TorteDeForm

National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights

Another KBR Rape Victim Steps Forward

On Rollback Campaign Blog:

ABC News reports that another KBR/Halliburton rape victim has come forward. Dawn Leamon is scheduled to testify today before Congress that she was raped earlier this year by a U.S. soldier and a KBR colleague. Mrs. Leamon is the latest of three courageous women to come forward and demand that her employer be held accountable.

Like Jamie Leigh Jones who was raped by KBR coworkers, Mrs. Leamon was drugged before the attack. According to Mrs. Leamon’s testimony, KBR discouraged her from reporting the attack and restricted her movements around the camp.Here is what KBR says: [Keep Reading]

National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 2:15 PM, Apr 09, 2008 in Corporate Abuse
Permalink | Email to Friend


Comments

Kia: Isn't the term, rape victim, a legal conclusion? Until there has been a legal determination, isn't this post defamatory? I request that you delete it, because of its extreme bias, and vitriol.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | April 9, 2008 9:11 PM

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that ABC has not reported that "another KBR/Halliburton rape victim has come forward." Just a wild, wild guess.

Posted by: Joe Bingham | April 10, 2008 11:31 AM

At least one particular of the story isn't true: Dawn Leamon wasn't scheduled to testify.

Posted by: Ted | April 10, 2008 7:11 PM

I'd say that if Bush can say the Iraq 'war' was necessary for the safety of this country, Kia can use 'rape victim'.

Ted, I guess many different news agencies are wrong, then, because they're all writing about Dawn Leamon's testimony.

That KBR, those silly kids.

Posted by: Shelley | April 10, 2008 9:56 PM

"I'd say that if Bush can say the Iraq 'war' was necessary for the safety of this country, Kia can use 'rape victim'."

Assume Bush is lying about Iraq. It's then ok for Kia to lie about what ABC is reporting?

Posted by: Joe Bingham | April 11, 2008 11:43 AM

Supremacy Claus, Bingham, this post doesn't use "alleged", and suddenly that becomes more important than the story of another KBR employee testifying about being raped in Iraq? Is that how law works now? Then I can glad say, "No, I am not a lawyer".

This isn't some bloodless, legal exercise, with people like pawns on some chessboard as you lawyers toss back and forth your rhetoric while the rest of us are supposed to sit on the sidelines, admiring your prowess with words.

This is a company hired by the US, in Iraq to supposedly help make the country a better place, creating an atmosphere where women are victimized, their perpetuators go free because of ill thought legislation, and the companies, themselves, doing what they can to suppress the truth. Lawyers or not, you should be appalled.

Sorry. More blathering on my part. Women being raped by a company hired by my country has that habit on me.

Another story on arbitration and its fairness. Rather than take advantage of the emotion of a jury, take advantage of the emotional vulnerability of the elderly and their families. Excuse me: allegedly taking advantage of allegedly vulnerable elderly.

Posted by: Shelley | April 12, 2008 12:09 AM

Shelley: I have no dispute with you. I respect your opinion. I agree that people are more important than lawyer gotcha games with words.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | April 12, 2008 8:30 AM

"Women being raped by a company hired by my country. . . ."

Shelley, a company cannot rape a person -- companies don't have sex organs.

Posted by: Lawyer | April 13, 2008 1:10 PM

"This isn't some bloodless, legal exercise, with people like pawns on some chessboard as you lawyers toss back and forth your rhetoric while the rest of us are supposed to sit on the sidelines, admiring your prowess with words."

Even as you accuse me of using "rhetoric" (ew, rhetoric) you're smokescreening. It doesn't take a JD (I don't have one) to be honest. Kia misconveyed what ABC reported. You continue to imply that the womens' allegations are true. They may well be, but you'll have to forgive me for not presuming guilt or innocence. (Learn anything in Durham?)

I don't think prowess with words is the issue. Honesty is. It's possible that Kia didn't deliberately misreport the ABC story, and that you aren't deliberately assuming the guilt of the accused rapists, but that you're just honest people who don't know how to use the English language. Possible, but unlikely.

It's more likely, I think, that Kia meant to say what she said. If she wants to correct herself and apologize, explaining that she just doesn't have the vocabulary to convey the truth about this case, I'll be happy to hear it, and less embarrassed for her than I am as things stand.

Posted by: Joe Bingham | April 14, 2008 5:08 PM

"This isn't some bloodless, legal exercise, with people like pawns on some chessboard as you lawyers toss back and forth your rhetoric while the rest of us are supposed to sit on the sidelines, admiring your prowess with words."

Even as you accuse me of using "rhetoric" (ew, rhetoric) you're smokescreening. It doesn't take a JD (I don't have one) to be honest. Kia misconveyed what ABC reported. You continue to imply that the womens' allegations are true. They may well be, but you'll have to forgive me for not presuming guilt or innocence. (Learn anything in Durham?)

I don't think prowess with words is the issue. Honesty is. It's possible that Kia didn't deliberately misreport the ABC story, and that you aren't deliberately assuming the guilt of the accused rapists, but that you're just honest people who don't know how to use the English language. Possible, but unlikely.

It's more likely, I think, that Kia meant to say what she said. If she wants to correct herself and apologize, explaining that she just doesn't have the vocabulary to convey the truth about this case, I'll be happy to hear it, and less embarrassed for her than I am as things stand.

Posted by: Joe Bingham | April 14, 2008 5:14 PM

Sorry for that stray apostrophe. Bad form for somebody who's so careful with English that he got mistaken for a lawyer... ;)

Posted by: Joe Bingham | April 14, 2008 5:46 PM

This is true. Leamon didn't end up testifying although sources say she was originally supposed to.

