30 US senators oppose anti-gang-rape amendment

How is it even possible that this was legal and that anyone should vote against amending the law? Must feel great to have voted for McCain or for one of the other 29 senators who opposed the amendment.





Senate roll-call of votes showing all the yeas (68 Democrats) and all the nays (30 Republicans, including John McCain).

Disgusting.

As one who worked for a similar company to KBR  I can attest that they are a real cancer inside the military. The Iraq war was a privatised war, and I have no figures but the Bush admin used so many private contractors to incompetently prosecute that war. 

Although I was a contractor I was treated really nicely by soldiers and civvies inside my building exactly the same as a US Government employee. I remember being trusted by soldiers a lot. They'd see the defence contractors milling about for projects and say openly "right lets throw these slimy contractors outa the building now!" in front of me.

We're just starting to look after US and British soldiers after they come out of those hellholes with Vet support programs. There are I am sure a huge number more of private contractors who worked out there who will receive absolutely no help whatsoever.

We sometimes forget or overlook that votes on federal legislation in the US often reflect competition among special interest groups/campaign cash contibutors, and this looks like a salient example.

When a person agrees to binding arbitration, they waive their right to a jury trial, and a trial lawyer or lawyers miss out on a payday. Trial lawyers are among the largest campain contributors to the Democrats, but donate little cash to Republicans. Companies save money with arbitration process, so naturally they want to avoid jury trials where they have to hire expensive defense attorneys, go through expensive discovery procedures and despositions, etc., in addition to being potentially exposed to unpredictable jury verdicts and awards for plaintiffs. Halliburton and other defense contractors are big donors to Republicans, so that explains the votes of the 30 Senators.

EDIT: Lorelei, given that the legislation was in regards to jurisdiction for certain civil legal disputes, not criminal actions, it's misrepresenting the legislation to call it "anti-gang rape" legislation. Furthermore, there aren't 68 Democrats in the Senate, which means some of those voting "yes" were Republicans.

Thanks Lorelei, and thank god McCain isn´t our president.

There shouldn't have to be the necessity for a law about this.

Watch the linked video, on what some of the 30 had to say about Acorn..

Correction:

Isn't "private contractor" the politically correct term for a mercenary?

While I feel for a girl calling this anti-gang-rape amendment is stupid, it has to do with forcing people to solve mandatory binding arbitration to prevent them from bringing up civil cases, of which gang rapes are probably nowhere near the top of the issues they were trying to keep out of civil court.

Of course, the valid legal issues in this question are going to be ignored because of the poster case picked, so anyone who agrees with a company being able to create private contracts regarding civil litigation gets to be shown as pro rape.

Amazing the idiots that support this bill so that 'justice can prevail', when it has nothing to do with any criminal justice preceedings.

That being said, military contractors in general are a recipe for trouble due to jurisdictional issues.

(Edit, Curious as the text as the amendment link says 'certain claims', is it limited to sexual assault claims?)

The majority of private contractors were not acting as soldiers. KBR is an engineering firm, not Blackwater.

Wouldn't that make them "enemy combatants" then?

Jon Stewart's take on it. (from October 14th show).

The Daily Show clip refers to it as "anti-rape" legislation and since the legislation apparently seeks to remedy a situation in which workers were prevented from suing for being sexually attacked, that seemed to be an appropriate headline.

But from initially looking at it, is is kind of bullshit that this amendment is specifically aimed at two companies. Seems like a bad way to draft legislation.

The DoD brought up a valid point:

If its such a bad situation, why not ban it outright instead of targeting 2 companys (or other federal contractors) but allowing anyone else to do the same thing? Would it somehow be better if an employee of a non war contractor signed away her rights (because it was a requirement of the job) to civil trial and was forced to then abide by that?