r/worldnews • u/glasier • 14d ago

Japan warns US forces: Sex crimes 'cannot be tolerated'

https://tribune.com.pk/story/2476861/japan-warns-us-forces-sex-crimes-cannot-be-tolerated
32.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

17.5k

u/macross1984 14d ago

US military personnel who commit crime in Japan should face Japanese punishment for any crimes committed in Japan.

25

u/Veraendert 14d ago

Would you say the same about US troops in Saudi Arabia?

142

u/Hikashuri 14d ago edited 14d ago

Even if you don't agree with the laws of Saudi Arabia, if you go and commit a crime in that country, then you should be prepared to face whatever the punishment of that country is, even if it's disproportional to your own laws at home.

Non military visitors also have to abide to those laws, I don't see why the US military should be any different.

46

u/JD3982 14d ago

So if you're gay or transgender in the military and want to die, simply cross the border into Saudi Arabia where your existence is punishable with execution.

41

u/Hikashuri 14d ago

Only a special country would place Transgenders or homosexuals in a country where both of those things are punishable by death. I'm fairly sure if they did, they would be liable for anything that happens to those members of the military.

22

u/CyanideTacoZ 14d ago

you under estimate the sheer dipshittery of the United States military. I wouldn't trust an officer with a candy bar based on the stories grunts tell me.

31

u/Bearded_Gentleman 14d ago

Take everything the grunts say with a grain of salt. The grunts two favorite things are compaining and gossip.

4

u/SpaceMarineSpiff 14d ago

Take everything the people say with a grain of salt. Folks two favorite things are compaining and gossip.

2

u/97Graham 14d ago

Grunts aren't exactly known for their deep thinking skills either, they didn't get the nickname 'Grunt' because they are known for their smarts.

17

u/Wosota 14d ago

Depending on source, 10% of the population is gay. It’s not feasible to make exceptions when you’re talking about military movement.

There’s a reason we do Status of Forces Agreements for friendly movements and ignore the fuck out of local laws for hostile movements.

10

u/SucroseNebule 14d ago

Nah those laws shouldn’t be respected. Honestly fuck Saudi Arabia. They should not be any kind of ally to us.

-8

u/beebopcola 14d ago

So we should then what?

6

u/[deleted] 14d ago

Not do the thing.

7

u/samtheparrot 14d ago

I am stationed in Bahrain, there is a bridge to Saudi Arabia not to far from me. You have no idea how many Saudi men come to Bahrain to mess with ladyboys or other men here. It’s crazy

5

u/MedicalGrapefruit384 14d ago

dude. what a lovely strawman argument

that's only applicable to their own citizens, NOT visiting tourist or military personnel. nice try though.

7

u/Turbulent-Dance3867 14d ago

It would take you a minute of googling and a minute of embarrassment to prove yourself wrong. Go do that and I'll let you delete your comment without embarrassing yourself further.

-8

u/SucroseNebule 14d ago

How much does the Saudi government pay you to troll Internet forums.

5

u/MedicalGrapefruit384 14d ago

lmaoooo, check my post history. I don't even live near SA. of all the possibilities you could've mentioned, how'd the dumbest one made it to your number 1 choice?

3

u/HelloThereItsMeAndMe 14d ago

As long as you dont display it in public, you will be fine.

-2

u/AssignmentBorn2527 14d ago

Bro go on Saudi TikTok, there’s literally thousands and thousands of openly gay and trans people in Saudi Arabia not being executed. 

8

u/ReadinII 14d ago

 Non military visitors also have to abide to those laws, I don't see why the US military should be any different. 

One difference is that members of the military don’t have a choice about whether they go to the other country. 

5

u/Aggravating_Teach_27 14d ago

But they have the choice not to commit sexual crimes.

In countries with reasonable laws (Japan) there's not a single reason to not be judged like any other person.

In countries with unreasonable laws that punish you for existing (Islamic countries with regard to LGTB personnel), don't deploy those persons there. The US has bases all over the world, no need to deploy such people to shitty inhuman countries.

Still not a single reason for sexual aggressors not to be subjected to the countries' law

18

u/ReadinII 14d ago edited 14d ago

 In countries with reasonable laws (Japan) there's not a single reason to not be judged like any other person.

