Halliburton and CNN Categorize Gang Rape Allegation as “Dispute”

[babylonsister]

http://alternet.org/blogs/peek/70724/

Halliburton and CNN Categorize Gang Rape Allegation as “Dispute”

Posted by Lucinda Marshall, Feminist Peace Network at 4:01 AM on December 15, 2007.

Memo to CNN and Halliburton: A gang-rape should never, ever be described as a "dispute".


Memo to CNN and Halliburton: A gang-rape should never, ever be described as a "dispute". According to Raw Story, Halliburton is claiming that the civil suit brought by Jamie Leigh Jones alleging that she was gang-raped while working for Halliburton in Iraq must be heard by an arbitrator of Halliburton's choosing rather than in a court because of an employment agreement to settle disputes in this manner.

""She signed an employment contract and there is a mandatory arbitration clause in that contract," CNN legal analyst told Kiran Chetry on CNN's American Morning Tuesday. "It says if there's any dispute arising out of your employment or related to your employment, that dispute doesn't go before a jury, doesn't go before trial judge, goes before an arbitrator."

Of course, if the case had been properly investigated as a criminal matter in the first place, Jones would not be in this position in the first place. This case is about as seriously FUBAR as you can get and should immediately be subject to Congressional inquiry.

"The bottom line is I am surprised that the Justice Department and that the prosecutors have not investigated this to its completion and brought charges and I have to say I think that is coming," Hostin said. "I think after all the press that we've seen, that is going to come, but this is a civil action, an action that she is bringing and typically when you bring a civil action, you can bring it according to The constitution or according to your rights you can bring it in a court of law. She signed that right away with her employment contract and people do it all the time."

[WritersBlock]

1. He's saying an employment contract trumps the constitution and her rights.

She signed away her constitutional rights when she signed the employment contract - that's what Hostin's saying.

This whole thing reeks.

[Toots]

2. She has absolutely no Legal Recourse

Contractors in Iraq can do anything they want with no Legal ramifications. That was declared very early on in our occupation of their country..And I mean ANYTHING....

[Orsino]

3. As an extralegal entity...

...Halliburton's Iraq operation will probably get away with inventing any terminology they like, as they will escape reponsibility for what would otherwise have been a crime.

[Ezlivin]

4. If I was gang-raped I think I'd tell them to shove that contract up their ass

Fuck that. I don't believe you can sign your rights away. No one signs away their right to see people punished for such an heinous assault.

I'd fight them with every ounce of my energy every day of my life until I thought justice was served.

[spanone]

5. i'd fight their lawlessness with the same

[Cerridwen]

6. I hope other DUers will be able to provide links to other "contract disputes"

in which the employment contract was set aside in favor of the employee's civil rights; the courts determined (I can't remember the specific cases, dammit!) that an employee, even if they signed in good faith, could not sign away their civil rights, and that the company who had created the contract, was guilty of something such as coercion (again, I don't remember specifics).

That was, however, in the "pre 9/11" world. :(

And, hey, rush limbaugh once referred to sexual harassment as a dating ritual so I'm sure he and his ilk consider rape an actual date while on the job. I imagine he and his kind will consider her guilty of dating while on the clock.

:nuke:

[TahitiNut]

7. Sadly, it's not unusual for corporatists to regard FELONY charges as mere "disputes."

There's something that happens to someone's basic humanity when they become a corporatist ... they surrender any sense of basic morality and abdicate reason. The incredibly specious notion that FELONIOUS behavior "should" be subjected to some private screening and approval process before or in lieu of filing criminal charges is an appallingly common attitude of careerists in corporations. It's the ethical equivalent of organized crime.

Witness a felony? Be a victim of a felony? Tell your manager. Right. Uh-huh. In what bizarre universe would this be advised for any other context besides a corporation? The Boy Scouts? The Catholic Church? Congress? See the theme? This is a pervasive claim to PRIVILEGE - a de facto exemption from the Laws.

In my view, the very exhortation to "deal with it through the organization's 'chain of command'" should be regarded as criminal - inherently corrupt. RICO.


Attention All Corporate Employees! Be AWARE of the FACT that YOUR company has such policies! The myth of fairness and a meritocracy is nothing but a fraud.

[nealmhughes]

8. This will hopefully be the downfall of Halliburton and other military outsourcers.

I would suggest that Mrs. Jones' upcoming testimony before Congress will make more than a few eyes open.

The entire concept of ultralegality is repulsive to any civilized society, since the entire concept of civilization is based upon law.

One wonders if Mr. Bremmer's "immunity" from law when he was the proconsul has any legal status as it was fiat.

[Ilsa]

9. Looks to me like Hal/KBR broke the contract by not acting on

her complaint and allegations. Seems to me that the contract is no longer enforceable because KBR violated the terms of the agreement.

[countryjake]

10. In other words, Halliburton & KBR have a contract to rape?

Is that what that CNN analyst means...is it the task of these "contractors" to go about raping and pillaging...nice to finally have an adequate job description for Cheney's hatchetmen, but she was gang-raped, does CNN now shill in favor of both torture and rape?!

This case had better not be relegated to arbitration...arbitration within Halliburton, where they win something like 80% of the cases!

I wonder why she doesn't file charges against them for obstruction of justice...they are the ones who "lost" her evidence of the crime, in the first place.