Woman Gang-Raped by 7 Halliburton Employees "Signed Away" Her Right to Sue? [Archive] - Debate Policy

View Full Version : Woman Gang-Raped by 7 Halliburton Employees "Signed Away" Her Right to Sue?

J.T

07-01-2011, 01:16 PM

Jamie Leigh Jones claims she was drugged and gang-raped (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/jamie-leigh-jones-claims-iraq-rape-employer-held/story?id=13884264) while working for military contractor KBR in Iraq (at the time, a division of Halliburton). Jones, now 26, was on her fourth day in post in Baghdad in 2005 when she says she was assaulted by seven contractors and held captive (http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=4004174), under armed guard by two KBR police, in a shipping container.When the criminal courts failed to act, her lawyers filed a civil suit, only to be met with Halliburton's response that all her claims were to be decided in arbitration – because she'd signed away her rights to bring the company to court when she signed her employment contract.
http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/151452/woman_gang-raped_by_7_halliburton_employees_"signed_away"_her _right_to_sue_how_justice_has_become_the_privilege _of_corporations

This, comrades, is what makes America great... :clap:

DragonStryk72

07-01-2011, 02:46 PM

jimnyc

07-01-2011, 05:08 PM

Okay, one, that's really not indicative of most corporations. Two, this was something that was clearly sick and wrong, and those men are still guilty of crimes, so they can still be arrested as normal. Corporation doesn't trump government.

Agree on almost all parts. I even agree it SHOULD be treated as any other crime - but she wasn't on US soil and therefore US criminal statutes did not apply - hence the fact no criminal charges were ever filed. That's when she then turned the route of a civil suit, then that is when Halliburton pulled the arbitration card, which she had in fact signed. A horrible loophole, but a legal loophole.

fj1200

07-01-2011, 09:05 PM

logroller

07-02-2011, 11:38 AM

Agree on almost all parts. I even agree it SHOULD be treated as any other crime - but she wasn't on US soil and therefore US criminal statutes did not apply - hence the fact no criminal charges were ever filed. That's when she then turned the route of a civil suit, then that is when Halliburton pulled the arbitration card, which she had in fact signed. A horrible loophole, but a legal loophole.

I'm not so sure of its legality.

Under the 2007 defense authorization act, Congress added five words to the UCMJ, expanding the Code’s jurisdiction to civilian contractors “[i]n time of declared war or a contingency operation (emphasis added).”34 By statutory definition, a “contingency operation” is an “operation in which members of the armed forces are or may become involved in military actions, operations, or hostilities against an enemy of the United States or against an opposing military force” or an operation that involves the federal callup of the reserves or National Guard.35 Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom are contingency operations, according to this definition.36
Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the change’s architects, has stated that this modification of the UCMJ would “give military commanders a more fair and efficient means of discipline on the battlefield” by placing “civilian contractors accompanying the armed forces in the field under court-martial jurisdiction during contingency operations as well as in times of declared war.”

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/07autumn/lindeman.pdf

jimnyc

07-02-2011, 01:06 PM

I'm not so sure of its legality.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/07autumn/lindeman.pdf

Of course the military made those changes in 2007. What happened to this girl in this thread was in 2005. In fact, I'm quite confident that's EXACTLY why it was created, because of what happened to her.

Gunny

07-05-2011, 08:33 AM

http://www.alternet.org/reproductivejustice/151452/woman_gang-raped_by_7_halliburton_employees_"signed_away"_her _right_to_sue_how_justice_has_become_the_privilege _of_corporations

This, comrades, is what makes America great... :clap:

Being a tad bit less than honest, eh? Using "Haliburton" as a means of sensationalizing your post?

Employees of a subsidiary of Haliburton allegedly committed a crime. I must have missed you posting Haliburton's and KBI's policies on sexual misconduct.

People sign away their rights to sue all the time for whatever reason.

jimnyc

07-05-2011, 08:46 AM

Being a tad bit less than honest, eh? Using "Haliburton" as a means of sensationalizing your post?

