Post by: wooderson on December 10, 2007, 08:08:52 PM
Mind, before you jump to conclusions about money or how oppressed men are by sexual assault trials - her story is essentially corroborated by a Republican Congressman.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 10, 2007, 08:16:07 PM
Wait, how did that turn out? Oh, that's right, they only reported on the accusation, not the resolution!
You know, you could wait for the verdict here, too, but...naaaah, more fun to assume that the government and all its contractors are doing an evil conspiracy.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 10, 2007, 08:28:42 PM
Wait, what's the point again?
Post by: wooderson on December 10, 2007, 08:32:34 PM
Post by: De Selby on December 10, 2007, 10:22:37 PM
Who the heck is running the show out there in such a way that a bunch of apparently gainfully employed and non-thug Americans convince themselves that a gang rape is the thing to do on a weekend night? There's no way to write this off as just "one of those things"-this is a sign of some extremely disturbing professional culture problems inside the work camps.
The problem with "Haditha I" was that such an atrocious crime happened, not that the news media reported it (Which they didn't until quite some time after it had happened).
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 11, 2007, 12:26:49 AM
Post by: Finch on December 11, 2007, 12:30:13 AM
But you got nothing to worry about...
Post by: CAnnoneer on December 11, 2007, 02:48:20 AM
Wait, what's the point again?
Precisely. If we start casting down whole corporations or gov organizations for the criminal actions of a few select individuals inside them, we'll soon be left with nothing.
For me, the litmus test of motivations is the proposed remedy. If a victim like that just wants the particular individuals imprisoned, then fine. But, if a tragedy like that becomes a vehicle of milking litigation money from the respective organization, then where is the surprise in the hushing response of the company? Methinks less litigation would make everybody safer and more justice would find its mark. Ironic but true.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 11, 2007, 04:34:16 AM
This article caught my interest from the drudge report. If it is true, it sounds like KBR could be in some trouble. I am almost surprised this hasn't become a media circus. I doubt KBR will get much sympathy.
I do think the title is misleading. I don't see where the US or US military is really involved except as someone who helped.
What is reminds me of is a few rumors I have heard about people having problems while working for cruise lines. You are working for an international company outside the US and may or may not have US law enforcement protection.
Quote
By BRIAN ROSS, MADDY SAUER & JUSTIN ROOD
Dec. 10, 2007
A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident.
Photos
Victim: Gang Rape Cover-Up by U.S., Halliburton/KBR
Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.
"Don't plan on working back in Iraq. There won't be a position here, and there won't be a position in Houston," Jones says she was told.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave.
"It felt like prison," says Jones, who told her story to ABC News as part of an upcoming "20/20" investigation. "I was upset; I was curled up in a ball on the bed; I just could not believe what had happened."
Finally, Jones says, she convinced a sympathetic guard to loan her a cell phone so she could call her father in Texas.
"I said, 'Dad, I've been raped. I don't know what to do. I'm in this container, and I'm not able to leave,'" she said. Her father called their congressman, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.
"We contacted the State Department first," Poe told ABCNews.com, "and told them of the urgency of rescuing an American citizen" -- from her American employer.
Poe says his office contacted the State Department, which quickly dispatched agents from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to Jones' camp, where they rescued her from the container.
According to her lawsuit, Jones was raped by "several attackers who first drugged her, then repeatedly raped and injured her, both physically and emotionally."
Jones told ABCNews.com that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped "both vaginally and anally," but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers.
Dec. 10, 2007
A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident.
Photos
Victim: Gang Rape Cover-Up by U.S., Halliburton/KBR
Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.
"Don't plan on working back in Iraq. There won't be a position here, and there won't be a position in Houston," Jones says she was told.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave.
"It felt like prison," says Jones, who told her story to ABC News as part of an upcoming "20/20" investigation. "I was upset; I was curled up in a ball on the bed; I just could not believe what had happened."
Finally, Jones says, she convinced a sympathetic guard to loan her a cell phone so she could call her father in Texas.
"I said, 'Dad, I've been raped. I don't know what to do. I'm in this container, and I'm not able to leave,'" she said. Her father called their congressman, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.
"We contacted the State Department first," Poe told ABCNews.com, "and told them of the urgency of rescuing an American citizen" -- from her American employer.
Poe says his office contacted the State Department, which quickly dispatched agents from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to Jones' camp, where they rescued her from the container.
According to her lawsuit, Jones was raped by "several attackers who first drugged her, then repeatedly raped and injured her, both physically and emotionally."
Jones told ABCNews.com that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped "both vaginally and anally," but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers.
Post by: Len Budney on December 11, 2007, 04:41:11 AM
Quote
Jones told ABCNews.com that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped "both vaginally and anally," but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers.
If true, that's quite damning: since when is a rape kit turned over to the rapist?
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 11, 2007, 04:57:15 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on December 11, 2007, 05:01:13 AM
damn this is a case where letting the local authorities handle it might work. the muslims have a great punishment for rape
What, punishing the woman for tempting the men? That's the sharia version used by the extremists.
Post by: cassandra and sara's daddy on December 11, 2007, 05:15:11 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on December 11, 2007, 05:26:43 AM
Does the army even have jurisdiction to keep it or investigate this themselves? Can the embassy take any jurisdiction?
It would seem to me that it would either fall under the army or Iraqi law.
Post by: Creeping Incrementalism on December 11, 2007, 05:34:55 AM
For me, the litmus test of motivations is the proposed remedy. If a victim like that just wants the particular individuals imprisoned, then fine. But, if a tragedy like that becomes a vehicle of milking litigation money from the respective organization, then where is the surprise in the hushing response of the company?
