UPDATE 2: The two accused GIs were released into USFK custody Friday night [Yonhap News, Korean]. The suspects admit they went to the bar in question, but they deny not only attempting to rape the cop, but even being in the restroom where the attempted rape took place. Said a police official, “If we look at the victim’s testimony and statements from witnesses, the matter itself appears clear, but since the accused are denying the charges and the SOFA says we cannot detain them during the investigation, we handed them over [to USFK] for now… During the investigation, we can subpoena the soldiers whenever we need to.”
ORIGINAL POST: USFK, we have a problem. Seriously.
Gangnam Police Station has arrested two GIs on charges of attempting to sexually assault a Korean policewoman [Hankyoreh Shinmun, Korean]. This just after they were released following questioning on charges of sexually harassing another woman.
The two arrested are a 23-year-old sergeant and a 21-year-old private. Shockingly, they’re from 2ID in Dongducheon.
The two are suspected of trying to sexually assault the (reportedly plainclothes [Yonhap News, English, HT to reader]) policewoman in the bathroom of a bar in Gangnam’s trendy Cheongdam-dong neighborhood at around 9:20pm Thursday night. The two had reportedly just bumped into the woman in the lavatory. A building security man heard her screams and called the police, who arrested the suspects at the scene.
Where this story goes from being simply reprehensible to mind-boggingly incomprehensible is that at 5:50pm that day, they were taken in for questioning by Cheongdam-dong police on charges of sexually harassing another Korean woman who was walking with her elementary school daughter in a residential alley of Cheongdam-dong. Unfortunately, it would appear, they were released after only two hours of questioning. Strangely enough, even after the two were arrested again, Gangnam Police Station was saying they didn’t know the same guys had been taken in for questioning just a couple of hours earlier.
UPDATE: MBC (Korean) has more on the story.
Apparently, one of the guys was hiding in the bathroom waiting for a woman to appear. His battle buddy, meanwhile, manned the lookout.
The cop, in her late 20s, was off-duty and out meeting friends when she was assaulted.
Police, meanwhile, plan to turn the men over to U.S. MPs after applying for an arrest warrant. This surprises me, as you’d think after an attempted rape of one of their own, the police would be a bit more inclined to hold on to the suspects. I know they can hold on to them for rape, but attempted rape, I’m not certain.
Marmot’s Comment: I have absolutely no statistical data to back this up, but the sense I get is that since Gen. Leon LaPorte was replaced as USFK commander, there has been a deterioration in off-base discipline. What I would like to know, preferably from USFK readers, is whether this might actually be the case or just a mistaken perception on my part.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 106 comments… read them below or add one }
Is Cheongdam the new Hongdae?
And isn’t it time for “Bell Sends” to start sending the common sense message to “Freedom’s Warriors” to act like frickin’ responsible adults? Maybe if the Army higher-ups instituted a policy of “Rape a civilian, get sent to Iraq”, there’d be fewer of these incidents.
The Stupid Soldier Tricks seem to be happening almost weekly now. WTF.
Don’t think the Iraqis deserve that.
For me, what is most “mind-boggingly incomprehensible” is that “Gangnam Police Station…didn’t know that they’d taken the same guys in for questioning just before.” Don’t they check ID’s and enter people into their system?
Young soldiers these days aren’t necessarily the cream of the crop. The standards for admission have dropped. I remember when the Army refused to take me in the early 90’s because I’d been arrested for possesion of a very small amount of marijuana when I was 16. Now they could care less, so as long as I don’t rape and pillage too much.
Lock ‘em all down for awhile. No one can leave base for 6 months.
Apparently so, and for obvious reasons too. Back when I joined the Army in 1988, at the Ft. Benning School for Bad Boys, while never the “cream of the crop”, at least we had some standards.
For example, waivers for arrest records were unheard of back then. (Guys who enlisted by concealing their arrest records got found out at the reception station, and were whisked away the night before inprocessing began, never to be seen by us again.)
Back then, over half of the infantry recruits in my company at Ft. Benning had at least some college, and everyone had at least a high school diploma or a GED. (I don’t recall meeting anyone who didn’t, and that really made a difference in terms of recruit quality.)
It’s unfortunate how thugs and scumbags like the ones mentioned above, as well as the privates from the 101st Airborne recently convicted in the Mahmudiyah Incident http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03.....index.html
have infiltrated the ranks of the U.S. military giving a bad name to all that serve.
I hope these guys get remanded back to their commands for prosecution under UCMJ. Korean prison is actually too good for them and is Holiday Inn compared to Leavenworth. Nothing beats a stint at USDB where sentences and conditions are much severer than civilian prisions, so I’ve heard.
yeah lock them all down so that at the end of 6 months they can all go absolutely apeshit all over town. Brilliant. Just have the next Bell sends be the public court martial of MG Coggins and CSM Stall for criminal negligence. Once the leadership up their figure out that they are ultimately responsible for their soldiers’ behavior they will figure out a way to put an end to the crap. Right now they just don’t care… enough.
Once again, seems to me that US troops leaving Korea would solve just about everyone’s headaches.
two words: moral waiver
Yank my doodle, it’s a dandy; or cross cultural enrichment by injection?
Shameful and dangerous behavior. These guys sound like really bad news. I hope the military hammers them on this one. (The least they can do after having let them join, I guess.)
More ammunition for the haters – being Friday I suspect the high profile ones will be somewhere between the Kyobo Building and the US Embassy – in their efforts to protest any and all things American.
Also, another reminder of the sloppiness/ineptitude a lot of us have come to associate with Korean police.
