Well, we all now from previous prominent GOP politicians that rape is all part of God's plan.

Yep that's the GOP we know and love.

GOP is pro rape. Well not really pro rape, they just don't think that women should complain about it.

Let's keep that in mind in addition to all of the other heinous racist, homophobic, anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-environment things that they do.

The GOP really doesn't care if women get raped.

How anyone can support these evil bastards is beyond me.

Here's a flashier, interactive version of the vote breakdown:
[Link: www.opencongress.org...]

Wow...

Who was the GOP "dude" who recently made headlines by trying to bribe a rape victim into withdrawing her complaint, and then, when she told him to FOAD, portrayed her as a willing victim-slut who got what she was asking for?

This is a pattern with the GOP.

We should not forget the Franken amendment and the Jamie Leigh Jones case.

I posted a page on it in my mini blog called Republicans for Rape.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

She was horrifically and brutally gang raped and sodomized by Haliburton employees and then locked by Haliburton into a cargo crate to prevent her from talking. She was told she would be fired if she talked as well. This occurred in Iraq. She was lent a phone by a sympathetic guard. She called her dad. It took the State Department to get her out of the crate.

Jones found all manner of legal hassle in trying to sue Haliburton for imprisoning her in a cargo container and disposing of her rape kit to protect its employees after she was brutally gang raped. This was because of the fine print in her contract that would send even criminal cases to arbitrations of Haliburton's choosing. There was also a loophole that prevented her from pressing criminal charges since this happened overseas.

Al Franken introduced an amendment to a spending bill that very simply and narrowly would prohibit companies that had such clauses getting federal contracts unless they removed such clauses.

The bill passed, but nearly every Republican as in 39 out of 40 at the time voted against it. Their corporate masters are more important to them then the rights of raped women - even to the extent of locking those women in packing crates to silence them.

I would like to know why they voted against the legislation. Were there parts of it that would make a confusing and difficult jurisdiction situation worse? Did they feel it was an overreach of the Federal government?

The headline is sensational but it really doesn't explain much about their decision.

re: #7 DaddyG

Most likely they were protecting a corporate interest.

That is what happened in the Jones case.

The original Swedish title of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is "Män Som Hatar Kvinnor" (Men Who Hate Women).

I suggest we draw up profiles of these 92 shits under that accurate title.

re: #3 simoom

Here's a flashier, interactive version of the vote breakdown:
[Link: www.opencongress.org...]

Any idea what these Rep's rationale for opposing this is?

re: #6 LudwigVanQuixote

Right. I was going to point out the last time when 30 Republicans voted against Al Franken's anti-rape amendment in the Senate.

They were:

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

re: #8 LudwigVanQuixote

Most likely they were protecting a corporate interest.

That is what happened in the Jones case.

But in this case what corporate interest? Reservation Casino Gambling? Navaho Pottery?

I would ask the same questions if the Democrats had voted lock step against it too. The knee jerk "Republicans are evil bastards" response doesn't tell me much about the proposed law or why someone should vote against it or for it the way it was worded.

The conclusion that Republicans like women to be raped is sensational but not very illuminating.

re: #12 DaddyG

But in this case what corporate interest? Reservation Casino Gambling? Navaho Pottery?

I would ask the same questions if the Democrats had voted lock step against it too. The knee jerk "Republicans are evil bastards" response doesn't tell me much about the proposed law or why someone should vote against it or for it the way it was worded.

The conclusion that Republicans like women to be raped is sensational but not very illuminating.

Here's some more info on the law. Maybe you can pick out something that would cause an issue? I really can't...

[Link: news.yahoo.com...]

re: #10 SanFranciscoZionist

Any idea what these Rep's rationale for opposing this is?

Better raped than red?

Rape is a property crime, don'cha know? If you leave your property out where someone else can steal it, well, why should the government get involved. Women should be safely at home at all times...
/

78 Republicans voted FOR this.
Reichert was one of them.

I'm searching for the reason why 92 voted against it. It would have been good perhaps include the "why" in this thread. Until then, I will not subscribe to the mantra that the GOP is "pro rape".

"but-but, rape is trickle-down economics! it creates jobs by giving police more crimes to investigate!"

-republicans

GOP = hatebaggers in pinstripe drag.

re: #16 Ericus58

78 Republicans voted FOR this.
Reichert was one of them.

I'm searching for the reason why 92 voted against it. It would have been good perhaps include the "why" in this thread. Until then, I will not subscribe to the mantra that the GOP is "pro rape".

Right, keep an open mind people, they might just hate Native Americans.

re: #9 Cato the Elder

The original Swedish title of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is "Män Som Hatar Kvinnor" (Men Who Hate Women).

I suggest we draw up profiles of these 92 shits under that accurate title.

They aren't all men.

re: #16 Ericus58

78 Republicans voted FOR this.
Reichert was one of them.

I'm searching for the reason why 92 voted against it. It would have been good perhaps include the "why" in this thread. Until then, I will not subscribe to the mantra that the GOP is "pro rape".

Maybe because there was a pro-union rider attached to it?

Must stop the technical thugs!

re: #5 Cato the Elder

Who was the GOP "dude" who recently made headlines by trying to bribe a rape victim into withdrawing her complaint, and then, when she told him to FOAD, portrayed her as a willing victim-slut who got what she was asking for?

State Senator Dennis Nolan (R-Nevada).

That him?

Of course in the case where there are jurisdictional questions about non-natives raping tribal women on Indian lands I would be in favor of a strict look the other way policy as the natives dispensed any justice they cared to. I bet they could come up with some really creative solutions that would discourage anyone from ever messing with their tribespeople again.

Not that I'm encouraging vigilante justice or anything... of course I'm not.

Is this the same law?

Maybe this is the reason why:

Cost:
$5 per American over the 2010-2014 period.

re: #17 SpaceJesus

"but-but, rape is trickle-down economics! it creates jobs by giving police more crimes to investigate!"

-republicans

Same reason we can't get rid of the stupid "War on Drugs." Law enforcement is big business.

Along the theme of 'some women don't deserve protection', somewhat related:

A jury ruled yesterday against a woman who claimed her reputation was damaged after she was featured on a "Girls Gone Wild" video. What makes this case remarkable is that she didn't expose her own breasts - she was assaulted.