A job is an economic deal where you expect certain things from the employer, and the employer expects certain things from you. No sexual harassment (let alone rape) is a standard deal in the U.S. When the company allows something like that to happen, receiving compensation for it is totally appropriate and expected. This woman isn't "milking" the company. Though I think we should wait to hear more about the incident before being outraged that the gov't hasn't come down on KBR like "Zeus from the mountaintop". I would go outside and look up before believing the mainstream media that the sky was blue.
Post by: Len Budney on December 11, 2007, 05:42:13 AM
Precisely. If we start casting down whole corporations or gov organizations for the criminal actions of a few select individuals inside them, we'll soon be left with nothing.
Yeah, if we turn on our overlords because some of them kill, steal and rape, we'll soon have no overlords at all. We can't have that now can we?
--Len.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 11, 2007, 05:48:28 AM
i was thinking more of the lines of removing the instrument of assault from the attackers it has the effect of ecouraging good behavior in the rest
I've never heard of that occurring. In Saudi Arabia, a raped woman was just sentenced to 90 lashes for having been alone in a car with unrelated men. When she objected, they increased it to 200 lashes.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 11, 2007, 06:26:28 AM
Post by: MechAg94 on December 11, 2007, 06:29:41 AM
Post by: Paddy on December 11, 2007, 07:17:10 AM
Quote
Precisely. If we start casting down whole corporations or gov organizations for the criminal actions of a few select individuals inside them, we'll soon be left with nothing.
And that's a problem, how......?
Where in the Constitution does it say the POTUS can have his own private army of thugs (employed by the State Department in order to avoid Defense Department accountability no less)?
Post by: MechAg94 on December 11, 2007, 07:32:17 AM
I guess people with Letter's of Marque wouldn't actually be working for the POTUS.
I guess we should just expand the military so all those jobs can be done by service personnel.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 11, 2007, 07:37:48 AM
IMO, this same thing could happen to a girl working for a cruise line or working as an ex-pat for KBR or other companies anywhere outside the US. I am sort of surprised the state department didn't get the Iraqis involved.
Post by: Paddy on December 11, 2007, 07:47:14 AM
Post by: SteveS on December 11, 2007, 08:53:20 AM
i was thinking more of the lines of removing the instrument of assault from the attackers it has the effect of ecouraging good behavior in the rest
I've never heard of that occurring. In Saudi Arabia, a raped woman was just sentenced to 90 lashes for having been alone in a car with unrelated men. When she objected, they increased it to 200 lashes.
Dateline (or one of those news shows) had a story about a 17 year old boy that was raped in Dubai. The courts were planning on charging him with having homosexual intercourse.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 11, 2007, 01:02:38 PM
Post by: RevDisk on December 11, 2007, 02:00:29 PM
Hell, 385 million dollars of our tax money went to KBR for a contract from the Department of Homeland Security to provide centers for "temporary detention and processing capabilities."
But you got nothing to worry about...
But you got nothing to worry about...
I had a hand in killing a couple KBR communication contracts. I'm more proud of that than most of my medals. I specifically knew of incidents of KBR overcharging the US Army for fuel and selling fuel to an enemy nation. I was not alone in this, and a number of folks also filed. I did report it to the IG as being fraud, waste and abuse. IG was a good guy, and took his job seriously. He was relieved and ordered back stateside. The rest of us shut up REAL quick after that. They also ran a food scam. Charging the US Army for top quality food, then buying food that was unsafe for human consumption. Lot of us got food poisoning. Myself included. You know it's bad when soldiers want MRE's rather than a hot meal.
The sole regret I had was I had a SAW, locked and loaded, and ready to cut down a mess of KBR brass sitting across the table. And I didn't do anything. Sigh. I think I'll be regretting that decision for a while.
Post by: De Selby on December 11, 2007, 03:06:53 PM
The consensus view, from what I can gather, on this subject in Islamic law is that once a credible account is made out by the accuser, the burden shifts to the defendant to disprove the accuser's complaint. If the defendant cannot disprove the complaint, then he is subject to one of two penalties:
a lashing if he used deceit or mental pressure to complete the crime, or
death if the used a weapon or the threat of death to complete the crime, and there is physical evidence of some sort that cannot be denied.
The accusation that there is something like a basis in Islamic law for punishing the victim is complete garbage. There is no such rule, and any Muslim you ask about this will find it offensive in the extreme to suggest that he's religiously required to treat rapes so lightly.
Post by: Manedwolf on December 11, 2007, 05:26:00 PM
"Edited for inexcusable rudeness"
Post by: De Selby on December 11, 2007, 05:41:41 PM
Shootinstudent, do you post anything here besides CAIR apologism for inexcusably barbaric behavior? Seriously. It's either that, or trying to equate Christians as "just as bad"..."bbbbbut Christians!"
Who is excusing the behavior?
Please note that in this case which has nothing to do with Muslims, it was you who brought up the case of Saudi Arabia's treatment of rape victims. Were you doing that to "excuse the barbaric act" at KBR, or were you playing "wahhh wahh, Muslims are just as bad as Americans"? Would it be right to accuse you of that for bringing Muslims into a thread that has nothing to do with them?
It looks like this might be a case of...projection? Is that what it's called when you accuse someone else of doing precisely what you just did?
Post by: Len Budney on December 11, 2007, 05:57:29 PM
"Removed rudeness..."
That's certainly uncalled for. He didn't endorse or justify any of the hideous things described in this thread. He simply suggested that some "Muslim" nations, like Dubai, are examples of lawlessness rather than Islamic law. I'm in no position to judge, and am certainly not well disposed toward "Islamic law," but can at least see his point.
--Len.