Depressing story all around, isn’t it?
I am not surprised by this story. One only should wander on the streets of Itaewon to see these types of cretins. People who were not sh*t in Red bluff Arkansas are now all of a sudden, in-charge. Send them to a real prison where their new room-mate (Turk)( tall swarthy guy with a gold tooth) can give them the sweaty attention they crave.
The KNP should have turned over the soldiers to the MPs after the first incident. On the other hand, what more do you expect from a police force whose motto seems more like “Marking time until retirement” instead of “To serve and protect”.
MrChips & Newton:
“Lock em all down” isn’t the answer. We all know the number of GOOD soldiers far exceeds the BAD ones.
The problem is that USFK does NOTHING to keep these MORONS (who repeatedly cause trouble) locked on base!
The ANSWER is SO DAMN EASY – when they mess up (even minor infractions), suspend their off base access (aside from work) until further notice. HOWEVER, this is not easily enforcable – USFK thinks.
BUT it is! All the command needs to do is RECORD the suspension on the military member’s individual ‘Common Access Card’ – then FORCE the guards to scan OUTBOUND troops and well as INBOUND troops!
Those who ‘hop the fence’ or get scanned coming back on – yet the record shows they never originally ’scanned out’ should get INSTANT JAIL TIME (see: AWOL)!
Down side? NONE. Some would argue that ther would be ‘long lines’ of people waiting to leave base. But how is that any difference than the long lines waiting to ENTER base come curfew?
Aside from that – HOLD THE COMMAND responsible for the actions of the military! When an individual messes up – their NCO and Commander should face ‘bad marks’ on their NCOER or OER!
I don’t care if the have to take turns keeping these jokers on permanent lockdown in open bay barracks, sleeping against the door – they MUST do something!
This would make the NCOs and Commander look much more closer at ‘at risk’ soldiers. Then allow the company commanders to set restrictions or ban INDIVIDUALS as they see fit – NOT THE ENTIRE USFK!
Personnally – once you mess up – for anything – I’d ban their individual off base (after work) rights for a minimum of 1 year – PERIOD!
But no! It’s easier to MASS PUNISH military – such as “lock them all up”!
My 2 cents.
BTW Marmot:
It’s not that it’s ‘gotten worse’ since Laporte left – IMHO. It’s more of a factor of ‘gotten lax’ on PUNISHING THE GUILTY PERSONS. Once again – just my opinion.
Absolutely right, Lazy. Don’t punish the soldiers I’ve met like the guy who studied Korean specifically to be able to speak to the locals, or the ones here with their families who do nothing wrong. Go after the jerks and hold command responsible. Great suggestions.
Lazy_Contractor, I’m not known for reading carefully so I can understand your putting me and newton together but perhaps you could read again what I wrote and include the mocking tone I intended towards such a ridiculous suggestion as a lock-down. I think it would be foolhardy and I do seriously think the two individuals I noted above should be held responsible for this. If MG Coggins can get it through his head that his troops are his responsibility then I promise the incidents would cease.
I think they should restrict to base for a month the whole company of each clown that does something stupid. You’d find peer pressure becomes a good motivator.
“yeah lock them all down so that at the end of 6 months they can all go absolutely apeshit all over town. Brilliant”
What makes you think they’ll go apeshit? If they go apeshit then lock em down for three years. This is a military assignment not a cultural tour, soldiers need to stay focused on their mission and they don’t need to mingle with the locals. They can take leave a couple of times a year and we can give each commander the right to issue passes to whoever they feel deserves one.
Also, no more alcohol purchases for E5 and below at the Class VI.
It’s not the senior officer’s fault. These criminals are young men, not children.
I think they should be strapped into a chair and be forced to watch Oprah Winfrey continuously. After the third hour they will most likely swallow their own tongues.
True.
The children are out trying to murder taxi drivers.
“Lock em all down” isn’t the answer. We all know the number of GOOD soldiers far exceeds the BAD ones.”
Lock em all down and then allow the commanders to decide, slowly, one-by-one, who gets an off-base pass and the level of pass access.
The current system is not working. Time to clamp it down before someone gets killed.
“soldiers need to stay focused on their mission and they don’t need to mingle with the locals” Not mingling with the locals is the biggest reason for the misunderstandings and worse between USFK and Koreans. That’s what breeds “camptowns” and bar fights. Both the U.S. and Korean governments have been lax in developing community relations with the troops. It’s amazing that Germany, a country defeated by the U.S., seems to have better relations with U.S. soldiers stationed there than Korea, our ostensible ally that we are defending.
Yes I know that Koreans are generally ambivalent about the U.S. troop presence, but this does not spring from nowhere–their own gov’t sends out the same ambivalent message. So show some real support or ask the troops to leave.
Wow, I guess innocent people have no rights in some corners here. If ever there was a sure means to creating even more problems it’s to lock up the innocent along with the guilty. I think there’s a general antipathy towards the military behind that suggestion and not any real belief that such a tactic would promote proper behavior.
Perhaps everytime an english teacher commits a crime the Korean government should place all english teachers around house arrest or better yet every time a town citizen gets drunk and does something stupid the whole town should be placed under marshall law and restricted to curfew. Brilliant!!
Meanwhile those who have volunteered for added responsibility and get paid for the same, i.e. the leadership, have yet to implement a system whereby they can control their subordinates and have in fact fostered an environment where they are encouraging bad behavior. String ‘em up!
“soldiers need to stay focused on their mission and they don’t need to mingle with the locals” Not mingling with the locals is the biggest reason for the misunderstandings and worse between USFK and Koreans.
