges were not pursued by the USDOJ and Iraq officials due to lack of evidence.

She was imprisoned against her will without food or water. She can't press criminal charges because the way the defense contracts are written. In my opinion her rights were violated.

This isn't an isolated incident either so I don't know why were talking about one case.

[FNH]

I just don't get some of you. Besides die-hard party affiliation, there's absolutely no reason to even remotely try to defend this.

As I said earlier the bill is too broad. I'm sure it wouldn't have been opposed if it was more concise in allowing civil suits for atrocious acts such as rape or other type things, but it opens companies up to frivolous lawsuits. Plus as I stated earlier my opinion on one event shaping public policy, hello patriot act?

[FNH]

She was imprisoned against her will without food or water.

They were overseas DOJ isn't able to know that was going on.

She can't press criminal charges because the way the defense contracts are written.

wrong. How many times do I have to tell you she only waived her ability to sue. That's all this amendment deals with anyway, and it doesn't even prevent companies from putting that clause in a contract. It only prevents government contracts from being given to companies that have those clauses.

In my opinion her rights were violated.

What rights? She was in a different country.

This isn't an isolated incident either so I don't know why were talking about one case.

Oh? I don't recall many of these cases.