STLToday reports that the woman, identified only as Jane Doe, was dancing in at the former Rum Jungle bar in 2004 when someone reached up and pulled her tank top down, exposing her breasts to the "Girls Gone Wild" camera. Jane Doe, who was 20 at the time the tape was made, is now living in Missouri with her husband and two children. She only found out about the video in 2008, when a friend of her husband's saw the "Girls Gone Wild Sorority Orgy" video and recognized her face. He called up her husband, and in what has got to be the most awkward conversation ever, informed him that his wife's breasts were kinda famous.

The woman sued Girls Gone Wild for $5 million in damages. After deliberating for just 90 minutes on Thursday, the St. Louis jury came back with a verdict in favor of the smut peddlers. Patrick O'Brien, the jury foreman, explained later to reporters that they figured if she was willing to dance in front of the photographer, she was probably cool with having her breasts on film. They said she gave implicit consent by being at the bar, and by participating in the filming - though she never signed a consent form, and she can be heard on camera saying "no, no" when asked to show her breasts.

Got that? At a bar dancing, agreed to be filmed-- sorry, now you don't have the right to object when someone lifts up your shirt and films your boobs, tee hee. They became the property of all when you went to that bar!

This is nothing compared to the main post or Ludwig's page on Halliburton et al, of course, but there's a general theme here about how little we respect the rights of women to their own bodies, while pretending to venerate them and protect them-- when convenient.

re: #22 Gus 802

State Senator Dennis Nolan (R-Nevada).

That him?

That's the shitbag.

re: #21 Cato the Elder

Maybe because there was a pro-union rider attached to it?

Must stop the technical thugs!

ha!
Probably a corporate interest at the back of it. that's the usual deal.

re: #26 iceweasel

Along the theme of 'some women don't deserve protection', somewhat related:

Got that? At a bar dancing, agreed to be filmed-- sorry, now you don't have the right to object when someone lifts up your shirt and films your boobs, tee hee. They became the property of all when you went to that bar!

This is nothing compared to the main post or Ludwig's page on Halliburton et al, of course, but there's a general theme here about how little we respect the rights of women to their own bodies, while pretending to venerate them and protect them-- when convenient.

Whoa.

All women deserve protection. A few need it from themselves (right Lindsay?)

What I don't get about the girls gone wild video is, how did they get around having to get her permission to publish her image? Did she sign an agreement to be filmed prior to having her top ripped off?

re: #27 Cato the Elder

That's the shitbag.

I thought you might mean this shitbag too:

Gov. David A. Paterson personally directed two state employees to contact the woman who had accused his close aide of assaulting her, according to two people with direct knowledge of the governor’s actions.

Mr. Paterson instructed his press secretary, Marissa Shorenstein, to ask the woman to publicly describe the episode as nonviolent, according to a third person, who was briefed on the matter. That description would contradict the woman’s accounts to the police and in court.

Or this one:

Sen. David Vitter doesn't fire abusive aide until press discovers arrest
The Louisiana senator's "women's issues" aide attacked a woman two years ago; he kept his job until ABC reported it

I just can't keep track. :(

re: #7 DaddyG

I would like to know why they voted against the legislation.

I've just started listening to the first opposition speech on the c-span video archive. From what I've heard so far the Rep is complaining that the amendment turned a deficit neutral tribal arts and crafts bill into a $1B tribal crime bill. He's also complaining about the size of the change, the process being used for its addition and the amount of debate time before the vote (not sure, but I think he said 45 min).

Still listening...

re: #30 DaddyG

All women deserve protection. A few need it from themselves (right Lindsay?)

What I don't get about the girls gone wild video is, how did they get around having to get her permission to publish her image? Did she sign an agreement to be filmed prior to having her top ripped off?

I don't know anything other than what's in that link, I'm afraid-- first I'd heard about it myself and I'm multitasking like crazy. I'll dig into it and maybe do a page later if people'd be interested.

Popping in and out, *wave* at everybody!

re: #30 DaddyG

All women deserve protection. A few need it from themselves (right Lindsay?)

What I don't get about the girls gone wild video is, how did they get around having to get her permission to publish her image? Did she sign an agreement to be filmed prior to having her top ripped off?

They have to get releases from the women they put in the videos. I assume she had signed one.

I looked at ShaunPs link. Here is a summary of the law:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-797&tab=summary

Its a bit long for me to read now- I would still like to know what the GOP representatives found objectionable about the law before passing judgement on them as "pro-rape". There seems to be a whole heapin helping of jurisdicational issues addressed in the law and a large amount of additional duties and reporting required for Federal officials.

re: #26 iceweasel

A few days ago, when discussing an Arab man charged in Israel with lying to a Jewish woman in order to sleep with her, her consent did not matter to you. She was simply a racist who did not want to sleep with an Arab. I don't get your position.

re: #33 iceweasel

The article says she never signed a consent form.

re: #33 iceweasel

I don't know anything other than what's in that link, I'm afraid-- first I'd heard about it myself and I'm multitasking like crazy. I'll dig into it and maybe do a page later if people'd be interested.

Popping in and out, *wave* at everybody!

Wave back! I'm popping today too. I really should be getting the misc. projects list done before the end of the week!!!

I would not make a claim that all Democrats are as evil as some are posting here about Republicans without the full story.

But even then, no matter what party deserved my ire would I drop down to the level of vitrol being posted here.

Nice display of civility.

re: #32 simoom

Now the Democrat is rebutting, saying that the change to the Bill was added by unanimous consent in the Senate, after consulting with Sen. McCain and Kyle, and their vote in the house is to reciprocate.

re: #37 calochortus

The article says she never signed a consent form.

I don't know how they could have gotten away with it then. Other than having lots of filthy lucre to pay some damn good lawyers. Sad.

So, if a guy, like Ward Churchill, goes on the res and tells a girl his name is "Talking Bull" and spend the night with her, and then she finds out that he was really a White Eyes, he can be prosecuted?

/like this Israeli girl sued the Arab guy who pretended to be a Jew just in order to get in her pants, and she let him

re: #39 Ericus58

I would not make a claim that all Democrats are as evil as some are posting here about Republicans without the full story.