Bring back the steam & cream. Problem solved.
“Not mingling with the locals is the biggest reason for the misunderstandings and worse between USFK and Koreans. That’s what breeds “camptowns” and bar fights. Both the U.S. and Korean governments have been lax in developing community relations with the troops.”
Interacting with the locals is not NECESSARY. It’s not a part of the primary mission. It’s a privilege to be earned. The only thing that ever caused a bar fight was a drunk idiot who didn’t know how to behave. There are plenty of military personnel who have earned the right to live off base, go off base, drive cars, drink alcohol, have their families sponsored, etc….I suggest we lock everyone down and look and let the commanders decide who deserves the privilege to leave the base. Obviously not everyone is ready to mingle, and we need to develop a better system of education for new arrivals and off-base privileges. And yes, this is the military, and the innocent will be temporarily punished until we clean up the mess.
Do you really not grasp the difference?
“Perhaps everytime an english teacher commits a crime the Korean government should place all english teachers around house arrest or better yet every time a town citizen gets drunk and does something stupid the whole town should be placed under marshall law and restricted to curfew.”
No, it’s the military. The analogy should be what if ROK soldiers are beating up cab drivers, raping Americans and stabbing Australians every week? Why not lock everyone down and find out wtf is going on?
I’m not sure how you exist in a country without interacting with its citizens, but even so USFK does this every day already with the KATUSAS.
I was referring to the lax approach to community relations overseen by the USFK and the host country that I think is a root problem (one of them) leading to misunderstandings and mutual exploitation. Your solution is a non-starter that MrChips adressed in #24. Lazy Contractor also has very good suggestions.
“I’m not sure how you exist in a country without interacting with its citizens, but even so USFK does this every day already with the KATUSAS.”
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base?
“I was referring to the lax approach to community relations overseen by the USFK and the host country that I think is a root problem (one of them) leading to misunderstandings and mutual exploitation. Your solution is a non-starter.”
In my opinion some people should never be allowed off base overseas.
When did Cuba become a U.S. ally? Come on.
There’s a whole lot that the U.S. military should be doing to screen people for service but once they’re deployed they should be given full support by the military and not subject to arbitrary lockdowns from the actions of a few idiots.
“Bring back the steam & cream. Problem solved.”
You’re closer to the truth than you may know.
Pretty bizarre that there’s a spike in the frequency of these incidents despite all of Gen. Bell’s “Bell Sends” letters and podcasts. I’m just speculating here, but I reckon the more you drone on ad nauseum about anything, the less attentive & receptive an audience you’ll find.
There’s a whole lot about leaders taking care of soldiers. I don’t think it’s mumbo jumbo. Sometimes taking care of someone means that they have to face the full consequences of their actions. Alone. It ought to be made loud and clear to the soldiers that they screw up like this when off duty, then they have to deal with it entirely on their own. That good leaders have to devote their efforts to bad soldiers does not further the mission.
There’s a serious problem when promotion of the ranks E1 – E4 is based on the soldier’s ability to keep his room clean, show up to formation, and look sharp in his Class A uniform. Those are the skills of a 7-year old. (BTW, E4’s don’t look sharp in their Class A’s because they don’t put any effort into it. Why not? Because there’s a E5 who’s been tasked to dress them. “No one’s more professional than I.” Uh-huh.)
The Army isn’t very demanding of its lower enlisted (nor its junior NCO’s & junior officers, BTW). It’s all about coddling them so they re-up. The platitude of “setting high standards” needs to cease, because the “high standard” is a good PT score and lookin’ good. The workplace has become a place to sit down and browse MySpace for a few hours and chat on the cell phone. And the senior NCO’s, officers and warrants need to stop releasing the soldiers at 1700 (and earlier) because they themselves want to go home. (Go to the beauty shop on a Friday afternoon, and you’ll see the senior NCO’s and junior officers there, getting ready for the weekend. Partay!)
Accepting low standards is the same as setting them. Neither letter nor podcast will change that.
Nomad, I know exactly what I said.
You sit and drool over the hot Filipina singers at the Navy club, a couple of barley-pops for a few hours then what? Rolled-up Beef-liver in a gym-sock back in the barracks just doesn’t cut it!
A two-part comment:
1) While searching through the official USFK website http://www.usfk.mil/USFK/index.html
I noticed a sublink at the bottom left for court-martial results, it’s a pdf:
http://www.usfk.mil/USFK/court.....esults.pdf
This public posting of court-martial disciplinary action is merely the internet version of what has been traditionally done on bulletin boards outside unit orderly rooms in the US military (it may even be required by regulation, not sure, may be a matter of the individual service’s policies).
Some company commanders used to take selected results and have them read out at unit formations. At company and battalion level, the posted results will include those of lower-level disciplinary actions (summary court-martials, field-grade and company grade Article 15’s (non-judicial punishment)).
It’s meant as a deterrent measure.
2) >>Marmot’s Comment: I have absolutely no statistical data to back this up, but the sense I get is that since Gen. Leon LaPorte was replaced as USFK commander, there has been a deterioration in off-base discipline. What I would like to know, preferably from USFK readers, is whether this might actually be the case or just a mistaken perception on my part.
Much like cows, young men must be milked. Bringing back the steam and creams is not a bad idea. In order to meet 2007 standards of political correctness, perhaps they could be staffed by retired porn stars–U.S. citizenship required. Because junior enlisted personnel don’t make much green, the operation (Operation Milk Maid?) could be subsidized at taxpayer expense. I have no problem with paying my share. MWR, are you listening?
