Iraq: Haliburton Employers gang rape an employee.

[AAAhmed46]

By BRIAN ROSS, MADDY SAUER & JUSTIN ROOD
Dec. 10, 2007

A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident.

Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job."Don't plan on working back in Iraq. There won't be a position here, and there won't be a position in Houston," Jones says she was told.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court against Halliburton and its then-subsidiary KBR, Jones says she was held in the shipping container for at least 24 hours without food or water by KBR, which posted armed security guards outside her door, who would not let her leave.


"It felt like prison," says Jones, who told her story to ABC News as part of an upcoming "20/20" investigation. "I was upset; I was curled up in a ball on the bed; I just could not believe what had happened."
Finally, Jones says, she convinced a sympathetic guard to loan her a cell phone so she could call her father in Texas.
"I said, 'Dad, I've been raped. I don't know what to do. I'm in this container, and I'm not able to leave,'" she said. Her father called their congressman, Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas.
"We contacted the State Department first," Poe told ABCNews.com, "and told them of the urgency of rescuing an American citizen" -- from her American employer.
Poe says his office contacted the State Department, which quickly dispatched agents from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad to Jones' camp, where they rescued her from the container.According to her lawsuit, Jones was raped by "several attackers who first drugged her, then repeatedly raped and injured her, both physically and emotionally."
Jones told ABCNews.com that an examination by Army doctors showed she had been raped "both vaginally and anally," but that the rape kit disappeared after it was handed over to KBR security officers.

A spokesperson for the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security told ABCNews.com he could not comment on the matter.
Over two years later, the Justice Department has brought no criminal charges in the matter. In fact, ABC News could not confirm any federal agency was investigating the case.
Legal experts say Jones' alleged assailants will likely never face a judge and jury, due to an enormous loophole that has effectively left contractors in Iraq beyond the reach of United States law . . .
Since no criminal charges have been filed, the only other option, according to Hutson, is the civil system, which is the approach that Jones is trying now. But Jones' former employer doesn't want this case to see the inside of a civil courtroom.
KBR has moved for Jones' claim to be heard in private arbitration, instead of a public courtroom. It says her employment contract requires it . . .

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3977702&page=1

I can imagine Haliburton saying, if they were ever required to answer questions, "Well, she was all drunk and high and had sex with some guys and started wigging out so we put her in a shipping container for her own safety." But it's that last part, which the congressman verifies, that shows that something seriousfly f'ed up probably did happen here.

Did it happen? The fact that the congressman was involved so soon on again seems to support to me that something seriously bad went down here.

The bottom line is a huge chunk, perhaps the majority, of this war has been put in the hands of independent contractors who are more or less above the law. Yes, many of them are ex-Army, etc., and good guys, I'm sure, but when the bottom line $ and corporate CYA take the place of a code of honour and military structure, I'd bet it takes a much smaller number of rotten apples to spoil the bunch.

[Bill Glasheen]

There are a number of things going on here.

• Woman is allegedly raped.
• Woman allegedly was pressured not to "rat out" her attackers.
• There is an alleged cover-up of an alleged rape.
• There is a (unpopular) war in Iraq.
• The "all's fair in love and war" mantra can be carried to extremes in the chaos of war.

When you start trying to tie it all together to make a case about an agenda you bring to the table, you possibly lose part of your audience, and reduce an important discussion into a political one.

Otherwise... Very interesting article, and interesting commentary on your part, Adam.

- Bill

[Valkenar]

When you start trying to tie it all together to make a case about an agenda you bring to the table, you possibly lose part of your audience, and reduce an important discussion into a political one.

So political discussions aren't important? If the American people are financing rapists (this story) and murderers (Blackwater), that's not important just because it's political? Oversight of the people we've hired to conduct this war, that's not an important issue? What about the fact that it's part of a pattern (e.g. waterboarding suddenly isn't torture because it's us doing it)? Should we be shying away from these things just because it "reduces important discussions to political discussions"

Yeah, it's political. Excuse me for not wanting to see these important, politica issues minimized and swept under the rug just because it's embarrassing for people that used to (or still do support) this administration and it's corporate cronies. The fact is that yes, this issue is more important to discuss because it's happening at Haliburton in Iraq than it would be at any random company stateside. The issue of whether it's right to be turning over our war-fighting to corporations that can't be held accountable is incredibly important.