Employees of a subsidiary of Haliburton allegedly committed a crime. I must have missed you posting Haliburton's and KBI's policies on sexual misconduct.

People sign away their rights to sue all the time for whatever reason.

I also see that he put "signed away" in the headline. Which of course only means that instead of a lawsuit it would go to arbitration, which is STANDARD policy in many, many places. This has NOTHING to do with any criminal charges, which could not have been brought for totally different reasons.

revelarts

07-05-2011, 08:48 AM

jimnyc

07-05-2011, 08:52 AM

Iraq at that time was like the wild wild west without a seriff. just military posses. and Bremmer as a corrupt Governor.
It's not much different now ---for U.S. Contractors-- who to my knowledge are still are able to operate practically outside any laws

Chortle Chortle Chortle...

How did you expect them to control "criminal" actions in ANOTHER country? To just arbitrarily apply laws/code to people not under their jurisdiction and lock them up? You can't make laws after the fact and then retro apply them to those who committed crimes. Like I said earlier, a horrible loophole - but we don't just get to make law as we go along in order to get get justice, it just doesn't work that way.

Gunny

07-05-2011, 08:59 AM

I also see that he put "signed away" in the headline. Which of course only means that instead of a lawsuit it would go to arbitration, which is STANDARD policy in many, many places. This has NOTHING to do with any criminal charges, which could not have been brought for totally different reasons.

Exactly.

Gunny

07-05-2011, 09:02 AM

Iraq at that time was like the wild wild west without a seriff. just military posses. and Bremmer as a corrupt Governor.
It's not much different now ---for U.S. Contractors-- who to my knowledge are still are able to operate practically outside any laws

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GciV0TaiAPc?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GciV0TaiAPc?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Chortle Chortle Chortle...

Please. More sensationalism. Every been to the ME? If I was a diplomat from a foreign country I'd want bodyguards too, and I wouldn't want ones that didn't know how to do their jobs.

And THAT is the real problem here, right? The "mercs" as you call them (if they're secret service they're patriots who serve the government of the US) are guilty of being good at what they do.

Gunny

07-05-2011, 09:06 AM

revelarts

07-05-2011, 09:29 AM

jimnyc

07-05-2011, 09:41 AM

Looks like in 2009 there was a US Iraqi security pact signed that transferred some jurisdiction over to the Iraqi's, I didn't read far enough into to see what the detail are but there has been some change.

Won't help the women that were raped though.
Seems like the rapist they will just get away with it. SO we'll have a couple of extra sexual predators walking around and a company that knows how to shield itself and it's employees from any consequences.

JT got it about right . the American way for those with in Gov't and Big Biz.

You're an idiot if you think "a company that knows how to shield itself and it's employees from any consequences.". They HAD NOTHING TO DO with regards to criminal action. And it's STANDARD PRACTICE in many, many, many areas of employment where employees agree to arbitration.

Gunny

07-05-2011, 10:28 AM

Looks like in 2009 there was a US Iraqi security pact signed that transferred some jurisdiction over to the Iraqi's, I didn't read far enough into to see what the detail are but there has been some change.

Won't help the women that were raped though.
Seems like the rapist they will just get away with it. SO we'll have a couple of extra sexual predators walking around and a company that knows how to shield itself and it's employees from any consequences.

JT got it about right . the American way for those with in Gov't and Big Biz.

Assume much? All I see are allegations and pronouncements of guilt. How's that fit into the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the US exactly?

Gunny

07-05-2011, 10:30 AM

You're an idiot if you think "a company that knows how to shield itself and it's employees from any consequences.". They HAD NOTHING TO DO with regards to criminal action. And it's STANDARD PRACTICE in many, many, many areas of employment where employees agree to arbitration.

