“While I am a pro-business Republican that pines for capitalism unrestrained by laws or lawyers, this amendment is anti-rape.”

Thank you for that. More Republicans should also be looking into the fact that these contractors continue to receive funds when the services they provide are ineffective, or they sometimes don't provide them. It’s not competitive and it can’t really be called capitalism.

My fiance, a (now) retired Army officer, has told numerous stories about how people in the military, “couldn't do anything about it," when contractors shot civilians, etc. They are part of the US war effort- they should be prosecuted under US law. The government could make it a condition for signing on. They could make that or some other reasonable legal solution happen if they really wanted. Why anyone wouldn’t support closing these loopholes, or this bill, probably has something to do with their motivation for supporting the war to begin with. Many knew it may not have been a just war so why would they start having values now in regard to this aspect of the war? Not voting for this bill is in total continuity with previous behavior for many of these individuals. They’ve hijacked and abused the military and its people from the start.

Contractors do jobs that in many cases used to belong to MOS. The government is even able to report that troop numbers are down to minimize the size and expense of the war effort, or even say it’s going well, because these people are brought in to do traditionally military jobs. The rhetoric about inefficiency of the public sector doesn’t ring true here because soldiers are held accountable if they don’t do their jobs.

Soldiers’ lives are endangered to cater to the agendas of these contractors accompanying convoys, etc., during times of high warning when they could easily go out another time. There are so many different rackets the contractors have going on that basically screw civilians, soldiers, and the American taxpayer. Maybe contractors should be allowed to be part of the war effort, but they should not have this degree of control over public personnel, resources, or any right to dictate actions often contrary to military objectives. In some cases, it should be criminal- there was a time when some of these acts would have been called treason.

The public sector (i.e. the military) is the entity that should be running a war effort. The private sector should not be restricted in many ways but what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan today is outrageously abusive towards all of us.

Gangrape is my personal favourite kind of rape. I just hate whiny liberals trying top take away our rights! Where is the outrage?!?!

Allow me to add my 2 cents:

Most Americans today are tired of the rhetoric and distortion that has been coming from the internet for the last several years. Continually we are inundated with opposing views that seem to lack complete and total merit on their face, but when investigated by discerning readers, these opposing views are found to have some merit, even if one does not completely agree with the view. Such is this amendment, in my opinion.

I am not a politician, I am a registered independent, and I completely agree with the Franken Amendment, however, to label these US Senators as "Pro-Rape' is completely unacceptable. I don't pretend to completely understand their opposition to the bill, and I have not read their statements concerning it, but c'mon..they're pro-rape because they refuse to dismiss arbitration for DoD contractors? Seriously, do you REALLY believe they're "Pro-Rape" ?

Americans on both sides need to ratchet down the rhetoric and distortions of their oppositions views. This goes for smearing Obama as "Hitler" and labeling these senators as "Pro-Rape". Just because we disagree doesn't make either of us evil, Hitler-esque or "Pro-Rape".

But you, dear web master or web mistress, are especially at fault. It is the likes of you that is tearing the fabric of reasonable discord and civility in the political debate. Have you sought or researched these senators views on DoD contractor arbitration? Did they admit to being "Pro-Rape"? How do you sleep with yourself knowing that you've taken the most egregious incident that could possibly happen in employer arbitration law and twisted any opposition to it to mean "Pro-Rape"?

I don't accept that these senators are "Pro-Rape" simply because they don't agree with the view you and I share. And while your effort to highlight the outrageous criminal act to this poor woman, Jamie Leigh Jones, is to be commended, the way you have done so is no better, in my opinion, then what these 30 senators did.

This makes you 'Pro-Distortion" and "Pro-Rhetoric", if they are "Pro-Rape".

I can think of 30 senators I would like to have experience gang rape everyday for the rest of their terms. Also toss in their supporters, a bunch of CEOs and their lawyers.

@Chucki - "I can think of 30 senators I would like to have experience gang rape everyday for the rest of their terms. Also toss in their supporters, a bunch of CEOs and their lawyers."

Thank you, Chucki. This is exactly the emotionally-charged, hysterically-fueled commentary that websites like this generate.

I don't believe you would really get any enjoyment from watching these US Senators getting gang raped daily, (at least I hope you wouldn't) - but the sheer hate, anger and cruelty that you could wish on another human being who merely disagrees with us about an amendment tacked onto some fairly meaningless legislation is awe-inspiring. Obviously you believe, as the webmaster here does, that the only reason to oppose this bill is for devious and evil beliefs. How sad.

Yes, they are pro-rape. This bill doesn't force ALL companies everywhere to abide by it, only the companies the government gives contracts to. What kind of idiot can't understand that when you contract for something YOU CAN WRITE THE TERMS. This isn't the government making arbitration illegal... it is making arbitration hard for companies the GOVERNMENT HIRES. If I want to hire someone to mow my lawn, you can bet I can demand that they give me a police report. I can demand that they shave their head. I can do whatever the hell I want... because if they don't like it they don't have to take the job!

