EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Plight of Contractor Raped in Iraq Spurs Push in Congress
WASHINGTON - Four years ago, Jamie Leigh Jones, a 20-year old Texas contract employee working in Iraq, was drugged, stripped, beaten and gang-raped by her co-workers on her fourth day in country. She finally managed to get a phone call out from the shipping container where she was being detained - by her employer, KBR, then a Halliburton company.
Jamie Leigh Jones and Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas. That call to her father led to a call to her congressman, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, and her rescue after Poe had the State Department locate her. But Jones' attempts at justice - and restitution - were blocked by a little-noticed compulsory arbitration clause in the contracts of private employees working for federal government contractors.
Now, a move by Congress last week, jump-started by Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., would protect contract employees by ensuring they have legal recourse.
The provision is in the defense appropriations bill that the Senate approved Saturday after the House passed it Wednesday. It only needs the president's signature to become law.
"This amendment makes all the hard times that I have gone through, when going public with such a personal tragedy, worth every tear shed from telling and retelling my horrific experience," Jones said after the Senate first acted on the bill in October. Jones most recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee in October: "I know this amendment will save so many in the future."
Jones herself is not directly affected by the amendment. But after a hard-fought four-year battle, she won the right to sue her attackers and the company under a ruling in September by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Her case is expected to go to trial next year.
"The congressional amendment tracks the Fifth Circuit decision," said Poe. For Poe, a former Texas district judge who chairs the House's Victims' Rights Caucus and who has been one of Jones' strongest advocates, the new law is a milestone.
Under the congressionally approved provision, the federal government would not be able to do business with companies with $1 million or more in contracts that deny court hearings for victims of assault, false imprisonment or emotional distress. Victims of assault would be able to sue the employers of the alleged attacker, as well as the attacker. The Defense Department can apply a waiver for national security reasons.
Jones, now married and with a child - who she named after Poe - is a teacher, lives in a Houston suburb and advocates for victims through a foundation that bears her name.
Franken was the prime mover behind the legislation, which came about this fall after he was moved by her story.
"Jamie Leigh Jones is a strong, courageous woman, who used her own horrific experience to inspire change," said Franken in a statement.
"I am honored to know her, and honored to have been a part of her cause," Franken said. "I came to Washington to stand up for folks like Jamie Leigh, and stand up to the powerful interests that too often silence their voices."
The provision had a contentious debate in the Senate, where it passed in October 68-30 - engendering a vocal critique of the 30 all white, all male "no" voters, including Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court judge, said that he was a strong advocate for victims but he was opposed to a provision that would benefit trial lawyers.
All 17 female senators voted for the amendment.
"This kind of violent crime should not be obscured by politics or partisanship," said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. "The fact is, a Texas woman serving our country in Iraq was brutally sexually assaulted. She deserves to have her day in court."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
56 Comments so far
Show AllHalliburton employees broke the law. How can they be exempt? Because it was out of the country?
Essentially yes. The incident happened in iraq thus criminal charges would be laid by the Government of Iraq.
This is no different then a US Citizen murdering someone in Mexico. If he escaped Mexican authorities and the US refused to extradite him, he would "get way with it".
Now here is the rub.
When the US invaded Iraq and toppled Saddams regime one Paul bremer was put in charge as Viceroy. He passed a law and FORCED this law on the people of Iraq that NO US Contracter or Military personel could be arrested or tried by the Iraqi Government.
The US has forced this type of law on peoples all over the world. Someone mentioned all the rapes Committed in Okinawa. The Japanese Government can not legally arrest and try these soldiers. The US claims they will try them in American courts or in US Military courts but they usually receive a slap on the wrist .
The US Contracters that gunned down 17 Iraqi Civilains walk the streets of the USA as free men. The Iraqis can not charge them. When Iraqis did take the law into their own hands and strung 4 of these mercenaries up in Fallujah, the US Military flattened that city using white Phosphorus and DU munitions against the people.
What about the UN Charter, the protection, defence of human rights? What about the U.S.Bill of Rights?
I don't see how the government of the USA could get away with bogus laws preventing someone who's a victim of other Americans and regardless of where the aggressions happen from being able to sue; fully sue. The perpetrators were Americans and KBR is a U.S. company, so it shouldn't matter where she was brutalised by these Americans while working for this company; or for any company, U.S. or foreign, for that matter. If the company, employer was foreign, then maybe the ICC would be where the company could be sued, while the American perpetrators of the rape and other brutality against her could and should be sued in the U.S.
Any laws put in the way of this should be legally treated as criminally obstructive and either the government corrects these laws, or the government could be additionally sued. This is how I think it should work.
Amy Goodman has reported, more than once, on this story. It is a travesty, tragic, and criminal! I agree that Jamie Leigh Jones should be compensated! However, what about the men? Shouldn't the rapists be charged with rape and kidnapping, among other charges, and be brought to court? Our system of justice, if you can call it that, is way out of whack! Corporations get away with rape and murder, and there are NO consequences.