I'm a bit tired of the guilty until proven innocent SOP in this country nowadays.

revelarts

07-05-2011, 11:19 AM

How did you expect them to control "criminal" actions in ANOTHER country? To just arbitrarily apply laws/code to people not under their jurisdiction and lock them up? You can't make laws after the fact and then retro apply them to those who committed crimes. Like I said earlier, a horrible loophole - but we don't just get to make law as we go along in order to get get justice, it just doesn't work that way.

Control criminal actions in ANOTHER COUNTRY?

Well 1st of all these where people we paid to be there.
If we pay them to be there we can tell them What Legal jurisdiction they are under. Since we negated the local laws. BUSH didn't know whose law they fell under.
Were not talking about Iraqi street crime but Kidnapping and rapped by people the U.S. Gov't was paying to provide services. the Biz had sense enough to make it's employees sign arbitration agreement in case of trouble but the U.S. hires people and doesn't have ANY rules for how trouble , MURDER RAPE KIDNAPPING, is suppose to be handled. WHAT's wrong with THAT Picture?

"Arbitrary" laws should not even be an issue. Rape is a crime umm Just about everywhere in the world. But there's NO criminal charges that can be brought. Anywhere? You know that's BS.

You're an idiot if you think "a company that knows how to shield itself and it's employees from any consequences.". They HAD NOTHING TO DO with regards to criminal action. And it's STANDARD PRACTICE in many, many, many areas of employment where employees agree to arbitration.

Jim, I'm a realist.
If you owned a pizza shop and 2 of your employees keep another employee in your freezer for a day and raped her. And your security guards kept her there Would an arbitration agreement save your company from a law suit? I don't think so.

....

Her lawyer, Todd Kerry, said that by forcing earlier assault cases to arbitration, Halliburton and other defence firms had created a climate in which some workers came to believe they could get away with sexual assaults and other crimes.

"I've received upwards of 40 calls to my office [about assault cases] in the past two years. A good number had been disposed of under arbitration," he said."Had there been public scrutiny to prevent such things happening and these cases taken to court, they might not have been repeated. Instead one of the men who raped Jamie was so confident that nothing would happen that he was lying in bed next to her the morning after."...

...But KBR defended arbitration as a "fair process", saying: "Most large companies have a dispute resolution programme which is mandatory and is designed to address employee complaints quickly and efficiently. Under KBR's dispute resolution programme 95% of all employee complaints are resolved quickly to the employees' satisfaction without a mediation or an arbitration."

Franken and Kerry challenge the claim that arbitration is usually settled to the satisfaction of complainants. Other women have come forward to accuse the firms of not taking assault allegations seriously.

Mary Beth Kineston, who drove lorries in Iraq and survived a bloody ambush, has alleged that she was sacked after complaining of sexual assaults by several fellow workers.

"At least if you got in trouble on a convoy, you could radio the army and they would come and help you out. But when I complained to KBR, they didn't do anything. I still have nightmares. They changed my life forever, and they got away with it," she told the New York Times last year.

Linda Lindsey, who worked for KBR in Iraq for three years, has said that male supervisors regularly offered promotions and other benefits in exchange for sex. Lindsey said she filed complaints but they that were never acted on.Last month Jones won a court ruling against Halliburton and KBR that the arbitration clause in her contract did not prevent them from being sued.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/15/defence-contractors-rape-claim-block

the Fact is jim Big Companies and rich powerful people Cover up and do get away with rape and even murder, especially in foreign countries. This seems to be a case in point.

the article quoted above mentions an amendment to an appropriations bill that would Punish Companies that , allow employees to rape each other , by barring them from contracts unless they allow employees a day in court. I don;t think it pasted, from some strange reason --Having to do with truth and justice no doubt--. Some SAY it was because it would "interfere with private biz" funny that never stopped the gov't before. And it is Gov't money. The companies Don't have to take it if they don't like the terms.

--------
Gunny I'm not sure what tangent your on? Protecting Diplomats? Did some merc rape someone to protect Diplomats or something or was allowing rape part of a compensation package for some contractors protection? What are getting at?

