Is it rational to question that a rape took place in the face of documented extensive injuries and medical opinion that exists in this case? I think Desert Sage is projecting his irrational position on you.

The article DS linked doesn’t mention Rep. Poe and his first hand knowledge. From his article, “I haven’t seen any support for the contention that there is a loophole that leaves an American contractor’s attack on an American outside the scope of criminal prosecution, as some blogs have claimed.” I guess the author hasn’t talked to Rep. Poe. Poe said, “When these American civilians become victims of crimes by other Americans, it is unclear who’s enforcing the law. Our government must clear up this confusion, because currently there seems to be an environment of lawlessness. These criminals must be held accountable.”

Adam Smith, the patron saint of the free market, never claimed the invisible hand could preform its magic outside a moral society. Compassion and the ability to feel empathy is the emotional foundation on which morality is built.

Three cheers for emotionalism based on fact.

Probably a little more “balanced” viewpoint.”

Balanced? Hmm, with a name like “overlawyered”, I think its safe to assume, shall we say, a certain bias.

Also, hundreds of American civilians like Jamie are in Iraq working in support of America’s military mission. When these American civilians become victims of crimes by other Americans, it is unclear who’s enforcing the law. Our government must clear up this confusion, because currently there seems to be an environment of lawlessness. These criminals must be held accountable.

My tremendous case worker, Patti Chapman, worked with Jamie since her rescue and has helped her in this most tragic case, and helped her in a compassionate way. Patti Chapman, like many congressional caseworkers, are angels to the people in our communities.

Republican Congressman Ted Poe seems to be convinced that the rape occurred, perhaps he has more credibility with you.

http://poe.house.gov/news/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=80702

LOL, you two really missed the point didn’t you. Note that the every one of the authors of your “sources” cited that she was the “alleged” vicitm. They don’t even know the facts, but they sure have lots of opinions about what happened.

No, you missed the point of the whole post. The point was about corporate interest being put before human rights. Everyone should have the right to address a wrong in court. And OF COURSE the word alleged was used. Until someone is tried and convicted there is nothing but an allegation. That’s why she deserves her day in court.

You both have convicted the acused based on simple tabloid journalism. You’re both so wrapped up using this case as a cause celebre for rape victims when the truth is you don’t have any clue as to if the event even occurred. Yes, the media presents a good story to support the accusation, but the criminal cases haven’t progressed. Why not?

Because, yo yo, the rape occurred in Iraq and is outside U.S. jurisdiction. Of course, if you actually read what I wrote and comprehended it you would know that.

You keep watching Oprah and arm-chair quarterbacking doing research sitting on your ass surfing the internet. I’m going to wait and see if our justice system sorts out if this is truly a real case or just another Tawana Brawly moment.

I guess you did your research in person? You went and interviewed people in person, right? No, you didn’t did you, hypocrite. I’ve never watched Oprah and your condescending, patronizing sexist comment is noted. It was nothing unusual coming from you.

What part of the rape happened outside of U.S. jurisdiction did you not get? And Halliburton is still arguing that she shouldn’t be allowed a civil case.

A judge heard her case and determined it was credible. ABC is not tabloid journalism and is certainly more balanced than your Manhattan Institute source.
Here’s a suggestion for you….PISS OFF. Go patronize someone who doesn’t see through your comments for the sexism they are.

I thought the Manhattan Institute rang a bell. It’s the think tank that the wacko Betsy McCaughey was a part of.

Information on the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Institute received $19,470,416 in grants from 1985-2005, from foundations such as the Koch Family Foundations, the John M. Olin Foundation, Inc., the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Scaife Foundations, and the Smith Richardson Foundation. The Manhattan Institute does not disclose its corporate funding, but the Capital Research Center listed its contributors as Bristol-Myers Squibb, Exxon Mobil, Chase Manhattan, CIGNA, Sprint, Reliant Energy, Lincoln Financial Group Foundation, and Merill Lynch.

And for missing the point, look in the mirror. Jamie Leigh Jones’ case is not the point of the original post. Corporations using employee contracts to deny employees rights is. Whether or not she was raped is not the issue. The original comment of “scumbags” had nothing to do with the Jamie Leigh Jones case, it had to do with putting corporate interests before human rights. Everyone should have a recourse when an employer violates them as human beings.

And just in case you didn’t get the message in the other reply, PISS OFF. You’re not going to continue to be a sexist, condescending asshole here.

http://overlawyered.com/2007/12/halliburton-gang-rape-and-fear-of-arbitration-the-jamie-leigh-jones-case/

Probably a little more “balanced” viewpoint.

You both have convicted the acused based on simple tabloid journalism. You’re both so wrapped up using this case as a cause celebre for rape victims when the truth is you don’t have any clue as to if the event even occurred. Yes, the media presents a good story to support the accusation, but the criminal cases haven’t progressed. Why not?

You keep watching Oprah and arm-chair quarterbacking doing research sitting on your ass surfing the internet. I’m going to wait and see if our justice system sorts out if this is truly a real case or just another Tawana Brawly moment.

If it is real, I hope they duly prosecute the perpetrators and any other obstructionists to the case.