Rodney Webster wrote:
> In article <bcthkb$n1bc5$1@ID-101276.news.dfncis.de>,
>  "Ryan Ginstrom" <ginstrom@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Rodney Webster" <rgw_news001@knot.mine.nu> wrote in message
>> news:rgw_news001-250CB6.00370820062003@news01.so-net.ne.jp...
>
>>> I get the feeling that it is the fact that US personnel are treated
>>> differently when they commit a crime that causes the most outrage.
>>
>> Yes. So even if things have changed (in (almost?) all cases the
>> suspects are eventually handed over now), but it's too little, too
>> late.
>
> "Eventually" being the key word here - as long as this situation
> continues they US forces will be viewed (correctly, IMHO) as "above
> the (Japanese) law".

I think it is more accurate to say that there are times when they are
outside Japanese law, but this is hardly unique to Japan. US military
personnel are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (specific
provisions are in Section 802). For example, if a cadet of the US Military
Academy date-rapes a civilian women that he meets at a Virginia bar, he is
subject to a general (Section 818) or special (Section 819) court-martial
rather than the Virginia criminal courts. It has always amazed me that there
is a segment of my country's citizens that is subject to an entirely
different set of rights, laws, and courts.

The SoFA that the US has with various states are each unique, but the host
country generally has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction for most
offenses. Jurisdiction over US military personnel in Japan is covered by
Article XVII of the US-Japan SoFA, and Japan generally has the primary right
to exercise jurisdiction for most offenses. However, in many of these cases
the Japanese elect not to exercise this right for one or more reasons
depending on the given circumstances in a case.

>> Having been in the US military, I can say that there is a definite
>> tendency to circle up the wagons and protect your own, especially
>> when it appears that the serviceman is in for a lynching or kangaroo
>> court (even if s/he may be guilty). And while I don't have much
>> sympathy for foreigners complaining about being subjected to
>> Japanese legal procedures, the military is surely a different case.
>
> How so?  Because the servicemen do not have a choice in where they are
> stationed?

Perhaps that. Perhaps because most foreigners are generally not subject to
the US-Japan SoFA and UCMJ? Or, let's say a JET dancing bear commits Offense
X in Okinawa. My guess is that the prosecutor is going to have less of a
political axe to grind with the JET than he would with a USMC corporal who
commits Offense X.

-- 
Kevin Gowen