I used to live in Nebraska, in Lincoln, the capital of Nebraska, and Mike Johanns, the one-time mayor of the city, and governor of the state, is now a Republican senator and he voted AGAINST closing the rape loophole. I am disgusted and embarrassed by his behavior! I think he is a father, too! What if it happened to his daughter, or to his granddaughter? Would he advise her to take it and shut up?
Every citizen of the state of Nebraska should be embarrassed! BTW, Mike Johanns was once-upon-a-time a registered Democrat. Senator Johanns wasn't the only Republican senator to vote against Al Franken's bill.
if it happened to his daughter it would be a capital offense. if men were raped
like women life in prison would be mandatory. its time that more woman are elected
balance out this travesty and to move these jethros back to the caves they came out of!
"its time that more woman are elected..."
I agree. Just as long as they don't end up legislating like men.
Michele Bachmann is a loon. Jane Harmon is bought and sold by the MIC.
Just two examples...
Oh... and notice that the move was jump-started by a man, Al Franken.
I commented on that fact when I first heard about Al Franken's bill. And, he had to wait months before he was even sworn into the senate. That, by itself, tells you something about our elected officials, doesn't it?
It's so very important that we never forget that most men are good and good men are horrified by violence against women.
Talk that is divided on the gender line only serves to ....divide.
Right. Why did Texas resident Jamie Leigh have to go to Democratic Sen. Al Franken of Minnesota instead of Republican Sen. Kay Baily Hutchison of Texas?
Old Peculiar: I agree with you!
Time that more women are elected? You mean more women to vote for funding wars of aggression and Wall Street, etcetera, like political whore Hilary Clinton?
What have the the female members of the Congress, and, if there are any today, besides Clinton before the Obama administration, Senate, voted regarding funding bills for the GW-of-T wars? I think it's Barbara Baxter who was the [sole] awake and and fully sane member of the U.S. Congress following 9-11, for she is the sole member who refused to vote to authorise recourse to war measures, but, and if I'm recalling correctly, she's oddly failed a number of times since.
Women in U.S. politics don't seem to provide much for inspiration. Hilary Clinton is a political and corporatist whore, always has been, always is a wannabe, and while other female members of the U.S. body politic may not all be as bad, Nancy Pelosi is hell, and the other women are sometimes voting or speaking well, while doing the exact opposite at other times, on matters that are crucially important and they wrongly vote upon.
Men and women in U.S. politics, MANY are political whores, and the rest are either incompetent, too weak, coward, or ..., well, will never achieve any real good with either of the two main political parties that they're with, but dream that they might some day achieve reformation of their questionably selected party; instead of realising that once we realise that we've made a bad choice, then we should stop sticking with it.
The latter "reminds" me of Dennis Kucinich. He's a DREAMER about reforming the Dem. Party. NOT in OUR lifetimes! I appreciate his presence in U.S. politics, but he's a DREAMER for some future lifetime; not ours, not [any] of ours, regardless of our ages, old or young. The U.S. empire will collapse, first, and once this happens, then the Dem. and Repub. parties, both, may become totally obsolete, past ugly history. If this is what happens, then his dream would've been totally worthless all along.
Of course if he becomes independent, like Ralph Nader, then he's likely not going to be elected, and if he was, then he wouldn't have a strong party affiliation in the Congress or Senate. But we might possibly and hopefully be surprised.
If we don't open our minds to trying new and different methods while always aiming them for good outcomes, but, instead, choose to always support status quo, then status ugly quo is more likely to continue and our efforts against it will also continue to be wasted breath.
Ralph Nader!
My mother once told me that if men could bear children, abortion would be a sacrament. I know it didn't originate with her, but that statement is all too true.
No, you don't know that that statement is all too true. No one does. To know it's true would require empircalness and it can't be applied; except in the fiction move with Arnie Schwarzenegger a preganant male, which is no way to guage real life.
So you needn't bother claiming that something's true when you can't prove that it is. You can, however, state that you believe it's true. Believing something's true and it actually being true doesn't always match, but heh, some people win lotteries.
"What if it happened to his daughter, or to his granddaughter? Would he advise her to take it and shut up?"
You have nothing to feel embarrased about, for you're not guilty in any of this.
As for your above question, maybe he'd hire a mafia-like hitman to get rid of the rapist and then keep all of this secret. He and likes could perceive such methods as the politically most cost-efficient way for themselves ("screw" everyone else, that is, the majority of the population of the USA).
Heck, maybe he'd hire the mafia-like hitman and place the bill on government billing, somehow; or maybe he'd just use government hitmen, who are already on government payroll anyway.
Who knows? Well, some people do, but MOST of us don't.
