Does your Senator love (shielding government contractors from prosecution for abetting) rape?

[Rahnzan]

Right leaning centerist (might as well call me Republican) here. I'm absolutely appauled.

 

[Larmo]

Good to see Maryland said "Yea".

hello fellow Marylander, and yea for justice

 

[wazzaman]

woot! go cali!

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

Go Massachusetts!

Also: Conservative Republican Senators are proven to only have 50% of a moral complex

 

[Hazy]

Florida...
You did good.

[small]+1 Credibility Awarded[/small]

 

[AlexFromOmaha]

This is a perfect example of extra shit stuck into a bill, making it eventually utterly incomprehensible. Theres about 6-8 pages of ammendments added, where each senator makes adds in a little of this or that.

SA 2604. Mr. FEINGOLD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:

On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

Sec. 8104. (a) In collaboration with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State shall develop a plan for replacing private security contractors with United States Government personnel within one year after the date of the enactment of this Act at United States missions in war zones where the United States Armed Forces are engaged in combat operations.

(b) Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit the plan developed under subsection (a) to the congressional defense committees and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.

This is the kind of thing thats just stuck in there that drives me crazy. Further, if you look at all the ammendmends to the bill, it actually looks more like a defense appropriations bill than a human rights bill. Beyond this eventual removal of independent military contractors from places like iraq and afghanistan, we I found things like 4 million dollars for the "haiti stabilizion act" or some such bullshit.

Whatever. I'd add my provision for a few million for some research program, and vote against it too, knowing full well it will pass and allow me to get my state extra appropriations while maintaining a record of opposing government spending.

Couple points:

One, votes for such amendments are done one at a time. That is, voting for or against that has no impact on the rest of the bill.

Two, what makes you think that continuing to use wickedly overpriced mercenaries is a good idea?

 

[Julianking93]

Goddamnit Bob Corker sucks. He's such a douche. I can say so because I've met him. He goes to the gym me and my mom work at.

 

[JaredXE]

Sweet, both my states voted Yea, Montana and Washington. Well, I can always count on Washington, the state run by and for women, to go along with something as basic as demanding that government contractors treat assault like an actual crime.....because it is.

 

[300lb. Samoan]

I'd actually like to see the proposed bill and give it a read through myself before I light the torch and brandish my pitch fork.

Here you go [http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SP2588:].

-- Alex

wait a minute, am i to understand that our senate just banned funding for halliburton?

AMERICA, FUCK YEA! WE FINALLY DID SOMETHING RIGHT!!!!
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOO!

Of course it was Republicans who voted against it, probably thinking that it wasn't 'prudent' to deny money to halliburton, the contracting company responsible for basically EVERYTHING that is provided to our soldiers in Iraq.

 

[Aesir23]

Good to see that most of the states my extended family resides in said Yea, but I'm not surprised that one of the senators in Texas said Nay. Jackass.

 

[wazzaman]

Oh look, Georgia's full of hicks, why am I not surprised? Oh yah I live there. On a totally unrelated note the GOP today announced renewed efforts in ensuring equal rights for women. In a public statement the GOP leader said this, "The GOP cannot continuously support taking away a woman's fundamental right to be raped."

please tell me thats a joke... i mean, did he really say that?!

EDIT- just put /sarcasm at the end of your post next time...

 

[Naeo]

Well at least one of my Texan senators voted for it...

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

I'm disappointed in my senators. I'm from Colorado, and we're supposed to be all about free markets and free people. It's a contract, and the government has no right to stipulate what can be in a contract.

If the contract is coercive, there's a case. If the person couldn't have made an informed decision, there's a case. If the person was misled or lied to, there's a case. If the woman signed a contract, she is bound by the rules therein. That's all there is to it. Rape is bad, I agree, but the solution cannot be for the government to wantonly interfere with the formation of legitimate and valid contracts.

This is a defense spending restriction. Defense contractors form contracts with the government. This law defines what kinds of contracts government officials are allowed to form with defense contractors.

Given that the government is one of the parties in the contract, the contracts-uber-alles argument is rather senseless here.

-- Alex

It's senseless only if you assume that the purpose of a government contract is to encourage whatever we're defining as "good" behavior on the part of the recipient. But, the government takes the lowest contract (by statute), or it's burning our money. To institute new restrictions (which will increase prices to the taxpayer) is itself senseless.. The issue here is that she was raped, not the binding arbitration. Almost any work contract includes an arbitration provision. Don't conflate the two. Demand prosecution, jump down the throat of the U.S Attorney, but don't mash the issues together.

If the cheapest contractor happens to have a binding arbitration agreement with its employees, what's the problem? Rape is bad, yes, but the woman signed the contract. When did the government get in the business of protecting people from being foolish? If I want to sign a contract stipulating that I have to be violently savaged by dogs every day for the next year, I can. Obviously, she didn't agree to be raped, but she did agree not to bring a court action.

Before someone jumps down my throat: I have nothing but sympathy for any rape victim. She is in no way to blame for the heinous act committed against her. But, she is to blame for signing the damned contract.

Considering that you can't sign certain rights away, I don't see the problem. You can't sign a contract to be my slave and have it hold up. It is perfectly valid for a party to make stipulations on the contracts they want. It is obvious that their method of arbitration did nothing and the victim had to pursue the crime. This is called a flaw and a problem, something the government is perfectly validated in making stipulations against.

There are limitations on contracts so let's not be silly here.

 

[Shapsters]

I am from Canada, and boy do we love rape!

Wait, I was mistaking rape for maple syrup! I always do that! Silly me!

 

[cubikill]

As horrible as it is to say every one should have voted nay. No i not saying that because i love rapists, but its not in the federal governments jurisdiction to try and punish criminal cases. The Senate has on right being involved in criminal cases.

 

[AlexFromOmaha]

As horrible as it is to say every one should have voted nay. No i not saying that because i love rapists, but its not in the federal governments jurisdiction to try and punish criminal cases. The Senate has on right being involved in criminal cases.

Wait, wait, wait, what? The federal government has no jurisdiction over federal law? The legislative branch of the federal government is out of its jurisdiction when legislating?

 

[Xjin]

I'm from Illinois, so apparently neither senator loves rape, but they do love corruption. >

It would be counter productive as well, so there just covering there ass They have to hide the corruption in some way

OT: Yay for Florida!

 

[TMAN10112]

It's reassuring to see that NY voted "Yea."

High five for having senetors who (atleast) don't like rape!

 

[Grayjack]

It's reassuring to see that NY voted "Yea."

High five for having senetors who (atleast) don't like rape!

I'll drink to that, even though I don't drink.