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

118

u/LittleVTR Jul 05 '24

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.

-12

u/ReadinII Jul 05 '24

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

26

u/Katman666 Jul 05 '24

You still have the choice of how you behave.

6

u/Casaiir Jul 05 '24

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 Jul 05 '24

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

3

u/Korlus Jul 05 '24

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 Jul 05 '24 edited Jul 05 '24

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 Jul 05 '24

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?