A soft palm my come in handy.
Having more sex workers around wouldn’t reduce the frequency of incidents like this. The thing is, no matter how horny a guy gets, he wouldn’t hide in a bathroom with a buddy, trip over a she-cop, and attempt to rape her unless he’s a criminal trash to begin with.
Too bad there’s so much criminal trash in the US military passing the muster these days.
Ledtim, I know! Thank G-d we have the Canadian Army to protect the planet!
Maple syrup.
Yes, I too sleep soundly everyday knowing that we are all protected by Canada’s mighty army. Only thing that bothers me is the yearning for the inevitable day when Canada will finally use her military might not just for defense and “peace-keeping”, but for the purpose of bringing the entire world under her control and crush all dissent under baby-seal leather army boots.
One world under the Glorious Red Maple Leaf!
In the 1980’s soldiers were sent to the Army to avoid jail time for minor offenses. I remember at least two in my squad a basic that were told by the judge to “go to the Army or go to jail”.
In the 1990’s until 2001, the Army didn’t take those requiring a “moral waiver” or non-HS grads. The economy was OK but the military shrank and could be a little more selective.
Since 2001 the policies have changed. Waivers for drug use, previous arrests, gang activity, and lack of education account for 10-20% of enlistees. Hell, there are some 42 year old grandmothers in uniform today. (just google it) so it would appear we are scraping the sides if not the bottom of the barrel.
In my years I can’t recall alot of sexual assaults, and I wasn’t in all male units.
Women make up about 15% of the military. In some units the rate is a little higher. Any way you cut it as I heard one GO say “we don’t treat our female soldiers well…we train them and send them to Korea where there are outnumbered 20 to 1 by hard dicks”
The Sexual Assault prevention programs today IMHO are allowing assaults to be reported via “restricted reporting” which allows the victim access to treatment (medical/emotional) without causing a MP/CID investigation of the perps. Eventually the victims get the support they need and more decide to prosecute. On average reported 2 SA occur each week and the common denominator is soldiers under 25 and alcohol.
What can be done? Bringing back the Steam and Cream as an outlet is one way, but until the Crips, Bloods, Little Kings and White Extremists are out of uniform little will change. Throw the book at the offenders. Put them in a helmet and all their gear and have them sleep in a tent perched on the parade field where they can be monitored after duty hours.
So, if I understand you right:
– Canadians are asleep
– there is massive dissent against Canada
– the Canadian army is free from rapists
– baby seals do have a purpose
Bring on the brave new world… of mounties?
Can’t do that…I tried it. JAG calls it “conditions tantamount to confinement.”
Hey, don’t tell them why they are in Iraq, just send them there. Anyone who assaults anyone else. Taxi drivers, women, grandmothers, grandfathers, send them to Iraq. Just tell them sorry, your number just came up on this monitor doohickey. Tough break.
Word will get out.
“Tantamount to confinement”? What the f are they doing when assaulting people? They’re confining the victim to their own little world of brutality. Since when did law-breakers get the right not to be incarcerated?
Since…hmmm…around 2002?
One thing this thread has proven is you don’t have to be Korean to read sensationalized and unreliable media reports and then advocate the sort of meat-headed ethnic generalizations and collective punishment that merely adds octane to the mutuality of resentment.
I don’t know if Railway Charm, for one, has ever actually tried and investigated any of these cases. Personally, I’ve investigated dozens of them. The metamorphosis from media report to Korean police report to MP report to findings at trial never ceases to amaze.
That said, yes, USFK needs to do a better job of distinguishing the thugs among its ranks from the great majority of soldiers who have contributed so much to Korea’s prosperity and received so little thanks for it. That goes for a few others, too.
Joshua,
No, I have never tried a case with one of these winners. Sure hyperbole prevails in Korean media. Let’s just say 95% of the stories are false, I can live with that number. Now defend the 5% the commit heinous crimes. Some of this stuff can not be engineered, simply put our boys are doing nasty things to the Koreans. It is like this: Keep your nose clean and you won’t find yourself in the newspaper. Bring back the steam & cream.
That
Oh, we’re talking about crime? All I could see was the condescending generalization.
I predict that in 50 years, history will remember Korea’s brief interlude of peace, prosperity, and cultural revival, but it will quickly forget a few million hagwon students who still can’t speak English.
Condescending indeed! I call them like I see them! A spade is a spade. Unfortunately the good guys are invisible because the cretins are in your face. It only takes a few assholes to color the Korean perspective of what we barbarians are all about. Let me put a sharper point on it for you so you can later pull these criminals closer to your bosom. You don’t have to act like a dirt-bag to have fun in Korea. Getting drunk and raping cleaning ladies is not nice. I wish you the best luck as you pet and hold your 5%.
USFK crimes get sensational media attention, but in actual fact — unless something really, really drastic has changed (see allegations of “moral waivers” and gang members being recruited) — the USFK per-capita crime rate is and always has been minuscule compared to the Korean population as a whole.
Anyway, as for changed enlistment standards being somehow representative of “scraping the sides of the barrel”, I hardly believe that 42-year-old privates and 55-year-old sergeants are causing criminal problems in the ranks. So let’s leave them out of it.
I think that is a reasonable statement.
Of course the trouble caused by a few is going to get more attention than the good work of many. Korean media also ignores the charitable work our guys do as well, too embarrassing for them to admit. But as I said before it only takes the misdeeds of one to call all of the good into question for the Koreans. Sad but true.
#53:
Brandon, tsk, tsk, tsk — as a lawyer, you know better than to make false analogies. A better analogy would be comparing USFK’s overall crime rate vs. the ROK Army’s crime rate.
