53 Responses to Inouye to Join Republicans for Rape?

1. phred October 23rd, 2009 at 6:52 am «

   I called earlier as soon as I saw the story in HuffPo. I was so angry I was shaking. I asked the staffer if a person who has been raped and held hostage doesn’t deserve a day in court, whether the Senator figured murder should just be referred for arbitration as well.

   The staffer weaseled like crazy, saying the Senator voted for the amendment and couldn’t comment on the process in the conference committee (another tribute to our smoke-filled room democracy). But she did say she would “relay my message”.

   When Congress can be bribed to give a wink and a nod to rapists and kidnappers (and worse to use OUR TAXES to PAY RAPISTS AND MURDERERS at an exorbitant rate), it does not bode well for their ability to legislate ethically in any area whatsoever.

   No wonder health care is so hard. No wonder we can’t end the wars. No wonder banksters are sticking up the public for handouts…

   Senator Inouye should be ashamed. Better yet, he should be voted out of office.
• Jim White October 23rd, 2009 at 7:00 am «

  I just made my call as well and told them that I would love to hear back from them that Senator Inouye will keep the Franken amendment intact in the conference bill and that I would be happy to add a message to that effect to this post. I also warned that the progressive community is very upset by the possibility of removing or watering down the amendment and that we would be happy to run ads pointing out how much money he has received from defense contractors and how removing the amendment would look like he is helping them to cover up rape.
• phred October 23rd, 2009 at 7:06 am «

  Good for you Jim, thanks. If Inouye pulls the amendment, I will happily donate as much as I can to see him defeated.
2. powwow October 23rd, 2009 at 7:46 am «

   To his great credit, Al Franken did his Constitutional homework on this amendment before submitting it.

   The following may answer a question you asked in Glenn’s thread this morning, Jim, about Franken’s amendment and Bills of Attainder; this is Senator Franken’s October 6th floor presentation for his amendment (S.A. 2588) to the FY 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill:

   Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, article I, section 8 of our Constitution gives Congress the power to spend money for the welfare of our citizens. Because of this, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote:

   Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of Federal funds, and has repeatedly employed that power to further broad policy objectives.

   That is why Congress could pass laws cutting off highway funds to States which didn’t raise their drinking age to 21. That is why this whole bill is full of limitations on contractors–what bonuses they can give and what kinds of health care they can offer. The spending power is a broad power, and my amendment is well within it.

   But don’t take my word for it. I asked three of our Nation’s top constitutional scholars–Akhil Amar, Laurence Tribe, and Erwin Chemerinsky, authorities regularly cited by everyone from Justice Scalia to Justice Stevens–what they thought about this amendment. Let me read their joint conclusion from this letter, which I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record:

   Congress’ power of the purse is expansive. S.A. 2588 falls squarely within its purview, and clearly does not infringe any constitutional prohibition.

   There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

   DEAR MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE: Pursuant to a request from Senator Franken, we have reviewed his pending amendment (S.A. 2588) to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2010 (H.R. 3326). Senator Franken invited us to consider whether any aspect of this amendment could arguably be found unconstitutional. We are confident that S.A. 2588 is well within the bounds of Congress’ power under the Spending Clause. We are also confident that it raises no separate constitutional concerns.

   The Constitution empowers Congress to “pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” Art. I, §8, cl. 1. As Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in South Carolina v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206 (1987), “[i]ncident to this power, Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds, and has repeatedly employed the power ‘to further broad policy objectives[.]‘” In South Carolina v. Dole, for example, the Supreme Court upheld the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, a law that limited federal highway funds to states that did not adopt a minimum drinking age of twenty-one. This amendment is precisely the kind of “general welfare” legislation that the Spending Clause, as interpreted by South Carolina v. Dole, would permit.

   Of course, the Spending Clause does not permit actions that are barred by other provisions of the Constitution. See, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 91 (1976) (per curiam). A review of the proposed measure reveals no such barriers.