This is the brutal face of patriarchy which we so often ignore. Patriarchy and violence = mirror imagines of one another.
The idea that any Senator today could vote to keep this "loophole" in place and continue to serve in Congress is alarming and threatening to all women, everywhere.
This is what the rise of the right brings --
The only way that the right can rise is by violence, assassination, stolen elections, deception, corruption, crime.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Patriarchy, or corporatism? The latter, I believe. Just because a male acts in a patriarchic way doesn't necessarily mean that the actual reason for the wrongfulness is patriarchic, and the U.S. government is run by CORPORATOCRACY, not patriarchy. There's some maleness, say, involved, but the corporatocracy is what really rules.
The rapists should be charged under the law of the land they were in...sharia Law...wack off their penises
These cowards' penises are already too short and they don't have any balls either.
If the perpetrators were Americans, then why should they be tried under Iraqi slaw, instead of U.S. law? The U.S. should be charging and putting these criminals on trial, and sentencing them to ... plenty of years behind bars, after they're made to provide whatever compensation they can that their victim(s) demand.
The victim, in this case, may not be particularly interested in financial or monetary compensation from the actual perpetrators, while, out of principle, she might still want serious financial compensation from KBR, because of the corporate criminality in all of this. After all, the perpetrators can be sentenced to prison, but a corporation can't be; although heads of it could be and they are responsible for decisions of the corporations they manage.
I'd ask the victim what she wants and would try to provide as justly as possible, but the perpetrators would get long prison sentences and KBR would pay plenty, one way or another. The victim would be free to ask for whatever she wants, short of death penalties; although putting KBR to death is not like putting a person to death, and that wouldn't be a bad thing to do, so ....
Okay, a poem, anyone?
Sen. John Cornyn's sputtering about not wanting to give trial lawyers more ammunition in this most egregious of cases, encapsulates perfectly why trial lawyers are a necessary evil in the dysfunctional system of American jurisprudence: they are often the sole vehicle for the ordinary person to get a measure of justice and call into account corporate misconduct.
What about the indigenous people that "our" contractors rape and kill? These perpetrators are protected by law instituted by our government on a puppet regime.
This new law is pretty soft. Everyone should be held accountable for violence inflicted upon others. No exceptions.
"What about the indigenous people that "our" contractors rape and kill? These perpetrators are protected by law instituted by our government on a puppet regime." -- WTF
I agree!
Currently, the U.S. is in process of moving the Okinawa Marine base to Guam -- partly due to the outrage of Japanese citizens because U.S. military men are raping the women, and girls, of Okinawa. The 1995 rape of a 12-year-old girl by three men -- two marines and one sailor -- created a firestorm of protest. In addition to moving the base, the U.S. is tripling the number of troops to be housed in Guam. The people of Guam are concerned about their women and girls, as well as the lack of infrastructure to accomodate the Marines. BTW, the people of Guam had NO voice in the decision.
You can watch the NOW program with David Brancacchio at:
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/550/
WTF
Very well said. While it is certainly admirable that Franken came to the aid of Ms. Leigh, one has to wonder why Franken, along with the rest of the pusillanimous Democrats, have not done the obvious thing and that is to cut off the funding for these most idiotic and unnecessary occupations. By doing that no military contractors and male soldiers would run the risk of attacking American women as well as, as you correctly note, the indigenous peoples who reside in the Middle East. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Or in more blunt terms, get those contractors and soldiers the hell out of the Middle East and return them to this country where they belong.
when are we going to pass a war tax? As long as we keep passing the cost of war down to the next generation the longer the war will stretch on.
I agree and disagree.
You say, "Everyone should be held accountable for violence inflicted upon others. No exceptions", but what if it's a victim who reacts and happens to be violent in the process of defending him- or her-self, or her family, community, or country? Is this not an acceptable exception?
It certainly is, imo. So I'd rephrase what you wrote by saying, "Everyone should be held accountable for violent [aggression] inflicted upon others. ...". Explicitly qualifying the violence as aggression leaves violence that's only out of [defence] as a matter to separately judged, which it should be; instead of lumping all violence together as if it could only be of the form of aggression, which would be an imcomplete understanding of the ways in which violence can occur.
This is not to say that I may not sometimes express myself as well, yet also as imprecisely, as you did, for I probably will do and have done this; but seeing your post brought the above distinction to mind and I should try to keep it in mind if I ever post on what I think should be done about violent conduct. It depends on the reasons for the conduct. The reasons should always be carefully considered, without white-washing, ... bs.
Otoh, this nevertheless is to hold every actor of violence to account. Holding someone accountable for violent acts does not inherently say or indicate what the conclusion of the evaluation will be and it should depend on what's involved in each case. Is it aggression or defence, f.e.? Either way is an effort to seek accountability. When it's aggression, then the perpetrators should be treated accordingly, though no death penalty, and no torture, .... When it's defence, then we need to keep this in mind; we might want to advise greater caution in the future, but without seeking to punish a person for what is understandable defence. If it's exaggerated force for defence, then the exaggeration would or should be justly addressed.