I don’t know how to get stats for the ROKs, but I think you’ll find that 29,500 GIs are committing a disproportionate percentage of violent crimes in relation to their numbers versus the crime rate for 650,000 ROKs.
Reasons for this, I suspsect, are NOT just b/c of lower U.S. enlistment standards. Other factors could be simply b/c USFK GIs have WAY MORE off-base privileges, freedom, mobility, and access to nightlife, alcohol, etc., than ROKs do. (ROK enlisted soldiers cannot leave their bases or barracks except for officially approved leave or passes granted maybe once or twice a year during their 24 month stints.)
That being said, if I were B.B. Bell (God forbid that I would ever be reincarnated as a beer-bellied shit-for-brains redneck), I would require all off-duty USFK personnel to wear either their “Class-As” or “Class-B” dress uniform when going off post.
The reason for this, besides instilling unit pride among the ranks, is b/c someone wearing “dress greens” is less likely to start shit than someone wearing gang-wear, do-rags and hip-hop outfits.
Also, someone who is wearing their dress uniform — replete with name tag, rank, unit crest and shoulder sleeve insignia — is inherently less likely to go traipsing off by themselves in indian territory to do naughty things than somebody merely wearing glad rags.
But then again, that’s just me, and who am I kidding — with the PX gang-wear, the high-and-tights, and the AWOL backpacks, it’s not like it’s *that* hard to pick out your off-duty GI in Korea anyway. Just my 2 cents…
Actually, H., more than 10 years ago (good God, I am now officially old) I did a fair bit of primary-source research on this topic — complete with numbers obtained by Freedom of Information Act requests. Comparing the USFK SOFA-status population, which — although it includes a few retirees and mature contractors, as well as a handful of ladies — tends to skew young and male, (which means more likely to be criminal) to the general Korean population is much fairer than comparing to the ROK Army. This for exactly the reason you described: ROK Army service is like a term of imprisonment, which affords fewer opportunities to commit crimes against the general population (but oh-so-many more against your fellow inmates). Especially since the USFK crime press hysteria tends to be of the “They’re on the Loose Amongst Us!” variety.
Also, per capita comparisons are always much more useful than absolute numbers. Absolute-number reporting is how we get headlines like “USFK Assaults Leap 50%!” when one year we have two punch-ups, followed by three the next year.
You’ve got them pegged on the backpacks. What is in those backpacks?
The arguement that now there is this great increase in GI Crime compared to past years is because of recruiters, Iraq, gangs, etc is nonsense.
Does the names Markle, Munique, Henrix, Patterson, & McCarthy ring any bells? These were all USFK related murderers from the Clinton peacetime military years.
Since the war on terror has begun there hasn’t been a murder in USFK. So how is it that during a peace time military period where the military could supposedly be more selective and didn’t have PTSD problems or what ever other excuses people are looking for, had overwhelmingly more murders?
Additionally just the statistics themselves show a steady decrease in incidents including as Brendon pointed out a lower per capita crime rate than the general Korean population.
As Joshua pointed out what has changed from the peacetime military to now is the sensational media coverage and the advent of the internet where blogs and chat rooms exist to discuss these issues as is happening right here.
H. Kim, the ROK Army has hostess bars on post. Case dismissed.
Bring back the steam & cream. Just tell the chaplain not to ask for the full massage!
#57:
Of course USFK’s crime rate is lower now than it was 10-20 years ago. Back in 1992 when Markle was arrested for murder, USFK numbers were at 42,000. Now, there at 29,500. So with 12,500 less soldiers, of course you’re going to see a dropoff in number of crimes committed.
Also, using canards like the USFK’s crime rate is insignificant b/c it’s lower than the crime rate of Korea’s general population is like saying that Ft. Benning’s per capita crime rate is insignificant, b/c it’s lower than the per-capita crime rate of Georgia.
(A better comparison would be Ft. Benning vs. Ft. Sill’s crime rate.)
Also, as most USFK personnel tyically serve only 1 or 2 year tours before PCSng, they are comparable to ROK soldiers who only serve for 24 months as well, so comparing USFK’s crime rate with the ROK Army’s crime rate is statistically more significant than comparing it with Korea’s general population.
#58:
And the “Non-Sequitur of the year Award” goes to Mark for that one.
FYI, there is nothing lurid, insidious, immoral or illegal about “hostess bars” — unlike raping women (especially in a lady’s room) — so I don’t know what kind of point you’re trying to make.
Anyways, “hostess bar” are inane and innocuous compared to your average “steam-and-cream” or anything that the villes have to offer.
And FWIW, women’s groups have already pounced on that issue, so they’re outta there as far as I’ve heard.
FYI, there is nothing lurid, insidious, immoral or illegal about “hostess bars”
LOL….True, until you pay the ransom.
#56:
True, true — right out of Spin 101. I too, am all about replacing “bad” language with “good” language.
Beats me — I always figured they were carrying their MOPP suits, pro-masks and a three weeks supply of MREs. Maybe GI Korea or Mark would care to let us know…
Most guys carry an extra set of civvies and some personal hygiene items in case they get stuck off post after curfew. I carry the tongues, ears, and noses of the Coreans I had to kill because they really pissed me off.
The only reason to compare Ft. Benning to Ft. Sill is to evaluate the relative performance of their respective commanders (it would be a specious comparison anyway, if Ft. Sill had conditions which prompted soldiers to debate whether Prison Break, OZ, or Queer as Folk was a more apt comparison).