[Bill Glasheen]

Go ahead, Justin, prove my point.

Meanwhile, there's a raped woman who doesn't get the care she needed, because a handful of political extremists turn it all into a political food fight.

A woman was raped? Prosecute the perps. Treat the victim. Period. End of story. The thing I like about our system is that it deals with the inevitable imperfections of mankind. There are consequences to behaving inappropriately.

And I'll refer you to the Mike & Mike Just shut up! award committee.

If you REALLY want to do some good for womankind, Justin, go to the Sudan where "the usual suspects" are using the systematic raping of women as an implement of ethnic cleansing and political change. And yea, that goes on in Iraq as well. On balance, I say we - big bad nasty US corporations and all - are the good guys.

And there we go with the politcal food fight...

- Bill

[cxt]

Val

I think part of Bills point can be found in your own post where you phrase it:

"If the American people are financing rapists and murders" as if that was the norm rather than the exception of the situation.
Conflating criminal acts by individuals as if they are part and parcel of the "administration" is ludricrious.

Waterboarding BTW is not "torture" ---besides, the Geneva Conventions expressly and specifically DON'T apply to non-uniformed, non-state actors that refuse to behave as per the Conventions themselevs.
The Coventions were designed to be BOTH carrot AND stick---rewards for following their dictates and punishments for not doing so.

As far as I'm concerned when the terrorists put on uniforms, stop PURPOSELY targeting inncoent people, stop beheading captives ON CAMERA as they beg for their very lives, then and only then will I entertain complaints about any "torture" being done to the terrorists themselves.

I suppose I could be presuded to hear their complaints if and when the terrorists put htose that have commited such act on trial and sentence some of them to prison as we have.
But to do that people would have to come to grips with the fact for the West such acts are BREAKING the laws---where such acts are, by and large for the terrorists--are IN ACCORDENCE with the "law" as they see it.
"We" consider it a crime--they consider it a noteworthy, indeed a prasieworthy act.

The only real question here is if the accusation is true--if true then those responsibole should and must be brought to justice...if false then it should be dismissed.

Lets talk about the facts of the case....not whatever grim spector the word "Halliburton" conjures up in your psyche.

[AAAhmed46]

Thing is, PMC's have always truly scared me.

Infact, there is a game based on PMC's(metal gear solid 4)

The basis of the game is that some PMC's will become so wealthy and powerful, they will have armies surpassing that of america and powerful countries.

While a simple exaggeration for gameplay, it does highlight an issue of whether or not PMC's will become too powerful for control by single states?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T9GgZERaIA

[Bill Glasheen]

Adam

It's an interesting sci-fi doomsday scenario, but not one I take seriously. By definition, "PMCs" exist through funding. No funding? No PMC.

FWIW, we've been dealing with many tribes in Iraq and Afghanistan and their own private militias for some time. It's the nature of the beast over there - sort of a "Wild Middle East." Security for anything you do over there is essential right now. Otherwise nothing gets done.

Saddam didn't arise in a vacuum. His sadistic ways seemed almost normal in Iraq. Almost... If he hadn't been behaving mischeviously in the greater region, nobody would have cared.

- Bill

[AAAhmed46]

Oh i know, and i know the game exaggerates it(it kind of has too) good game series, im looking forward to this title, it's a fun game with an engaging story.

Your right, PMC's are powered by money.

But their ALLEGIANCE shifts with money as well.

Right now, most members are american and europian. But as economic powers shift, things could change. They could in the future be a bit more unpredictable.

NOT the near future. But hey, 20 or thirty years from now? Who knows.

I really really doubt it will lead to the doomsday scenario in the game. But still, they are potentially unpredictable.



Here is an english trailer of metal gear(different scenes too, not as long)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L33CLNWXTdg

[AAAhmed46]

Adam

It's an interesting sci-fi doomsday scenario, but not one I take seriously. By definition, "PMCs" exist through funding. No funding? No PMC.