Post by: Len Budney on December 11, 2007, 06:01:22 PM
I didn't know KBR was my overlord.
CAnnoneer broadened the topic to "whole corporations or gov organizations." That's certainly broad enough to include our overlords in the District of Columbia. I wasn't referring specifically to KBR.
However, if history is prologue, we can expect to see Blackwater and other mercenaries deployed inside the CONUS before too much longer. Er, whoops--that already happened. But anyway, we can expect to see more of that. Mercenaries add an important layer of deniability.
--Len.
Post by: Bigjake on December 11, 2007, 06:13:33 PM
Quote
Yeah, if we turn on our overlords because some of them kill, steal and rape, we'll soon have no overlords at all. We can't have that now can we?
--Len.
There will come a day when we need useful idiots that see conspiracy everywhere to fight against the man, and this forum's compliment will have been sadly depleted.
Yeah, if this is true, the people involved need to be tied to a post and shot, but if it's not, your collective credibility is just further sacked because the only thing libertarians seem good for (on this forum and the gun show I went to this past weekend) is pointing fingers at the slightest hint of impropriety and shrieking SEE!! WE TOLD YOU BIG FACELESS EVILCORP RUNS THE PLANET!!
The saddest part is, is that I agree with the vast majority of Libertarian ideals, but every time I encounter one, they make me equate Ron Paul to some freaky cult leader.
Post by: Len Budney on December 11, 2007, 06:16:55 PM
shrieking SEE!! WE TOLD YOU BIG FACELESS EVILCORP RUNS THE PLANET!!
You'll have to point out where I said any such thing. Don't exhaust yourself looking. (Hint: never.)
--Len.
Post by: Bigjake on December 11, 2007, 06:24:00 PM
Post by: Len Budney on December 11, 2007, 06:28:22 PM
forgive me for paraphrasing. didn't mean to put words in your mouth.
No problem. But I really mean I never said anything like that. I don't believe in conspiracies. At its core, I was talking about the assumption that government has the right to dictate to us, and that police are acting morally in enforcing those dictates. To the extent we believe that, we believe that the people in DC are our rightful overlords.
--Len.
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 11, 2007, 07:07:02 PM
That said, I sympathize with you shootinstudent. There are plenty of pseudo-Christian whats-its out there, making my religion look bad, just as you claim about your own.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 11, 2007, 10:39:53 PM
Quote
However, if history is prologue, we can expect to see Blackwater and other mercenaries deployed inside the CONUS before too much longer. Er, whoops--that already happened.
Would you care to cite any circumstances where Blackwater exceeded their contractual obligations without ramifications during Katrina?
Post by: Finch on December 11, 2007, 11:48:41 PM
Would you care to cite any circumstances where Blackwater exceeded their constitutional obligations without ramifications during Katrina?
Fixed.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 12, 2007, 04:35:22 AM
Hell, 385 million dollars of our tax money went to KBR for a contract from the Department of Homeland Security to provide centers for "temporary detention and processing capabilities."
But you got nothing to worry about...
But you got nothing to worry about...
I had a hand in killing a couple KBR communication contracts. I'm more proud of that than most of my medals. I specifically knew of incidents of KBR overcharging the US Army for fuel and selling fuel to an enemy nation. I was not alone in this, and a number of folks also filed. I did report it to the IG as being fraud, waste and abuse. IG was a good guy, and took his job seriously. He was relieved and ordered back stateside. The rest of us shut up REAL quick after that. They also ran a food scam. Charging the US Army for top quality food, then buying food that was unsafe for human consumption. Lot of us got food poisoning. Myself included. You know it's bad when soldiers want MRE's rather than a hot meal.
The sole regret I had was I had a SAW, locked and loaded, and ready to cut down a mess of KBR brass sitting across the table. And I didn't do anything. Sigh. I think I'll be regretting that decision for a while.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 12, 2007, 06:13:04 AM
About the only link to Islam in the stuff I heard was that you can get rewarded pretty nicely for converting to Islam while over there. Just don't try to convert back to Christianity. That and don't try to even get close to a women's beach.
So many Islamic nations put their religion into the law that I can understand the difficulty of people trying to separate the two.
Post by: gunsmith on December 12, 2007, 09:35:19 AM
Terrible, I believe her 100% and think all involved in keeping that
women imprisoned/raping her or covering it up need to be shot.
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 12, 2007, 09:43:24 AM
I read about that case yesterday, it made drudge.
Terrible, I believe her 100% and think all involved in keeping that
women imprisoned/raping her or covering it up need to be shot.
Terrible, I believe her 100% and think all involved in keeping that
women imprisoned/raping her or covering it up need to be shot.
Because now you're judge, jury, and executioner. There is a thing called due process, innocent until proven guilty, blah blah blah.....
Or maybe we should waterboard them until they confess, since you've deemed them guilty already....
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 12, 2007, 09:48:20 AM
Would you care to cite any circumstances where Blackwater exceeded their constitutional obligations without ramifications during Katrina?
Fixed.
Blackwater is a private company that operates under contract, they don't have Constitutional obligations any more than you or I do.
If employed by a government agency, the Constitutional issues are handled by the employer, all BW or any other private group have to do is follow the terms of their contract and applicable criminal and civil laws.
Post by: Len Budney on December 12, 2007, 09:54:43 AM
Blackwater is a private company that operates under contract, they don't have Constitutional obligations any more than you or I do.
That's why mercenaries are so important: government can hire them to do things which are unconstitutional for government itself to do.
But your latter point is more important: when government invests them with authority and then orders them to do something, constitutional limits apply to the employer. At minimum, the agency hiring them is committing high crimes. But so are the mercenaries, if they obey orders to commit crimes: the immunity granted them by their government employer is invalid, and hence they're responsible for crimes committed at their employers' behest.