But if the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and various Georgia state representatives were to decry the immoral predations of Ft. Benning soldiers upon the good folks of Georgia and demanded their removal, I’d be interested to know whether that population of soldiers were more criminal or less criminal than Georgia as a whole.
The Korean-nationalist retort, of course, is “One foreigner’s crime is too many!” I’ve already sat through enough Minbyun tirades to know the tune by heart. This is as ridiculous coming from their mouths as it is coming from Bill O’Reilly’s. The fact is, wherever people are found — and despite the Korean popular imagination, foreigners are people too — crimes will occur.
The USFK crime rate dropped rather precipitously between 1990 and 1996 (the last time I looked at any statistics), and not all of it may be dismissed simply by saying a drawdown was in progress. American crime rates as a whole dropped quite a bit starting around 1987 — see Freakonomics for the aborted-black-babies-don’t-commit-crimes interpretation of that anomaly (an explanation which I don’t necessarily buy, myself). It seems that USFK is simply a “nicer” group of soldiers now than it used to be.
This recent apparent spike in incidents may be illusory — we really have to look at annual statistics before we lay this on the Dongduchon Crips.
“When did Cuba become a U.S. ally? Come on.”
Ally or not, the point is the US military can exist in a country with minimal or no interaction.
It’s not necessary for military personnel to interact with Koreans off-base, and no one should think they have “the right” to go off-base. If a brigade commander were to “suddenly” call for a temporary lockdown no one should be surprised. Look at what’s happened in the past few weeks; an old lady was raped in the street, a mil dependent stabbed a taxi driver, and a woman was assaulted in a public toilet.
The USFK has a curfew, an off-limits list (including an entire dong of Hongik), safety briefings out the yazoo and formation safety briefs before each weekend…and STILL – it’s not working.
Okay, let’s wait for the next incident, yeah, what the hell.
You’re way off on that. Obviously you don’t know the guy.
I don’t know him either, but Bell better start “sending” some discipline instead of spewing corny platitudes on AFN Korea.
When you have kids you are responsible for out past curfew trying to kill people and men under your command creating havoc among civilians of your host nation, you have a hell of a problem and YOU are the one responsible.
But what more can be expected when the CinC himself sets the worst example?
Of course the overall number of crimes went down because of the redeployment of USFK soldiers, that is why a per capita percentage is useful which shows overall incidents are down.
The current spike is very similar to the JUL05 spike where everyone was wanting to lock down everyone in 2ID even though it wasn’t all 2ID causing problems. Here are the major incidents from JUL05:
Inchon Bar Fight
Mapo-gu Assault
Beer Bottles Thrown at Bus in Yongsan
Taxi Cab Assault in Uijongbu
Beer Bottle Assault in Uijongbu
Very similar incidents to what has been going on now. This whole debate is almost identical to JUL05 and the spike will go down and then a “Low Quality Foreign English Teacher” spike in incidents will hit the media and everyone will bitch about them next.
Also the vast majority of soldiers in USFK are on one year tours not 2 year tours. Plus if you want to compare the ROK Army crime rate to USFK then would you like to compare the multiple ROK Army murders in recent years to no murders by USFK personnel? Either way comparing the two are not good comparisons and I have never seen the ROK Army release reliable data anyway. Comparing per capita to the average Korean population is the best way.
Also just for the record in my back pack I kept my guide book, reading material for the train or bus ride, a extra sweater during the winter, an extra shirt during the summer in case I sweated to much from the humidity, usually a bottle of water, and the extra room was for any shopping I did. Sorry no murder weapons or any other criminal items.
I don’t. Honestly.
Why are soldiers not to be considered along side everybody else? A soldier raping somebody is so much worse than an English teacher or Korean citizen doing so? So much worse so the act should lead to the collective punishment of the whole unit or the whole of USFK?
I’m not a soldier. I was one of those booted in the early 1990s shortly after basic training for a blood circulation condition. But, it seems to me the GIs get it with both ends of the stick — on the one hand, just being a GI gets you figured to be a high school drop out thug with no brain or a really small one residing in your kochu —- but on the other end —- you also get held to a much higher standard than average Joe Q or Kim citizen.
And I can’t figure out how H. Kim got around to claiming stat comparisons like Brendon brought out are oh so much spin compared to the ones he made. It’s kind of baffling.
I think a good guess at why he has stuck to the initial stat offering of his is connected to:
So, it will probably be safe to use that line until ROK crime rates become known.
I will even go so far as to entertain the idea that bars around USFK bases or in Itaewon are more lurid than the host bars around ROK bases. I don’t know personally because I’ve never been to either.
But, since the bars are run by Koreans rather than USFK, I’m not sure how much the comparison goes in justifying the GI Crimes stereotype.
Are the hostess bars around US bases or in Itaewan night-n-day different from the red light districts? I mean – both the (in)famous red light districts and the regular ones around train stations and what not.
Considering the sheer mammoth size and variety of the sex-for-sale industry in Korea, this is one of the areas of the anti-GI common fair that irritates me.
Considering the number of soldiers, contractors, and dependants in South Korea, what level of frequency of crimes should we expect to see?
But, this is the beauty of all this…..how it works out in the end…..if I try to look for a silver lining…..
Whether I like the GI Crimes Myth or not…..hopefully it will work to bring about the solution both the Haisan-types and me-types want very much to see ——– get USFK out of South Korea. Please. Pretty please. Please with sugar on top. Get all the GIs out. Preferably before North Korea makes a dash for collapse and decides to take as many people with it as it can. Please.