If Halliburton wants to keep gang-raping their own employees they can just refuse their NO BID contract with our government.

It takes a LOT of greed to overlook gang-rape. People normally err on the side of caution... not GANG RAPE! Anyone who comes to these guys' defense has some serious issues.

I thought this was a pretty funny site, and I would have been on y'alls side if you'd just stuck with Jon Stewart explaining what the amendment was about.

By putting the actual text up here though, it shows that the amendment was about something other than just preventing government contractors from contractually protecting themselves from negligence type claims in sexual assault cases. It seems both the creators of the site and Mr. Stewart don't understand the entirety of the amendment. I would remove the text of the bill from the site if I were you, because the reality of the situation doesn't really help your case.

Maybe you could find another bill which deals more specifically with the issue you are trying to get at. It would be a shame for all of your work on this site to be wasted on this particular amendment.

You might want to consider actually doing some research into the proposed amendment itself. It may add some clarity to your cause. The rantings herein sound completely nonsensical when considering the understanding of the actual amendment. Just a thought...

@A - This bill doesn't force ALL companies everywhere to abide by it, only the companies the government gives contracts to.

Good point, and this is precisely why I favor the amendment. You are entirely correct that Haliburton and other DoD non-bid contractors, can decide to 'Take it, or leave it". I'm right with you in that, as the contractee, the US Govt can write the terms anyway they want, so long as it doesn't violate certain civil rights acts and disability rights acts.

However, disagreeing with the amendment does NOT make someone "Pro-Rape". These senators are not looking to legalize rape, and in fact, Haliburton could NOT arbitrate her claims, as the Heritage Foundation article explains and therefore had to go to court anyway. It is within the reasonable judgment to see this amendment as unnecessary, but, again, I disagree with their opinion and support the amendment.

As a reasonable individual that agrees with you on the merits of the law, I am ASHAMED we are in the same company. You, and the people who support this website, unreasonably refer to the opposing opinion as "Pro-Rape" when clearly their opinion has both merit and substance. In a time when false claims of sexual harassment are as abundant as true claims of sexual harassment, is it really "Pro-Rape" to seek a reasonable, cost-effective solution to separate the two? I disagree with their view, but I see merit in their argument.

What kind of person really believes these US Senators are "Pro-Rape", when the amendment says nothing about rape nor it's legality? Apparently, the easily riled by websites with pictures.

I see that this website has struck a few nerves. Good. Sometimes it is necessary to shame people into doing the right thing. All of those white, male senators who voted against the amendment may not be pro-rape, but they certainly aren't pro-justice, either.

Do you know how to prevent having to fight this sort of thing out in court? I can tell you. You prevent it from happening in the first place. I don't believe for a moment that this young woman is the only one this kind of thing has happened to. By covering up the crime, and preventing open litigation in court, KBR tacitly approved of this behavior.

Is this site harsh? Yes, it is. Rape is a harsh crime. Protecting those who commit the crime of rape, thereby ensuring that it will happen again, is even harsher.

Want to know more about republican need to rape? Read Trance: Formation of America, by Cathy O'Brien & Mark Phillips. Documents CIA mind control and rape of Cathy O'Brien and her little daughter by Ex. VP Cheney, Papa Bush, Pres. Ford, Senator Byrd and others. So Republicans For Rape is not too far fetched if Liz Cheney's dad and father of Halliburton is a known rapist and an unconscionable terrorist given to human hunting and can hide his crimes FOR REASONS OF NATIONAL SECURITY.

Listen.....you bunch of idiots. Any one who knows about politics will agree that just because you vote against a bill does not mean you are against the actual original purpose of that bill but that you are against all the stupid legislation that is attached to it. Like adding money so that a small college in California can research the mating habits of frogs. Or adding a bridge to an island in Alaska that cost enough to buy everyone on that island their own yacht. All I am saying is that most congressman don't vote no against a bill for the main reason but for all the stupid stuff democrats add onto it. This can be called pork barrel legislation. Look it up!

Hey there LOOSE CANNON!

Good to see one of you pro rape people coming in here hiding your party affiliation and trying to get your independent on. I know you are ashamed to be recognized in public now as an R (and probably a closet sodomite as well, but I digress) but it's ok. This is a pro rape zone. You can just slap your hog into whatever you like. Why not? Your personal autoerotic fantasy boy, Rush Limbaugh has been screaming at all of you guys about having to grab your ankles and take some for a while now. Glen Beck has been flinging nothing but over the top since he was fired from Fox's minor league team CNN.

Look, when a corporation needs to add a little rape to it's negligent homicide and manslaughter portfolio, not to forget all of the missing construction money and shooddy work, false imprisonment and gang rape... and better than three of four Republicans in the Senate support the Corporation... we know it's because the girl just asked for it.

