I have not found anything to indicate that these employment contracts say boo about criminal prosecution. I have definitely not found anything to indicate that it would matter one bit, under the law, if they did. It just doesn’t work that way.

What I *do* find is story after story — including this one, of course — of the US State Department, Justice Department, DoD, and on and on willfully ignoring serious crimes and simply declining to enforce the law.

This is totally out of hand and completely unacceptable, but the last thing that seems likely to help matters is another law. So, I think I am unimpressed with Franken’s shtick in this case. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love Al, but the problem here seems to be totally untouched by his legislation.

For crimes committed *anywhere in the world*?

And the constitutional right to due process is a right of the *accused*, not of the alleged victim.

and i also read this (which is quite eye opening)

‘DailyKos blog, Markos Moulitsas writes:

This is interesting. According to Republicans, a fake pimp and ho, reported to the police, was apparently so beyond the pale that they’ve worked to strip ACORN of all federal funding. But denying employees actual redress from gang rapes is no big deal?’

Of course he’ll just go get a 7-figure salary working for Halliburton’s K Street cheerleaders.

If this were just about rape, then I’d see Chainring’s point more (how many people working under contracts like these are raped by other employees? We need to protect them, of course, but it’d be a very limited amendment).

But according to Cory (since I’m too lazy to look up the text) it also protects against discrimination, which is a much broader net. It’s not a complete grandstand.

That’s hilarious. It’s probably falling on deaf ears since you didn’t scream it.

Its a blog. They’re allowed to have a political bias, and talk loosely about the attitudes of a corporation who have quite clearly acted appallingly.

You’re confusing it with a news service, like, say, Fox News, who make claims to unbiased journalism and impartial commentary, and therefore have a responsibility to meet those claims.

I like the more casual tone here, and if you don’t, you kind of just wasted your time and everybody elses, didn’t you?

Bravo, sir. Well said. That’s the most useful statement I have encountered in quite a while.

Also second the notion of Franken for president. I would gladly donate my time to him.

Impressed that there are actually polliticians fighting for the good of the people they serve. Finally.

The post’s title begins, “Franken passes law…”

No law has been passed yet. When and if it is, it’ll be passed by Congress with the signature* of the President, or by overriding his veto without it.

What’s happened here is that an amendment to pending legislation was introduced by Franken. The amendment passed in the Senate, and then the spending bill as amended passed the Senate. What passed in the Senate is different from the version that already passed in the House of Representatives, however, so now the versions need to be reconciled and, potentially, passed again in one or both chambers.

Cory’s lead-in includes, “Al Franken successfully introduced legislation …”

I wouldn’t say Franken introduced legislation, since it was merely an amendment. I also wouldn’t crow about “successfully introducing” anything, since it is my belief that any member of the Senate or House can introduce an amendment or even an entire bill for consideration by the respective body. A bill needs to get past the gatekeeping Calendaring Committee, but any reasonable bill ought to make it. And AIUI, any duly elected Senator (pause for laughter here) with a tidbit of gumption can propose a bill or amendment. I think all Franken had to do was show up and express an interest in speaking.

*There are special circumstances where legislation passed by Congress can become law after ten days without a signature by the President, but let’s leave that out for now.

None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

Sen. Jeff Sessions was referred to as ‘human excrement’ and as ‘pond scum’.

First – I question the use of the term ‘human’ in regard to him, and

Second – I believe this is a serious affront to blue-green algae!

Sessions is still an idiot. And the fact that all dissenting votes were republicans just add evidence to my theory that some republicans will vote against any bill introduced by a democrat, regardless of it’s content.

Such presentation belies a political bias I find distasteful and is why I don’t read this blog (except when a friend passes along a link to bait me into conversation).

@Chainring Well said.

Besides, once somebody “clear(s) his throat and ponder(s) what happens if the people providing support services just _stop_ one day”, someone else will clear their throat and ponder what happens if the government seizes control of the company as “vital to the interests of the United States”. Governments can play REAL hardball if they so choose, after all.

Contracts ARE sacred to libertarians, but only insofar as they are valid. To be valid, a contract must be consensual (at the very least). Rape, by definition, is non-consensual. To a libertarian, a contract that attempts to prevent you from seeking justice to a non-consensual act would be invalid.

Murray Rothbard discusses this idea in Chapter 19 of his “The Ethics of Liberty.” http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/nineteen.asp

Can we go back to how this could possibly stand up to legal challenge? I get the “you can’t sue you because you have agreed to arbitration” part, but not the “prohibited from seeking criminal justice” part. This just seems like it has to be incorrect. Does anyone have any good links to a more careful examination of this claim?

It’s even sadder that some human excrement actually stood up to argue against this.

“her Halliburton contract forbade seeking any justice apart from private arbitration.”

This kind of thing is why I can’t take libertarians seriously. Justice will end up belonging to whoever draws up the contracts.

On the other hand, I do wonder how soon there’ll be a workaround to it from either the government or corporate side– there can’t be that many giant corporations doing outsourced government work, I imagine most of them would employ mandatory arbitration clauses, and I imagine they’d be difficult to replace on short notice.