--Len.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 12, 2007, 09:56:41 AM
Post by: Len Budney on December 12, 2007, 10:30:28 AM
In this case, would the KBR employees be tried under Iraqi law?
I dunno much about international law. The crime happened in Iraq, but the perps and victim were all American.
Post by: gunsmith on December 12, 2007, 01:35:12 PM
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 12, 2007, 02:42:54 PM
ok Jamis, I'll agree...a fair trial then we shoot them!
Execution by firing squad seems reasonable under the Constitution and BOR. And nothing says a RIGHTFULLY convicted criminal can't be publicly executed.
If they are found guilty though due process, then let's do it. On TV. Primetime.
Post by: Len Budney on December 12, 2007, 04:03:07 PM
ok Jamis, I'll agree...a fair trial then we shoot them!
I'm fine with shooting the guilty.
--Len.
Post by: RevDisk on December 12, 2007, 05:35:52 PM
Isn't that the point where you are supposed to write your Congressman?
I went through proper channels and did my part. I'm well aware that the former CEO of the company that owns KBR is Dick Chaney. I was a very low ranking enlisted guy. I reported to my chain of command and the IG. I'm not particularly suicidal either. So that's as far as I went. Besides, KBR had scams a hundred times bigger than skimming minor fuel contracts and poisoning soldiers. If they never got more than a slap on the wrists for those scams, these scams would have MAYBE gotten them a 'nasty gram' that was more apologetic than nasty.
Post by: Bigjake on December 12, 2007, 06:19:15 PM
Quote
dunno much about international law. The crime happened in Iraq, but the perps and victim were all American.
Heard on Glen Beck that since it happened in the Green Zone, US law applies. Green zone is under the State dept's jurisdiction.
Post by: CAnnoneer on December 12, 2007, 07:17:49 PM
What exactly do you think a corporation is? A cult, a cabal? Do you truly believe that big bosses sit in big offices chomping fat cigars, guzzling martinis, and planning how to gang-rape then silence an intern? Do you truly believe that an organization, any organization, has or can have such an iron-fisted supreme control over all its members that any evil-doing of a member is sanctioned or at least allowed by somebody higher up? Grow up. Companies are there to make money, not rape women.
She is pretty, young, and probably quite dumb (come on, 20yo civilian white girl in Iraq right now?). You get a few horny bad apples that know better than mess with the locals, add cheap drugs, and that's what you get. Hardly the company's fault. Then the company tries to do some damage control because it expects exactly the kind of bad publicity and litigation that actually happens.
Post by: CAnnoneer on December 12, 2007, 07:24:43 PM
Post by: Paddy on December 12, 2007, 07:42:02 PM
Hey, it works for the Bush administration.
Post by: De Selby on December 12, 2007, 09:07:50 PM
She is pretty, young, and probably quite dumb (come on, 20yo civilian white girl in Iraq right now?). You get a few horny bad apples that know better than mess with the locals, add cheap drugs, and that's what you get. Hardly the company's fault. Then the company tries to do some damage control because it expects exactly the kind of bad publicity and litigation that actually happens.
I guess the rest of us aren't so casual about rape. I tend not to figure the victim's intelligence is relevant to the facts of a rape, nor do I think that it's "hardly anyone's fault" that a rape victim ended up imprisoned in a transport container and then fired from her job for reporting the rape.
In my opinion, this attitude constitutes both blaming the victim and minimizing the severity of the crime.
Post by: Nitrogen on December 12, 2007, 09:41:20 PM
I read about that case yesterday, it made drudge.
Terrible, I believe her 100% and think all involved in keeping that
women imprisoned/raping her or covering it up need to be shot.
Terrible, I believe her 100% and think all involved in keeping that
women imprisoned/raping her or covering it up need to be shot.
Because now you're judge, jury, and executioner. There is a thing called due process, innocent until proven guilty, blah blah blah.....
Or maybe we should waterboard them until they confess, since you've deemed them guilty already....
Too bad Clinton didn't get that same right
Post by: gunsmith on December 12, 2007, 10:33:22 PM
Quote
Too bad Clinton didn't get that same right
Well it depends on how you define "get".
Post by: gunsmith on December 12, 2007, 10:44:42 PM
Quote
She is pretty, young, and probably quite dumb
She comes across as pretty, young, and smart enough
to cause an international outcry.
Quote
Then the company tries to do some damage control because it expects exactly the kind of bad publicity and litigation that actually happens.
If it were my company, my damage control would be "the suspects have been apprehended and turned over to appropriate authorities,anyone found guilty will be terminated and we are examining our procedures to insure this never happens again"
Post by: Nitrogen on December 12, 2007, 11:06:28 PM
If it were my company, my damage control would be "the suspects have been apprehended and turned over to appropriate authorities,anyone found guilty will be terminated and we are examining our procedures to insure this never happens again"
Thank you. Anything less than this is a cover-up, and should be treated as such.
Quote
She is pretty, young, and probably quite dumb
Pretty, young and dumb women deserved to be falsely imprisoned and raped?
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 13, 2007, 02:04:45 AM
I read about that case yesterday, it made drudge.
Terrible, I believe her 100% and think all involved in keeping that
women imprisoned/raping her or covering it up need to be shot.
Terrible, I believe her 100% and think all involved in keeping that
women imprisoned/raping her or covering it up need to be shot.
Because now you're judge, jury, and executioner.
No, actually, he's a guy giving his opinion, informally, to his internet buddies. No one's going to get shot on his say-so.
Post by: mtnbkr on December 13, 2007, 05:29:22 AM
"Removed rudeness..."