J.T

07-05-2011, 11:39 AM

she wasn't on US soil and therefore US criminal statutes did not apply
Wrong. American citizens abroad are still bound by U.S. laws. That's why people who travel abroad for sex with children can be tried upon returning. That guy from To Catch a Predator did a few stings abroad and the parties caught who were from the U.S. were tried according to these laws.

J.T

07-05-2011, 11:41 AM

I'm a bit tired of the guilty until proven innocent SOP in this country nowadays.
So we can now count you among those ending an immediate end to all forms of rendition, indefinite detainment, and holding without trial or charges?

jimnyc

07-05-2011, 11:45 AM

Wrong. American citizens abroad are still bound by U.S. laws. That's why people who travel abroad for sex with children can be tried upon returning. That guy from To Catch a Predator did a few stings abroad and the parties caught who were from the U.S. were tried according to these laws.

Link?

jimnyc

07-05-2011, 11:49 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPA_Order_17

jimnyc

07-05-2011, 12:12 PM

You disappointed me, JT!! I saw you replying for over 15 minutes and was hopeful that you would point me to the laws that override what I posted, because I can't find it anywhere. Then I saw you moved on. :(

J.T

07-05-2011, 12:26 PM

Under the Protect Act, child sex tourism (http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/sextour.html) is illegal, even if the crimes were committed in other nations and child sex tourism is punishable by up to 30 years in prison.

My mistake. I was under the impression the law applied more broadly. It seems it's limited to child sex laws.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2011/01/sex-tourism-man-jailed-for-child-sex-abroad.html

According to Morton, another important tool in the bureau's child advocacy arsenal is the Protect Act, a coordinated effort with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). President Bush signed the Protect Act into law on April 30, 2003. The act provides U.S. law enforcement agencies with powerful new tools to arrest and seek prosecution of U.S. citizens or permanent residents who commit sex crimes against children overseas.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=665&issue_id=82005

Not the first time I've been wrong. Probably won't be the last.
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs15/f/2007/066/8/0/_shrug__rvmp_by_bad_blood.gif

revelarts

07-05-2011, 01:47 PM

Assume much? All I see are allegations and pronouncements of guilt. How's that fit into the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the US exactly?

That's why we go to court.
Presumed innocent until Proven guilty.
But how are you suppose to legally prove it if there never a trial?
Army doc confirmed the physical trama.
Embassy people rescued the woman from the U.S. paid for container.
Um ... We got a crime Gunny?
But we got no perps?
Soooooo It seems We got kidnappers and rapist walking free.
Just as I said.

revelarts

07-05-2011, 01:51 PM

So we can now count you among those ending an immediate end to all forms of rendition, indefinite detainment, and holding without trial or charges?

How bout it Gunny?

jimnyc

07-05-2011, 01:55 PM

Not the first time I've been wrong. Probably won't be the last.
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs15/f/2007/066/8/0/_shrug__rvmp_by_bad_blood.gif

Very rare around these parts to see anyone admit they were wrong. I applaud you, Sir! :clap:

Now, can you show me otherwise, Rev? If not, what happened was legal, and unfortunately action was needed to cover up a huge loophole.

revelarts

07-05-2011, 02:53 PM

...
Now, can you show me otherwise, Rev? If not, what happened was legal, and unfortunately action was needed to cover up a huge loophole.

i know your not saying the rape and kidnapping where legal , but the way the question is worded that what it sounds like.

But I've never said that arbitration for rape and kidnapping wasn't legal. I'm saying it's crazy and wrong.
And that since the U.S. company under U.S. contract that it's U.S. employees raped a U.S. Citizen, In a U.S. purchased container, In a country under U.S. control , well MAYBE it should fall under U.S. legal jurisdiction.
I dunno seems reasonable to me.
That's my Opinion, though RICH POWERFUL people trying to protect contracts would have lawyers say otherwise I'm sure.

