meet the senators who voted pro gang rape


run_lifeIn 2005 —

Twenty year old American Jamie Leigh Jones was drugged and gang-raped by KBR co-workers in Iraq. [That attack was so violent, her breasts are permanently disfigured.] After her attack she was locked in a shipping container without food or water, and after release warned not to leave her post. Jamie was a long way from anywhere with no help in sight. She stuck it out. [Jones is not an isolated case.] And, after Jamie made it back to U.S. soil, where there should have been help in sight, she was prevented from bringing charges in court. Her KBR contract stipulated sexual assault allegations could not be made in court. Sexual assault allegations could only be heard in arbitration.

In response to abuses of the “arbitration” contract clause used by military contractors like KBR, Senator Al Franken (D-MN) recently proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies that contractually block employees from taking workplace sexual assault and battery cases to court. The Amendment passed. You would think something like this would pass unanimously too. Surely our Senators in Congress do not want to employ and protect companies that sanction gang rape? But it did not pass unanimously.

Thirty Senators voted against the Franken amendment. They all have four things in common. They are all Republicans. They are all white. They are all male. And judging by their votes, they all think gang rape is just a little horseplay among friends. Here are their names. And if you didn’t vote McCain/Palin be glad. McCain is on the list.

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbied against the Franken amendment as well. I guess being opposed to co-worker gang rape is not good for business?


*see your senator on that list contact him and :::tell him he sucks:::

*sources :
:::think progress:::
:::huffington post:::
:::minnesota idependent:::


where the art work comes from:
that is from yves

56 Responses to meet the senators who voted pro gang rape

  1. Princess Scribe

    Ugh. Of course, Coburn and Inhofe. Fucking embarrassments to my home state. UGH.

  2. max

    Email or call them. I just posted a link to contact info.

  3. Anthony Longoria

    Oh my GOD! Seriously!?!? Why was this not all over the news?? Who the fuck is KBR? Yes, I agree that the old, white, republican establishment is restricting the concious growth of our nation, and it was ABSOLOUTLEY wrong of them to vote against the Franken Bill, but no way in hell should a company get away with that! Oh my God! I think making an example of (Financial impact) KBR may send the message to other companies that the Franken Bill would have. That is beyond wrong, in every aspect, from the act, to the media coverage, to the lack of support for the Franken Bill, etc. WOW

  4. Crystal

    Have each of the senators been contacted for as statement as to why they voted against the bill?

  5. max

    Well, Anthony, it has been in the news. You just have maybe not been paying attention.

    Crystal, it is very nice of you to want to interview every republican who voted pro gang rape. But do you really want to get that close to these guys?

  6. I love my state, and I love my Senator. Viva MN!

  7. forkboy1965

    Whew! Ohio dodged this bullet.

    Notice, however, that 13 of these Senators (almost 50%) are from southeastern states. Having been born and raised in Florida this sort of track record comes as no surprise.

    No doubt many of these men figured she did something to “deserve it”.

    And what the fuck is up with the Chamber of Commerce? Is it simply a shill for anything pro-business?

  8. Halliburton raped America and Halliburton raped Iraq. That employees in a former subsidiary of theirs would actually have to slip a woman a mickey “to get any” is no focking surprise.


  9. max

    Oh yes. I have noticed.

    More women are coming forward by the way. One who was fired when she said she refused to work side by side with the guy who raped her. Gee, how could that possibly be uncomfortable? These guys are scary fucks.

  10. D. Jordan Knight

    Just an FYI:

    KBR was given the no-bid contract in Iraq by the Bush administration. In short, it was a gift worth untold millions of dollars. I’m sure that was a completely logical decision, having nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the CEO of KBR is none other than … Dick Cheney.

    It is also interesting to note that of those esteemed senators included on this list, nearly every southern state is accounted for. Another coincidence, I’m certain. That Brown and Root (see: KBR) is the largest contractor in the southern states is obviously completely beside the point.


