All right, they didn't technically vote for gang rape. They just voted, as they usually do, for the lobbyists and/or corporations. I unapologetically admit that I chose that title because my original title, and all the other titles I thought of, were much more convoluted and much less provocative. Oh and I originally posted a slightly different version in my Facebook account.
Just in case you were wondering who to vote for - or against - next election, the thirty Senators below opposed an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill meant to basically cut off government contracts to companies that have policies that prevent employees from seeking public justice (i.e. going to the police) about being raped while on the job by coworkers, favoring instead mandatory arbitration... a process that didn't help a woman named Jamie Leigh Jones. In 2005 she was gang-raped in Iraq by her colleagues at KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton. After the rape kit was sent to KBR, for her trouble, she was punished by being put in a storage container for about a day with an armed guard, denied food and water. And when the rape kit resurfaced years later it was gutted of important evidence.
Attention my Missourian friends, you know one of these guys well. Also noteworthy, and to some unsurprisingly, ALL of the nayvoters are Republican, AND male. I have conveniently provided for you, where available, phone numbers and email addresses for them so you can quickly tell them exactly what you think about their vote.
Oh, the amendment, introduced by freshman Senator Al Franken of all people, was passed, 68-30.
Of course, for a sense of balance, in defense of the senators, I should tell you that the Republicans pointed out that the amendment was opposed by many lobbying business interests, namely the US Chamber of Commerce, and applies to companies like Boeing and IBM.
And by the way, I'm not urging you to vote for Democrats; I belong to and owe allegiance to neither party. Vote Green Party for all I care. Just consider this if you were thinking about going Republican the next time these men are up for reelection.
webmaren says: It's worth mentioning that a legitimate gripe for this amendment could be that it self-destructs the entire contract for a "sub-contractor at any level" which may be unduly difficult to untangle. Not that I'm particularly well-versed in DoD contract mechanics, but I would assume that there is a good reason buried in there somewhere.