   This measure could conceivably impair government performance on certain federal contracts. The Contracts Clause of the Constitution, however, which prohibits passage of any “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,” explicitly and exclusively applies to the states, not the federal government. See Art. I, 10, cl. 1 (“No State shall …..”). Hence, the Contracts Clause could not provide the basis for a constitutional challenge to this amendment.

   Similarly, S.A. 2588 is not remotely a Bill of Attainder. Instead of naming or describing a specific group of entities to be covered, the amendment erects a “generically applicable rule” for de-funding: the practice of requiring mandatory arbitration of certain claims. See United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 450 (1965). Moreover, denial of federal funding to an entity that declines to bring itself into compliance with purely prospective funding guidelines is a far cry from the punitive conduct that the Bill of Attainder clause was written to prohibit. If anything, while the “distinguishing feature of a Bill of Attainder is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt,” this amendment empowers the courts as the only fora for the resolution of certain claims. De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U.S. 144, 160 (1960).

   The Ex Post Facto Clause is also unavailing. Independent of the fact that the restriction of funding in S.A. 2588 is conditioned on present or future conduct, it is long-settled that the Ex Post Facto Clause applies exclusively to criminal penalties. See Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386 (1798).

   Nor could it be plausibly argued that S.A. 2588 effects an unconstitutional “regulatory taking” without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause. The Takings Clause addresses only the physical seizure of private property and the regulatory destruction of particularly identifiable property rights or interests–air rights, mining rights, intellectual property, and the like. While a plurality of the Supreme Court has once voted to strike down federal legislation under the Takings Clause even where the statute did not seize any identifiable piece of private property or render worthless any particular property interest, it has done so only where the law in question imposed a “substantial and particularly far reaching” retroactive monetary liability that unforeseeably brought about a “considerable financial burden.” Eastern Enterprises v. Appel, 524 U.S. 498, 529-537 (1998). S.A. 2588, in contrast, is entirely unrelated to property, imposes no financial liability, and is in any event of purely prospective effect. Moreover, this measure cannot be said to impose on a narrowly targeted group burdens that in “justice and fairness,” Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51, 65 (1979), ought to be borne by the public as a whole–the singular vice of takings of private property without “just compensation.”

   Someone unfamiliar with the jurisprudence of the past six decades might also allege that S.A. 2588 would violate substantive due process. However, the post-Lochner Supreme Court has consistently and wisely expressed an unwillingness to invalidate economic legislation on any such basis so long as it is at least arguably rational. See, e.g., Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 731 (1963). In fact, the Supreme Court in the post-1937 era has invalidated economic legislation on the basis of substantive due process only where the legislature has acted in an indisputably “arbitrary and irrational” manner. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 15 (1976). This amendment does not even remotely fall within that narrow prohibition.

   Congress’ power of the purse is expansive. S.A. 2588 falls squarely within its purview, and clearly does not infringe any constitutional prohibition.

   Respectfully submitted,

   Akhil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School.

   Erwin Chemerinsky, Founding Dean, University of California at Irvine School of Law.

   Laurence H. Tribe, Carl M. Loeb University Professor, Harvard Law School.

   Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I also asked the Congressional Research Service, Congress’s nonpartisan research arm, to take a look. They also did not find any cause for constitutional concern.

   Senator Sessions says my amendment violates the due process clause. But as Professors Amar, Chemerinsky, and Tribe explain in their letter, the Supreme Court hasn’t struck down economic laws on these grounds since 1937–unless the legislation is “arbitrary and irrational.” Their conclusion: “This amendment does not even remotely fall within that narrow prohibition.”

   Let me be clear. This amendment does not single out any contractor. The text of the amendment does not list a single contractor by name, and if you read the amendment, you would know it. This amendment would defund any contractor who refused to give the victims of rape and discrimination their day in court.