Can’t speak to the beer belly or shit-for-brains, but…
I would like to meet General Bell. He and I purchased clothing from the same Itaewon tailor, and he sent a Chuseok gift basket (I wasn’t that impressed with my order). The basket included a block of Cracker Barrel cheddar in the Kraftastic orange color, a can of Planters nuts, and a bottle of Jack Daniels — plus Moon Pies and Royal Crown Cola with instructions on how to consume the two together. For me, seeing such fine comestibles gathered in one place was like a trip in the Ozarks Wayback Machine to my youth.
The man can get me Moon Pies and RC Cola! Summer’s coming up, which makes this urgent. Gen. Bell, please call me and I’ll wash your truck for some of that grub.
ROK criminals are also never tried in a civilian criminal court. Not even the guy who used a machine gun and concusion grenades to rob a bank in the late 1990s and even wounded some people at the scene. That was very big news when it happened especially because the guy got away at first and because it was so rare to see a gun used in a crime. The news stayed big right up to the time it was found out it was a soldier rather than regular Kim Lee or Park civilian at which point the suspect disappeared into the ROK military judicial system and off the pages of the newspapers. I am sure the guy was convicted and put in prison for a long time, but I never heard about it. It simply vanished from both the press and discussions in my classes at the time.
I think an at least somewhat fair comparison of GI crimes would be to consider any town of — say — 30,000 or 40,000 or so on population.
US bases, at least the ones I’m familiar with, are like small towns. You don’t just have a bunch of 19 to 22-year-old gungho Ranger types walking a fence line or just continually training how to blow people away – you have all types of people doing all types of jobs. And since dependants and contractors also factor in the GI Crimes Myth, it would seem comparing USFK crimes to any small town with tens fo thousands of people is at least fair enough to consider.
#65 “in the past few weeks”
Stabbing incident was this week along with the rape attempt. The old lady was 3 months ago.
Avoid those Itaewon tailors. The suits are lined with cardboard. The seams sewn by the blind. Bespoke suits aren’t made in a day.
Gen. Bell giving out whiskey as a Chuseok present? You sure? I doubt he’d violate the ration control policy
Unless things have changed the moon pies and RC cola are fine. The whiskey ain’t.
I’ve probably blew my chance at getting them RCs, then.
>>Marmot’s Comment: I have absolutely no statistical data to back this up, but the sense I get is that since Gen. Leon LaPorte was replaced as USFK commander, there has been a deterioration in off-base discipline. What I would like to know, preferably from USFK readers, is whether this might actually be the case or just a mistaken perception on my part.
delete #76 too.
There’s something about this particular thread that prevents it from receiving (from me) more than a sentence or two.
I can support GI Koreas post number 68; When I was in, maybe about two years ago there was an incident where one consistent trouble maker who was barred from going off post, went off post anyway and started a fight with two Koreans in Itaewon. They ended up breaking his hand. Then the ran from the Korean police, evading them by getting back on post. All the Majors Korean news outlets came out to interview the police outside out gate, and I waited patiently for it to come out in the news, but it never did. It was off season I guess.
aside from that we all know that locking them all up forces the good ones out – that in fact thats why I left. (I figure a squeaky clean service history, multiple AAMs and having become fluent in Korean on my own during my time here should quallify me as a “good one”)
And punishing the commanders only encourages them to lock everyone down because they view them as even bigger liabilities than they already are. What needs to be done, is empower the First Sergeants and COs to chapter out the problem makers, or restrict their rights for smaller infractions.
When this guy I talked about got in a fight and came running back to base, he was arrested by the MPs. But then he came right back for us to watch, and believe me we didnt want him (neither did our command). He showed a history of being screwed up and causing trouble. He should have been chaptered out long before then, and if our command had had the authority, they would have. The incident was no suprise to us.
[On not seeing why U.S. troops, their dependents, and hangers on are different from English teachers and other non-military foreigners in Korea]
I do not mean to be insulting, but it is quite simple:
SOLDIERS ARE HERE AS OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, PERFORMING OFFICIAL DUTIES. They are covered under a SOFA treaty, which does not apply to non-military individuals. As soldiers, also, the U.S. military holds them to a higher standard of conduct — you are certainly aware that when you enlist, you give up some of the rights and protections you had as a civilian.
ENGLISH TEACHERS, ATTORNEYS, BANKERS, ETC. ARE HERE AS PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. While it would be terrible if an English teacher were to rape a grandmother, attempt to kill a taxi driver, or work together to trap and rape women, if one were to do so, that would be on his shoulders alone and would not reflect directly on the United States government and it would not have a direct impact on foreign policy.
I think the distinction is very clear.
The military is the military and I’m all for people in the military being treated like they’re in the military by the military because… they’re in the military. It amazes me some people can’t see the distinction Dogbertt mentions.
Thus, I don’t see how it could at all be offensive or against civil rights or sumsuch to suggest USFK might try the occasional lockdown. What I do find offensive, disgusting, and self-contradictory are the many foreign English teachers who suggest USFK should be confined to their bases (all too often) with their motive being that there just isn’t enough room for both groups at places like Hongdae or Itaewon, that having soldiers around makes the English teachers – American, Australian and Candadian – look bad. What’s so silly about that is most white foreigners who are neither military or English teachers could say the same about the English teachers. It’s like the ultimate insult as far as soldiers are concerned, to be looked down upon by hagwon teachers.
(I don’t mean this as an insult to hagwon teachers, either. But IF you’re a hagwon teacher and you can’t get the point of what I’m saying here, you might be one of those “unqualified” ones we read about in the Korean news.)