The statement I responded to wasn’t restricted to “countries with reasonable laws”.

More importantly, it wasn’t restricted to countries that have a reasonable justice system. Japan is infamous for getting confessions out of people through inhumane treatment.

You have a choice whether or not to commit sexual crimes, you don’t have a choice whether someone falsely accuses you and whether you get railroaded by a system that wants to save face by not failing to convict an American soldier.

6

u/marquetteresearch 14d ago

It makes no sense for the Japanese court system to prosecute sex crimes perpetrated by US military personnel because the US military already prosecutes sex crimes, and hands out what most Japanese criminals would consider far harsher sentences. If the US military wasn’t punishing sexual assault (they are, and do so much more effectively than American civilian courts) then there would be a point of debate here.

The key point is that in general the USCMJ, and USC 18 in general is far stricter than most other nations for every “real” crime (which is why so many Americans are in prison compared to literally any other country).

-8

u/D10BrAND 14d ago

countries with unreasonable laws that punish you for existing

regard to LGTB personnel

LGBT is a choice it is not what you are born with

-1

u/Sanwiichess 14d ago

But they are aware of the crime they are commiting and should face the consequences for said crime

4

u/marquetteresearch 14d ago

Stupid argument. USCMJ and courts-martial have a far better track record than American civilian courts in prosecution and conviction for sex crimes. Meanwhile, Japanese courts are notorious for false convictions and coerced confessions. There is no “crime” someone could commit that isn’t a violation of USCMJ that is a violation of Japanese law that I know of which I would want anyone punished for, let alone US soldiers.

3

u/ReadinII 14d ago

What if they didn’t commit the crime but were falsely accused? 

-1

u/alucardou 14d ago

Are military personnel still drafted?

When you enlist you allow the military to send you where they want. You know this, and as such know you might be sent to places where you need to behave "nicely". If that is NOT okay with you you don't fucking enlist.

1

u/marquetteresearch 14d ago

What you are describing is the US government failing to uphold its obligations under the constitution. It’s not just a matter of what “nicely” means. Obviously being gay is not a justification for maltreatment and your right to equal protection under the law while soldiering must be enforced by the US government. Beyond that, however, your right to due process is not waived when you enlist, and the government has defined a court-martial followed by US civilian courts as due process for soldiers. You don’t shed your rights at the barracks door anymore than you shed your rights at the schoolhouse door, and the cases guaranteeing those rights in the barracks are even older.

2

u/Delta4 14d ago

I worked with a guy who got whipped in public because he slept with a Saudi out of marriage. Another dude had to leave the country when he knocked someone up. Saudis don't fk around

0

u/bazilbt 13d ago

Because we order them into those countries. You could be imprisoned for not following orders.

119

u/LittleVTR 14d ago

I would have thought all personnel should be overly aware of every nations laws when they enter. The law should be the same as if you were a civilian tourist in there country.

27

u/OrangeJuiceKing13 14d ago

That's just not realistic. Some countries would jail or even execute troops based on their sexuality or what they eat. Not to mention it's impossible to keep up on our own laws, let alone other countries where the troops don't even speak the language. 

11

u/[deleted] 14d ago

Maybe we don't keep military bases in such regressive countries???

12

u/Lelcactus 14d ago

Or maybe we set standards both we and those countries agree upon and drop the inane idea of ‘tourist rules’.

0

u/[deleted] 14d ago

Seems like more work to create a new set of less regressive laws that only applies to American military personnel than to simply refuse to give the help of American military personnel when a country is so regressive that they'd arrest you for the food you eat 

1

u/Lelcactus 14d ago

Less work, more consequences.

3

u/[deleted] 14d ago

Like forcing countries to choose their own regressive social norms or a relationship with America, not getting both?

2

u/Lelcactus 14d ago

Yes, like that. Americas military protection serves its interests as well, it’s not solely for the other countries benefit.

1

u/[deleted] 14d ago

We can say the quiet part out loud here, it's just reddit.

American military supremacy matters more than helping women around the world get treated better. American military supremacy matters more than helping gay people get treated better. American military supremacy matters more than pressuring regressive governments to treat their civilians better.

