Thread: US solder jailed for rape in South Korea

I note that, recently, one of the theaters of war involving the US Army demanded that immunity from prosecution would not now be an option so Obama has declared repatriation of his army by the end of the year!

They must have been observing Korea and Japan and the problems they have had in this area

Originally Posted by Rocksteady

I note that, recently, one of the theaters of war involving the US Army demanded that immunity from prosecution would not now be an option so Obama has declared repatriation of his army by the end of the year!

They must have been observing Korea and Japan and the problems they have had in this area

I would never condone such activity however, I would suggest that the "problems" being made reference to are no more prominent percentage wise involving an American service member than of the local in either of these two countries.

Chalk and Cheese. The US are still fighting a war in Iraq and often kill civilians by mistake.

Not so in Korea. Mostly sexual crime or theft/assault I would imagine.

Considering the numbers of service men stationed overseas the number of crimes such as this would be far below the percentage committed in their own country. I know it is news worthy but best to put it in perspective.

This Story is hard to believe.

^Why? Did I miss something? Soldiers commit crimes just like civilians do.

Media does too!

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

^Why? Did I miss something? Soldiers commit crimes just like civilians do.

No, it's that the Americans have previously shielded them from local justice. Now they are delivering them and allowing the Koreans to try them locally.

No doubt this has made the Koreans much happier.

Of course if the damned fools just paid for whores like they usually do it wouldn't be a problem.

It's not as is Korea has a shortage.

^Thanks Harry; I understood that part without problem. What I didn't understand was why Ice thought this story was hard to believe. And, from his follow-up response, I still don't have a clue what he's on about.

Originally Posted by Davis Knowlton

^Thanks Harry; I understood that part without problem. What I didn't understand was why Ice thought this story was hard to believe. And, from his follow-up response, I still don't have a clue what he's on about.

Probably because of the way the story is being reported.
I had to dig a little to get a more complete picture. Aparently the soldier plead guilty and was contrite and had no previous criminal history, which is why he didn't get an even heavier sentence.
The media it seems to me wants to depersonalize the crime in a way that paints all servicemen in a poor manner. The ommission implies that all US soldiers are borderline sadists and baby killers.

^Well, he kinda did break into the house and, using a variety of weapons to threaten her, repeatedly raped a 16 year old girl. And stole her money (all $5 of it). And pleaded guilty. Sounds like he got off pretty light to me.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

America has more than 28,000 troops stationed in South Korea - a legacy from the Korean War 60 years ago.

Anyway, a fair trial and a fair sentence, under the correct jurisdiction. Hope he likes kimchi.
I can't fault the US military on this one, and it sounds like this is the normal procedure in Korea- accordingly I would guess Japan, too.
Except under warfare or emergency conditions, I think any long term garrisoning of foreign troops within a country should automatically mean that the personnel are answerable to the national code of law- I mean, that's automatic when you travel somewhere as a leisure or business traveller, or expatriate somewhere, so why shouldn't it be the case with a military peacetime garrison too?

I've never really understood that, but if countries put up with it I suppose that is their business.

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

America has more than 28,000 troops stationed in South Korea - a legacy from the Korean War 60 years ago.

Anyway, a fair trial and a fair sentence, under the correct jurisdiction. Hope he likes kimchi.
I can't fault the US military on this one, and it sounds like this is the normal procedure in Korea- accordingly I would guess Japan, too.
Except under warfare or emergency conditions, I think any long term garrisoning of foreign troops within a country should automatically mean that the personnel are answerable to the national code of law- I mean, that's automatic when you travel somewhere as a leisure or business traveller, or expatriate somewhere, so why shouldn't it be the case with a military peacetime garrison too?

I've never really understood that, but if countries put up with it I suppose that is their business.

Status of Forces Agreements or SOFAs ar hammered out by the host nation and State Department of the USA. A lot depends on the duration of the troops stationed within that country, and the economic prosperity of the host nation involved. It seems the less economically viable a country is, the more leeway or rights the US Military retains from a country. Another big factor is the judicial system in place of the host nation. In the case cited in Korea, it is evident that more and more power has shifted away from the U.S. military jurisdiction, to the local Korean Government - which has become much more economically established over the years - and which is the way it is supposeed to be!
Amina Christoph

Originally Posted by Amina

It seems the less economically viable a country is, the more leeway or rights the US Military retains

What you are really saying is, 'the weaker the country'....
You are correct, and it is the same with deals done between a weak country to exploit it's natural resources, and the sources that exploit them- invariably from stronger countries.
I would like to see this thinking adjusted somewhat, to reflect issue's like national sovereignty, and universal rights.

Originally Posted by Rocksteady

I note that, recently, one of the theaters of war involving the US Army demanded that immunity from prosecution would not now be an option so Obama has declared repatriation of his army by the end of the year!