But even then, no matter what party deserved my ire would I drop down to the level of vitrol being posted here.

Nice display of civility.

OK

The co-sponsor was Senator John Thune (R-SD). Here's the state he released on the 21st.

Thune Applauds House Passage of Tribal Law and Order Act

re: #36 Radicchio ad Absurdum

A few days ago, when discussing an Arab man charged in Israel with lying to a Jewish woman in order to sleep with her, her consent did not matter to you. She was simply a racist who did not want to sleep with an Arab. I don't get your position.

The woman in that case did consent, no? Dude was just lying about his ethnicity.

re: #43 Gus 802

OK

The co-sponsor was Senator John Thune (R-SD). Here's the state he released on the 21st.

Thune Applauds House Passage of Tribal Law and Order Act

That was separate from this since it was in the Senate.

re: #37 calochortus

The article says she never signed a consent form.

Now that is profoundly creepy.

re: #10 SanFranciscoZionist

Probably procedural. The text of the bill is here, but I suspect that those opposing were doing so because it was giving the tribal courts more power at the expense of state courts.

Frankly, there isn't any reason to not make sure that rapists are held accountable in a court of law - regardless of whether it's a tribal court or a state or federal court.

Still, here's what the Congressional Record has to say about this:

Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I rise to slowly yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have no objections to H.R. 725, and indeed, we support appropriate law enforcement efforts to stop illegal counterfeiting of Indian arts and crafts. However, I would like to note a concern for the record, because this bill could have been written in a way to increase its effectiveness.

At the committee hearing on H.R. 725, it became clear that the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Office of Law Enforcement is contemplated to be the primary agency to investigate and enforce any violations of this new Indian Arts and Crafts Act. As written, this bill, H.R. 725, authorizes any Federal law enforcement officer to enforce the act. That is the issue. It authorizes any Federal law enforcement officer to authorize the act. This would include law enforcement officers who may or may not have expertise in dealing with tribes, with artists, counterfeit art or crafts.

So I certainly hope that the President takes appropriate steps to delegate this overly broad law enforcement authority only to the agency or the agencies that have the funding, manpower, time, and expertise to enforce this important but somewhat complex area of law. It would be nice if Congress were to actually take that responsibility to ourselves. Indeed, the very goal of stopping this illegally counterfeited Indian art should not be turned over to law enforcement agencies who are strained with other duties, other kinds of investigation of crime, acts of terrorism, fraud, or any other kind of scheme that takes place.

Finally, in addition to the fact that this has not been specified where it should be, I do want to note that there is a largely identical bill, sponsored by the Senator from Arizona, that is in the House. If we had taken up that bill today, it could probably be signed into law this particular week. I have no idea why we did not take up the Senate bill rather than pushing this bill forward, and for whatever reason it is. If, indeed, it is simply because it's a Senator's bill, that may be good enough for me. But if there are other concepts that may be there, there are still questions as to why we are not passing Senate Bill 151 rather than this one. However, by passing H.R. 725 today, we are simply delaying the enactment of this particular bill.

So once again, I think we missed the opportunity of trying to narrow in our particular focus on the enforcement powers, and there are still some questions on why this bill is taking precedence over others that may speed up the actual date of enactment of this, but with the substance of the bill, I am in support.

That's from the debate on January 25 re: HR 725. What changed between then and now? --- see the next post:

re: #39 Ericus58

I would not make a claim that all Democrats are as evil as some are posting here about Republicans without the full story.

But even then, no matter what party deserved my ire would I drop down to the level of vitrol being posted here.

Nice display of civility.

Look at the details of the Jones case then and the Franken Amendment. That is very cut and dried and very clearly the GOP protecting Haliburton. If you look into the details more, you will find Jones is not the only former female employee of Haliburton with such troubles.

This is straight forward.

The GOP would rather let those women be raped than expose Haliburton to legal risk.

Thai is evil, no matter how you cut it.

I am certain that you will find some pseudo libertarian nonsense and a corporate benefactor behind the current no votes in this case.

re: #46 SanFranciscoZionist

Now that is profoundly creepy.

Was it the "hey girlie you were in the same room with Snoop Dogg what did you expect" defense?

re: #46 SanFranciscoZionist

Now that is profoundly creepy.

To say the least...

re: #42 Alouette

So, if a guy, like Ward Churchill, goes on the res and tells a girl his name is "Talking Bull" and spend the night with her, and then she finds out that he was really a White Eyes, he can be prosecuted?

/like this Israeli girl sued the Arab guy who pretended to be a Jew just in order to get in her pants, and she let him

I don't think it's just a lawsuit, as far as I can tell, it's become a criminal case. "Rape by deceit".

There's a lot of 'help coordinate' speech in the bill, nothing big. I think some folks just vote no because it's the opposite of their counterpart.. no matter what the bill. Claims of 'pro-rape' are juvenile. They're idiots is all.
/my first post!

Well, here's the debate immediately prior to the roll call vote this week. The original version of the bill was 10 pages long and had widespread support.

The version that ultimately passed ballooned to over 100 pages and $1 billion of appropriations - which is where the opposition was coming from:

The bill before us today, H.R. 725, started out as an Indian Arts and Craft Amendments Act of 2010. It was an innocuous 10-page bill with almost no cost whose purpose was to address counterfeit arts and crafts wrongfully marketed as Indian-made product. There was almost no disagreements over the merits and policies of this bill when it first passed this body.

The Senate took H.R. 725 and attached the tribal law and order provisions. Again, these are policies that merit action by Congress on which I believe there is a great deal of agreement. Yet the process and manner by which this is being done is generating opposition. When a widely supported arts and crafts bill that is just a few pages in length and which costs nothing is changed by the Senate to run over 100 pages with authorized spending of over a billion dollars, to me, Mr. Speaker, that is simply unacceptable.

As I said, I oppose this controversial process and procedure being used on a bill of this magnitude. I opposed such procedures in the past, and I've opposed such a process as the ranking member of this committee, most notably on the omnibus lands bill that passed last year.