    I’m just saying.

  11. D. Jordan Knight

    Sorry — I mistyped. The tense was wrong, but the point remains: Dick Cheney was the CEO. He served as CEO for Halliburton (a division of Kellogg, Brown and Root – KBR) from 1995 to 2000.

  12. Sammy

    How many times does a congressman vote for something that is hidden deep inside another bill. That is the way of congress people. They all the time put unrelated crap in a decent bill and vote on it without reading the whole bill. Just because they voted for this, does not mean they knew what they were voting for. Don’t take me wrong, this is horrible, but just wait until all the facts are known before you condemn the men who voted against it.

  13. david hicks

    if turnabout is fair play we should be able to think up something rude for these hairless white water-monkeys

  14. david hicks

    just a little party turnaround

  15. redhandmedia

    KBR is the off shoot of Halliburton- surprise surprise! What a bunch of Douche Bags!
    just like all those Republikan Senators who oppose a government run health plan ARE IN a government run plan!!

  16. Lanette

    I am at a lost for words on this!

  17. d

    Why is it that Republican men are for gang rape?
    These men are Reptiles!

    The Bush-Cheney cartel has screwed the American people for years, Iraq was very good for business!
    Now Wall-Street, Insurance and Health Care are giving it to us again!
    Either speak out or take it!
    Call those people today!
    This is your government!

  18. Gennie

    You can bet your sweet ass if she had killed the bastards that raped her, even one of them, she would have been prosecuted!!! Vitter was involved in a prostiture scandal and still holds office here in Louisiana. That tells you what he thinks of women and what the folks of Louisiana think of Charlatans! Hell, we still have Longs running for office. Much revered. It is like being crooked is a badge of honor here.

  19. max

    Sammy, if there were any good reason to vote against this buried in the amendment the Republicans who voted against it would have pounced on that and voiced it loudly to justify these votes. There wasn’t. And trying to vindicate them with a made up non-existent mysterious and unnamed evil allegedly lurking inside an amendment is specious and to my thinking almost as reprehensible as the “no” votes.

  20. max

    “You can bet your sweet ass if she had killed the bastards that raped her, even one of them, she would have been prosecuted!”

    More than likely.

  21. snowkey

    I would like to see the entire bill first. They very well may have been voting against another provision in this bill that had nothing to do with the sexual harassment provision. Maybe she couldn’t have filed against sexual assault, but this was also, apparently, physical assault, she could have filed for that. Also, what did the Arbitration rule, you didn’t tell us.

  22. d

    Check out KBR!
    This is Cheney-Bush Haliburton!
    They have cheated the American people of $Billions!
    All should be tried and Fill in the blanks.
    All those ignorant Southern Republicans are an embarrassment.
    Halliburton “science” says no global climate change!
    It is better to make money than to Breathe!
    Reptiles don’t need clean air!
    Check out Al Gore 350, it may save someone you love

  23. Sessions and Shelby hail form my state and this is just like the good ol boys from Alabama. Shame on them and I do intend to write them and ask them wtf!!! Things here for women are still in the dark ages , laws need to be changed and people need to vote new blood in here , I am so sorry Jamie ,so sorry .

  24. Thom

    This really isn’t about rape. It’s about contract rights. People have the unlimited right to contract, and a bill like this would serve to undermine that.

    The arbitration clause can’t protect the perps from being tried and convicted of a felony and put in prison. It’s not like you can sign a contract and tell the cops ‘oh, I was under contract and can’t be tried for felonies’.

    All this contract would do is bar a civil lawsuit from being filed against the company or its agents. It doesn’t stop criminal proceedings.

    It’s no different than when you sign a waiver when going sky diving or doing some other inherently dangerous activity.

    The moral of the story is. Read your damn contracts before signing them! Now here’s hoping the perps rot in prison for the rest of their lives.