Many Guilty people get off of charges using LEGAL loopoles. The Company appears Guilty of covering their own @$$e$ over rape and kidnapping. And there are some men who appear Guilty of rape and kidnapping. According to the public evidence we have at hand.

But Jim I think we might agree, that the U.S gov't allowed a huge legal hole in Iraq where there was NO LAW for U.S. contractors to follow. And that 's wrong and could be corrected, not arbitrarily, I'm not sure what statute of limitations apply to rape but if no ones been charged no double jeopardy applies.

jimnyc

07-05-2011, 02:57 PM

i know your not saying the rape and kidnapping where legal , but the way the question is worded that what it sounds like.

But I've never said that arbitration for rape and kidnapping wasn't legal. I'm saying it's crazy and wrong.
And that since the U.S. company under U.S. contract that if U.S. employees raped a U.S. Citizen, In a U.S. purchase container, In a country under U.S. control , well MAYBE it should fall under U.S. legal jurisdiction. I dunno seems reasonable to me.
That's my Opinion, though RICH POWERFUL people trying to protect contracts would have lawyers say otherwise I'm sure.

Many Guilty people get off of charges using LEGAL loopoles. The Company appears Guilty of covering their own @$$e$ over rape and kidnapping. And there are some men who appear Guilty of rape and kidnapping. According to the public evidence we have at hand.

And I think we might agree, that the U.S gov't allowed a huge legal hole in Iraq where there was NO LAW for U.S. contractors to follow. And that 's wrong and could be corrected, not arbitrarily, I'm not sure what statute of limitations apply to rape but if no ones been charged so double jeopardy doesn't apply.

What you "think" and what is are 2 different things. There WAS law in effect and it's up to Iraq to press charges. If you don't like that, speak to the Iraqi's in charge and those involved from the US who approved of what I posted.

And even if a statute of limitations doesn't apply, you're not suggesting that a law is changed retroactively to prosecute someone, do you?

revelarts

07-05-2011, 03:00 PM

What you "think" and what is are 2 different things. There WAS law in effect and it's up to Iraq to press charges. If you don't like that, speak to the Iraqi's in charge and those involved from the US who approved of what I posted.

And even if a statute of limitations doesn't apply, you're not suggesting that a law is changed retroactively to prosecute someone, do you?

It wouldn't be a change in law just a question of Jurisdiction. The rapist could be tried in Iraq and/OR the U.S.. it seems to me.

Also At the time, i believe, Bremer was the Chief Potentate of Iraq. as I said U.S. control.

jimnyc

07-05-2011, 03:04 PM

It wouldn't be a change in law just a question of Jurisdiction. The rapist could be tried in Iraq and/OR the U.S.. it seems to me.

Only Iraq, and the accused would need to be extradited. I'm not even sure if we have an extradition treaty with them. If the accused fell under Iraq jurisdiction when the crime took place and under Iraq laws - you can't just go back and change it and now say that the US has jurisdiction as well.

Don't confuse my "stance" with thinking these guys are anything else but guilty - just recognizing things from a legal standpoint.

jimnyc

07-05-2011, 03:09 PM

Also At the time, i believe, Bremer was the Chief Potentate of Iraq. as I said U.S. control.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/07autumn/lindeman.pdf

Senator Lindsey Graham sponsored a bill that made changes to the way the US handled "civilian contractors under military law". This was BECAUSE of what happened to this girl. Had the US had any jurisdiction this wouldn't have had to of been changed to prevent it from happening again in the future.

logroller

07-07-2011, 12:56 AM

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/parameters/Articles/07autumn/lindeman.pdf

Senator Lindsey Graham sponsored a bill that made changes to the way the US handled "civilian contractors under military law". This was BECAUSE of what happened to this girl. Had the US had any jurisdiction this wouldn't have had to of been changed to prevent it from happening again in the future.

Let's hope. Judging by the lack of legal justice within our borders, I have my doubts.