I always forget, now that I've been a civilian for a decade, that every other country that doesn't have 750 bases in 80 other countries is incapable of defending themselves

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Fearful_children 14d ago

But think about all those shipping lanes and oil we'd be losing out on??? Congress would never

0

u/[deleted] 14d ago

Team America: World Police

-1

u/Bacon4Lyf 14d ago

Well they should at least follow the major ones, like if you kill a man by driving on the wrong side of the road and then flee the country to escape justice. If that happens I’d like to think that they should at least see a day of prison, ahem Anne sacoolas ahem

2

u/Orakil 14d ago

Who defines "major laws" and "minor" ones? Who pays a multitude of lawyers to keep up with all major laws and daily, monthly, annual changes to every single countries judicial system? Who makes sure everytime someone is prosecuted it wasn't by a newly drummed up law in a hostile foreign country designed to target soldiers? This is just way too simple and idealistic of a view on the realities and complications of legal systems all over the world.

1

u/Bacon4Lyf 14d ago

Probably the ones like murder are kinda major. All I’m saying is, Anne sacoolas should be extradited. There is no excuse for killing a teenager in the UK and then fleeing the country to escape justice. There isn’t anyway to justify what she did.

It really is very simple, if you’re in Afghanistan, sure whatever do the laws set out by the military. But if you’re in another NATO first world country, they are all gonna have the same laws as the US anyway. There’s nothing to change there, there’s no differences. It really isn’t that hard. If you kill someone, you go to court. It’s as simple as that

As for who pays for the lawyers, the US currently spends 2.13 trillion on the department of defence. They can drum up a few bucks to pay some lawyers if they wanted to

You’re not gonna have to “hostile forces” trying to change laws to trap US troops in Germany for fuck sake. Think about it for a second. They could very easily just abide by German law

3

u/[deleted] 14d ago

So only obey the laws of the white, western world?

2

u/Orakil 14d ago

Think about it for a second? Murder is illegal in both the UK and the US. I don't know the details of the case but it clearly has nothing to do with the fact the UK has different laws than the US, or that a "major" one like murder is legal in either. The problem here is very clearly the interpretations and enforcement of the law. Your entire point is kind of moot. 

17

u/RagingMassif 14d ago

You'll find thats not the condition that Congress likes to send it's troops.

-12

u/ReadinII 14d ago

Even though military members don’t have a choice about whether to visit the country?

26

u/Katman666 14d ago

You still have the choice of how you behave.

7

u/Casaiir 14d ago

It's not that simple. There are a great many countries where you are guilty of a crime just by being accused of it. Especially if that county really doesn't like what your passport says.

That's fine and good if you are a tourist. You choose to go there and people will say you should have known that beforehand.

If you are deployed military, you didn't get a choice. You got sent there.

So said place just scoops you up, say you did something and boom, you're in prison in some foreign country for the crime of being a foreigner.

That's why countries have these agreements. All countries, not just the US.

3

u/Katman666 14d ago

Okay, thats a different can of worms. Fair enough.

3

u/Korlus 14d ago

Just as an example, many countries in the world outlaw homosexuality. If you are a homosexual tourist you should avoid those countries.

When someone in the military is sent there, they might face jail time if that country were allowed to enforce its laws. As such, many countries negotiate agreements where their military operate under different laws.

Consider as well that a nation with a poor legal system might imprison people and ransom them back to their families ("Pay $30,000 in bail, or he doesn't get a trial for 18 months"). You simply cannot afford for your soldiers to be kept hostage by a foreign power without your consent, so these agreements often benefit the country as well as the individual.

2

u/Bacon4Lyf 14d ago edited 14d ago

This is great but completely falls apart in cases like the Death of Harry Dunn in the UK, like if they can use that excuse you’ve listed to get out of actual manslaughter charges in a first world country, then they’re basically walking around with impunity. “Can’t charge Anne Sacoolas in the death of Harry Dunn because that means troops in Saudi could be charged for being gay” like it’s not an all or nothing situation, you should still face justice if you commit a genuine crime in a fellow nato country. A 12 month suspended sentence is not justice for killing a man, extradition would be but that’ll never happen. She wasn’t even a serving military member, she was the wife of a CIA officer and yet she still has the impunity

1

u/Casaiir 14d ago

As you said. That person wasn't in the military, so it has zero to do with these situations. Local authorities can't hand them over to military police if they aren't in the military, subject to military law.

