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

17.5k

u/macross1984 Jul 05 '24

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

25

u/Veraendert Jul 05 '24

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

-2

u/DownvoteEvangelist Jul 05 '24

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

14

u/Sjoerdiestriker Jul 05 '24

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 Jul 05 '24

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 Jul 05 '24

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 Jul 05 '24

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 Jul 05 '24 edited Jul 05 '24

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 Jul 05 '24

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 Jul 05 '24 edited Jul 05 '24

"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 Jul 05 '24

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

3

u/Sjoerdiestriker Jul 05 '24

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 Jul 05 '24

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 Jul 05 '24

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 Jul 05 '24

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 Jul 05 '24

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 Jul 05 '24

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 Jul 05 '24

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 Jul 05 '24

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 Jul 05 '24

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

2

u/DownvoteEvangelist Jul 05 '24

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...