DoD Opposes Franken’s Anti-Rape Amendment
It would appear the Pentagon wants US civilian contractors to risk their lives to support our US soldiers. But in return the Pentagon doesn’t want to support our US civilians. This was made clear when the Pentagon opposed the Al Franken Anti-Rape Amendment!
“The DoD opposes the proposed amendment,” reads a message sent from the White House to the Senate on October 6, the day the amendment passed by a 68-30 vote.
“The Department of Defense, the prime contractor, and higher tier subcontractors may not be in a position to know about such things. Enforcement would be problematic, especially in cases where privity of contract does not exist between parties within the supply chain that supports a contract,” reads the DoD note. “It may be more effective to seek a statutory prohibition of all such arrangements in any business transaction entered into within the jurisdiction of the United States, if these arrangements are deemed to pose an unacceptable method of recourse.”
A White House spokesman said that the DoD opposition is overstated in the message sent to Congress. “We support the intent of the amendment, and we’re working with the conferees to make sure that it is enforceable,” said spokesman Tommy Vietor when asked about the DoD statement.
Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) both provided statement to the Sun News in Macon.
“This would be a major, fundamental change in U.S. labor law and I believe it would be very detrimental to employees to eliminate arbitration as an option,” Isakson said. According the The Huffington Post, this statement inaccurately portrays Franken’s amendment: Employees would still be able to elect to use arbitration; they simply wouldn’t be forced into it.
Chambliss added, also inaccurately according to HP: “If that happens, these employees’ only recourse will be to litigate suits in court, which is a very lengthy, expensive and time-consuming process.” (click HERE to read this entire article at The Huffington Post)
There is not doubt in my mind the Pentagon opposes this Amendment. I’m sure they fear having their dirty laundry aired in a public court! They would love to see it all kept behind closed doors.
You can watch the following Franken Amedment videos below
Al Franken on the Franken Amendment click HERE
Jon Stewart on the Franken Amendment (Rape Nuts) click HERE
Al Franken and KBR Arbitration Attorney de Bernardo click HERE
Ms Sparky
Tuesday, October 20th 2009 at 11:22 am |
Well, that explains why there has been no indictments from the countless criminal investigations against government contractors and not just KBR. What is the point of honest hard work and ethics; when you can do whatever you want, whenever you want and to whomever you want and the DoD has got your back? No consequences and no incentives just a bunch of parasites living off ill gotten gains.
Ms Sparky’s Response:
So….how do you really feel about that??
Tuesday, October 20th 2009 at 1:23 pm |
What is the sole purpose of the DoD?
Why would this U.S. Gov’t agency take such a position?
When was this decision made, who was involved with the final press release?
Was it a Political or Military based position?
Democratic, Republican or Bi-partisan?
Would the U.S. as a whole be jeopardized by allowing these types of cases to go forward in litigation or best served in binding arbitration?
Were lawyer’s for the gov’t(DoD, etc.) involved in this decision and if so – who were the lawyer’s, and did any lobbying take place by KBR, AIG/AIU, Dyncorp,etc.?
I personally don’t believe the National Security of this country would be in jeopardy if these types of cases were dealt with in courts of law. I do believe that too many well connected persons (MEN – NOT WOMEN) were the decision makers on this topic, as I don’t believe a woman, daughter, mother, sister who work for the DoD would ever vote for binding arbitration over a case where their female family members or the female gender as a whole over a case like a woman who was gang raped, held captive in a steel storage container so that she could not get her story to legitimate legal authorities – as opposed to a court room, in front of 12 jurors.
Dod – I’m shocked and very very concerned!!!
Ms Sparky’s Response:
I would like to see some names on this one myself!!
Tuesday, October 20th 2009 at 5:16 pm |
Dept. of Defense – Office of the General Counsel was established in 1953 – below is the link to their homepage
http://www.DoD.mil/dodgc/index.html
I believe that someone out of this office had a relationship with the decision regarding the DoD and their decision to stop this process and only utilize the binding arbitration agreement. Lawyers from the contracting companies visiting with the General Counsel lawyers and most likely not involving folks like us because we might object to things they were proposing.
Our lives are dispensable as contractors – no matter what the egregious behavior on the part of any other contractor in war zone, keep it quiet, cover it up, stop it from getting to the media if possible.
Imagine how the mothers and fathers would feel if the majority of this countries population knew this goes on?
Wrong is wrong – illegal is illegal – criminal is criminal. How do you divide these DoD?
What’s the purpose of the “UCMJ”? – Only for military personnel?
Tuesday, October 20th 2009 at 6:15 pm |
for-what-it’s-worth,
You beat me to the punch, here is what I found on the history of the DoD.
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/dod101/
Wednesday, October 21st 2009 at 6:18 pm |
I sent the DoD a question regarding why they would think binding arbitration would be a better method of dealing with situations like the lady that gang-raped in Iraq by KBR contractor criminals, as apposed to having her day in court with 12 jurors deciding their fate.
I will update all when and if they respond to me.
Thursday, October 22nd 2009 at 5:02 am |
I received a GENERIC response to my email to the DoD regarding the topic above. No answer to my question, only a pre-arranged computer generated group of selected topics with someones generalized response to their own set of topics.
Is this our Government at work?
Ms Sparky’s Response:
Yes…you always get a generic auto-response first. KEEP IT with the original email. So when you follow up….and you should….and they say “We didn’t get it” and they will…..you can say “But you did” and show them. They really hate that!!