  25. max

    For people carrying on that there must be something in the amendment for the Repubs who voted against the amendment — note, amendment, not bill — to object to, go read up:

    LINK: Franken Amdt. No. 2588

    There simply isn’t.

  26. max

    Thom. So KBR has the right to encourage and protect gang rape? Fine, the U.S. Government has the right to not hire companies that do that.

    This absolutely is about rape. And if you think it is not, say that to Jamie Leigh Jones and look her in the face when you say it.

  27. LJS

    By having a clause in a contract that says you cannot sue for sexual harrassment just shows that they plan on sexually harrasing the women in their company. I would sue all of them in civil court. Surely there’s some women team of lawyers who would take the case. And I guess part of the necessary items to take to Iraq is the date rape drug just in case you have some woman who won’t put out for the gang? I wonder what these senator’s wives think of their voting record for this bill? I guess they’re for raping women as well. This is sickening and sad, but after all, they were in Iraq and probably will defend themselves by saying “When in Rome”.

  28. Nita

    I’m sorry, but I’m with the Dixie Chicks. I am even more ashamed to tell people I Twitter with, that I am from the “Great State of Texas”. And it is true that everything is biger in Texas, even the assholes in our corrupted politcal system.

  29. Debi

    There could have been a valid excuse for a no vote. (Didn’t like the wording, or some crap like that.) Personally, if my co-workers tried to rape me, they’d be missing a few body parts. And if they fired me or threatened me because I did that, I’d “explain” that if they continued, I’d go on TV and tell everyone all about it. Sometimes you gotta take the law in your own hands. If they take your rights, then you take theirs. Badda boom badda bang.


  31. Tim

    Mind boggling, disheartening, and infuriating but hardly an anamoly. Humans do not matter to corporations. Only the bottom line concerns them. Rape away guys. Blow off a little steam. Is that it? Boys will be boys? Oh, and this isn’t the only time an American contractor has pulled such a stunt and gotten away with it.
    How can these sick Fucks look their mothers and sisters in the eyes? Let’s here Beck, Hannity, coulter, Limbaugh, or any of the other right wing pundits call these miscreants and the senators that support them to task. I imagine we will be waiting for will seem like an eternity.

  32. GM

    I don’t understand what the company did. I have all the sympathy in the world for any woman who is assaulted and would gladly join the firing squad to take out all the lowlifes who perpetrated this crime. But the company didn’t commit a crime, so why is the company being sued? Must be the company’s deep pockets.

    If I served in the Senate I would vote for an amendment to allow the US to prosecute crimes committed by US Citizens abroad if they are there working for the US Government (and the KBR contract is with the US Government), but I think I would have voted against the Franken amendment to change the terms of the contracts after the fact.

  33. max

    Actually, GM, locking an employee in a shipping container is referred to as false imprisonment and forcibly stopping an employee from reporting a crime is called obstruction of justice. You can look them up. Both are crimes. And I haven’t even touched on witness intimidation or conspiracy to obstruct justice. If you do not understand or comprehend the above are crimes and wrong there is something very wrong with either your upbringing or your moral compass.

  34. max

    By the way, to some of the outraged posters defending the Senators’ vote? Defenses of rape do not go up on this blog. Maybe find a rapist’s blog to post on?

  35. SA 2588. Mr. FRANKEN (for himself and Ms. Landrieu) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 3326, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes; as follows:

    On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

    Sec. 8104. (a) 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.

    [Page: S10070]

    (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.

  36. Alan

    Ahhh. Once again, the Family Values party shows their true selves. I can’t believe that so many people stand behind them as patriots. I wonder how many of those old, white republican senators have daughters working overseas for Halliburton/KBR?

  37. Thill

    Where can we READ THE BILL?? Is it REALLY that black and white?? Have you EVER heard of ONE BILL AT A TIME being voted on or passed? NO. NEVER just ONE BILL, that is how PORK gets passed through… hidden behind GOOD stuff. Maybe this bill in it’s entirety was some baaad crap, so bad as to not be passed. HOW many DEMS voted AGAINST it??? It sure sounds AWFUL when just just read this little info.
    Honestly, REpublicans are not evil monsters as much as some of us might like to think that.
    No one in their right mind would vote NO to something as SIMPLE as that. Where’s the meat of the bill? Anyone got the bill number??