That's certainly uncalled for.
--Len.
Yes, it was. If it happens again, I'm closing the entire thread.
Chris
Post by: roo_ster on December 13, 2007, 08:24:59 AM
Being a corporate overlord, I command you all to...bring me a shrubbery!
And then ship all your ammo to me so I can test-fire every round to ensure my subjects do not have faulty ammo.
Corporate Officer Overlord jfruser ==>
Post by: gunsmith on December 13, 2007, 10:21:01 AM
Quote
No one's going to get shot on his say-so.
I even stomped my feet and threatened to hold my breath!
Post by: Jamisjockey on December 13, 2007, 10:39:08 AM
Hey, my wife has a corporation. I am an officer.
Being a corporate overlord, I command you all to...bring me a shrubbery!
And then ship all your ammo to me so I can test-fire every round to ensure my subjects do not have faulty ammo.
Corporate Officer Overlord jfruser ==>
Being a corporate overlord, I command you all to...bring me a shrubbery!
And then ship all your ammo to me so I can test-fire every round to ensure my subjects do not have faulty ammo.
Corporate Officer Overlord jfruser ==>
Hey, me too! I'm a gawsh damn CEO!
We should get together in a smokey room and decide the next war, next president, and to send more black helicopters in pursuit of right wingers everywhere!
Post by: wooderson on December 13, 2007, 10:53:19 AM
Quote
She is pretty, young, and probably quite dumb (come on, 20yo civilian white girl in Iraq right now?).
I can't believe you didn't bring up the fact that she had breast implants. Maybe she was dressed provocatively?
Post by: Len Budney on December 13, 2007, 11:05:33 AM
I ran into the above after googling the "breast implants" angle after reading Wooderson's comment.
--Len.
Post by: Paddy on December 13, 2007, 11:17:49 AM
"I am a reasonable conservative who likes to write about politics and culture. Since the media is biased I get all my news from Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and Jay Leno monologues."
He can't be serious.
Post by: Len Budney on December 13, 2007, 11:23:59 AM
It must be a spoof, Len. The author, Jon Swift, says (at the top) ...
Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's kidding--but I'm afraid the authors he links to, "Rusty Shackleford at The Jawa Report, Curt at Flopping Aces and former humor blogger Ace of Spades," aren't.--Len.
Post by: wooderson on December 13, 2007, 11:25:07 AM
Post by: xavier fremboe on December 13, 2007, 11:46:49 AM
Post by: SteveS on December 13, 2007, 01:52:31 PM
It must be a spoof, Len. The author, Jon Swift, says (at the top) ...
Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's kidding--but I'm afraid the authors he links to, "Rusty Shackleford at The Jawa Report, Curt at Flopping Aces and former humor blogger Ace of Spades," aren't.--Len.
Jon Swift is one of the better bloggers, IMO.
Post by: CAnnoneer on December 13, 2007, 04:51:21 PM
I guess the rest of us aren't so casual about rape. I tend not to figure the victim's intelligence is relevant to the facts of a rape, nor do I think that it's "hardly anyone's fault" that a rape victim ended up imprisoned in a transport container and then fired from her job for reporting the rape. In my opinion, this attitude constitutes both blaming the victim and minimizing the severity of the crime.
Now that's ironic coming from the apologeticist of cultures where raped women and uncovered women are punished by death.
We were talking about corporate evil, which I do not see in this case. Oh, she got fired. It is a private company; they reserve the right to fire you, while some compensation may be in order depending on the hiring contract. Oh, she was "imprisoned" in a container. Whoever did that can be prosecuted as a private citizen, just as the rapists should. The corporation has little to do with this, other than being shot at by politically motivated journalists and posters.
Post by: wooderson on December 13, 2007, 05:00:56 PM
Does it bother you at all that a group receiving billions from the federal government apparently has little or no oversight over its employees?
Post by: Paddy on December 13, 2007, 05:01:51 PM
Quote
We were talking about corporate evil, which I do not see in this case. Oh, she got fired. It is a private company; they reserve the right to fire you, while some compensation may be in order depending on the hiring contract. Oh, she was "imprisoned" in a container. Whoever did that can be prosecuted as a private citizen, just as the rapists should. The corporation has little to do with this, other than being shot at by politically motivated journalists and posters.
So, it's ok to commit whatever violent crimes as long as the perp agrees with your ideology because anybody who wants to hold you accountable is 'politically motivated'. Do you actually believe the crap you write, or does it just spew from you without any thought whatsoever?
Post by: Paddy on December 13, 2007, 05:07:14 PM
Quote
So a corporation has absolutely no culpability for the actions of its employees? Everyone involved - the people who raped her, the people who locked her up, the people who took the rape kit and 'lost it,' etc. etc. etc. were just rogues, no one from higher up the foodchain had any idea what was going on in Iraq?
Does it bother you at all that a group receiving billions from the federal government apparently has little or no oversight over its employees?
Does it bother you at all that a group receiving billions from the federal government apparently has little or no oversight over its employees?
And stop trying to undermine President Bush and the war effort.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 13, 2007, 05:51:04 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on December 13, 2007, 06:21:18 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on December 13, 2007, 07:08:54 PM
No one's going to get shot on his say-so.
But if that does become a feature here, on APS, I would certainly appreciate it. Hint, hint.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 13, 2007, 10:30:09 PM
Nice Kos Kid posters...
I got it from a FARK thread, not really on point, but I like the detail of the collar SS being dollar signs.
I guess I'm at a loss on the thread topic itself. Investigate if a crime was indeed committed, if so, punish the guilty, both the active perpetrators and any who became accessories after the fact by assisting them.
Until there's an investigation it's just spinning wheels.