   Let me tell my colleagues how I think this amendment does speak to the Constitution. The Constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law. Today, defense contractors are using fine print in their contracts to deny women such as Jamie Leigh Jones their day in court. But it is not just Jamie Leigh Jones. This isn’t about one instance, as Senator Sessions said. This is about many women across this country who have been victims of sexual assault and rape in Iraq and who have been hired by contractors and who have been forced to arbitrate by contractors. So women are not given their day in court. Instead, they are forcing them behind the closed doors of arbitration where the Federal Rules of Evidence don’t apply, where decisions are binding and secret, and where decisions are issued by a private arbitrator often paid by the company itself.

   This amendment does not seek to eliminate arbitration. It seeks to eliminate arbitration in cases of rape and sexual assault. The victim’s—-

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority time has expired.

   Mr. FRANKEN. I ask unanimous consent for another 20 seconds.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, the victims of rape and discrimination deserve their day in court. Congress plainly has the constitutional power to make that happen. I ask my colleagues to vote in support of my amendment.

   http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=S10147&position=all
• Jim White October 23rd, 2009 at 7:56 am «

  Thank you so much, pow wow. Franken clearly was very careful in crafting the amendment. I’m especially happy he got an opinion from Chemerinsky–I fully expect to see him on the Supreme Court some day.
3. Casual Observer October 23rd, 2009 at 8:05 am «

   Without Rape, most of our defense contractors would likely have to cut jobs–as they’de be reduced to the “pillage” and “plunder” markets.
4. KarenM October 23rd, 2009 at 9:10 am «

   A really terrific post, Jim, and some wonderful comments, as well, that really fill out the story.

   I will call, but I haven’t had lunch yet, and I am trying to decide whether a full or empty stomach would be better in this situation.
5. KarenM October 23rd, 2009 at 9:18 am «

   I decided empty was better than full.
6. EvilDrPuma October 23rd, 2009 at 9:20 am «

   Lamarr: Qualifications?

   Inouye: Rape, arson, murder, and rape.

   Lamarr: You said “rape” twice.

   Inouye: I like rape.
• demi October 23rd, 2009 at 9:39 am «

  There’s most certainly a scene or line from Blazing Saddles to fit most situations, isn’t there?
  I’m so disappointed in Inouye. I thought a lot of people mellowed with age. Why, at his age, does he care more about lobbyists than human rights? What has he forgotten?
  Sorry for all the questions. I’m just bummed on a lot of levels over this.
  But, Hurray for Franken!
7. ProgThis October 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 am «

   The White House is also opposed to this Amendment. While they appreciate its sentiment, neoliberal nonsense, etc.
8. acquarius74 October 23rd, 2009 at 9:31 am «

   Thank you for the acknowledgment, Jim. Recommended.

   I’m so proud of Senator Al Franken! People who discount persons with a sense of humor as being just clowns are playing with disaster; consider Mark Twain, and the late George Carlin.

   Membership in the Dethspickable! Dirty Thirty includes the Texas Wurlitzer sent to back to DC in 2008 by:

   Exxon Mobil – Total contribution @ $64,300.00
   J P Morgan Chase – Total contribution @ 62,847.00
   Bass Brothers Enterprises – Total contribution @ $47,200.00 (see *)
   Contran – Total contribution @ $42,500.00 (see **)
   Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp. – Total contribution $41,600.00 (RailRd)

   * Bass Brothers – read Big Oil; 4 sons of Perry Bass, Big Oil wildcatter back in the day; nephew of Sid Richardson, bigger oil wildcatter. The 4 sons have diversified into many areas and control many companies.

   ** Contran – Founded by Harold Simmons, the evil genius who dreamed up Leveraged Buy-Outs and made a fortune gobbling up other corporations; IMO lacking an iota of conscience.

   Now all readers here can know just who Cornyn represents and takes his orders from. We made a valiant effort to give him the boot in 2008 but he had all the above plus some some rich elites and Karl Rove stumping for him….
• KarenM October 23rd, 2009 at 9:38 am «

  On another thread, I made a comment about how much harder it is to do comedy, compared to drama, and how much smarter you have to be to succeed as a comedian. Just learning about timing alone is huge. Note how Franken embarrassed the woman in pearls, with his command of the facts. And his timing.