  38. That’s the entire amendment. Quite simply, if your company is taking money from the American taxpayer on a contract, you may not prevent your employees from asserting their civil rights enunciated in title Vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

    And 30 white, male Republican senators voted against that??!!??!?!

  39. max

    It is not a bill, Thill. It is an amendment. Amendments are in general one simple issue. This one simple issue is, the government won’t hire contractors that subvert civil rights by making an employee sign them away in the employment contract.

  40. Thill

    Thanks to the person that posted more info. I really want to look into that, this is NOT a DEm or Rep issue, I am a Republican and I want to know why Sen Kyl voted against it. Thanks AGAIN!! I also want to fine which Dems voted against it.

  41. Thill , apparently you have didn’t read paragraph 2 of the story. What was voyed ‘Nay’ by those 30 senators was to allow the amendment, just the amendment, not the entire bill, just whether the amendment to be added to the bill. Since the bill is “appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010” it will of course be passed in due time.

    Basically those 30 senators did not want Americans to be able to assert their civil rights, if it meant hurting the profits of corporations.

  42. karen

    Oh my God,

    These Senators need a lesson in reality. As a former victim of incest and rape as a child and teenager, I feel that all rapist should get what is coming to them. I am surprised that in this day and age that people (men) would think that rape is okay.

    Well, unless this was their own child that was raped or in this case gang raped, they may not be able to make the correct decision in this matter. Or do they feel this a matter of being “the over-powerer” for them.

    Anyway, the Senators in this matter are completely wrong and should have voted against the “arbitration contract clause” and should be against rape of any form.

    Rape is not only degrading, it is hurtful and violent. After being raped, the victim can go through so much anguish, guilt, depression and more, to the point of where some people become so depressed that they try to commit suicide and others like me, can remember it everyday unless other things in life overpower the memories. On the days that I am depressed which can be often, it is one of the things that I remember vividly.

    May our new Senators that are voted in next be more compelled to keep all of us safe and keep the “arbitration clauses” illegal.

  43. max

    What this comes down to is the U.S. government should NEVER be paying tax dollars to contractors who make employees sign away civil rights in an employment contract. Let alone fund promote or hire contractors that protect and encourage gang rape of young women in their employ.

    The Senate must in its collective right observe how a government defense contractor polices not only its external activities, but its internal activities on foreign soil — and disenfranchise those same contractors if they subvert the rights of U.S. citizens in their employ. One of those rights being the right to not to be FUCKING GANG RAPED by fellow employees. And, in the event that fails and you are gang raped by your fellow employees?


  44. max

    [I’m mad, I have been reading rape happy posts on Propeller and want to kill something right now.]

  45. max

    Thill, no Dems voted against it.

  46. Pingback: Is YOUR Senator Pro-Gang-Rape? « Angela Benedetti

  47. sutton

    this amendment wasn’t buried. it was debated in open session. you can watch on c-span, sammy and others, as these senators address the anti-gang rape amendment directly.

  48. I’m with Max. What part of rape and witness intimidation and locking someone up against their will is acceptable or conducive to a harmonious work environment? The company failed to protect the employee because they did not take action against those who gang raped her – instead, they allowed action to be taken against her. The company is just as liable since their passivity (toward the wrong people) turned the work environment into a breeding ground for rape (as we all know this was not an isolated incident).

    I do not agree you can separate the employee from the company, at least in this case. If it was not important for employees to represent the company properly, then why do employers comb the internet for information on potential employees?
    It’s exactly because they are concerned about certain types of behavior that could wittingly or unwittingly sully the company image. KRB showed no such concern, and therefore, I’m of the opinion that KBR should get the fuck sued out of them.

