It's not Halliburton. The company cut its ties with them a few years ago.
US companies to be barred from govt contracts if they deny workers court access
- Thread starter RedRalph
- Start date
Pardon me, a company that was a Halliburton subsidiary at the time of the incident.
Ecofarm
Deity
The report shows no evidence of rape or an army-halliburton cover-up. The report is evidence of nothing, except that she went to an army doctor.
"Victim's" (I believe the term is 'prosecution's' - but you can go ahead and claim she is a victim from the start if that helps you believe in BS) uncorroborated claims =/= evidence.
ps. I'm not defending Halliburton - don't put words in my mouth. I think the clause is crap. I also think this woman realized the clause was crap and that an outrageous enough claim would make her famous and the poster-woman for anti-Halliburton shreaks.
Take the same exact "case" and put ACORN as the defendant and every lib here claims it is BS, guaranteed.
I'm not being partisan. I'm being critical and objective, and I call BS when I smell it - yes, even if it is a woman making the claim. I've studied the case, I've watched the interview with her and her attorney on TV, and I'm calling BS. Sorry if that is not popular (especially with the "haliburton = devil" crowd), but I call em like I see em.
So, what evidence do you base this on? What evidence proves that this claim is fake? What evidence shows that she drugged herself and then provided injuries consistent in the matter in which the doctor would conclude that it sexual assault? Merely "smelling BS" isn't enough.Ecofarm said:
It cannot be that she doesn't have enough evidence now to conduct a criminal case - that simply shows that there's not enough evidence for a conviction, not that she faked it.
ori said:
Wrong. Title 18, Part I, Chapter 1, § 7, of the United States Code, entitled "Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined," the United States has jurisdiction over the following:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000007----000-.html
It was out of Iraqi jurisdiction and therefore it was in US jurisdiction, as Jones is a US citizen.
Ecofarm
Deity
So now I have to prove a negative; I must stop paying attention to that kind of crap.
There is no evidence she was drugged. There is no evidence of sexual battery except her personal doctor's claim, which contradicts the army doctor's report and rape-kit administered on-site.
You love this story so much, as it makes halliburton look bad, that you never bothered to really look at it and see it for what it is.
I agree with Franken's addition to the Bill (despite the vote following party lines), I'm not partisan. But I didn't start buying stories without any evidence yesterday. And I'm not going to start buying stories without any evidence anytime soon - I don't care who is being accused or who is the accuser.
There is no evidence she was drugged. There is no evidence of sexual battery except her personal doctor's claim, which contradicts the army doctor's report and rape-kit administered on-site.
You love this story so much, as it makes halliburton look bad, that you never bothered to really look at it and see it for what it is.
I agree with Franken's addition to the Bill (despite the vote following party lines), I'm not partisan. But I didn't start buying stories without any evidence yesterday. And I'm not going to start buying stories without any evidence anytime soon - I don't care who is being accused or who is the accuser.
What definition of evidence are you using? Admitted evidence in a court room? How do you think people get to a court room? They make claims. Those claims may become evidence. Here we have a woman who has her own personal statements and a forensic report. If you needed more than that to bring a sexual assault tort or a rape charge you would probably never see either of them make it to a jury.
You can attack the veracity of her statements and the doctor's report. I can't defend them beyond what I read in the article so be my guest. But saying she has no evidence is premature.
Anyways the thing people are pissed about is the mandatory arbitration clause. Whether her case is strong or not is not really the point. Or at least not what I really care about.
That's not proving a negative. That's proving that she faked evidence. I am not making an argument from ignorance - a fallacious argument from ignorance has one of the two forms:
* Something is currently unexplained or insufficiently understood or explained, so it is not (or must not be) true.
* Because there appears to be a lack of evidence for one hypothesis, another chosen hypothesis is therefore considered proven.
In fact, you're the one using an argument from ignorance here. As shown here:
That is not evidence that the charges are false. That is evidence that there is not enough evidence for a conviction. You're the one making the claim that she faked it and so the burden of proof is on you to prove this. At most, you can merely say that there is not enough evidence that the claims are true or false.
If you said something like "I'm skeptical that she is telling the truth because she only has circumstantial evidence" that would be one thing. "There is not evidence, therefore she is lying and the incident is false" is completely different - because this is an argument from ignorance - you are claiming a premise to be true only because it has not been proven false.
Mere lack of evidence of guilt cannot be taken as evidence of innocence.
Halliburton has nothing to do with it. I never particularly payed attention to Hallburton during the Iraq War period, anyway. As said before, this incident was in KBR, not Halliburton. I don't care which company did it. I only care that this arbitration is being used as an excuse to not properly resolve this matter.
Ecofarm
Deity
No, the burden of proof is on her. I've examined the case, I've watched the interview and I think it is BS. There is no evidence, merely claims (that are largely contradicted by official investigations).
Like I said, replace halliburton with ACORN and you would have a totally different take on her claims. I would be the same, but you would change songs.
You claimed that she is faking it. That is quite different than her burden of proof of proving that her claims are true. If she could not prove that her claims are true, that would not mean that she faked it. It can simply mean that she does not have enough evidence to prove the truth.
Yeah - thats what we get from having two threads about the same thing
I already posted in the other thread that there is some dispute about whether this code provides jurisdiction in this case. However its not so easy - since the place was within the jurisdiction of Iraq - there were just specific persons not under its jurisdiction.
Also the Department of Justice never implemented procedures that would have allowed it to actually conduct criminal investigations or in any other way allowed the US to assume jurisdiction outside the scope of military justice - so for all practical uses they were indeed not subject to any jurisdiction.
Yeah - thats what we get from having two threads about the same thing
I already posted in the other thread that there is some dispute about whether this code provides jurisdiction in this case. However its not so easy - since the place was within the jurisdiction of Iraq - there were just specific persons not under its jurisdiction.
Also the Department of Justice never implemented procedures that would have allowed it to actually conduct criminal investigations or in any other way allowed the US to assume jurisdiction outside the scope of military justice - so for all practical uses they were indeed not subject to any jurisdiction.
Right. As I shown in that section, if a crime committed to a US citizen is not subject to jurisdiction of a foreign state, then they are within the jurisdiction of the US.
If the immunity to Iraqi law for U.S. contractors from the Iraqi government applies, then the paragraph would apply, as Jones is a national of the United States.
People really have no idea what the word "evidence" means. Ecofarm's approach to "evidence" would do vastly more to prevent punishment of perpetrators of child sexual abuse than anything that took place in a fake ACORN video.
Also: "I don't believe the evidence" and "there is no evidence" mean two different things.
Cleo
Also: "I don't believe the evidence" and "there is no evidence" mean two different things.
Cleo
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Which is kind of ironic given the fact that he thinks a 20 year old guy who bangs a 17 year old girl is a paedophile (yet admires Silvio Berlusconi).
Eco, you're right that there's nothing in being a feminist that says you have to believe every rape accusation. However, there's something very misogynistic in dismissing a rape accusation as being a money grabbing plot by a woman. Not believing a woman is an action that is confined to your person; going on the offensive and actively stating that her claim is a lie motivated by greed reinforces social stigmas and stereotypes about rape. The facts of the case are unknown to us to judge either way so conclusively.
Shame on you.
Shame on you.
Ecofarm
Deity
Shame on you.
For buying any bullcrap story that a woman throws your way, without evidence, just because a woman is making the claim.
1. I said it is statutory rape, not pedophilia.
2. I said that Berlusconi was ruined for me when I found that out.
Stop inventing things about me, to try to make me look bad. I don't know what your personal problem is with me but I'm tired of you constantly inventing BS about me instead of contributing to threads. Find another obsession, I'm beginning to tire of you. Seriously, if you are going to spend all of your time under my skirt, at least please me; while I enjoy being a celebrity that you cannot stop talking about personally, your stalking is entirely negative.
So, be nice and you can continue talking about me all the time or stop - your choice. To be entirely honest, I'd prefer if you would just be a good stalker.
Here's an idea: maybe we could find something we agree on, or better yet a common enemy, and make a thread where we bash them madly and make fun of everyone else and have a grand ole time. Perhaps then you cold put whatever bad blood you have with me under the bridge. Or we could smooch.
For buying any bullcrap story that a woman throws your way, without evidence, just because a woman is making the claim.
1. I said it is statutory rape, not pedophilia.
2. I said that Berlusconi was ruined for me when I found that out.
Stop inventing things about me, to try to make me look bad. I don't know what your personal problem is with me but I'm tired of you constantly inventing BS about me instead of contributing to threads. Find another obsession, I'm beginning to tire of you. Seriously, if you are going to spend all of your time under my skirt, at least please me; while I enjoy being a celebrity that you cannot stop talking about personally, your stalking is entirely negative.
So, be nice and you can continue talking about me all the time or stop - your choice. To be entirely honest, I'd prefer if you would just be a good stalker.
Here's an idea: maybe we could find something we agree on, or better yet a common enemy, and make a thread where we bash them madly and make fun of everyone else and have a grand ole time. Perhaps then you cold put whatever bad blood you have with me under the bridge. Or we could smooch.
I don't think anyone is "buying" it, in terms of believing it to be 100% irrefutable or anything. I think people are just not dismissing it outright. Which is what you are doing, which is I think why so many people are a little puzzled.
Ecofarm
Deity
John Stewart sure as hell did, and so did alot of people here. I'm not looking for the quotes, sorry, but I see just about everyone saying she was raped. I'm tired of "Halliburton = rapists" from partisans and someone should point out that it is wrong.
Well as I said the outrage was about the way they tried to nip the sexual abuse lawsuit in the bud, in the form of arbitration, and the Senators who voted against an amendment which, granted, had an intentionally sensational title. Then again it's hard to not rile people up when you talk about sexual abuse/rape. I mean how many other ways can you couch an amendment that specifically addresses sexual abuse and rape?
And, saying these are all complete lies and fabrications seems equally tenuous to completely buying everything hook line and sinker.
And, saying these are all complete lies and fabrications seems equally tenuous to completely buying everything hook line and sinker.
Ecofarm
Deity
No, I think the outrage is directly tied to believing the claims. It's much more anti-halliburton rage than anti-arbitration clause rage. Many companies have arbitration clauses, but people only talk about halliburton - because of the claims.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
You are obviously wrong. This is clearly a hypocritical plot by the far left to discredit that bastion of goodness and light - Halliburton.
Link to video.
Similar threads