It's not personal there Loose Sphincter. You guys are now just the faces in your own Willie Horton ads. For 30 years you have run slander and lies and ad hominem crap as cover for econoic polices that have raped the economy. Rush was right, grab your ankles and take some. Independent, that's funny. With a brand favorability hovering between Herpes and H1N1 you R's need to rebrand. You aren't independent though, you are a Pro-Rape guy.

Loose Cannon, it is late and I don't want to waste time giving example after example, so I will make my point very clear and simple. The GOP has one mission, and I mean one and only one: protect and aid the rich. Help the rich get richer, and prevent the rich from losing money. Anything that the GOP can do to help the filthy rich receive anything beneficial, they will do it.
This is evident with environmental issues, tort reform, and the list goes on, not to forget their favorite thing to do - deregulation. You know, that wonderful "d" word that fucks everything up and makes people scramble to try to figure out what happened five years later when the house of cards has collapsed.
The point this site is making is that these fat GOPhers have no limit to moral ideals they will suppress/deny/circumvent in order to protect the rich, which in this case is KBR-Haliburton.

These fat, rich, white right-wingers will taut "christian" values and morals, while they tell you that helping KBR maintain its wealth is more important than protecting a gang-rape victim. I mean, it is clear....she won't donate millions of funds to the GOP, but KBR sure as hell will.

If you disagree with this or don't know about how the gop really works, well, then you have a lot of reading to catch up on my friend. And no, I am not a left-wing Democrat.

Hey "A Guy" - prove there was pork.

Hey there "A Guy"

Don't drag me into your Rape Crap, I have enough problems. I have image issues all over. For a Decade you Republicans used me like condom to screw the taxpayer out of trillions and now I get a deadly flu named after me?

<Expletive> yourself. (Neo-con idiot)

Um "Aguy" the 30 senators that are highlighted by this website voted against an amendment to a bill... not the bill itself. They probably voted for the bill. They just decided they didn't want this provision to be in the bill.

Perhaps you are the "idiot."

I agree with Loose Cannon...these Republicans are not "pro-rape"....that's SILLY!!! They are actually Anti-Employee and Anti-Human Rights. They are PRO-Business and know how to look out for their OWN.

It's simple...Franken's amendment would expose government contractors to both criminal and civil liabilities. The fact that they (GOP/Contractor) believe something like gang rape could be resolved in arbitration (in other words: pay-offs, hush money) and that lawyers are just looking for more ways to make money is disgusting!!

It's clear - the GOP senators had a chance to say "we will not sign contracts with corporations that force victims of sexual assault into arbitration and deny them due legal process in a court of law!"

But they didn't say that....not even close.

There are three essential facts that most here are missing:

(1) Criminal law is separate from civil law. They operate in parallel: a civilian initiates a civil suit and the State initiates a criminal suit for the same crime.

Employment agreements can only redirect some civil suits to arbitration. They do not prevent the State from filing criminal charges, nor does non-disclosure of arbitration prevent disclosure of crimes. The State should publicly investigate this case and criminally prosecute it, which is what everyone should be pushing for.

The Franken Amendment has nothing to do with criminal prosecution, only civil suits.

(2) The Franken Amendment not only applies to torts (civil suits) for claims of rape or assault, but also to all title VII (discrimination) claims and all torts related to sexual harassment, "intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention."

If the Franken Amendment only applied to civil claims of rape or assault, there could be wider agreement, but the additional categories (especially title VII) largely eliminate arbitration as a viable solution for companies.

For example, if you believe that arbitration is reasonable for title VII claims, you would vote against the amendment, and your vote would not be a stance supporting rape, but a stance on the role of freedom of contract to arbitration for title VII claims.

(3) Prior to the vote on the Franken Amendment, the courts had already ruled in favor of Jamie Leigh Jones, allowing her civil case to proceed regardless of her employment contract regarding her specific claims of: "(1) assault and battery; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress arising out of an alleged assault; (3) negligent hiring, retention and supervision of employees involved in the assault; and (4) false imprisonment."

This essentially invalidates the portion of all employment contracts requiring arbitration on those civil grounds, under current law. Therefore, the sole effect of the Franken Amendment appears to be to prohibit arbitration of title VII and sexual harassment claims for government contractors.

So, voting against the Franken Amendment is not in any way "pro rape". I trust you will correct your website accordingly.

My, my, Kevin, if you're not going to toe the line and be Pro Rape with the rest of us Republicans, then scram. This is a site for Pro Rape Republicans, like Bob Corker, and the others who support letting non-bid government contractors force their employees into confidentiality and arbitration agreements when they are raped, because it will save them money in legal fees against employees who are disgruntled for being gang raped. Perhaps you'd be happier on one of them commie sites.