It was objections based on procedure, rather than substance IMO. Still wrong at the end of the day.

re: #40 simoom

And now some of the GOP cosponsors and supports of the legislation are thanking the and congratulating their colleagues on bipartisan way they worked together negotiating it. I've yet to hear anything very concrete from the opposition to the amended legislation. Maybe their argument is mostly the added expense?

re: #44 SanFranciscoZionist

The woman in that case did consent, no? Dude was just lying about his ethnicity.

I think I am pretty much in the minority, so I am not going to push it. She did not consent in my opinion, but I will let it rest. Have a good weekend.

re: #36 Radicchio ad Absurdum

A few days ago, when discussing an Arab man charged in Israel with lying to a Jewish woman in order to sleep with her, her consent did not matter to you. She was simply a racist who did not want to sleep with an Arab. I don't get your position.

She was dumb, and the guy lied in order to get into her pants, she let him, but don't call her a racist because ARABS ARE NOT A FREAKING RACE.

re: #48 LudwigVanQuixote

PIMF

Look at the details of the Jones case then and the Franken Amendment. That is very cut and dried and very clearly the GOP protecting Haliburton. If you look into the details more, you will find Jones is not the only former female employee of Haliburton with such troubles.

This is straight forward.

The GOP would rather let those women be raped than expose Haliburton to legal risk.

That is evil, no matter how you cut it.

I am certain that you will find some pseudo libertarian nonsense and a corporate benefactor behind the current no votes in this case.

I happen to love Thai...

re: #44 SanFranciscoZionist

The woman in that case did consent, no? Dude was just lying about his ethnicity.

If lying to a woman to get laid is rape then a very large percentage of the adult, male population of the US would be on the sex offender list.

this bill could have been written in a way to increase its effectiveness.

This would include law enforcement officers who may or may not have expertise in dealing with tribes, with artists, counterfeit art or crafts.

I certainly hope that the President takes appropriate steps to delegate this overly broad law enforcement authority only to the agency or the agencies that have the funding, manpower, time, and expertise to enforce this important but somewhat complex area of law.

I do want to note that there is a largely identical bill, sponsored by the Senator from Arizona, that is in the House. If we had taken up that bill today, it could probably be signed into law this particular week. I have no idea why we did not take up the Senate bill rather than pushing this bill forward, and for whatever reason it is.

I think we missed the opportunity of trying to narrow in our particular focus on the enforcement powers, and there are still some questions on why this bill is taking precedence over others that may speed up the actual date of enactment of this, but with the substance of the bill, I am in support.

I'm not seeing approval of rape in these quotes. That headline is over the top.

re: #55 Radicchio ad Absurdum

I think I am pretty much in the minority, so I am not going to push it. She did not consent in my opinion, but I will let it rest. Have a good weekend.

OK.

Well I'm sure they had a very good reason to vote against it...
/

re: #56 Alouette

She was dumb, and the guy lied in order to get into her pants, she let him, but don't call her a racist because ARABS ARE NOT A FREAKING RACE.

Ethnicist! //

re: #36 Radicchio ad Absurdum

A few days ago, when discussing an Arab man charged in Israel with lying to a Jewish woman in order to sleep with her, her consent did not matter to you. She was simply a racist who did not want to sleep with an Arab. I don't get your position.

WHAT?
That's a total fucking lie and a misrepresentation of my position, which was also Obdicut's by the way, which is that you can't revoke consent after granting it.

I GET YOUR position asshole, and i did then. This is what you were trolling me with at the end of the now locked thread where Douchebagua got banned. That's why I ignored you then.

Go fuck yourself.

I'm out for the day.

Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto, said Terence.

I am a man; I hold nothing human to be foreign to me.

But I don't think Terence was thinking about rape that day.

Of all the crimes mankind enjoys, I have the least understanding or tolerance for rape.

I was raised well before the "no means no" campaign began, and yet I have never once in my life raised my hand to a woman, or threatened her with my superior strength, or used my disappointment over non-forthcoming sex to abuse her.

One of my grrrlfriends in Germany was the victim of a vicious attempted rape when some piece of shit jumped out from the bushes. She fought back, and got stabbed in the liver for her pains.

I loved that woman. After she came out of the hospital, she decided she couldn't stand men anymore, including me. I stepped back and never bothered her again.

Rape is the single most damaging, dehumanizing, fucked-up thing a human can do do another human. Anyone who excuses it is beneath all contempt and beneath even a kind word from Terence.

re: #39 Ericus58

I would not make a claim that all Democrats are as evil as some are posting here about Republicans without the full story.

But even then, no matter what party deserved my ire would I drop down to the level of vitrol being posted here.

Nice display of civility.

Nice display of completely avoiding thee subject of this article to clear the way for your own negative criticism.

re: #43 Gus 802

OK

The co-sponsor was Senator John Thune (R-SD). Here's the state he released on the 21st.

Thune Applauds House Passage of Tribal Law and Order Act

Thank you, Gus.
Reading his statement, and the Yahoo article that was posted by Shaun gave me no reason not to also support it.
Did I miss the part where this bill was designed to help bring to trial accused non-Native rapist of rape that had occurred on tribal land? Because that's not how this bill is titled.

re: #56 Alouette

She was dumb, and the guy lied in order to get into her pants, she let him, but don't call her a racist because ARABS ARE NOT A FREAKING RACE.

You misunderstood. I did not call her a racist. I called her a rape victim. I was rebuffed and the racist word was dropped in on a few of the posts. According to some posters here, I don't remember who and I don't know which thread it was in, implied racist because she didn't want to fuck an Arab under false pretenses.

The GOP members are probably voting against the grants inside the bill or something, I'm guessing.

One of the problems with how our legislative process works is that essentially anything can be stuck into a bill, thus changing what is about, what monies it is earmarked to spend, and what effects it is expected to have.

And a known legislative tactic is to add riders to bills in order to poison them as an attempt to get them to fail, or minimally provide ammo for later political use.

And as has been discussed over the past few days I do not trust any media headline/sound bite to accurately portray what has actually happened. So I'll continue reading up on this before stating an opinion.

(The only thing I'll say is that I expect this was some sort of lockstep vote against spending more than one against protecting women. I still don't quite think the GOP is *that* stupid.) Though you'd expect that some sort of law and order bill that will affect court jurisdictions and enforcement will also need the appropriate funding in order to put it into effect.