They must have been observing Korea and Japan and the problems they have had in this area

Well, when you're fighting a war to protect the host country, should you allow that host country to impose it's rules and regulations on your military? Remember, Iraq is a Muslim country. Their so-called constitution follows Sharia Law. Do you want the American military to be subjected to something as absurd as Sharia Law? That is why the American President decided to pull our military out. It has nothing to do with rapes, robberies, etc. It has to do with subjecting our military to laws that would punish our soldiers if they killed or injured an Iraqi. How in the world can any military agree to that? By the way, I am for pulling all US forces out of every country on earth. Let them all take care of their own problems.

Originally Posted by Floridathunderstorm

when you're fighting a war to protect the host country

When you are fighting a war to 'protect a host country', it means you have chosen sides in a dispute- and it goes without saying, your side is 'right'. So pick sides carefully, if at all.

Originally Posted by Floridathunderstorm

should you allow that host country to impose it's rules and regulations on your military?

You are referring specifically to a war situation- in which case I would argue no. In a peacetime situation however, the answer should be yes. If the CEO of Halliburton visits Iraq (which has a body of civil law incidentally, and is not sharia), he is answerable to the law of Iraq, as am I. Why shouldn't Gomer Pyle be too?

The next line of defence tends to be along the lines "what if the country is really bad, can't be trusted'" Then my question would be, what on earth are you doing there in a peacetime role?

Originally Posted by sabang

Originally Posted by Floridathunderstorm

when you're fighting a war to protect the host country

When you are fighting a war to 'protect a host country', it means you have chosen sides in a dispute- and it goes without saying, your side is 'right'. So pick sides carefully, if at all.

Originally Posted by Floridathunderstorm

should you allow that host country to impose it's rules and regulations on your military?

You are referring specifically to a war situation- in which case I would argue no. In a peacetime situation however, the answer should be yes. If the CEO of Halliburton visits Iraq (which has a body of civil law incidentally, and is not sharia), he is answerable to the law of Iraq, as am I. Why shouldn't Gomer Pyle be too?

The next line of defence tends to be along the lines "what if the country is really bad, can't be trusted'" Then my question would be, what on earth are you doing there in a peacetime role?

Whatever country that the US military is in they have to adhere to the laws of that country. There have been American military personnel that have been tried and convicted under the host country's laws from the beginning of time for crimes done in that country. I agree 100% with that. There is no special treatment, either in the US or any other country, for American military personnel. The only time that military personnel fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice is when they break rules and regulations that fall under their jurisdiction. Any local police or the FBI have precedent over the military when crimes are committed in the US. Iraq may have a constitution but it is influenced by Sharia Law. The country is still a Muslim country and all Muslims believe in the practice of Sharia. To what degree Sharia Law is applicable depends on that country's judicial system. One could never allow US military personnel to fall under Iraq's judicial system for that very reason. I lived and worked in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Iraq, and Iran, over a 20 year period. So I think I know a little bit about the Middle East and Persia including their laws.

What a twat ! Paid to travel the world , good job / pension etc . Chance to mabe meet a beautifull far eastern wife ,, and threw it all away.

^ Yup.. What makes an element of young servicemen think that they can act out Vietnam movie scenes and yet believe they're free from impunity?

The soldier has obviously deserved his penalty but lets not forget the situation our Govts put these guys in. How many have had their heads screwed up by unwise decisions by their superiors?
It pisses me off to see isolated cases such as this albeit a serious one over shadow all the well intended efforts by the vast majority.
The negatives as always are reported boldly and the positives given occasionaly a token mention.

Originally Posted by sabang

I can't fault the US military on this one, and it sounds like this is the normal procedure in Korea- accordingly I would guess Japan, too.

You'd be completely wrong. It's been a contentious issue for a long time, and the reason I posted this is because it demonstrates a significant - and in my opinion, very overdue - shift in policy.

The negatives as always are reported boldly and the positives given occasionaly a token mention.

I agree. I think daily headlines along the lines of "US soldiers get through another day without raping any 16-year old girls" would be most welcome, not least by the army press office.

Hmm my point made I see.

AT, the article is not intended, and I don't think reads, that all US servicemen are rapists. They are young fired up lads and you have MPs to control all that inner rage.

I was in Dubai in '91 when the Marines were in having been parked off Kuwait for months (with no beer!), and whilst they were boisterous and having lots of fun, their behaviour was more than acceptable (i.e., I've seen expats do far worse).

The issue here is that the people of Tokyo and Japan have often complained that Americans were committing crimes in their countries (And Rape and the occasional Murder were obviously the emotive ones) with seeming impunity (and I'm sure in some cases, that actual Military punishment was equal or worse to what they might have got under local law).

How would you react if the Thai Navy were in Sydney, a Thai raped and robbed a sweet little Aussie girl, and your government and the Thais said "We can't do anything, he's immune to Aussie law".

Like I said, it's good step and may actually reduce crime by removing the unfair protection behind which some may have hidden.