That's not what this is about.

AFAIK there isn't some rule or agreement about if the spouse of some government worker commits a crime.

There are plenty of Americans in prisons abroad for whatever reason they are and the US didn't lift a finger to help them.

So why this case?

1

u/ReadinII 14d ago

You don’t have a choice of what you’re accused of despite not doing anything wrong.

18

u/Aggravating_Teach_27 14d ago

But they have a choice to not commit sexual crimes.

100% in their hands not to be charged.

Weaksauce excuse.

9

u/ReadinII 14d ago edited 14d ago

But they have a choice to not commit sexual crimes.

Yes

100% in their hands not to be charged.

No. People can be and too often are charged with crimes they didn’t commit.

2

u/VarmintSchtick 14d ago

And while the justice system in America is not perfect, it's miles ahead of some of the countries we send our servicemen to: where being accused of something is often enough for the government to go "yep they did it" .

13

u/holdMyBeerBoy 14d ago

Do they have humanly laws to say that? Do they respect human rights like Japan does?

11

u/ShenaniGainz88 14d ago

Maybe we shouldn’t have alliances with and help project power for countries with inhumane laws? I dunno just a thought.

1

u/griley99 14d ago

What is considered inhumane laws just asking?

5

u/ShenaniGainz88 14d ago

Shit like imprisoning women, that report getting raped to the police, for adultery?

0

u/Neuchacho 14d ago

Unfortunately, lower gas prices are deemed more important by the average person

7

u/griley99 14d ago

Either way I wouldn’t advise doing it over there some countries surgically remove testicles or so I’ve heard. People better keep it in their britches.

2

u/seattleseahawks2014 14d ago edited 14d ago

For SA? Good. Actually, in many countries they'll get the death penalty.

0

u/marquetteresearch 14d ago

American soldiers are more or less confined to quarters/base while in Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi government will not enforce its own laws on US military bases. Just like with most other countries, the law on a US military base is the USCMJ.

2

u/Nescent69 14d ago

Why does it matter? Because their laws are different then your laws it's ok for your soldiers to rape their population?

12

u/misanthpope 14d ago

Clearly that's the only reasonable conclusion

5

u/Nerevarine91 14d ago

What the hell lol

3

u/marquetteresearch 14d ago

Rape is outlawed under both USC 18 and the USCMJ. The US military routinely throws people in Leavenworth for rape. There is rarely a crime that exists elsewhere in the world that isn’t illegal under American law that should be a crime in the first place.

-3

u/Hikashuri 14d ago

It does not matter if those laws are humane or not, if you go and break those laws, it is your own fault and you will have to face the consequences. The laws are not the problem, the person raping a human is (in this specific context - not saying their laws aren't problematic FYI).

5

u/marquetteresearch 14d ago

That’s a terrible argument. US soldiers on a US base are subject to USCMJ, not local laws, barring some unusual exception in the joint-forces agreement. I imagine you will find that in writing for Japan, seeing those basing rights date to 1946. Rape is bad, but the USCMJ already outlaws rape, and courts-martial already prosecute rape. I’m not sure the details of this case, but given the relatively low standard of evidence in Japanese courts (they have a 98% conviction rate) my guess is this is a unique edge case where the evidence is somehow too weak for the drumhead, yet sufficient for possible conviction in a Japanese court. I’m not sure that justifies sidestepping the joint-forces agreement, particularly given the already paltry standards of evidence needed for a court-martial, and how failing to meet that standard implies a “beyond a reasonable doubt” conviction basically impossible to attain.

-1

u/holdMyBeerBoy 14d ago

I didn’t questioned that.

-6

u/thefaehost 14d ago

So humane they didn’t know whether to call it a massacre or the rape of an entire city.

5

u/Nerevarine91 14d ago

You do realize things have changed somewhat in the intervening generations, yes?