Lawyer: you're right, a corporation can't rape a person. But it can help foster an environment in which sexual harassment is sanctioned and employees' safety compromised without regard. And it can be held accountable for what it should have done to prevent this injustice, and what it should not have done to obstruct the rape survivors' access to justice after the fact.

Posted by: Kia | April 15, 2008 2:36 PM

n.

1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice.

Posted by: Shelley | April 15, 2008 11:32 PM

Shelley, so when you said "Women being raped" you meant metaphorically, not sexually...In connection with this story...That just happens to involve women claiming they were raped sexually...And by "rape victim" you just meant a sufferer of general injustice...Right.

Posted by: Lawyer | April 16, 2008 5:15 PM

She was using it in the sense Pope did in The Rape of the Lock. She's being satirical, of course.

Posted by: Joe Bingham | April 17, 2008 4:45 PM

A COUPLE CLARIFICATIONS

1) To my knowledge Leamon didn't end up testifying (however I may have hopped onto the live video of the hearing after she testified). She WAS SCHEDULED TO testify, under the assumed name of Lisa Smith. So no, Joe Bingham, I didn't "misconvey" anything. Nor did the actual authors of this blog post. As denoted by the signature line, I didn't even write this post. However, I do stand 100% behind the author's honesty and integrity.

2) You all should be much more concerned with the KBR's honesty--where's that rape kit they got their hands on? That kit and other medical examinations DID in fact confirm that these women were rape victims.

No SC, a MEDICAL determination, not a legal one, is necessary to establish that these women in fact were raped. Get over it, the rapes happened. Now lets focus on getting the rape survivors some justice.

And Lawyer, these women were raped in every sense of the word. They were raped physically by their assailants, they were raped of justice by our legal system and by KBR.

Posted by: Kia | April 18, 2008 12:29 PM

"Now lets focus on getting the rape survivors some justice."

That's a wonderful idea: let's focus on why the criminal justice system isn't engaging in prosecutions of alleged rapists. Is it because investigation was made and the allegations were lacking, or is the government dropping the ball? It's certainly nothing to do with "contractors" or "Halliburton," because the government has happily prosecuted contractors for crimes in Iraq.

But it's ironic that Kia is calling for "focusing" on the justice issue, because she's done the opposite. It's a shame that trial lawyers and their proxies (such as this blog) are ignoring the proper focus to instead focus on bashing corporations and hurting consumers and employees through limiting their rights to agree to mandatory binding arbitration clauses, even though that has nothing to do with whether rape survivors get justice.

Posted by: Ted | April 19, 2008 6:27 AM

they want justice against their criminal perpetrators AND against their employer kbr for civil wrongdoing--creating an environment in which sexual harassment is ok, women feel physically unsafe, rape survivors are silenced, and as one woman alleges, a rapist is protected and a rape survivor is forced to continue working alongside her assailant. this is what THEY SAY, not me. i just happen to agree. so let's not minimize their appeal for civil justice here just because kbr isn't a physical human being.

it makes no sense to say that employees and consumers are "hurt" by not being forced into arbitration. consumers and employees should have the right to make an informed agreement to arbitration-- not get pulled into it through trickery or compulsion. consumers and employees enjoy no benefits from binding mandatory arbitration agreements. the costs of goods/svcs have not gone down, nor have salaries gone up, but quality/compliance with law decline without recourse to the corporation.

this is not about your right to agree to arbitrate, it's about your right NOT to be forced to arbitrate. couching pro-corporation rhetoric in terms of a consumer's/employee's rights is a clever trick, but those who are GENUINELY concerned with employees' and consumers' rights would never advocate for forcing binding mandatory arbitration down their throats or forcing them to just go without the good/svc/job (often a job they're already in and they've been working for years) if they won't agree.

Posted by: Kia | April 21, 2008 3:47 PM

"[T]his is not about your right to agree to arbitrate, it's about your right NOT to be forced to arbitrate."

For one, nobody's "forced" to arbitrate anything. These mandatory arbitration contracts are saying, for example, *if* you accept the terms and conditions of this credit card, *then* you will have to arbitrate any dispute.

But in any event, why can't the law be written such that two contracts have to be offered -- one with a mandatory arbitration clause and one without -- letting the consumer choose? I STILL don't understand why the OPTION of choosing mandatory binding arbitration MUST be eliminated, even if the consumer wants it.

It's not like this whole debate is corporate sympathizers versus the anti-corporate leftists. Everybody with a dog in the fight wants what's best for consumers. So why not draft a bill that requires the presentation of two different contracts, and then the consumer (not to mention us), can know exactly benefit is being given in exchange for committing to mandatory arbitration? Don't we all (meaning the tort-reformers and the anti-tort-reformers) get what we want?

Posted by: Lawyer | April 21, 2008 5:42 PM

"So no, Joe Bingham, I didn't "misconvey" anything."

So you did not, in fact, write that "ABC News reports that another KBR/Halliburton rape victim has come forward."? I believe you did. That is not what ABC News reported--they reported that another KBR/Halliburton employee has alleged that she was raped. Fortunately, ABC is not so stupid that they would report those untried allegations as if they were fact. (Our civil litigation system may deserve points for creating incentives not to make such unverified allegations!)

Posted by: Joe Bingham | April 22, 2008 12:54 PM

It's highly probable that these women were raped or put in situations that were sexually voilitile. Being Female having worked in iraq and experienced smiliar situations, I tend to beleive these women. But untill a person sports a set of breasts and works in a place where the men out number the women 66 to 1 then they have the right to say something.

Posted by: kare | April 28, 2008 6:03 PM

kare, better reread that. I'd respond, but I get the feeling you didn't say what you meant to say...

Posted by: Joe Bingham | April 29, 2008 12:35 PM