It's really a case-by-case matter; but I can and do write in general terms like you did, often enough, too.
F.e., what would say if the father of this victim went out and treated the perpetrators of this brutal rape against his daughter in Mohammed Ali fashion? Would you say he was violent and needs to be held to account for this action? If you say that he should be, then I can agree; but not with punishment. You might want to grant him some sort of medal of honour and "two thumbs up" (a Siskel & Ebert), instead.
In this above sense, I agree that we need to hold every actor of violence to account.
Two thumbs up!
I hear what you are saying, but I will still stand by my original assertion "Everyone should be held accountable for violence inflicted upon others. No exceptions".
Yes, this would include victims who defend themselves and theirs. The key word in my assertion is "accountable". In such a system, the actions of the recipient of violence would also be scrutinized, and likely in the majority of cases, exonerated, but not always. I'm not sayng that being a victim is a crime, but in most cases, there are two sides to the story, and both should be heard.
Good examples of a "victim" going overboard in defending themselves are Israel and the US, in the wake of the Gaza border kidnappings and 9/11. In both cases, a knee-jerk reaction may be expected, but in these cases, the response was egregious.
Me, right in generalities? Never! Absolutely not!
Thanks for the discussion. :)
I'm just surprised that she didnt get gangraped again in Congress by the GOP.
It wasn't because they didn't try, believe me. Look at the list of who voted.
Maybe they did, but not physically?
it's damn sure time somebody in authority did something about this kind of sexual abuse by Pentagon contractors,
AD
it's damn sure time somebody in authority did something about this kind of sexual abuse by Pentagon contractors,
AD
Hmm, I could've sworn you already said that.
But US raping entire sovereign nations ain't illegal and its perps up to the president are immune from justice. Right. Disarm!
Not only the Right. The Left also needs to disarm. Get rid of both main parties in the USA and bring in some [real] government. Anything would be better than what we have, for it couldn't get worse than we have.
"The Defense Department can apply a waive for National Security reasons." That means there is a law but no big company need bother to observe it.
I noticed that as well and it's disturbing.
This is the brutal face of patriarchy which we so often ignore. Patriarchy and violence = mirror imagines of one another.
The idea that any Senator today could vote to keep this "loophole" in place and continue to serve in Congress is alarming and threatening to all women, everywhere.
This is what the rise of the right brings --
The only way that the right can rise is by violence, assassination, stolen elections, deception, corruption, crime.
"According to all myth, the female - not the male -- gives life"
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
How many women and children have been beaten, raped, permanently maimed and.or killed by U.S. military personnel and U.S. contractors in our "noble causes" in Iraq and Aghanistan?
Anyone have any numbers? I know over 120 detainees at Bagram were torture-murdered with legitimate investigations of only a handful of those murders that were all rich in details like falsified medical reports, multiple changed accounts of events, that sort of thing.
Remember those psycho Marines in Haditha who "did" that 14 year girl and most of her entire family and how the officer's above them tried to help cover it up? That was only one of these episodes that came to light.
I repeat, it's still not right and I'm glad this legislation was passed. You have to start somewhere.
Mimi: I completely agree with you!
Anyone have a list of the pro-rape votes?
That might enjoy a nice circulation in 2010 or 2012.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_111_1.htm
scroll down to 00308 (6 October)
I believe this to be the vote.
Pretty much all the Nays are REPUKICANS. Typical sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sociopathic b*st*rds
I believe you'll find ONLY Republicans on the list. (Unless I overlooked a D)
Here is the list of the slimy scum who think money is more important than any
woman's rights. You'll notice the Bible Belt is well represented in the group
of scum suckers.
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)
Well, when you're not subject to the laws of your own country (the USA) though that's who is giving you the $$$ billions, and you are not subject to the laws of the host country, you pretty much have it made in the shade, when it comes to mayhem.
Not surprising that all of the nay votes were all of those born again white Christian men - they are no better than the Taliban when you think about it. Obviously they believe that they should have dominion over all women and what they can or can't do - they believe it's in the Bible. It makes you wonder how they treat their wives?
Oh, they're much different than the Taliban, they lack the balls!
I find it very hard to find any sympathy in my heart for these mercenaries, male or female.
Yes.
I almost never have ANY good feelings about these mercenaries. Nor do I feel much better about the CURRENT personnel in the military -- they VOLUNTEERED for these rotten, illegal wars, and should have known better.
However, Jamie Leigh Jones' situation is so horrid that I DO have sympathy for her, and her alone.
Another way to think of it is that she will probably have a completely different outlook about KBR and perhaps other rotten mercenary companies.