I thought the Supreme Court ruled that tribes have no jurisdiction against non-members. If it happens on tribal land, the Feds have jurisdiction, if it happens to a tribal member victim off the res, the State has jurisdiction, but I'm not sure. I know when an Indian commits a crime off the res, they can go to Federal prison. I could have this all wrong, but I know it's a big mess. I don't read this bill as giving the tribal courts jurisdiction to prosecute non-members, but rather trying to coordinate better between the Feds and the Tribes to take over the cases and follow thru when they happen per the law- the Feds aren't holding up their end of the bargain claiming they aren't informed, etc and these guys are walking away. I don't know why that wouldn't be a good thing to make them take responsibility.

re: #63 iceweasel

WHAT?
That's a total fucking lie and a misrepresentation of my position, which was also Obdicut's by the way, which is that you can't revoke consent after granting it.

I GET YOUR position asshole, and i did then. This is what you were trolling me with at the end of the now locked thread where Douchebagua got banned. That's why I ignored you then.

Go fuck yourself.

I'm out for the day.

Stay cool you foul mouthed lib.

re: #42 Alouette

I don't think the US we've reached the level of weirdness where we're prosecuting people based on lying to get sex.

I hope that was an isolated incident in Israel.

re: #66 Ericus58

Thank you, Gus.
Reading his statement, and the Yahoo article that was posted by Shaun gave me no reason not to also support it.
Did I miss the part where this bill was designed to help bring to trial accused non-Native rapist of rape that had occurred on tribal land? Because that's not how this bill is titled.

That was the Senate version which included:

TITLE VI—DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT PROSECUTION AND PREVENTION

H.R. 725 would require BIA to provide training to Indian law enforcement to “properly interview victims of domestic and sexual violence and to collect, preserve, and present evidence to Federal and tribal prosecutors to increase the conviction rate.” The bill would also require that any report by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to Congress on the development of Indian victim services and victim advocate training programs include recommendations that the Secretary determines to be necessary to prevent the sex trafficking of Indian women. Finally, the bill would require the Director of the Indian Health Service, in coordination with other tribal and federal organizations, to develop standardized sexual assault policies and protocol for Indian tribes.

re: #63 iceweasel

WHAT?
That's a total fucking lie and a misrepresentation of my position, which was also Obdicut's by the way, which is that you can't revoke consent after granting it.

I GET YOUR position asshole, and i did then. This is what you were trolling me with at the end of the now locked thread where Douchebagua got banned. That's why I ignored you then.

Go fuck yourself.

I'm out for the day.

Where the hell did all of that come from and what the hell is a douchebagua? Pardon me, but I thought we were have a disagreement about "consent" over a pretty disturbing topic. I will not go fuck myself, but I will sure as fuck not address you anymore. Jesus fucking Christ you seem like an angry person.

re: #68 Obdicut

That's my take on it as well, after looking at the Congressional Reports (the links I made available in my prior post). They were critical of appropriations made, the way the bill was amended by the Senate, and procedural matters, not the content of the bill as to the rape provisions.

Like I said above- if the Feds don't think they can prosecute non-native rapists of native women on native lands then they shouldn't worry too much about what happens to the non-native rapists when they get caught on tribal lands and a little home spun justice is dispensed.

re: #36 Radicchio ad Absurdum

A few days ago, when discussing an Arab man charged in Israel with lying to a Jewish woman in order to sleep with her, her consent did not matter to you. She was simply a racist who did not want to sleep with an Arab. I don't get your position.

She gave her consent.

So, yes, it did matter.

re: #53 lawhawk

Well, here's the debate immediately prior to the roll call vote this week. The original version of the bill was 10 pages long and had widespread support.

The version that ultimately passed ballooned to over 100 pages and $1 billion of appropriations - which is where the opposition was coming from:

It was objections based on procedure, rather than substance IMO. Still wrong at the end of the day.

But GOP people attach riders all the time. The procedure thing is of course something they can say publicly, but it doesn't pass the giggle test for an actual reason.

re: #58 Locker

If lying to a woman to get laid is rape then a very large percentage of the adult, male population of the US would be on the sex offender list.

Yeah, that's my concern about the case. He did lie, and he was an asshole to do so, and I can understand her anger. OTOH, people do lie to get sex, and "I'm a Jew" does not strike me as being particularly more deceptive than "I'm a pilot for El Al and I can get you first-class tickets cheap", or "No, I'm not married", and AFAIK, such cases are not prosecuted in the Israeli courts.

Eh, I should read a little more about it.

re: #77 Obdicut

She gave her consent.

So, yes, it did matter.

I appreciate your response, and I would continue, but I think I have hit some kind of chord here. Its probably best we just drop it. Thanks though.

re: #74 Radicchio ad Absurdum

Don't expect to accuse someone of not caring about whether a woman gave consent to sex and be surprised when they get angry, dude. That's stupid.

re: #78 LudwigVanQuixote

Both parties attach riders - and both make similar kinds of arguments complaining about their use. In this case, the GOP was complaining about the appropriations of $1 billion on a bill that previously had no costs associated with it and that which had previously had widespread support.

It's how politics is done - and it isn't always pretty.

re: #81 Obdicut

Don't expect to accuse someone of not caring about whether a woman gave consent to sex and be surprised when they get angry, dude. That's stupid.

Exactly. Change it to "you're an angry person" instead.

re: #76 DaddyG

Like I said above- if the Feds don't think they can prosecute non-native rapists of native women on native lands then they shouldn't worry too much about what happens to the non-native rapists when they get caught on tribal lands and a little home spun justice is dispensed.

Why do you keep implying that Indians wanna whoop it up on the white boy if given the chance. Watch too many westerns in your youth? Indians are the kindest, gentlest, group of people you could ever associate yourself with. Bizarre.

re: #80 Radicchio ad Absurdum

I appreciate your response, and I would continue, but I think I have hit some kind of chord here. Its probably best we just drop it. Thanks though.

Yes, I think you should drop accusing people of not caring about whether a woman consented to sex, when they didn't ever say anything remotely like that.