Post by: mtnbkr on December 14, 2007, 02:22:30 AM
We were talking about corporate evil, which I do not see in this case. Oh, she got fired. It is a private company; they reserve the right to fire you, while some compensation may be in order depending on the hiring contract. Oh, she was "imprisoned" in a container. Whoever did that can be prosecuted as a private citizen, just as the rapists should. The corporation has little to do with this, other than being shot at by politically motivated journalists and posters.
The Corp can still be held responsible if anyone at the corp directed any of the activities in this story (such as the imprisonment). In the eyes of the law, the perps can be seen as agents of the corp. My biz law classes are 12 years behind me, so the details are fuzzy, but I do recall learning that actions taken by employees while on the clock and/or under the direction of management bring liability to the company.
Chris
Post by: Len Budney on December 14, 2007, 03:42:20 AM
Now that's ironic coming from the apologeticist of cultures where raped women and uncovered women are punished by death.
We were talking about corporate evil, which I do not see in this case...
We were talking about corporate evil, which I do not see in this case...
I hope the irony is obvious to everyone? Some Muslims commit crimes. Therefore Islam itself, and all Muslims in particular--including SS--are guilty. Some KBR employees commit crimes, against a co-worker while on duty and using company resources, notably including weapons, and anyone who implicates KBR is a politically motivated pinko.
--Len.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 14, 2007, 08:11:56 PM
Post by: De Selby on December 14, 2007, 10:38:27 PM
Now that's ironic coming from the apologeticist of cultures where raped women and uncovered women are punished by death.
We were talking about corporate evil, which I do not see in this case...
We were talking about corporate evil, which I do not see in this case...
I hope the irony is obvious to everyone? Some Muslims commit crimes. Therefore Islam itself, and all Muslims in particular--including SS--are guilty. Some KBR employees commit crimes, against a co-worker while on duty and using company resources, notably including weapons, and anyone who implicates KBR is a politically motivated pinko.
--Len.
As carebear posted:
It's not X when we do it!
Post by: gunsmith on December 14, 2007, 11:11:49 PM
Quote
It's not X when we do it!
you and carebear are not being fair, I am a registered Republican and I am on the side of that poor gal.
The Dem's have far more in common with the National Socialist German Workers Party then the Republicrats do.
(I got this from a blog called right wing rockers)
Since the Left loves to call us conservatives "Nazis," I figured I would take a few minutes today and explain exactly what a Nazi is, just so everyone knows what these people are saying.
The NAtionalistische SoZIalist Deutscher Arbeitspartei (Nationalist Socialist German Workers' Party or NSDAP) was the party of Adolf Hitler, who rose to power in Germany prior to world War II, and brought upon this world one of the most disgusting and heinous regimes the world had ever seen. He was Saddam Hussein's idol.
The party platform, announced by Hitler in 1920 (and unchanged since then), emphasized 25 points:
1. We demand the unification of all Germans in the Greater Germany on the basis of the right of self-determination of peoples.
This would be the same as demanding, with military force, that the United States and Canada become one country simply because both countries are dominated by English-speaking people. I know of not a single American conservative or liberal who would support this.
2. We demand equality of rights for the German people in respect to the other nations; abrogation of the peace treaties of Versailles and St. Germain.
If Hitler and his cohorts felt that Germany had been cheated in these treaties, they were certainly within their rights to call the parties back to the table. Once at the table, however, I don't think many conservatives would have capitulated. Today's liberals, on the other hand, may have responded to the threat of force by just giving in to Hitler, as they seem to want to do when threatened with force by terrorists. (Liberal match ... 1-0 Liberals)
3. We demand land and territory (colonies) for the sustenance of our people, and colonization for our surplus population.
Conservatives would hold that all Hitler had to do here was to simply try to work a deal and purchase such territory. The US did this with both Louisiana and Alaska. Again, this seems another situation where the liberals may have just given in. (Liberal match ... 2-0 Liberals)
4. Only a member of the race can be a citizen. A member of the race can only be one who is of German blood, without consideration of creed. Consequently no Jew can be a member of the race.
No conservative would approve of this. It's racism plain and simple. Liberals, however, are constantly trying to assign greater value to one race or more of Americans over others. Listen to Louis Farrakhan and Jesse Jackson (both liberals) virtually any time, and you will see the race-baiting (Liberal match ... 3-0 Liberals)
5. Whoever has no citizenship is to be able to live in Germany only as a guest, and must be under the authority of legislation for foreigners.
Here's a concept that seems pretty "conservative" on the surface. After all, we conservatives are staunchly anti-illegal immigration. We are, however, just as staunchly PRO-LEGAL immigration. Using nice words like "guest" doesn't change the fact that Hitler meant to torture and kill the foreigners living in Germany, especially the Jews. (Sorry Libs, no match ... still 3-0 Liberals)
6. The right to determine matters concerning administration and law belongs only to the citizen. Therefore we demand that every public office, of any sort whatsoever, whether in the Reich, the county or municipality, be filled only by citizens. We combat the corrupting parliamentary economy, office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities.
Public office should only be held by citizens. Fair enough. Hitler's position that "office-holding only according to party inclinations without consideration of character or abilities" is right in and of itself. However, we all know what happened when he rose to power. Everyone was expected to govern according to party inclinations. Since the statement itself is basically in line with conservative ideals, conservative match. (3-1 Liberals)
7. We demand that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the State, then the members of foreign nations (non-citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.
While I will admit that there aren't any conservatives or liberals trying to chase non-citizens out of the US just because we have enough people here to do the jobs they would do, the liberals in America do believe that the state's first responsibility is "providing the opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens." (Liberal match ... 4-1 Liberals)
8. Any further immigration of non-citizens is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans, who have immigrated to Germany since the 2 August 1914, be forced immediately to leave the Reich.
