Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Here's a little reported fact, courtesy of Think Progress. Obama signed into law a defense appropriation bill that included Sen. Al Franken's amendment to prohibit American military contractors from enforcing a provision in their employee contracts that forbid those who were raped and abused while working for them to take those companies to court.
30 Republicans in the Senate actually voted against that amendment. Jeff Sessions called the amendment a "political attack directed at Haliburton." Well yes, because it was Haliburton that required such a provision to prevent their own employees from suing even after being gangraped by other Haliburton employees and having the company do nothing about it.
Politics
Comments
I already wondered why any gays would be Republicans, now I have to wonder why any women would be.
Posted by: Rob jase | December 24, 2009 9:30 AM
God damned liberals dont they know this country was founded on rape
Posted by: Vic Vanity | December 24, 2009 9:36 AM
http://www.republicansforrape.org/legislators/
Posted by: David Durant | December 24, 2009 10:59 AM
Back when I first heard about this, I wrote to the NH congressperson who'd voted against it; I got a response yesterday actually, explaining his position. It was weaker than I expected. He said he was against interfering with the way private companies run their businesses. And, I mean, that's fine. I don't think the government should allow companies to protect rapists, but I can at least see the argument. But the government already makes weighted choices about who they do business with, and I don't think it's defensible to argue that the government should hire companies which contractually exempt their employees from any sort of access to the U.S. justice system. Protecting rapists just goes all the way into the feild of absurd to me.
Posted by: Thomas Shamma | December 24, 2009 11:00 AM
@ David Durant: Thanks for the link. It looks like I've got some emails to send and phone calls to make (after Christmas).
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 24, 2009 11:20 AM
Good news!
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 24, 2009 11:28 AM
What I especially loved about this legislation is when the Republicans who voted against it attacked Franken for being inappropriate, etc., and demanded an apology from him!?!?!?
Best case scenario these guys are partisan hacks who vote against any legislation a Democrat proposes. Worst case scenario they actually believe it is okay for a company to protect sexual predators amongst their employees.
Posted by: dogmeatib | December 24, 2009 12:04 PM
I notice that the 30 who voted against the rape ammendment were all men. Unsurprising, but then, I wouldn't expect a Republican (Rich, protected) woman to have any more empathy for working class women either.
Posted by: Rutee | December 24, 2009 1:11 PM
I like that Republicans for Rape site. It needs to have a list of which candidates are up for election in 2010 and a link to their opponents' campaign sites, when those are available.
Posted by: Brandon | December 24, 2009 1:22 PM
Ah, unsurprising to see one of my Senators on there, Richard Burr. He's a party-line hack without so much as an original thought in his head. Sad part is, thanks to the backlash we're likely to see after the first part of Obama's term, he'll likely retain his seat.
Posted by: Ranson | December 24, 2009 2:27 PM
Just thought I should provide a link to John Stewart's hilarious segment on the subject back when Franken proposed it.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts
Posted by: Zaxro | December 24, 2009 4:30 PM
Wow; 30 senators giving speeches against a bill disallowing contracts that prohibit pursuing civil charges against coworkers who rape you, in front of cameras. These morons just wrote their next opponents campaign commercials for them.
If signs with "Lindsay Graham supports Corporate Rape" don't show up in his district during the next election cycle, I'll have lost all hope in our political process.
Posted by: Julian | December 24, 2009 5:22 PM
I hope it'snot a political attack against Haliburton. Then O'Same will veto it.
Posted by: teammarty | December 24, 2009 8:59 PM
teammarty, if you're referring to Obama, then you need to work on your reading comprehension: the original post states that Obama has already signed the bill into law. Kind of hard to veto something you've already signed, isn't it?
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | December 25, 2009 9:52 AM
That's excellent news - but wouldn't that contractual clause be unenforceable anyway? "Sorry, our contract was written by no less than the devil himself and it trumps your constitution, federal and state laws." Is the government getting into micro-management or am I missing something which really makes the law necessary?
Posted by: MadScientist | December 25, 2009 4:59 PM
Wow, a bunch of white conservative males trying to dictate to women what rights they have to govern their own genitalia.
I've never heard of anything like that before....
Posted by: CHV | December 25, 2009 6:46 PM
@Julian: Brilliant idea. I'd drop the word corporate though. Keep it simple. Corporate rape could be mistaken for an economic issue, with the rhetoric knob turned up to 11.
@MadScientist: It would be unenforceable if it were a criminal matter, but I believe the main issue is that Haliburton employees are effectively immune to Iraqi law, and of course American law doesn't apply in Iraq. I think the contracts are designed to prevent civil cases. Republicans for Rape has more information. It's a fun read too (assuming that you can forget the horror).
Posted by: Captain Mike | December 26, 2009 12:06 AM
It wouldn't surprise me to see some Republicans quote the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitution as basis for their opposition:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility"
Franken's amendment would probably pass one of the tests as stated in Energy Reserves Group v. Kansas Power & Light 459 U.S. 400 (1983), namely that the amendment "must have a significant and legitimate purpose behind the regulation, such as the remedying of a broad and general social or economic problem."
Posted by: Brian W | December 26, 2009 1:12 PM
If Franken and the democrats don't use the anti-votes against their casters, they'll be missing one hell of a political opportunity (seriously, arguing against punishing rapists? Is there any justification at all for that?) Being democrats, I'm sure that they'll never mention it the amendment again.
Posted by: Darth Conans | December 27, 2009 11:50 AM
Not surprised to see "my" senators on the naughty list. Chambiss and Isaakson are both evil but Saxby Shamless (as we know him in parts of Georgia) is so stupid he makes Beck look like Mensa material.
Posted by: ursa major | December 27, 2009 1:46 PM
Not just this country, but civilization! If men hadn't had to round up their womenfolk in fortified enclosures to keep them from being ravished by other men, we wouldn't have had cities, and architecture, and art, and science, and technology, and law...*
(*Chapter eleventy)
Posted by: ildi | December 27, 2009 2:03 PM
...."my" senators..."
That has to be the goofiest use of quotation marks I've ever seen. Either Chambliss and Isaakson are your senators or they aren't.
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 27, 2009 11:51 PM
Or they are your senators but you don't want them to be...
Posted by: Leni | December 29, 2009 7:14 PM