  We need many, many more comedians. In the government. In the media. On the news (the clowns there now don’t count).
• acquarius74 October 23rd, 2009 at 9:53 am «

  Continued from my rant at # 11: Here is the link to the campaign contribution info on John Cornyn’s for 2008 election. The entire page is astounding. BTW, Big John’s personal contribution to his own re-election was [ready for this??] $0.00.

  Regarding Inouye, I’m trying to recall that hearing where he shut down a witness who was just about to spill the beans by using that old “sensitive to national security” play. My memory is hazy – does anyone out there recall that event?
9. Peterr October 23rd, 2009 at 9:36 am «

   The defense contractors noted in the HuffPo piece are telling Inouye “Nice military supply chain your committee has control over here. It’d be a shame if anything happens to it.” I’m sure they’re also playing every “blame the victim” card they’ve got: “Don’t let those uppity wimmin-libbers try to fool you — nothing should get in the way of supplying arms to our brave men in uniform, men not unlike yourself, sir.”

   More intriguing to me is the other message the contractors are sending: “Our employees are so uncontrollable, unpredictable, and unstable, that without immunity from litigation and prosecution, we can’t possibly continue to operate our business.”

   That *is* the message they are sending, isn’t it?
• demi October 23rd, 2009 at 9:41 am «

  Why don’t they just hire people who can be trusted to be human beings? Oh, that’s right, it’s an immoral war, and an immoral way to run the war. What’s wrong with me? This story is just so transparent, isn’t it?
• kindGSL October 23rd, 2009 at 10:27 am «

  Maybe the military message for him has something to do with blackmail or the cover up regarding the human and environmental costs of using uranium munitions.

  Not only is it poisoning their countryside, it is also coming home in our soldiers. I thought the 9/11 cover up was big, it is nothing compared to the use of uranium in war. They don’t want anybody talking about it.
10. dakine01 October 23rd, 2009 at 9:46 am «

    Senator Inouye, I admire your LONG and mostly illustrious service to the United States. You were awarded the CMH, although long after it should have been awarded.

    You have served your country well in war and peace times.

    Please retire before you destroy your legacy.
11. Hugh October 23rd, 2009 at 9:47 am «

    If it hasn’t been mentioned before, Inouye has a history of sexual harassment. Maybe he should be reminded of it.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1356&dat=19921206&id=LJ0TAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YwcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6768,4104729
12. Inkberries October 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 am «

    Right! Went to the phones. Also wrote about this and included the Inouye contact info in my post. I also re-posted all the names of the GOP that voted against it along with the website again. Need to keep reminding people who they are.
13. Twain October 23rd, 2009 at 9:53 am «

    Some of these very old congress members seem to not understand the world today at all. I have always admired the courage of Inouye but this makes me lose all respect for him. I am tired of women being badly treated and then a second time by
    elected officials.
14. cbl October 23rd, 2009 at 10:01 am «

    thanks Jim, acquarius74, and pow wow

    called this morning. staffer said they were being bombarded, I said good

    there are 20 ways of wrong here. how could someone who has championed the cause of lest we forget on WWII internment camps so brutally turn on a young woman who suffered internment at the hands of her employer ???

    p.s. that Japanese Americans Museum in L.A. ??? his current wife is the Chair and big bunch of money for it came from his defense contractor friends
• acquarius74 October 23rd, 2009 at 10:37 am «

  Thank you, cb12. Inouye is up for re-election in 2010. He was first elected 1962. I, too, used to admire him – no more. Speak with your vote, Citizens of Hawaii!! Here is the link to Inouye’s campaign fund contributors. The BigUns seem to be Lockheed-Martin, Northrup Grumman, and the Lobbyists.

  BTW, I read an article which stated there are 2.+ lobbyists for every congress-critter in DC. Those costs (salaries+bonuses+goodies to the critters) all have to be absorbed by the taxpayer in the defense budget, cost of health and medicine, insurance, etc… How many tick-parasites can the taxpayers support, especially with the record-breaking unemployment as it is now?
15. Grumpy October 23rd, 2009 at 10:02 am «

    You Libs love to pretend this Amendment is all about rape, so fine: revise it to cover ONLY rape and violent crimes. If that happens the opposition will vanish.