Again, neither conservatives nor liberals would advocate this policy. Conservatives do advocate that foreigners obey immigration laws when they enter the country, but no one is advocating legal aliens being chased away.
9. All citizens must have equal rights and obligations.
Citizens by Hitler's definition, of course. Both conservatives and liberals would agree with this in concept, though liberals do try to create rights out of thin air and try to apply various rights unequally. I'll cut the libs a break here and not award a match, since they would at least SAY they agree.
10. The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all.
To each according to his need ... from each according to his ability. A LIBERAL concept. (Liberal match ... 5-1 Liberals)
Consequently we demand:
11. Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery.
Equalization of economic outcome - another LIBERAL concept. (Liberal match ... 6-1 Liberals)
12. In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
Confiscation of income simply because SOMEBODY IN PARTICULAR didn't like the way it was earned ... LIBERAL concept. (Liberal match ... 7-1 Liberals) "The other day the oil companies recorded the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits" ..Hilary Clinton
13. We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
Nationalization of everything, especially industry ... LIBERAL concept. (Liberal match ... 8-1 Liberals)
14. We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries.
Redistribution of wealth ... Hillary Clinton's favorite idea. (Liberal match ... 9-1 Liberals)
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare.
Expansion of Socialist Security! LIBERAL. (Liberal match ... 10-1 Liberals)
16. We demand the creation of a healthy middle class and its conservation,
immediate communalization of the great warehouses and their being leased at low cost to small firms, the utmost consideration of all small firms in contracts
with the State, county or municipality.
Coontrolling who does and doesn't have money; government takeover of businesses ... LIBERAL. (Liberal match ... 11-1 Liberals)
17. We demand a land reform suitable to our needs, provision of a law for the free expropriation of land for the purposes of public utility, abolition of taxes on land and prevention of all speculation in land.
Free expropriation of land and abolition of land speculation ... LIBERAL. (Liberal match ... 12-1 Liberals). Abolition of a tax? Conservative! (Conservative match ... 12-2 Liberals)
18. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, Schieber and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.
Punish by death anyone who disagrees with the government. While the liberals would love to advocate this, there are too many anti-death penalty people among them for any of them to admit it. Conservatives welcome opposing opinions, and a lot of liberals do, too. Of course, conservatives generally tend to be the ones wanting to cut back the government.
19. We demand substitution of a German common law in place of the Roman Law serving a materialistic world-order.
Bemoaning a "materialistic world-order" seems kinda liberal to me. (Liberal match ... 13-2 Liberals)
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions. The plans of instruction of all educational institutions are to conform with the experiences of practical life. The comprehension of the concept of the State must be striven for by the school [Staatsbuergerkunde] as early as the beginning of understanding. We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
Sounds good on the surface, just like NCLB. The real problem here is that when you turn something as important as education over to the government, you run the risk of extremist thought in the government making its way into the schools and hurting the very people you are trying to help. This is true with virtually every government program, but the problems caused by centralized education in America are obvious. I wonder if it was also true for Nazi Germany. Of course, the liberals have largely been the beneficiaries of America's failed education system, and they consistently call for more government intrusion and intervention. (Liberal match ... 14-2 Liberals)
21. The State is to care for the elevating national health by protecting the mother and child, by outlawing child-labor, by the encouragement of physical fitness, by means of the legal establishment of a gymnastic and sport obligation, by the utmost support of all organizations concerned with the physical instruction of the young.
Hillary-Care on one hand, pro-life on the other. (One match each ... 15-3 Liberals)
22. We demand abolition of the mercenary troops and formation of a national army.
If the Germans wanted a national army, I doubt any conservative or liberal would have stood in their way.
23. We demand legal opposition to known lies and their promulgation through the press. In order to enable the provision of a German press, we demand, that: a. All writers and employees of the newspapers appearing in the German language be members of the race: b. Non-German newspapers be required to have the express permission of the State to be published. They may not be printed in the German language: c. Non-Germans are forbidden by law any financial interest in German publications, or any influence on them, and as punishment for violations the closing of such a publication as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-German concerned. Publications which are counter to the general good are to be forbidden. We demand legal prosecution of artistic and literary forms which exert a destructive influence on our national life, and the closure of organizations opposing the above made demands.
While McCain-Feingold did this very same thing, I still doubt most Americans, liberal or conservative, would really support this kind of censorship.
24. We demand freedom of religion for all religious denominations within the state so long as they do not endanger its existence or oppose the moral senses of the Germanic race. The Party as such advocates the standpoint of a positive Christianity without binding itself confessionally to any one denomination. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a lasting recovery of our nation can only succeed from within on the framework: common utility precedes individual utility.
Translation: If we decide your religion is evil, it's evil, and you can't practice freely. This is the ACLU's credo. (Liberal match ... 16-3 Liberals)
25. For the execution of all of this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the execution of the points set forth above without consideration.
Setting up a big all-powerful government and telling everyone to toe the line or else is just soooo Clintonian. Conservatives cringe at the mere thought of this sort of thing. The government that governs best governs least. (Liberal match ... 17-3 Liberals)
American liberal philosophy matches 17 out of the 25 Points of the Nazi platform. American conservative philosophy matches only 3. Two of these were "double-matches", where both sides would have agreed with the Nazis. There were seven points that were so loony even the Donks wouldn't have agreed.
Now, I haven't called ANYONE a Nazi on this blog in this, or any other, post. I have, however, seen fellow conservatives receive this accusation, but never a liberal. Could it be the liberals are lying about conservatives on this point, too?
