Comments on: Republicans for Rape (Now With Push Polls!)

By: Jenn Q. Public

Jenn Q. Public — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 05:11:29 +0000

Thomas, I suggest you read a bit more about United States jurisdiction. True, the KBR employees aren't subject to Iraqi criminal jurisdiction due to a CPA measure that shields non-Iraqi contractors from the Iraqi law enforcement system. However, according to Title 18, Part I, Chapter 1, § 7 of the U.S. Code, the U.S. can prosecute the case because it occurred in a "place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States." The ball's in the DOJ's court. As for your contention that a civil suit was "the only way to ensure that the conditions that led to her rape would be fixed," that would be untrue even if jurisdictional issues prevented Jones from having her case heard in criminal court. Arbitration allows for identical remedies to those available in courtroom litigation. Finally, your ideas about our legislative system are bizarre. Senators should vote for an amendment they view as unnecessary? Huh? It's their job to keep unnecessary legislation off the books. And anyway, the Senators who voted against the amendment did so because of the potential negative consequences of the legislation, not because they found it "unnecessary."

By: Thomas Wilhoat

Thomas Wilhoat — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 04:27:29 +0000

I suggest reading a bit more into the Jamie Leigh Jones case before making statements about what KBR can and can not do. The crime happened in Iraq, so their was no criminal jurisdiction. Therefore, the only way that she could get her day in court was through the civil system, and it was also the only way to ensure that the conditions that led to her rape would be fixed. She has been in a two year legal battle just to get the right to have her case heard in a civil court.

The amendment itself stated that the government would discontinue funding for anyone who did not include a clause in their arbitration clause that allowed the person to sue in cases of sexual assault. It seems like even if you viewed it as unnecessary, you would vote for it.

By: Eclectic Radical

Eclectic Radical — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:33:57 +0000

You’re welcome.

By: Jenn Q. Public

Jenn Q. Public — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:52:20 +0000

Thanks for pointing that out. I’m sticking in a different link for now, and I’ll try to find the correct one later.

By: Eclectic Radical

Eclectic Radical — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 14:05:17 +0000

Just a note, the ‘foot dragging in the Department of Justice’ link leads to what I assume is the intended domain, but the actual page is:

‘We’re Sorry.
The page you are looking for could not be found.

If you typed in the address, used a bookmark or followed a link from another site, it is possible the page no longer exists at this location.’