    What’s really funny is that Franklin risked having the Amendment fail by including a bonanza for trial lawyers. Sounds to me like he’s the one who doesn’t care about rape.
• ubetchaiam October 23rd, 2009 at 11:03 am «

  I’m always amazed at people like you who intentionally display their ignorance; “If that happens the opposition will vanish” is just such a display.

  Obviously, you lack the knowledge necessary to evaluate the effect and mechanisms associated with ‘arbitration’; quit listening to talk radio and start reading that which challenges you to research and think in a critical analysis mode of consciousness.
• Grumpy October 23rd, 2009 at 12:48 pm «

  Piffle.

  In the first place, you seem to be agreeing that this is about arbitration, not about rape(?) Second, I don’t listen to talk radio. Third, I have actually read the Amendment and in other threads have challenged everyone to do the same.
• dosido October 23rd, 2009 at 1:28 pm «

  While I agree there might be an argument about assault vs. discrimination rules being enforced, I’m sure the defense contractors don’t give a crap about any protection for anyone except their bottom line. So that renders any objection invalid in my book. YMMV.
• Grumpy October 23rd, 2009 at 1:37 pm «

  It’s not about what defense contractors give a crap about, it’s about what Congress gives a crap about.

  Do you agree that this is an anti-arbitration Amendment, not an anti-rape Amendment, and that it would not be controversial if it had been properly written to target only violent crimes?
16. KarenM October 23rd, 2009 at 10:06 am «

    I should have added in one of my earlier comments here, my heartfelt thanks to all of the men here who take the time to speak out on these unspeakable issues affecting women.
• Twain October 23rd, 2009 at 10:09 am «

  That’s true and we women need all the help we can get – especially right now on this health issue.
17. Ann in AZ October 23rd, 2009 at 10:08 am «

    Jane has a fresh cross-post already in progress: “ConservaDems Champion the Chamber”
18. Leen October 23rd, 2009 at 10:38 am «

    Calling. the defense contractors pushing back so hard says it all. Lots of rape going on in these situations.

    The inability of these Reps to imagine their own daughters, sisters, mothers in these situation is pathetic.

    Franken “have her day in court”
    “many more women have come out of the shadows”

    Criminal…sickening
    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/
19. Leen October 23rd, 2009 at 10:49 am «

    In the Huff Po piece that Jim Linked. Thanks for this post Jim

    “Inouye’s office, sources say, has been lobbied by defense contractors adamant that the language of the Franken amendment would leave them overly exposed to lawsuits and at constant risk of having contracts dry up. The Senate is considering taking out a provision known as the Title VII claim, which (if removed) would allow victims of assault or rape to bring suit against the individual perpetrator but not the contractor who employed him or her.

    “The defense contractors have been storming his office,” said a source with knowledge of the situation. “Inouye either will get the amendment taken out altogether, or water it down significantly. If they water it down, they will take out the Title VII claims. This means that in discrimination cases, they will still force you into a secret forced arbitration on KBR’s (or other contractors’) own terms — with your chances of prevailing practically zero.”
• acquarius74 October 23rd, 2009 at 11:11 am «

  “Inouye’s office, sources say, has been lobbied by defense contractors adamant that the language of the Franken amendment would leave them overly exposed to lawsuits and at constant risk of having contracts dry up.

  What great lengths those contractors will go to in order to avoid holding their employees responsible for simple, human decency in their work relationships. They’re so fond of the fine print in their contracts, why not include those that stipulate severe punishment for rape, sexual assault, sexual harrassment – to include the contractor bringing criminal charges against the perpetrator??