I also think you should avoid ever doing it again.

re: #82 lawhawk

Both parties attach riders - and both make similar kinds of arguments complaining about their use. In this case, the GOP was complaining about the appropriations of $1 billion on a bill that previously had no costs associated with it and that which had previously had widespread support.

It's how politics is done - and it isn't always pretty.

And I'm for abolishing riders, the line-item veto, and insisting, by constitutional amendment, if need be, that bills be simple, easy to comprehend, and about the one or two things a bill was introduced to be about.

I guess that may make me a simplistic fool, but so be it.

re: #79 SanFranciscoZionist

Yeah, that's my concern about the case. He did lie, and he was an asshole to do so, and I can understand her anger. OTOH, people do lie to get sex, and "I'm a Jew" does not strike me as being particularly more deceptive than "I'm a pilot for El Al and I can get you first-class tickets cheap", or "No, I'm not married", and AFAIK, such cases are not prosecuted in the Israeli courts.

Eh, I should read a little more about it.

I was thinking of "I love you" or "Of course I'll still respect you" but yea...

re: #84 Claire

Why do you keep implying that Indians wanna whoop it up on the white boy if given the chance. Watch too many westerns in your youth? Indians are the kindest, gentlest, group of people you could ever associate yourself with. Bizarre.

You read way too much into my statement. It was more about the jurisdictional issues and frustration with not getting justice than it was race. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I felt Indians were more or less prone to wanting to put the hurt to someone that raped their community or family members than any other group of people. That certainly wasn't my intent.

re: #52 WSchaeffer

/my first post!

Except for these three.

?

re: #84 Claire

Why do you keep implying that Indians wanna whoop it up on the white boy if given the chance. Watch too many westerns in your youth? Indians are the kindest, gentlest, group of people you could ever associate yourself with. Bizarre.

I think DaddyG just likes the idea of rapists going...missing. Yeah. Missing.

re: #89 wrenchwench

Except for these three.

?

Let's not jump to conclusions. Perhaps he/she is arthitmetically challenged.

re: #82 lawhawk

The billion goes to pay for what sounds like a lot of much-needed support for the tribal legal systems.

Given how thoroughly we've screwed Native Americans in his country, I don't think the odd billion so they can have civil society is really going to destroy us as a nation.

In the meantime, you all seen Ice's page about how Big Mexican Women are helping Afghanis go AWOL in the States?

re: #48 LudwigVanQuixote

Look at the details of the Jones case then and the Franken Amendment. That is very cut and dried and very clearly the GOP protecting Haliburton. If you look into the details more, you will find Jones is not the only former female employee of Haliburton with such troubles. The GOP would rather let those women be raped than expose Haliburton to legal risk.

An interesting aside to that case is the identity of the few Republicans who voted for Franken's amendments - all the female GOP senators (gee, I wonder why) a handful of others I don't recall offhand, and this guy:

Weber State University’s STAND chapter engaged in a campaign led by advocacy group Invisible Children to support two crucial bills currently in the U.S. Senate: the Congo Conflict Minerals Act of 2009 and the LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act. After weeks of lobbying, the students convinced Senator Bob Bennett of Utah to take action. Senator Bennett co-sponsored the LRA Disarmament and Northern Uganda Recovery Act, and the students were able to meet with the senator’s senior advisor, Mary Maughan, to further discuss the Congo Conflict Minerals Act.

Though I may be stretching to see a connection, the Congo Conflict Minerals Act is designed to stop rape-torture militias from profiting through their atrocities - so perhaps Bennett realized that it would look very strange for him to sponsor a measure protecting African women from rape while failing to do the same thing for female American soldiers.

And how was Bennett rewarded for this display of courage and principle? Trashed by the teabaggers.

The TeaBaggers and by extension conservatives pandering to them are taking the no new taxes thing too far. I understand the principle of "we've spent enough now lets stop" that drives the Tea Party movement and many conservatives but there are some government services and programs that are very necessary and need to be funded even in tough times.

On the other hand the orgy of expensive addendums that congress revels in should be trimmed too.

There must be a good compromise somewhere between no government and all encompassing government.

In the end the story here isn't about the GOP opposing the protection of rape victims. The headline is still sensationalism.

re: #53 lawhawk

Well, here's the debate immediately prior to the roll call vote this week. The original version of the bill was 10 pages long and had widespread support.

The version that ultimately passed ballooned to over 100 pages and $1 billion of appropriations - which is where the opposition was coming from:

It was objections based on procedure, rather than substance IMO. Still wrong at the end of the day.

Thanks for your posts lawhawk!
I think it the "procedure" issue is a smoke screen. Some republicans will just never support any legislation by this President, or this democrat controlled congress. Especially if they know it will pass anyway; they have cover.

re: #95 DaddyG

In the end the story here isn't about the GOP opposing the protection of rape victims. The headline is still sensationalism.

Agreed, but that's going to be the outcome, and they should be made aware that some budget savings come at far too high a price.

re: #97 SanFranciscoZionist

Agreed, but that's going to be the outcome, and they should be made aware that some budget savings come at far too high a price.

And isn't this how much of politics in Washington play out now? Either party, take your pick, are guilty.
The Senate has bi-partisan support for a bill. The House then attaches riders or amendments to bloat. One side balks at the additions and the other side takes one facet and makes that their battlecry.

re: #97 SanFranciscoZionist

Hey SFZ,

I found this link after reading your post above about "Girls Gone Wild". Long, but worth a read...

[Link: articles.latimes.com...]

re: #53 lawhawk

I don't see any merit to his argument whatsoever actually.

re: #56 Alouette

She was dumb, and the guy lied in order to get into her pants, she let him, but don't call her a racist because ARABS ARE NOT A FREAKING RACE.

Oh here we fucking go again with the wingnut weirdness about this.

Checked, my congressman is not on the list of 92, therefore, not the entire GOP, as is stated up thread, is pro-rape. Oh, wait a minute, I am a republican and am not pro-rape.

Dialing down the rhetoric might be a good idea.

re: #56 Alouette

She was dumb, and the guy lied in order to get into her pants, she let him, but don't call her a racist because ARABS ARE NOT A FREAKING RACE.

