Not necessarily. More than a few of us out here believe that Iraq was Bush’s plan even before he was elected, and that he would have invaded Iraq sooner if 9/11 had not occurred.

She’s free to sue the people that raped her.

No, she’s not. That’s the problem.

Besides that, arbitration is NEVER a good idea for anyone who has been victimized. It benefits large corporations and abusers, and the victims usually walk away even more battered and with less (of everything) than they walked in with.

An unsafe work enviornment seems to fit that bill.

You’re seriously going to call rape, being locked in a shipping container after trying to report said rape, and having the company lose her rape kit an “unsafe work enviornment?!”

Since when is rape a “grievance,” that’s what I want to know. conditions under which KBR/Halliburton wins 80% of its cases

I like arbitration but don’t want to derail the discussion. She’s free to sue the people that raped her. But she did agree to take claims relating to her employee contract through arbitration. An unsafe work enviornment seems to fit that bill.

Per KBR (fwiw) 96% of claims are settled prior to arbitration. They’re clearly implying that they settle when they’re at fault but I’d like to see some sort of independent verification.

I don’t see how it’s the fault of KBR that the DOJ isn’t doing it’s job.

Another thing that wasn’t mentioned in this post — that makes this situation all that much more appalling — is that not only will she not be able to have her day in criminal court, but she won’t be able to do so in civil court, either. That’s because KBR is claiming that her employment contract states all “grievances” must be settled in arbitration (conditions under which KBR/Halliburton wins 80% of its cases). Since when is rape a “grievance,” that’s what I want to know.

Oh, also, this post didn’t point out that she did have a rape kit done, one which showed extensive injuries and indicated vaginal and anal rape. That rape kit was handed over to KBR/Halliburton — who “misplaced” it. They have since found it — but now it’s no longer admissible in court (because of the problems with “chain of command.”

Has this story had any play in the MSM other than in the Nation?

It’s gotten so much press, I’m actually a little surprised to hear that people are only just know hearing about it. It’s been on CNN, CSPAN, 20/20 and ABC News more times than I can count. It’s been in Harpers, and the National Ledger, and many, many more. To see all of th press, including the press releases from US Congress urging the State Dept. and the Dept. of Justice to do something about this AND her own presentation at the Congressional Hearing on this subject, you can go to the Jamie Leigh Foundation’s press page.

And, since Jamie Leigh started her foundation and started speaking out in the media, a number of women in similar situations have come forward and reached out for help and shared their (very similar) stories. I’ve also taken calls from a number of women who have experienced this (although our organization doesn’t really help in these situations, which is why I’m glad that Jamie Leigh’s org is out there). I’ve spoken to Jamie Leigh myself, and she is an amazingly strong and awe-inspriring woman. I’m so glad that she has found the strength, and has the support (esp. of her family and friends and her Congressman in TX who really started the ball rolling in getting her safe and getting this into the public media) to speak out for all the women who have been where she was.

I wonder if they’re going to try to say that this is covered under OPSEC - a.k.a. operational security - such that disclosing details of what happened when would jeopardize the security of operations (e.g., “so we met at point ‘x’ at time ‘y’ like we always do”)? But more likely someone’s trying to cover up, or keep a headline out of the news.

In Bush’s eyes, for American contractors to be arrested and tried for rape would be unbearable; letting them get away with rape is, in the administration’s view, the lesser evil.

Oh, come on. Bush probably has no clue about this at all. A better guess would be that someone at a particular level in DoJ has decided that this would make bad publicity (along the lines of Abu Ghraib) and is sitting on an investigation. Or someone in DoJ owes someone in KBR a favor.

It is a pretty standard practice to keep U.S. military personnel out of the local legal systems in foreign countries; this far predates the current administration.

Well sure, but are private contractors ‘military personnel’?

And if so, shouldn’t they be subject to court-martial?

—Myca