  What they’re saying to the “senators” (that august body of wise statesmen (/s) is, “We can’t control these thugs we hire.” And DOD’s Charlie McCarthy repeats the same.
20. aworldquitemad October 23rd, 2009 at 11:02 am «

    You realize that this KBR crap goes deeper than them allowing their employees to gang rape other employees. Read the story this morning from the AP, they’re being sued for human trafficking! They were (perhaps tangentially) responsible for using third world semi-slave labor, and wouldn’t let the people leave. They may or may not have been involved in procuring the people, but either way, they forced people to work in Iraq against their will. And where is this in the press? In this *one* story about general human trafficking. It isn’t mentioned anywhere else that I can find.

    More on this at my blog.

    Oh, and as for Inouye. Democrats, Republicans. They’re all the same, bought off by the Corporatocracy.
21. acquarius74 October 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 am «

    Hey, Jim! Congrats, your diary here made the front page at FDL, and deservedly so.
22. earlofhuntingdon October 23rd, 2009 at 11:54 am «

    The larger battle being fought by these defense contractors and their Congresscritters is to avoid accountability across the board, not just for the criminal excesses of their managers, employees and contractors regarding rape. Even Karl Rove would find it hard to argue that that’s within the scope of their employment.

    The Pentagon isn’t worried about running out of defense contractors, who refuse to do business with them because it’s too onerous. Where they gonna go? They comply with more onerous disclosure provisions already. No, they don’t want Congress imposing any serious performance demands on them or their supplier network. They don’t want Congress overseeing compliance with those requirements. If that means a few little girls who ought to know better, and who should be home making their hubbies and children happy, have a hard time by refusing to sit back, relax and enjoy the ride, fuck ‘em.

    Exclusive, mandatory, binding arbitration is a powerful tool in an employer’s kit. It gives them enormous leverage over employees. With status, access, cash in hand and teams of specialist lawyers, arbitration allows them more easily to vivisect troublesome employees. Average employees have none of those resources. (Fired officers are paid handsomely to STFU, so they rarely find themselves in arbitration.) If the employer loses, arbitration minimizes consequences because results are not known (officially) by other employees, the general public or their supposed government.

    Don’t imagine that every other employer isn’t watching this closely, too. Virtually all of them impose arbitration on employees. What Congress does to regulate government contractors (there are thousands of them), it could do to them. The large majority in the Senate that voted for Sen. Franken’s amendment would disappear if employers were prohibited from demanding arbitration on other matters or were non-government contractor employers limited in using arbitration.

    Sen. Franken’s amendment is eminently restrained and sensible. Contractors could easily comply with it. They have superior bargaining power over their employees and could change their employment/contractor arrangements at will. They could choose to avoid arbitration on such matters and defend themselves in court. They could institute routine disclosure requirements among their managers and employees – as they do now on FCPA and other legal issues – and use such due diligence to backstop their affidavits under oath and penalty of perjury that they are in compliance with applicable federal laws. They do so now every quarter when they file their financial statements. Non-public companies such as Blackwater/Xe have enough controls in place that they could comply just as readily.

    Sen. Franken is very astute. His simple, honorable amendment has a Grayson-like quality to it that even Karl Rove would love. It’s the correct thing to do legally and politically. It is impossible to oppose it with honor. It exposes its opponents for what they are: merchants of death. My suggestion to him is that Sen. Franken make clear that his rule applies owing to the employer’s status as a contractor with the USG, and that it is not limited by the nationality or residence of the employer or the employee/contractor.
• Jim White October 23rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm «

  Thanks. That was a great analysis.
• dosido October 23rd, 2009 at 1:25 pm «

  what if we did lose these contractors? wouldn’t that be awesome? Hey Blackwater/Xe, Go sell your junk to France and see how far you get. Gin up some stupid war and conscript the French and contract out your death services. Go ahead.
• acquarius74 October 24th, 2009 at 5:47 am «

  earl, I’m no lawyer but it seems to me that Ms. Jones case should have been brought in criminal court. Rape, assault and battery and imprisoning a person without cause or authority are crimes, and by destroying the evidence in the rape kit and in protecting the perpetrators, KBR is aiding, abetting and harboring the criminals. For me, there is no getting around those facts by quoting a lot of orwellian legalese.