    I’d also like to see a list of the name of the rapists. It should be published.

  49. Roger

    To vote against this amendment was a disgrace (and I’ve never been a fan of Senator Franken, but he is 100% right in this instance and deserves praise). Little wonder that the Republican Party continues to decline—with actions like this! This action should have been taken years ago–why did it have to wait until Senator Franken arrived? In fact, these arbitration clauses in contracts should be prohibited—period. I’m sure most people don’t even realize they are buried in the fine print.

  50. GM

    Max–as far as I know, the company did not lock her in a container and the company did not rape her. Again, I am all for prosecution of rapists but I don’t understand why the company is the target. I also don’t understand the hostility towards arbitration. If the company behaved in a way that justifies all of this anger why wouldn’t the arbitrator issue a large penalty for that?

    If Congress wants to outlaw arbitration clauses that is fine. But Congress does not have the ability to pass ex post facto laws that change the terms of existing contracts. See Article I, Section 9, U.S. Constitution (“No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”) Holding Congress to a Constitutional standard is the job of every elected official–they all swear an oath to do so when they take office.

  51. max

    Again, GM, you are talking about something completely different from the amendment under discussion.

    The amendment says the government will not do business with contractors that require workers to sign away rights in small print arbitration clauses in their hiring contracts.

    It is simple stuff and a protection of workers’ rights. I question the motives of anyone who tries to turn it into something else. That indicates gross ignorance of what is under discussion or a purposeful attempt to derail and obfuscate the actual issue. Neither of which are welcome here.

  52. Allie

    I used to live in CA up until two months ago, then I moved to God-forsaken OK. Of course, BOTH the senators here voted in favor of gang rape (I’m not surprised, but mad as hell).
    I’m also appalled to find GM here is trying to defend these companies.
    These companies are supposed to provide a safe work environment. If multiple women are being raped/assaulted/ etc, that doesn’t sound very safe to me. These companies, who are hiring these people, who are committing these crimes are partially responsible. They are the authority, and if they did nothing to help this woman or to keep her safe, they are at fault. Esp.If they have been, as we can see, getting multiple complaints.

    It’s just wrong to give tax payer money to a company that doesn’t give a rats-ass about the people it employs (tax-payers) and then not allow them the rights they pay taxes for. Arbitration court is a privatized deal, and they rarely go against the person who’s paying them (in this case, KBR)

  53. GM


    Thanks for the substantive response, appalled or not. There is no question companies that are negilgent in protecting their workers, especially those abroad, should have consequences. I have no problem at all with an amendment that cancels contracts with contractors who fail to keep their workers safe. I also don’t have a problem prohibiting future arbitration clauses. I do have a problem with cancelling contracts because they have existing arbitration clauses because that is Congress passing an ex post facto law in violation of the Constitution.

    You said, “Arbitration court is a privatized deal, and they rarely go against the person who’s paying them.” If that is true then Congress and State Legislatures should consider outlawing them altogether. Do you have any stats to back up that allegation? I haven’t been able to find anything that definitevly says arbitration is one-sided.

  54. max

    “I have no problem at all with an amendment that cancels contracts with contractors who fail to keep their workers safe.”

    Then you have no problem with the Franken amendment.

  55. max

    Editor’s Note: I am not humoring, posting, or addressing any more idiot posts that tell me to check a bill when I am talking about an amendment that has been addressed here ad nauseum if you are too lazy to read the posts that is your prob not mine and anyone who wants to voice an opinion should know the difference.

    I am also not humoring, posting, or addressing any more posts that accuse me of being a “reporter skewing the news” when any moron on the internet ought to know the difference between a self proclaimed “news source” and a personal blog. [coughcoughdonnacoughcough] Though I can understand why the line might be unclear to anyone regularly watching Fox News like that is a news source that type of ignorance will simply not be tolerated here.

    My house. My rules.

    Scamper on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *