Thursday, October 8th, 2009
(Note: There seem to be some LivePodium problems this morning, so the old comments system is enabled until they’re resolved.)
Thirty GOP Senators vote against a bill that would give court access to employees of military contractors who are raped while overseas. As I understand it, Franken’s bill applies only to civil suits. The real problem is the legal netherworld that exists when contractors work overseas where they’re bound neither by U.S. law nor local law. Or at least that was the Bush Justice Department’s excuse for not prosecuting these rapes. Anyone know if Congress has changed that to make contractors working for the U.S. government subject to U.S. law?
Sure sounds like a kickback to me.
Dead fly art.
Shorter James Pinkerton: Better to be popular than to be correct.
Police officer mistakes woman playing with pit bull for pit bull attacking woman, shoots both.
Artist couple on quest to photograph every Sizzler in America.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, October 8th, 2009 at 10:06 am by Radley Balko
and is filed under Police Professionalism.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
TheAgitator.com
SC gov’s driver stopped for speeding, not ticketed
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jwt3PDNFWjy1SLEXbj20Rdhnf9nQD9B6SISG0
Note that his SUV was being driven by a state trooper. So now, there’s this fake outrage that a cop expected to not get a ticket from another cop. Read the story, it’s actually pretty funny if you’re in the know.
In all seriousness, what is typical police policy on shooting when a civilian is nearby the target? I realize well that the typical action might be to shoot anyway, but is that what police training tells them?
We all always ask the question of “wtf does it take to fire a cop” so I feel dumb even wondering if the cop who jumped out of her car and started shooting will even be reprimanded. At worst she’s probably looking at a paid vacation when this ignorant tool shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a firearm again.
The GOP is now objectively pro-rape. Congratulations.
I’m glad to see that Sen. Franken is making a difference in the Senate. I like where he is going and what he has done so far. If I were a MN resident, I would definitely vote for him.
Not very often am I impressed by what lawmakers do in Congress. WTG Al!
“‘The young lady started hollering and just at that time a police officer was coming down and thought the dog was attacking the lady,’ witness Dennis Wallace said. ‘I can’t say that I would do anything different. The lady (the officer) drew down and started shooting. I couldn’t say I wouldn’t have done that.’”
We can at least be thankful that Dennis Wallace isn’t a cop.
Regarding the cop who shot both the woman and the woman’s dog, there is some crank commenting in the article’s comments section about how pit bulls are “devils,” and that they should all be put down because there are countless stories of supposedly “noble” pit bulls who suddenly turn and attack.
I’m no fan of the breed, but does anyone else see the irony here: namely, the countless stories of “noble” police officers who suddenly turn and attack?
The fool cop in this story is a greater menace than any pit bull.
Silly cop… The proper procedure was to taze the woman and shoot the dog, then taze the woman again for good measure…
#4
I’d like to hear an explanation from some of those republicans as to why they voted no on his amendment. I looked around and couldn’t find anything on the arguments before the vote so I’m clueless.
The only thing I did find was the franken amendment only names Halliburton which makes me suspicious of his intentions. If Franken only did this out of his leftist hate for halliburton and republicans only voted against it out of their hatred for franken, then they all need heaps of scorn.
I should have read the TP article:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/10/07/kbr-rape-franken-amendment/
I guess if they did the right thing for the wrong reasons it still counts as doing the right thing.
Thanks for reverting to the old comments software, if only temporarily. LivePodium was driving my CPU usage to 100% and locking my computer (Ubuntu OS) up this morning.
Not that LivePodium’s much use when it does run. It’s a turkey and you need to sh–can it.
Thanks for reverting to the old comments software, if only temporarily. LivePodium was driving my CPU usage to 100% and locking my computer (Ubuntu OS) up this morning.
I’m also using Ubuntu, and I’ve never seen anything called “LivePodium”. I only see a link to comments, and clicking on it I find that either I can comment or that comments are locked. No big deal – I enjoy reading this blog more than commenting anyway. Even if it means raising my blood pressure ;)
“Sure sounds like a kickback to me.”
To me, kickback sounds a little like favors among friends. I prefer to call it organized crime.
Go back to this comment system please.
That dead fly art is great. Very creative in a disgusting sort-of-way.
This is an example of the high level of professionalism and training cops have. They can’t tell if a person is actually in danger and, having made the wrong decision about that, they can’t get a clear picture of their shooting zone, recognize the possible unintended targets in the vicinity, actually hit just what they were aiming at or avoid shooting the very person they were trying to protect in the chest.
But she will no doubt be found to have acted entirely appropriately. Further more, because the victim mislead the cop into shooting her, the city will feel no responsibility for her medical care.
Republicans are not libertarians? Well, crap. I’m stunned. Let me just pick my jaw up off the floor and breath into a bag for the rest of the day, hopefully staving off the imminent explosion of my head at the utter shock of that revelation.
It’s for occasions such as these that I now find myself noticing the locations of those portable defibrillators common in many public places. I want to be prepared for the rare event when I am suddenly confronted with heart stopping evidence, out of the blue, that my fellow citizens aren’t the dedicated, freedom loving, live and let live, crusaders for the Founding Principles of liberty that I think they are.
And for crying out loud people, Radley has been very up front about this trial with the new comments system. He gets to make a little extra scratch to participate in this test. He said there would be bugs and that they would be working to improve the functionality. If, in the end, the thing is still unpopular I am sure that will be taken into account.
Until then, participate with helpful feedback or don’t. But quit whining. Its boring. You bore me.
You can’t even mind your own fucking business to avoid getting fucked over by the police. Once again, let’s imagine an armed citizen did this. That citizen would have been arrested, charged with assault, and chastized in the media for being so recless. Welcome to America, with double standards and injustice for all.
#18 – You get 500 thumbs up from me!
I’m with Chris. The bitching about live podium is getting old. It seems like so many people feel like Radley owes YOU the ability to comment on HIS blog the way YOU want it. I’m just glad I get to read real news worthy things every day for free.
So, thanks to Radley for kicking ass every day and putting up with the indignation of unappreciative people.
Don’t worry Chris in AL, once Radley gets his trial comments back up, you won’t have to worry about snarky bitches about the comment section as a lot of us won’t be able to use it or just refuse to because of its failings.
Jozef, it’s because you don’t have Flash installed. Even the *link* to the comments is Flash-based. So when you find the regular comments are locked, it means livepodium is being used, and you can’t see it because flash isn’t running. When the regular comments are unlocked, it means livepodium has been turned off for some reason. Livepodium comments do work for me on Ubuntu, but it still feels a bit like sitting on a tack just to read comments.
No. This is not art. End of discussion.
The GOP is now objectively pro-rape. Congratulations.
With legislation, nothing is a simple as it seems.
@21 Mike
I am not worried about it. It just serves no purpose. And if people can’t or refuse to use it, I am sure that will be accounted for. Frankly, I don’t like the new system either, at least as it is now, and have commented much less frequently because of that.
But if it has potential and needs some improvements, I’ll play along for four months. I have been reading this site for 5+ years. Even rattled the tip jar a couple times because I like what Radley does here. It is no great hardship on me to let him participate in this program for a short while.
If, in the end, the system starts working smoothly and adds some cool functionality that wasn’t there before, great. And if not and it reverts to this system, fine. And when I compile some useful info about what is good or bad about the system, I’ll send it to him. It is just no big deal beyond that.
Cheers
I hope Sizzler follows Golden Corral and has its own “Seniors Afternoon Delight”
Tokin42: The only reasonable explanation I can think of is that they didn’t think it was appropriate for an appropriations bill. Now, why they’d have suddenly picked today to start caring about putting unrelated shit in bills is beyond me.
GAH. That lady did enter an employment contract that required her to go through internal binding arbitration. Should she be allowed to do that?
Of course, the whole thing is disgusting, and I’d like to see her sue the bejeezus out of everyone responsible. But should people be able to enter a contract that totally immunizes the other party from all sorts of liability? I don’t know. The whole thing makes me a little sick.
By that logic, anyone apposed to the sex offender registries must be in favor of sexual assault, which helps explain why sex registries remain so popular.
For that matter, anyone voting against a resolution to go to war must be anti-American, which helps to explain why we measure our military workload not according to whether we’re engaged in a war, but by how many wars we’re engaged in at the same time.
#23 | MattH
Thanks; I wasn’t aware the comments would require Flash. For my limited on-line activities I don’t need Flash, and until there’s a NoScript clone for Epiphany I’d prefer to remain without Flash. But at least now the problem’s on my end, and I can fix it if I choose to :)
The Sizzler project seems pretty uninteresting. It would be cool if they got some pictures of abandoned Sizzlers, but I have a hard time believing there’s enough interesting local variation in how the Sizzlers look to make the project even remotely interesting.
On the other hand, that dead fly art is great.
As to the comment system problems – my suggestion is that if you dislike the new system, don’t post on it, and when the system “has problems” and goes down (a regular occurrence, apparently), make sure to post a comment (related to the post topic) on the old system, to show your support.
do you think Houston buys the woman that got shot in the chest some movie tickets? geez, the first rule for medicine is to ‘first do no harm’- maybe we can get the cops to look at this?
Re: GOP vothing against rape legislation:
I get that Republicans were voting against the language in the bill that effectively bans all forms of binding arbitration and I think the Democrats were very cynical to use this sitatution to advance their pet-projects. What I don’t get is why Republicans didn’t do anything about this when they had control of both houses. They could have passed this bill minus that anti-arbitration language without breaking a sweat.
More on the light-hearted side of things…
I sent my fiance the link to that dead-fly art and she can actually read the ones that have writing (she’s swedish). In the one where the two flys are at the dinner table the one says “Is it good?” and the other replies “”mm… yeah… you’ve really done a great job; it tastes like shit”
As I understand it, it’s a joke. If Franken were serious, he would propose a bill stating that military contractors are subject to either the UCMJ or a combination of federal civilian law and the law of their state of normal residence while operating under federal capacity abroad.
***Screw his bill. Let some KBR thugs rape a woman who’s covered by Texan or Virginian jurisdiction through an extension by the feds and that’ll end realllll quick…
Since there are some comments on comments, I suppose I should clarify my stance. I’m -not- against trying a new thing/Radley running the site how he wants/Radley getting paid for it (good!) etc. I just view this as a computer problem (my field). In this case, the new system has many many things against it (violation of basic UI guidelines, things that don’t work right, practical issues like the comments aren’t visible with the article, it’s just plain hard to read, etc).
As such, I want this site to have maximum effectiveness as that’s presumably Radley’s goal and certainly the reason we’re all here. The biggest part of that is the content and of course thanks to Radley for supplying that; despite the occasional differing views it’s still easily one of the best general libertarian blogs AFAIK.
I originally supported the switch, but the new system introduces a lot of problems. As such, I’m waiting for the day that the issues are fixed and then we can judge if the goal is being met. Right now, I have to say that this is very refreshing, the comments are readable and accessible; I can hardly bear to bother checking them out in the new system as it currently stands. I think those saying “quit bitching this is boring” may have a point, but part of this blog’s success (maybe not a big part, see above praise of Radley/content obviously) is thoughtful commentary, and therefore criticism of a feature that is honestly impeding this part of the system is not “boring” but, rather, “important.”
[...] comments at Balko’s site are amusing, too, especially #24: “No. This is not art. End of discussion.” Since art [...]
DOD contractors are supposedly covered by the UCMJ, it will be interesting to see if this survives a court challenge. In this particular case the victim probably shouldn’t have signed a contract with an arbitration clause. In the future I am sure these contracts will be with a company’s overseas unit and therefore the contractors will not have any access to US courts.
The Cop “saving” the “dog attack victim” reminds me of this:
Mayor: Now Drebin, I don’t want any trouble like you had on the South Side last year, that’s my policy.
Frank: Well, when I see five weirdos, dressed in togas, stabbing a man in the middle of the park in full view of a hundred people, I shoot the bastards, that’s *my* policy!
Mayor: That was a Shakespeare-In-The-Park production of ‘Julius Caesar,’ you moron! You killed five actors! Good ones!
@ 38 Tim C
Hey bud,
You just made a good post and listed some legitimate problems. That kind of thing was want Radley wanted as feedback and was never the problem.
The ‘boring’ thing was just a reference to Johnny Dangerously, lol. Perhaps only I got it.
The woman who would like to bring the civil suit against the DOD contractor probably figured arbitration would be sufficient for what she needed – pay disputes, etc.
She probably never imagined when she reported being raped to her employer their response would be to hold her against her will in a cargo container and it would require intervention from her congressman to get her out. Arbitration isn’t really appropriate after kidnapping.
Mario @ 7 – Epic comment
So let me get this straight here….A cop shoots a woman…in order to protect her….without being sure of the situation.
Sounds ok to me. Kind of like when they shoot people threatening suicide to prevent them from killing themselves…police logic. We aren’t supposed to get it.
Please pass go and collect $200 Mr. Policeman. And here’s your Hero’s citation…and promotion…and interdepartmental move to the SWAT team.
I can sleep better now knowing you are on the job. *note to self…do not wrestle with kids on the front lawn….
@Tonkin #9: I looked at the transcript earlier, and the opposition vote was because the amendment (it’s not a bill) was far more broad than it’s purported to be. It does include sexual assault, but it does not stop there (or close to there).
On the other hand, I would like to see Congress enact a statute extending U.S. jurisdiction specifically to these kinds of criminal defendants, to clear up the confusion about whether they are subject to local law or U.S. law. It would be nice for Franken to do that instead of this largely symbolic (and way overbroad) carve out to arbitration clauses.
I say symbolic because the Fifth Circuit has already determined that the conduct that was the impetus for the amendment is not arbitrable conduct.
I am especially shocked that anyone could consider voting against the amendment to be “pro-rape” since all the amendment addresses is whether certain claims will be subject to compelled arbitration. I guess overreading part and underreading another part in the service of partisan bullshit is okay? Does anyone ever actually go read the original sources?
DOD civilian contractors are not subject to the UCMJ unless they are “serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field” in a time of war. UCMJ § 802(a)(10). Since we don’t know what these folks were tasked to do, we don’t know whether they were serving with the military, but I doubt it. If the UCMJ applied, the territorial limitations that cause the problem would not exist (if the UCMJ applies to you, it applies anywhere), and I sincerely doubt that prosecutors don’t want to prosecute those guys.
As to comments. I don’t like that the other system is flash, since it doesn’t allow me to comment when I am using my iPhone (and flash is evil). I wish it could at least be embedded in the way that the live chats are, in the permalink page, rather than in a new window altogether.
I check back in 4 months. see you then.
RE: the rape law. To answer Radley’s question he poses in the blog, any contractor, civilian, or uniformed service member overseas still falls under US law. For example, I am a civil service employee (yes, yes, one of those evil federal workers, but before you give me thumbs down just for that – I work in an organization who’s purpose is to identify fraud, and so far in my 10 year career I’ve saved the government over $100 million…) and my wife is a government contractor, living in Germany. Even though it is perfectly legal to consume pot in Amsterdam, we are still barred from doing so due to the US laws. Same thing applies to prostitution, which is legal here.
I think the key phrase from that article is that the Bush Justice Department declined to prosecute. They could have, just chose not to…
@Gac: You might consider, given the source of that article, that its reporting may be biased.
You might also read a little about the jurisdictional issue in the case. You might also decide that it’s been 10 months or so since President Obama took over and the justice department has still not pursued the case. After doing all of that, it might be that you will realize the original article is maybe, just maybe, preaching to the choir and that the legal issue involved is more difficult than it appears.
I suppose it would make everyone feel better if the justice department filed a case that immediately was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but it would be a waste of time. Congress has to address the issue before the executive, regardless of who the president is, can take action.
I’d love for you to cite to why you think it is that “any contractor, civilian or uniformed service member overseas still falls under US law.”
For one thing, I know that you’re wrong, but if you think you can prove you’re right, have at it. You can ignore uniformed service members (who are always and everywhere subject to the UCMJ) and concentrate on civilians and contractors. “That’s what my boss told me” doesn’t count. I have no doubt that the conditions of your employment forbid your using pot anywhere, but that’s not the same as saying U.S. criminal law applies to you in Amsterdam.
Finally, the jurisdicitional question is one that would not arise in Europe. It arose in Iraq because of a CPA rule (that was ill-advised).
Gac – Could you identify the statute that applies US law to overseas civilians? I can see how you could be fired for a rule violation but not a prosecution?
Just a comment about the comment system. While the posts are usually good and interesting it is the comments that I spend the most time reading. So changing the comment system dramatically impacts my experience at the site.
While I like LivePodium’s threading of comments, I can’t say I like much else about it. The “old” system is much cleaner looking and easier to type into. Firefox’s spellchecker works on the “old” system but not on LP. You can actually see the article you’re commenting on with the old system where as LP it isn’t there. The entire comment shows in the old system where the longer ones are cut off on LP. Finally, I don’t like the idea of having to visit a completely different domain to read comments from theagitator.com.
I have to say I’m happy to us back to the old system. I hope when LP is “fixed” that you do not return to it.
Can’t actually cite the regs, but I know in our mandatory training it says we (civilians, contractors, etc stationed overseas) are subject to US laws for certain offenses. I know it says it explicitly in the trafficing in persons training I just took.
I’ll see if I can find something else to support….
Ok, found it. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2009. Basically, the act extends coverage of US laws to civilians, contractors, etc accompanying the U.S. Armed Forces or employed by the U.S. Armed Forces. It only applies to felonies, and there are exemptions if the host nation is prosecuting.
Don’t know how to link, but you can find it at http://courtmartial.typepad.com/mljucmj/ucmj-jurisdiction-civ/
I’ll keep looking to see if I can find anything else…
Dang typos, that should be the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, not 2009…
Don’t read the summary. Read the statute. The statute applies to the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction” of the U.S., which is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 7.
If you read 18 U.S.C. § 7, you’ll find that it doesn’t apply to crimes committed in another nation (”Any place outside the jurisdiction of any nation with respect to an offense by or against a national of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. §7(7)).
These crimes were committed in Iraq and are subject to Iraqi jurisdiction, so the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States is not implicated.
However, under CPA Order 17, Contractors were granted immunity under Iraqi law. Now, there are two arguments here. One is that this makes them not subject to the law of Iraq at all and they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction under MEJA (actually, I think under the UCMJ, but that’s a quibble). Unfortunately, that argument loses its force because if they were not SUBJECT to Iraqi law, then Iraq could not grant them immunity under Iraqi law. So the CPA created the loophole that prevented prosecution in this case, and the behavior of KBR with respect to the evidence probably ruined the chance of a prosecution anyway. There is nothing stopping Congress from expanding jurisdiction, but they have not done so (presumably there won’t be any more orders like CPA 17, but Congress can get around the problem by amending 18 U.S.C. § 7(7) to include crimes committed against U.S. nationals anywhere, whether in another nation or not).
Also, I think if you follow the analysis of the statutes, you’ll find smoking dope in Amsterdam is probably not within the jurisdiction of the United States (for one thing, it’s probably just a misdemeanor, for another its within the nation of the Netherlands). I suppose you could argue that because it’s not illegal there, you’re not subject to the law of another nation, but I’d expect that argument to get laughed out of court. Nonetheless, I suspect it remains a condition of your federal employment that you not use marijuana.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Here is the text of the ACT (from http://www.pubklaw.com/hi/pl106-523.pdf), which amends Title 18 of the USC:
§ 3261. Criminal offenses committed by certain members
of the Armed Forces and by persons employed
by or accompanying the Armed Forces outside
the United States
(a) Whoever engages in conduct outside the United States
that would constitute an offense punishable by imprisonment for
more than 1 year if the conduct had been engaged in within the
special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States—
(1) while employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces
outside the United States; or
‘‘(2) while a member of the Armed Forces subject to chapter
47 of title 10 (the Uniform Code of Military Justice),
shall be punished as provided for that offense.
Read section (a) there – if you commit an act OUTSIDE of the US that would be punishable INSIDE the US, you can be prosecuted. While I agree smoking dope in Amsterdam would probably be a misdemeanor and wouldn’t be punishable, raping someone in Iraq definitely would be.
[...] Radley Balko: Thirty GOP Senators vote against a bill that would give court access to employees of military contractors who are raped while overseas. As I understand it, Franken’s bill applies only to civil suits. The real problem is the legal netherworld that exists when contractors work overseas where they’re bound neither by U.S. law nor local law. Or at least that was the Bush Justice Department’s excuse for not prosecuting these rapes. Anyone know if Congress has changed that to make contractors working for the U.S. government subject to U.S. law? [...]
1. The laws referenced in 18 USC 3261 are federal laws only, and rape/assault cases are controlled, as most criminal activities are, by state criminal statute, not federal law.
2. The bill only forbids providing federal dollars to companies that contractually forbid employees from taking the employer to court for “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.”
3. The amendment works as all federal funding limitations do, such as previous conditions forbidding federal highway funds to be provided to states that do not have a 21 year old drinking age, etc.
4. The actual language of the amendment found at http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:1:./temp/~r111wQiK1Y:e0: addresses all government contractors, not just KBR and Haliburton.
5. The State Department turned this case, and several others, over to the Justice Department for consideration, and Justice decided not to prosecute, citing the ambiguity of local law and doubts that any federal statute could be enforced.
6. The woman who was the impetus for the bill was gang-raped by several co-workers, then locked in a shipping container for more than 24 hours without food or water when she indicated she would be filing complaints. The, after doing so, KBR’s security company ‘lost’ the rape kit after doctors turned it over to them.
7. Arbitration in employment contracts, if anyone here has had any experience, are often lopsided in favor of the employer, usually requiring use of arbitration groups and/or arbitrators that are pro-employer.
8. Unlike the courts, arbitrations are not appealable, unless someone refuses to follow the arbitrators order. They can add extra expense and time to an employee’s claim.
I agree– what DOES it take to fire a cop? I think they are given wayyy to much leniency when they are in the wrong. In all seriousness, I understand they put their lives on the line every day, and I understand honest mistakes as well, but there has to be some degree of accountability..