  Can you (or someone) explain to me why this case is not in criminal court? Thank you.
• Jim White October 24th, 2009 at 6:52 am «

  One of the reasons I included the quotation from the page of the Jamie Leigh Foundation is this little snippet:

  pushing for more stringent laws that umbrella criminal contractors

  You might recall from the Blackwater/Xe scandals that government contractors in Iraq/Afghanistan/Kuwait claim to exist in a somewhat never-never land legally. They claim to be immune to the laws of the host country because they work for DoD and yet also claim not to be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice because they are private contractors. That is why it has taken so long to prosecute Blackwater for even their most outrageous massacres of civilians. If mass murder is hard to prosecute for contractor personnel, then rape simply winds up being ignored.
• acquarius74 October 24th, 2009 at 7:28 am «

  Thank you, Jim. I haven’t lost my reason sufficiently enough to accept that these mercenaries can go anywhere in the world, committing any manner of crime their psychopathic urges direct, and be held accountable by no law in the world. This is insanity, Jim. What slick Mafia lawyer dreamed up this loophole? Addington? Sounds like him.

  Sounds to me like these crimes (there are many) should go to the World Court and be tried under International Law if the US government is helpless to hold them accountable. [I know, I know – but this has just got to be dealt with or there is no such thing as Justice anywhere in this world.)
• acquarius74 October 24th, 2009 at 7:53 am «

  Jim, I just sent a strong “thank you” message to Senator Franken for his Rape Amendment bill. Here’s the link to contact him, and it allows messages from all states. I ask all who read this to let him know how strongly we support and thank him for just plain standing up for what is right and just.

  Thank you.
23. dosido October 23rd, 2009 at 1:29 pm «

    BTW Jim, awesome post. I was hoping someone would post something when I got wind of it last night.

    For any of you who don’t know, Inouye is hawkish all the way and always has been. There is no “loss of perspective” or “going astray”.
24. acquarius74 October 23rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm «

    My latest brilliant idea failed. heh,heh (tried to embed Daffy’s favorite put-down.)
• bluebutterfly October 23rd, 2009 at 6:23 pm «

  darn!
25. x174 October 23rd, 2009 at 1:47 pm «

    inouye is a militaristic thief. in his home state he is affectionately referred to as “the one-arm bandit” for admitting to taking the personal possessions of those who had fallen in battle (along with having lost an arm in combat). big surprise that he doesn’t respect the living. as sung by SY: he’s “a war-pig fuck”
26. acquarius74 October 23rd, 2009 at 2:19 pm «

    Jim and all you wonderful callers: Found this post put up about 3:30 p.m. today (time zone unknown).

    …Inouye’s spokeswoman Lori Hamamoto told Hot Dish Politics on Friday that he not only voted for the Frankin Amendment, he supports keeping it in the bill.

    [me: Let that be a lesson to any of you other senators who are contemplating political suicide to please your campaign contributors.]
• Jim White October 23rd, 2009 at 2:27 pm «

  Thanks for that link. I don’t think we can let up until the actual conference bill is released.
• acquarius74 October 23rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm «

  I agree. Thanks for your strong support on this, Jim.
  scout [Is Boo well? Seldom see his name anymore. Hey, Boo, you still out there?]
27. maryo2 October 23rd, 2009 at 4:14 pm «

    OT- Jim,

    Do you know a J.P. White that liberated Carcassonne, France in August 1944? I just saw some of my uncle’s photos and this man is in one of them.
• Jim White October 23rd, 2009 at 6:03 pm «

  No. Had a grandfather on my mother’s side in Europe in WWII but no direct relatives that I know of on my father’s side.
28. KarenM October 25th, 2009 at 10:50 am «

    Jim,

    I suspect this post and some of the calls it prompted may have played a role in Inouye’s backpedaling, and deciding (for now) to support Franken’s amendment.

    Thanks!!!!!