ARTICLE: Three Rapes: The Status of Forces Agreement and Okinawa

[Sukotto]

JPRI Working Paper No. 97, January 2004
Three Rapes: The Status of Forces Agreement and Okinawa
by Chalmers Johnson

America’s 703 officially acknowledged foreign military enclaves (as of September 30, 2002), although structurally, legally, and conceptually different from colonies, are themselves something like microcolonies in that they are completely beyond the jurisdiction of the occupied nation.1 The United States virtually always negotiates a “status of forces agreement” (SOFA) with the ostensibly independent “host” nation, including countries whose legal systems are every bit (and perhaps more) sophisticated than our own.

In Asia, the SOFA is a modern legacy of the nineteenth-century imperialist practice in China of “extraterritoriality”—the “right” of a foreigner charged with a crime to be turned over for trial to his own diplomatic representatives in accordance with his national law, not to a Chinese court in accordance with Chinese law. Extracted from the Chinese at gun point, the practice arose because foreigners claimed that Chinese law was barbaric and “white men” engaged in commerce in China should not be forced to submit to it. Chinese law was indeed concerned more with the social consequences of crime than with establishing the individual guilt or innocence of criminals, particularly those who were uninvited guests in China.

Following the Anglo-Chinese “Opium War” of 1839-42, the United States was the first nation to demand “extrality” for its citizens. All the other European nations then acquired the same rights as the Americans. Except for the Germans, who lost their Chinese colonies in World War I, Americans and Europeans lived an “extraterritorial” life in China until the Japanese ended it in 1941 and Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang stopped it in 1943. But men and women serving overseas in the American armed forces still demand that their government obtain as extensive extraterritorial status for them as possible. In this modern version, extrality takes the form of heavy American pressure on countries like Japan to alter their systems of criminal justice to conform with procedures that exist in the United States, regardless of historical and cultural differences.

Rachel Cornwell and Andrew Wells, two authorities on status of forces agreements, conclude, “Most SOFAs are written so that national courts cannot exercise legal jurisdiction over U.S. military personnel who commit crimes against local people, except in special cases where the U.S. military authorities agree to transfer jurisdiction.”2 Since service members are also exempt from normal passport and immigration controls, the military has the option of simply flying an accused rapist or murderer out of the country before local authorities can bring him to trial, a contrivance to which commanding officers of Pacific bases have often resorted. At the time of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington in September 2001, the United States had publicly acknowledged SOFAs with ninety-three countries, although some SOFAs are so embarrassing to the host nation that they are kept secret, particularly in the Islamic world.3 Thus the true number is not publicly known.

U.S. overseas military bases are under the control not of some colonial office or ministry of foreign affairs but the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and a plethora of other official, if sometimes secret, organs of state. These agencies build, staff, and supervise the bases—fenced and defended sites on foreign soil, often constructed to mimic life at home. However, not all overseas members of the military have families or want their families to accompany them; therefore, except in Muslim countries, these bases normally attract extensive arrays of bars and brothels, and the criminal elements that operate them. The presence of these bases unavoidably usurps, distorts, or subverts whatever institutions of democratic government may exist within the host society.

Stationing several thousand eighteen-to-twenty-four-year old American youths in cultures that are foreign to them and about which they are utterly ignorant is a recipe for the endless series of “incidents” plaguing nations that have accepted U.S. bases. American ambassadors quickly learn the protocol for visiting the host foreign office in order to apologize for the behavior of our troops. Even in closely allied countries where English is spoken, local residents get very tired of sexual assaults and drunken driving by foreign soldiers. During World War II, the British satirized our troops as “over-paid, over-sexed, and over here.” Nothing has changed.

The SOFA as Unequal Treaty

etc....
here for the rest of this
fairly long but interesting article
http://www.jpri.org/publications/wor...pers/wp97.html

[DoctorP]

Originally Posted by Sukotto

Rachel Cornwell and Andrew Wells, two authorities on status of forces agreements, conclude, “Most SOFAs are written so that national courts cannot exercise legal jurisdiction over U.S. military personnel who commit crimes against local people, except in special cases where the U.S. military authorities agree to transfer jurisdiction.”2 Since service members are also exempt from normal passport and immigration controls, the military has the option of simply flying an accused rapist or murderer out of the country before local authorities can bring him to trial, a contrivance to which commanding officers of Pacific bases have often resorted. At the time of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington in September 2001, the United States had publicly acknowledged SOFAs with ninety-three countries, although some SOFAs are so embarrassing to the host nation that they are kept secret, particularly in the Islamic world.3 Thus the true number is not publicly known.

I'll admit I only skimmed the article, but I saw no reference where this was actually done. Can it be done? Yes! But usually the U.S. military hand over the suspects once charges are filed. All this prevents is the member sitting in custody for up to 21 days undergoing constant badgering for a confession. I've lived here for a while, and seen many suspects handed over, and never once do I recall a suspect being flown off the island. Scott if you have a reference, I'd love to hear of it.

U.S. overseas military bases are under the control not of some colonial office or ministry of foreign affairs but the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and a plethora of other official, if sometimes secret, organs of state. These agencies build, staff, and supervise the bases—fenced and defended sites on foreign soil, often constructed to mimic life at home. However, not all overseas members of the military have families or want their families to accompany them; therefore, except in Muslim countries, these bases normally attract extensive arrays of bars and brothels, and the criminal elements that operate them. The presence of these bases unavoidably usurps, distorts, or subverts whatever institutions of democratic government may exist within the host society.

I agree that the bases attract bars and such, but who builds them? Criminals? Not hardly...usually these are just like the local "snacks" that you go to. Operated by old couples who were tired of farming. (just an observation!)

Stationing several thousand eighteen-to-twenty-four-year old American youths in cultures that are foreign to them and about which they are utterly ignorant is a recipe for the endless series of “incidents” plaguing nations that have accepted U.S. bases. American ambassadors quickly learn the protocol for visiting the host foreign office in order to apologize for the behavior of our troops. Even in closely allied countries where English is spoken, local residents get very tired of sexual assaults and drunken driving by foreign soldiers. During World War II, the British satirized our troops as “over-paid, over-sexed, and over here.” Nothing has changed.

unfortunately I agree with this...and I always have!

Anyway Scott, thanks for posting!

[Uncle Frank]

Originally Posted by Warlock

itd be great to be a US soldier..i can choose to rape all the most beutiful young teenage virgin girls and my goverment will let me get away with it..even 23 months or 3 years..hey!you can never get one like that in a life time..thank the Great Jesus!

The military does not let you get away with anything. You screw up the least little bit and they are all over you . You loose rank and pay at the drop of a hat. My 2 years in Japan , no one was shielded by the military. The Japanese police could come on base and take servicemen into custody anytime. I will admit , unless it was a murder case, most servicemen served their jail time in a military prison, not a Japanese one. The military code of justice is more strict then civilian court usually.

Frank

[-Rudel-]

Indeed it is Frank. Almost everythingis "0" tolerance in Japan. Getting a traffic ticket or a getting into a wreck can be extremely expensive. The Military gets blamed first unless you have good locals looking out for you.

But that rape crap is definately a no no. From what I heard while I was there, You will be convicted under the Japanese Law (and serve your sentence), and then the UCMJ, (and serve your sentence) Not a good situation.

[Sukotto]

This might sound like a cop-out, but
I didn't write the article. If there is a problem with
what it claims, please email the author....and please
do share any replies, good or bad.