FWIW, we've been dealing with many tribes in Iraq and Afghanistan and their own private militias for some time. It's the nature of the beast over there - sort of a "Wild Middle East." Security for anything you do over there is essential right now. Otherwise nothing gets done.

Saddam didn't arise in a vacuum. His sadistic ways seemed almost normal in Iraq. Almost... If he hadn't been behaving mischeviously in the greater region, nobody would have cared.

- Bill

Some arabs have a saying


"Iraq doesn't need one saddam, it needs ten."

A bit racist, shows the division in the arab world. But it also says Iraq has always been unstable.


Oh and this is awesome.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGM3iUDQDzc

[Valkenar]

Go ahead, Justin, prove my point.
Meanwhile, there's a raped woman who doesn't get the care she needed, because a handful of political extremists turn it all into a political food fight.

Wait, why isn't she getting the care? Did someone sequester her for press conferences about Iraq? What's incompatible about her getting the care she needs, and us discussing the topic on forum? That makes no sense.

A woman was raped? Prosecute the perps. Treat the victim. Period. End of story. The thing I like about our system is that it deals with the inevitable imperfections of mankind. There are consequences to behaving inappropriately.

I see, so the circumstances surrounding crimes don't matter. We shouldn't look for patterns or anything like that. If there's crime in the ghetto we shouldn't think about how to solve the problem systematically, we should just treat each incident as a completely unique event.

And I'll refer you to the Mike & Mike Just shut up! award committee.

What's the point of this, just to tell me to shut up? I'm dissapointed, Bill I thought you were better than that.

CXT:

"If the American people are financing rapists and murders" as if that was the norm rather than the exception of the situation.
Conflating criminal acts by individuals as if they are part and parcel of the "administration" is ludricrious.

At what point do indidivual acts become a pattern?

Waterboarding BTW is not "torture" -

So that's why this country has prosecuted it as a war crime, I see. And 70% of american citizens considering it torture is irrelevant, nevermind the fact we've prosecuted our soldiers for performing it in Vietnam. And John McCain wasn't tortured, just, what, pranked? On what basis do you say that waterboarding isn't torture?

As for the rest of what you have to say about torture, I have basically no response. You clearly have no moral objection, since you apparently think it's fine to do it as long as they're not official soldiers. To me, that's abhorent, but I can't give you a conscience.

[Bill Glasheen]

I'm dissapointed, Bill I thought you were better than that.

You're a funny guy, Justin.

I see, so the circumstances surrounding crimes don't matter.

They do, Justin. She was raised in the United States. I say death to America! Death to the Great Satan! It's obviously her decadent American upbringing which caused it all. Because she was raised in such a loose culture, she ASKED for it. She should have been at home.

Get my drift, Farenheit boy?

Once again... If you want there to be a relevant connection between Iraq and rape, then go to the hyperlinks I provided above where rape is routinely used by various political/religious factions as a means of intimidation, tool for political change, and vehicle for ethnic cleansing.

Otherwise give it up, Justin. She was allegedly raped - period. Other details about the matter have absolutely nothing to do with the rape, unless you can provide some company policy documents which indicate otherwise.

I'm willing to bet you that a corporation that large has some pretty substantial barriers to sexual harassment. I've worked for Fortune 500 companies, Justin. Have you? I speak from personal experience. Have you had mandatory sensitivity training?

Keep the politics out of it, and let the judicial process go its course. There's no need to turn it into a Tawana Brawley when there's absolutely no evidence of either corporate or governmental involvement. By doing so, you are unecessarily politicizing a traumatic, abhorrent, and highly personal crime. THAT is offensive in my book.

There's a very good reason why we have due process in this country. Ask any rape victim. Ask any male falsely accused, such as the young men on the Duke Lacrosse team.

- Bill

[TSDguy]

I'm willing to bet you that a corporation that large has some pretty substantial barriers to sexual harassment. I've worked for Fortune 500 companies, Justin. Have you? I speak from personal experience. Have you had mandatory sensitivity training?

I've worked for several fortune 500 and 100 companies, and have never seen any sexual harassment training. I thought that was reserved for the mail room workers.