Well, race doesn't even exist. It's a fictional concept based on arbitrary genetic lines.

I'm not really sure what you mean, though.

re: #102 Stonemason

As I wrote to captdiggs in the pages, the problem is this: 100% of the nay vote is (R). The majority of the (R) in voted nay. The (R) leadership voted nay.

Thus it does indeed look like it was the (R) position to oppose this bill.

You should count yourself lucky - your local Republican Rep. has a conscience.

"The Senate took H.R. 725 and attached the tribal law and order provisions. Again, these are policies that merit action by Congress on which I believe there is a great deal of agreement. Yet the process and manner by which this is being done is generating opposition. When a widely supported arts and crafts bill that is just a few pages in length and which costs nothing is changed by the Senate to run over 100 pages with authorized spending of over a billion dollars, to me, Mr. Speaker, that is simply unacceptable."

what?? these are two good bills that were logically merged together that deal with criminal activity on or affecting indian land. what's the big deal?

yeah, congress also appropriated money to help fight crime against natives. what's the big deal here either?

yeah, the senate added 90 pages to it. like i said before, the jurisdictional issue between indians, states, and feds is complicated. maybe a complicated issue such as this requires a good amount of discussion and untangling?

are any of these objections worthy of casting a "nay" vote when an issue as pressing and detrimintal as this is at stake? gah.

re: #99 ShaunP

Eeeew. Seriously creepy.

re: #95 DaddyG

The TeaBaggers and by extension conservatives pandering to them are taking the no new taxes thing too far. I understand the principle of "we've spent enough now lets stop" that drives the Tea Party movement and many conservatives but there are some government services and programs that are very necessary and need to be funded even in tough times.

On the other hand the orgy of expensive addendums that congress revels in should be trimmed too.

There must be a good compromise somewhere between no government and all encompassing government.

In the end the story here isn't about the GOP opposing the protection of rape victims. The headline is still sensationalism.

The logic is baffling too.

Ex. they'll fight to the last breath to not pay extra taxes for better roads. But when the roads get bad, you have to spend extra money on repairing your car. Which they then whine about.

re: #105 SpaceJesus

"The Senate took H.R. 725 and attached the tribal law and order provisions. Again, these are policies that merit action by Congress on which I believe there is a great deal of agreement. Yet the process and manner by which this is being done is generating opposition. When a widely supported arts and crafts bill that is just a few pages in length and which costs nothing is changed by the Senate to run over 100 pages with authorized spending of over a billion dollars, to me, Mr. Speaker, that is simply unacceptable."

what?? these are two good bills that were logically merged together that deal with criminal activity on or affecting indian land. what's the big deal?

yeah, congress also appropriated money to help fight crime against natives. what's the big deal here either?

yeah, the senate added 90 pages to it. like i said before, the jurisdictional issue between indians, states, and feds is complicated. maybe a complicated issue such as this requires a good amount of discussion and untangling?

are any of these objections worthy of casting a "nay" vote when an issue as pressing and detrimintal as this is at stake? gah.

That is why I told Lawhawk that this "explanation" didn't pass the giggle test.

re: #9 Cato the Elder

The original Swedish title of "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" is "Män Som Hatar Kvinnor" (Men Who Hate Women).

I suggest we draw up profiles of these 92 shits under that accurate title.

Fantastic movie. Saw in on Netflix because it was available for instant viewing. Really nicely done, and the "revenge" scene is just one of the few times a viewer may laugh out loud while somebody is getting plugged with a...well, see the movie and find out!

re: #102 Stonemason

Checked, my congressman is not on the list of 92, therefore, not the entire GOP, as is stated up thread, is pro-rape. Oh, wait a minute, I am a republican and am not pro-rape.

Dialing down the rhetoric might be a good idea.

And it is even more fortunate for you that what you are quoting is not quite what you said.

How you can be a part of an ignorant, overwhelmingly sexist, overtly racist, anti-intellectual, anti-science, homophobic, corporate welfare driven party of religious plutocrats, is beyond me though.

However, given your ability to comprehend what was written, and the way you ignored the Jones case, it seems your comprehension fits right in.

re: #108 LudwigVanQuixote

ah, i didn't read any further to see anybody's responses. just kind of went into "wtf" mode

re: #39 Ericus58

I would not make a claim that all Democrats are as evil as some are posting here about Republicans without the full story.

But even then, no matter what party deserved my ire would I drop down to the level of vitrol being posted here.

Nice display of civility.

We must always be civil, people, even to rapists, mass murderers, and child molesters. You wouldn't want to be rude or anything.

So to justify a laudable goal, which could be accomplished by other means, you want to pass (as our sorry excuse for a Congress has) this clusterfuck? The bill is titled the Indian Arts and Crafts Amendments Act of 2010. It is a bill about counterfeiting, and the rape provision has nothing to do with why anyone would, as they indeed should, vote against it. I work in the anti-counterfeiting industry; the way to fight counterfeiting does not involve so expanding jurisdiction that everyone can do something, and no one is responsible for anything.

The background is that apparently the FBI has not been keeping up with investigations into merchandise falsely labeled as American Indian-made. As a proponent of the broken window theory of law enforcement, I think such allegations should be investigated thoroughly, as few profits from illegitimate acts tend to go toward legitimate users. The FBI should do a better job with this, or it should become the purview of another agency that can do it better.

But the way this law does that is to empower any Federal law enforcement officer -- there are at least NINETY AGENCIES thus involved -- to investigate this form of counterfeiting, with or without a complaint. What does this mean for equitable application of the law? What does this mean for responsibility to enforce the law? This is a solution that threatens to immensely complicate the problem.

What does it say about every Democrat that apparently the only way to get them to vote for the rape provision was to stuff it deep inside a bill about Chinese-made turquoise jewelry? The immediately previous sentence is crap, of course, but then again it barely approaches the irresponsibility of posting this article with this title. Shame on you, Charles.

re: #67 Radicchio ad Absurdum

You misunderstood. I did not call her a racist. I called her a rape victim. I was rebuffed and the racist word was dropped in on a few of the posts. According to some posters here, I don't remember who and I don't know which thread it was in, implied racist because she didn't want to fuck an Arab under false pretenses.