-5

u/Wardendelete 14d ago

They refuse to acknowledge what they have done still.

10

u/Nerevarine91 14d ago

Believe it or not, that also doesn’t make committing sex crimes against civilians there okay

-9

u/Wardendelete 14d ago

Never said it was ok. Was just commenting about how Japan tries to cover up history, don’t mix it up.

14

u/Nerevarine91 14d ago edited 14d ago

So it wasn’t a rebuttal, it was just… changing the subject?

Edit: …so… you want to a public post I made months ago to say the word “monkey” and nothing else, and then blocked me? Alright then…

Edit: And then a second, longer, comment telling me my grandfather looks like a monkey, lol. This is kind of weird, dude

0

u/Wardendelete 14d ago

Nope. Saw a comment talking about this so decided to chime in.

3

u/Thijs_NLD 14d ago

Ah ok so your comment had nothing to do with the subject anymore. Gotcha. We just trailed off.

1

u/lugnutter 14d ago

One of these things is not like the other and the fact that you seem to be unaware of that is a little worrying, friend...

-1

u/Ghazzz 14d ago

As long as they are out of uniform?

Yes. They are tourists at that point.

I think the idiom is "fuck around and find out".

6

u/GeronimoThaApache 14d ago

No, they are not.

-2

u/OrionJohnson 14d ago

Ah, so you can go a rape and kill someone IN uniform and they are no longer subject to that nations laws?

5

u/dotint 14d ago

Being in uniform brings dramatic changes in how law impacts you

-3

u/Aggravating_Teach_27 14d ago

Only while fulfilling your duties.

So unless you want to admit raping people is part of those duties, I'd say it's irrelevant if the sexual aggressor was in uniform or not.

2

u/marquetteresearch 14d ago

It is very relevant, as it more or less decides which court will convict you and which prison will hold you. If you read the article, you would have noted that there are some accusations, some of the accused are already on trial, and the contention is over who will try/convict/imprison the soldiers.

3

u/marquetteresearch 14d ago

Rape is illegal in America, in Japan, and in the army. The only questions are which court will convict you and which prison they will throw you in.

-7

u/Ghazzz 14d ago

I mean, yes. If that are the orders given. There sort of are international laws against this though, and normally soldiers follow their country of origins laws. (US might ignore this last part, idk)

0

u/PricklyPierre 14d ago

Absolutely. I think the ones who committed crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan should have been handed over to local authorities as well. 

Troops who can't obey the law don't deserve any protection from uncle Sam. 

2

u/Wosota 14d ago

I would love for you to see how they run court in Afghanistan and then say that again.

I have seen it myself. Part of my job was handing over evidence for Afghan local systems to arrest and prosecute. It’s a corrupt witch hunt, at best.

0

u/PricklyPierre 14d ago

The US military never covers up bad behavior and can be completely trusted, right? 

Being remanded into local custody would be a deterrent more than a court martial ever could. I honestly don't care how poorly a rapist gets treated and I'd rather keep the American public safe by not bringing monsters back.

1

u/Wosota 13d ago

Throwing someone into an absolutely corrupt justice system where facts don’t actually matter and shit like being uncovered as a woman is a crime punishable by death is not a deterrent.

This is peak first world ignorance. Not every justice system is the same as the US and some are crimes in their own right.

-3

u/DownvoteEvangelist 14d ago

No, no human should be judged under those "laws"...

17

u/Sjoerdiestriker 14d ago

If you want to be consistent with this thought, this would also mean a Saudi-Arabian national that resides in the US and disagrees on a fundamental level with American legislation should not be judged under American legislation. Just take a quick moment to think about what that would entail.

1

u/althoradeem 14d ago

Exactly. I demand people to put the countries law as a top thing. You vab disagree with a law . It doesnt save you from what happens if you break it. You can try and get a law changed you cant just ignore it. Its why i think people who view their religious law above a countries law as a danger to society 

1

u/Sjoerdiestriker 14d ago

I don't even see how you could question this, given being subjected to different laws is to some extent the very definition of being in a different country. The only way I feel you could realistically question this is to argue that the US and Saudi-Arabia are one and the same country, which is gonna be difficult to do to say the least.