RWR
Post by: Matthew Carberry on December 15, 2007, 12:32:50 AM
I just find the poster funny. And would note it doesn't say anything about "conservatives", merely a particular party symbol, a party which, by the way, doesn't have a patent on the concept of conservatism, no matter what they'd like to claim.
I would point out that the abstract Republican party, the Republican Party that should be, you are comparing to the Nazi platform does not match in any way but name the current mutant version referenced by the poster.
To call the Patriot Act and its bastard children "minimally intrusive government" is laughable.
To call most of the federal level, socially conservative ideology "pro-state's rights" is a flat out lie.
To claim the "War on Drugs" has any moral, political or utilitarian differences from the "War on Guns" or the "War on Booze" is just idiotic and should be heckled, not used to justify ever increasing intrusions by government into the business of the citizenry.
To criticize welfare for groups and individuals while simultaneously winking at business, agricultural and corporate tax credits and subsidies is hardly "free market" or intellectually honest.
To jump on board the "government by executive order" and "commerce clause justifies anything" trains as the recent Republican leadership has done is an absolute betrayal of true American conservative thought.
Barry's Republican's, true, financially conservative, minimally intrusive, small government Republicans dovetail neatly with the "best case" Party you use as an example.
The current abortion headed and symbolized by Rove et al are NOT any Republican Party I want to claim association with and fair no better than the crypto-socialist dominant wing (not it's ideal example either, to be just) of the once proud Democratic Party when compared with the pinnacle of fascist thought.
For myself, as a true conservative and "real Republican", I'm sick of the current party hacks crap and I'm sick of having to explain the difference between real conservatism and what has stolen its mantle over the past few years.
Post by: Len Budney on December 15, 2007, 02:43:42 AM
And again you misrepresent the positions of other posters in both cases Len. Another reason why those threads always go off the deep end.
Please point out the misrepresentation. Cannoneer specifically blames Islam for an individual's crimes, and calls SS an "apologist" for said crimes... and then argued that KBR can't be blamed for the crimes committed by its employees while on duty using company resources.
--Len.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 15, 2007, 09:43:42 AM
1. On the other thread about the "honor killing", Cannoneer didn't even post until the 3rd page, long after SS went on his tirade trying to tear down Christianity in order to defend Islam. As if Islam cannot be defended on its own merit. The few comments about Islam came after SS started attacking Christianity. Kind of understandable at that point. At least it was finally noted in that thread that cultural issues are behind that stuff more than Islam. That discussion might have been interesting, but it never happened.
2. So you are basing all your opinions on what just one poster said? Why are you painting everyone with your arguments when you are really just arguing with Cannoneer? If you are targeting his comments, quote him. I think just about everyone else has pointed out the corporation would be held liable and attempting to cover up the crime is a crime also.
3. I get the impression you are saying "if you aren't with me you are against me" and working under the assumption that everyone not with you agrees with each other. I doubt that is the case as that would be foolish.
4. I actually do agree with many times at least in part, but I normally dislike you argument tactics.
Post by: Len Budney on December 15, 2007, 10:47:25 AM
... The few comments about Islam came after SS started attacking Christianity...
That's context you feel justifies what Cannoneer said, but it doesn't in any way suggest that I misrepresented what he said.
Quote
Why are you painting everyone with your arguments when you are really just arguing with Cannoneer?
Since when painting everyone? I quoted Cannoneer and said, "I hope the irony is obvious to everyone." I think it's clear that I was engaging only Cannoneer and his statements. I didn't say anything about anyone else.
Quote
If you are targeting his comments, quote him.
Um, I did.
Quote
I think just about everyone else has pointed out the corporation would be held liable and attempting to cover up the crime is a crime also.
Correct. I didn't say otherwise. In fact Cannoneer had a point, though: the corporation isn't necessarily guilty of anything because the employees committed crimes. It's true of KBR and equally true of Islam.
--Len.
Post by: De Selby on December 15, 2007, 01:43:46 PM
Let's get one thing clear: I do not condone tearing down Christianity. I was comparing what the treatment would be if Christianity were judged by the same standards that people like CAnnoneer are using to judge Islam, not saying "Christianity is just as bad!".
Christians sometimes commit crimes. Sometimes they even cite religious motives. But blaming Christianity as a whole, and calling other Christians "apologists" if they defend Christianity from distortions and criminals, is completely out of line. Yet this is what people do to Islam and Muslims on a regular basis-including on this KBR thread, where a rape committed by Americans was immediately contrasted to rapes in countries with lots of Muslims.
Review my posts and that will be clear to you.
Post by: MechAg94 on December 15, 2007, 06:51:29 PM
Post by: De Selby on December 15, 2007, 07:27:48 PM
SS, sounds fine. As I said, I think you can defend Islam without mentioning any other religion if you try.
So do I-the comparison was for the purposes of highlighting the biased coverage and treatment Islam gets when Muslims do something bad, versus other religions. The idea is to show that the reasoning behind the attacks on Islam is flawed, not that all religions are equally bad.
Post by: gunsmith on December 15, 2007, 07:37:59 PM
Oh, and the left throwing around the "fascist" label is surely the stupidest joke ever.
The authoritarian left is modern fascism.
Post by: K Frame on December 16, 2007, 06:12:57 AM
That's a CIVIL matter to be determined by the courts.
It's pretty impressive some of the "conclusions" that have been jumped to.
Given that line of (non) thinking, I submit to you all that, based on some of those arguments, you are all guilty of accessory to rape as you are citizens of the United States and, under the Constitution, have a voice in the affairs of your government.
I've read through 4 pages of this thread, and I have no clue why I've kept it open as long as I have.
Some of you had better do some SERIOUS thinking about what you're posting.