You realize the Woman first accused the man of out and out non-consensual rape, then backtracked her story when it became clear that she'd consented and was only now bringing it up because she didn't want to have sex with an Arab.

As a couple of related notes from a Sullivan reader in Israel,

In another "rape by deception"" case, which involved a lesbian masquerading as a man in order to have sex with women, she received only six months of suspended sentence. Kashour got 18 months of incarceration.

One of the three judges is Moshe Drori, who was embroiled in a scandal last year, when he refused to convict a very well connected yeshiva boy who admitted - and was filmed - running over a security guard with his vehicle. The security guard was an Ethiopian woman. Drori, a Jewish Orthodox, forced the guard to accept the apology of the yeshiva boy, and then invoked a judgment by 12th century scholar Maimonides (I shit you not), which says once an apology is accepted by the victim, the case is closed. And he closed the case.

However you look at this, it simply looks bad.

re: #36 Radicchio ad Absurdum

A few days ago, when discussing an Arab man charged in Israel with lying to a Jewish woman in order to sleep with her, her consent did not matter to you. She was simply a racist who did not want to sleep with an Arab. I don't get your position.

You complete and utter shamefaced liar.

The article I posted that started this off made it absolutely clear that there was consent:

[Link: hurryupharry.org...]

This is the FIRST LINE of the article:

A Palestinian man has been convicted of rape after having consensual sex with a woman who had believed him to be a fellow Jew.

re: #113 Bill Jefferson

I love that since the bill isn't even labeled as a rape provision bill but only a part of it and you mention this and contradict Charles bias in posting this article, you are immediately downdinged by the community. Let the downdinging of my comment begin as dissent and honesty in this case is disapproved.

If you go to the government tracking of HR725, it isn't even named for the Native/non-native part about rape. Bill had it right and Charles is at best misleading with this role call of shame. These 92 republicans in this rare instance deserve an apology from Charles. Can't let your bias against a party in this case cloud the fact that they were voting on a conterfeiting law.

This would be the equivalent of a bill loosening financial regulations that are necessary to keep business from defrauding the public, and stringing a bill on it that disallows the beating of small children with stiff penalties. Then when you vote against the financial regulations part, I get to say you approve of the beating of small children. Yay democracy.

re: #36 Radicchio ad Absurdum

A few days ago, when discussing an Arab man charged in Israel with lying to a Jewish woman in order to sleep with her, her consent did not matter to you. She was simply a racist who did not want to sleep with an Arab. I don't get your position.

Don't be ridiculous. Lying or misrepresenting one's personal information in order to get sex is a national pastime...by both sexes. The prisons would be overflowing if everyone who lied to induce consent to sex was a criminal. This cannot in any way be equated to forcibly stripping someone's clothes off in public.
Fail.

Charles what about the 14 no votes? Can we cast them as apathetic to women being raped?

Would a great headline read: Rep. Markey (D-CO) Doesn't Care Indian Women are Raped.

You may be blowing this a tad out of proportion, though from what I read of the bill it should have been all "Yea" votes.

re: #110 LudwigVanQuixote

You get one response, then, if more personal attacks, ignored.

You said: The GOP really doesn't care if women get raped.

and: GOP is pro rape. Well not really pro rape, they just don't think that women should complain about it.

Notice your italics, which is used by many, to tongue in cheek back off from the original statement.

If you are a Democrat, you belong to a party that was headed up by a serial womanizer, a man who used his position to get sex from underlings. If that means that you also do those things, then I guess I need to worry about what the idiots who voted for this bill do.

Painting the entire GOP with the brush you do is simply wrong, and makes any argument you make about valid issues suspect.

re: #119 Stonemason

You get one response, then, if more personal attacks, ignored.

You said: The GOP really doesn't care if women get raped.

and: GOP is pro rape. Well not really pro rape, they just don't think that women should complain about it.

Notice your italics, which is used by many, to tongue in cheek back off from the original statement.

If you are a Democrat, you belong to a party that was headed up by a serial womanizer, a man who used his position to get sex from underlings. If that means that you also do those things, then I guess I need to worry about what the idiots who voted against this bill do.

Painting the entire GOP with the brush you do is simply wrong, and makes any argument you make about valid issues suspect.

PIMF

I need to investigate more, but this is my take.

I am a small government conservative truly. This means that I want small efficient government and I want government out of our personal lives (no legislating Christianity or teaching it in schools, end the war on drugs etc).

But there are some things that we must EXPECT and DEMAND our government do for us. One of those things is protecting the physical security of those who may cannot. Rape is one of those cases. If this law allows for easier prosecution of rapists - PASS THE DAMN LAW AND VOTE FOR IT REPUBLICANS.

Full disclosure - my wife is a Native American (Creek). In teaching our kids our history, it does seem that Native Americans get shafted at each and every opportunity. Nonetheless, my support of passing this bill to PROTECT WOMEN and PROSECUTE RAPISTS is not based on the love of my life.

It is based on the simple fact that our government must be expected to perform these duties.

re: #121 brownbagj

exactly. and saying 'this bill is too long' or, 'it will cost money to enforce' are not valid excuses to vote against it.

re: #116 robdouth

This would be the equivalent of a bill loosening financial regulations that are necessary to keep business from defrauding the public, and stringing a bill on it that disallows the beating of small children with stiff penalties. Then when you vote against the financial regulations part, I get to say you approve of the beating of small children. Yay democracy.

Except this bill was two good things, at least: Helping to prosecute rapists, and helping to stop American Indians from getting screwed on trademarks and counterfeit stuff.

re: #122 SpaceJesus

Yes. Our taxes are to provide the means to enforce the Constitution, part of which suggests we provide for the general welfare of people (though this has been perverted over the years, starting in 1937). I think enforcing and paying for laws which put people behind bars who commit violent crimes (and rapists generally have many other problems) or end their reign of terror (for serious enough crimes or patterns) deserves money.

It's called being "selectively frugal" and it's what the GOP is good at.

Native rape? Unemployment benefits? WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!

War on drugs? War in Afghanistan? Tax cuts for the top 1%? YES, ALL OF IT!!!

Yes of course, Republicans voted against this because they favor rape. Thanks for this enlightening piece.