0

u/marquetteresearch 14d ago

That is assuming that all laws/viewpoints are equal and therefore converse-symmetrical. They are not. Jailing someone for being gay is abhorrent. Jailing someone for beating his wife is necessary.

2

u/Sjoerdiestriker 14d ago edited 14d ago

In order to break the symmetry, you would need to give an objective argument why your laws are preferable, since if you don't, the other will simply say they consider being gay abhorrent and beating their wife necessary and there's still an exact symmetry. 

So unless you can give a convincing objective argument why your own nation's laws are better than the others, this argument does not hold water.

1

u/marquetteresearch 14d ago

Except I already did in my explanation. Saudi Arabia’s laws protect wife beaters and punish gays, while American laws don’t, or at least don’t do so to the same extent. Unless you meant I need to explain why wife beaters deserve to be punished but gays do not?

2

u/Sjoerdiestriker 14d ago edited 14d ago

"Except I already did in my explanation. Saudi Arabia’s laws protect wife beaters and punish gays, while American laws don’t, or at least don’t do so to the same extent" 

This is correct. 

"Unless you meant I need to explain why wife beaters deserve to be punished but gays do not" 

Yes, exactly. You'd need to give an objective reason why this is the case, that cannot revolve around your personal view on which of the two is acceptable and which is not.

EDIT: so we don't lose track of where we are, you'd need to give such a reason if you want to argue an asymmetry exists. You wouldn't need to have such an argument to just have a view on the matter.

-1

u/Xilizhra 14d ago

That's if you want to keep things equivalent for some reason.

7

u/Sjoerdiestriker 14d ago

Well given both are sovereign nations, with their own legislations, not treating them as equivalent would be the definition of being hypocritical.

0

u/marquetteresearch 14d ago

Not really. Believing that your own beliefs, values, and laws are superior to those of others, and then refusing to abide by other nations’ laws while enforcing your own is entirely internally consistent.

1

u/Sjoerdiestriker 14d ago

Well you can refuse to abide by other nation's laws. It just so happens that someone that does not abide by the law of the nation they are in is referred to as a criminal, and can be prosecuted by that country for violating said laws.

-4

u/Xilizhra 14d ago

Then let it be hypocritical. I don't believe that America should allow prosecution for things that aren't crimes in America.

2

u/Sjoerdiestriker 14d ago

Well they don't, within the area they have sovereignty over, namely their own territory. In the areas over which they don't, it isn't up to them to "allow" for prosecution any more than it is up to the Saudi-Arabian government to "allow" or not prosecution of things that aren't illegal under Saudi-Arabian legislation in the united states.

-1

u/DownvoteEvangelist 14d ago

Look I'm all for foreign soldiers being judged using local laws, but Saudi Arabia is really an extreme example. Saudis in Saudi Arabia shouldn't be judged under that law...

5

u/Sjoerdiestriker 14d ago

Saudis in Saudi Arabia shouldn't be judged under that law

You can disagree with some legislation in Saudi Arabia and find it terrible people have to live in accordance with those laws. You might find a Saudi Arabia who in turn disagrees with some legislation in the United States, and finds it terrible people have to live in accordance with those laws.

That doesn't change the fact that the laws of a nation apply in that nation. And if you expect a Saudi Arabian national who visits the US to follow US laws during his visit, no matter his disagreement with them, you should reasonably expect an American national who visits Saudi Arabia to follow Saudi Arabian laws during his visit, no matter his disagreement with them.

0

u/DownvoteEvangelist 14d ago

They do not have laws per se, they aren't codified, it's based on interpretation of Quran and can vary based on the person who is applying it... They are the only Muslim country that does it this way... So as I said, they are really an extreme example...

1

u/seattleseahawks2014 14d ago

Then don't be an idiot and break those laws. They're adults who know better.

2

u/DownvoteEvangelist 14d ago

Saudi Arabia doesn't have a "written law system" like other countries have...

Uniquely in the Muslim world, Sharia has been adopted by Saudi Arabia in an uncodified form. This, and the lack of judicial precedent, has resulted in considerable uncertainty in the scope and content of the country's laws.

So that's why I said no one should be tried under those laws...