/lurk

[IJ]

"Waterboarding BTW is not "torture""

This is according to Bush's administration. They don't make all the decisions, however. At first we said only "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" constitute torture punishable by law. More recently, after blistering criticism, we admitted "that torture may consist of acts that fall short of provoking excruciating and agonizing pain and thus may include mere physical suffering or lasting mental anguish." Waterboarding, per an interesting article I read at Slate, is amazing swift. Of US staff being trained in it, none could hold out 30 seconds. Some high level al qaeda dude from Iraq lasted 2:20 if memory serves. Now, obviously some suffering is involved if waterboarded people sing instantly. Let's be frank about that... if you want to promote Jack Bauerism, just do it; famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz made a case for controlled, noninjurious torture as a means to an end we expect will be used if it should be and might as well fall under regulation as opposed to being shrouded in secrecy. But there are plenty of voices in our government concerned aout waterboarding and convinced its torture.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Dec30.html
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/30/muk ... ing-again/

See also George Annas at the NEJM, where he takes the administration's lawyers to task for approaching the whole issue as if it were a game to justify what we were doing, rather than ethically doing what lawyers are supposed to do, namely, advise their clients to follow the law.

"Besides, the Geneva Conventions expressly and specifically DON'T apply to non-uniformed, non-state actors that refuse to behave as per the Conventions themselevs."

Ok, so you're saying that the US gov't can torture and execute al qaeda operatives? And presumably that our troops get the same treatment if they rape someone or head off without uniforms? Or what?

As for the claim that the conventions don't apply, this is from Wiki:

"The treatment of prisoners who do not fall into the categories described in Article 4 has led to the current controversy regarding the Bush Administration's interpretation of "unlawful combatants". The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[1] because in the opinion of the ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

So whom would you have tortured--civilians or combatants?

"As far as I'm concerned when the terrorists put on uniforms, stop PURPOSELY targeting inncoent people, stop beheading captives ON CAMERA as they beg for their very lives, then and only then will I entertain complaints about any "torture" being done to the terrorists themselves."

The beautiful thing about America is our protections are for the worst. Free speech is for the KK. Miranda rights are for the Crips. Trial procedurals are for triple murderers. I hate terrorists too, but if they undermine american law as it pertains to them, they win; its just a justification away to take the rights of anyone who the administration doesn't like. Further, you've obviously already tried these people... presumably any guy you catch up to no good in Iraq receives your ire for a beheading, since you don't know who did that beheading, right? Interesting trial method.

I REALLY REALLY like to hear when scoundrels are caught, blown up, shot, or turned in. We ALL hate terrorists. Presumably as uechi peeps we'd all fight tooth and nail to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and strangers from these losers. But that righteous hatred doesn't mean its in our interest to torture or violate our laws. It lessens us, but more importantly to me, its horrid press and generates more enemies. A LONG time ago I said the same thing here and was ridiculed by shouts of "who cares what they think of us??"

Then there was the offical report on how the Iraq war was a cause celebre for AQ recruiting and damaging our diplomacy efforts and essential relationships in Iraq with locals who could help us turn the tide. Locals who NOW have gotten sick of AQ and have helped us fight them and make Iraq safer in recent months. Remember that report?

[Stryke]

Waterboarding BTW is not "torture" -

If your going to go there , at least have the balls to be honest with yourself

otherwise your just a laughing stock tripping over semantics , if your going to apologise and hide it by playing semantic games , then should you really be doing it ?

terrors a fine weapon in the right hands huh

[Bill Glasheen]

\

I'm willing to bet you that a corporation that large has some pretty substantial barriers to sexual harassment. I've worked for Fortune 500 companies, Justin. Have you? I speak from personal experience. Have you had mandatory sensitivity training?

I've worked for several fortune 500 and 100 companies, and have never seen any sexual harassment training. I thought that was reserved for the mail room workers.

/lurk

I find that hard to believe. I've worked for several where the training was mandatory. I also have a sister who has been chief of personnel for several Fortune 500 companies.

These days (this century) it's financial suicide not to have such training in a large corporation. With the risk of litigation, companies just can't afford to be in the position of showing they don't care. Believe it or not, it's a perfectly rational business decision. Regardless of the motivation, it's there.

- Bill