Oranckay, the issue here is arbitrarily seizing the rights of an innocent person, and civilian or military, that action is barred by the constitution and the UCMJ respectively.
The problem with Dogbertt’s distinction is not that people don’t see it; it’s that the distinction is moot when you’re talking about something like a lockdown. There are many other moot differences like uniforms, ranks, and compensation. The UCMJ specifically prohibits punishing one person for the crime of another. Restriction to base in response to bad behavior is a punishment that requires UCMJ article procedure to effect and that can only be done towards offending individuals. USFK is required to follow the UCMJ and soldiers must, by law, be afforded the rights provided to them by the UCMJ no matter what USFK officials might like to do or what expat civilians living abroad spontaneously think would be the panacea to all problems. In that regard, there is no distinction between military and civilian – both have the legal right to not be restricted in their movement solely because of the misbehavior of another.
In fact, one could make the case that it would be more proper to place english teachers under house arrest for the crime of one than it would be to restrict all military for the crime of one since this is Korea and the US constitution has no jurisdiction. Expats have only the rights afforded them under Korean law which by its extremely interprative nature could grant the government the right to incarcerate whomever they want. The UCMJ simply doesn’t allow for such a thing no matter what value for a “standard of conduct” one desires to impose on the military.
Thanks Mr. Chips.
The USFK has (at least at times, if not permanently… I don’t know what the situation is currently) told personnel to stay away from Hongdae. Do you know if that is/was “in response to bad behavior” and “is a punishment that requires UCMJ”?
It certainly involves a lot of innocent USFK personnel, so maybe it wasn’t called “punishment” and was more “preventive”?
Point being, since requiring personnel stay away from Hongdae infringed on the rights of the innocent, in theory, why couldn’t that be extended to, for example, all of the city of Seoul, for example? (I’m not advocating this be done, just think you’re perfectly argued legal logic might not apply.)
I can’t speak to the UCMJ, but wouldn’t it be possible to discipline a criminal soldier’s commanding officer not for the same crime, but for not keeping control of the soldier in his charge? Does he not bear responsibility over his men 24/7? Maybe he doesn’t.
And it is still a different matter for English teachers for the reasons I mentioned. This is why when some U.S. military personnel on Okinawa rape Japanese girls, it becomes an international incident and has a direct impact on U.S. foreign policy, but if an English teacher rapes a girl in Roppongi, it doesn’t.
And if military people do not have restrictions on their movement, how on earth do you explain curfews, forbidding soldiers to step into certain bars, go to Hongdae, etc., all of which does not apply to civilian personnel? How do you explain that?
Curfews and restrictions to certain places have all been done ostensibly in the name of security where the officials have made the claim that security to USFK persons may be at risk – the same logic used in telling USFK members not to go near demonstrations, though a bit more dubious. I think the commander would have a hard time selling the USFK-wide lockdown to the JAG as a case of “security” when it’s a clear reponse to the actions of a few individuals’ misdeeds.
Dogbertt, you do bring up the very important issue though of why unit commanders are not taken to task for what seems to be a clear lack of leadership. I think discipline of commanders and first sergeants would go a long way in helpin gthem come up with more creative, but legal, means to keep their soldiers in line and even promote good behavior without such idiocies as “Bell sends” or AFN alerts.
One measure that could be put to work is making the curfew more enforceable for purposes of operational readiness. In otherwords, instead of saying you have to be off the streets at a certain time, say you have to be in your rack or have a paper record of where you are going to be after hours. Of course you can’t check those who live off post but since we are talking about problems mostly originating with single soldiers from 2ID you fix them with a one am rack check. Also, since no public intoxication is a clearly defined regulation, utilize breathalizers at all gates after say, 10pm. Anyone blowing slightly over loses their pass and anyone way over (exact numbers TBD) automatically goes before the old man for non-judicial punishment, i.e restriction from 7 to 90 days, depending on how serious. That would both address the issue of nailing drunk people doing stupid things and let innocent people maintain their rights.
“the issue here is arbitrarily seizing the rights of an innocent person, and civilian or military, that action is barred by the constitution and the UCMJ respectively.”
But rights would not be seized. You do not have the right to go off base, it’s a privelege. The commander can remove or restrict the privelege. He can restrict troops from entire portions of the city or country, or the entire country.
“You do not have the right to go off base, it’s a privelege.”
Where do you get that? Privilege has no legal defintion. You have the right to do anything you want that isn’t clearly restricted by law. The US constitution and UCMJ both are consistent in acknowledging rights, not in granting them, which leves no roon for a notion such as privilege. UCMJ is far more specific in its restrictions of soldiers in duty/off-duty situations respectively but nevertheless you can’t make the case of “privilege” given US legal structures, either civilian or military. I don’t know enough about Korean law to to be certain but I gather that your notion of “privilege” would only be applicable to those under jurisdiction of Korean law, meaning Korean citizens and expats.
Disciplining commanders and first sergeants is a bit tricky because I have seen good commanders and first sergeants end up with a major incident where in my opinion there was nothing they could have done to prevent it. Some people are dirt bags and no matter how good a first sergeant is they may still commit incident.
As MrChips pointed out is that people need to be hammered when incidents happen, not just major off post incidents like this one. If a soldier has a minor incident such as being caught underage drinking in the barracks or public intoxication on post than hammer him.
I have seen leaders use “corrective training” instead of UCMJ for these incidents because they don’t want to have to give out an Article 15 because it is more paperwork and may think a large amount of article 15 looks bad on the unit. I know someone who didn’t give a soldier an Article 15 because the soldier said he wouldn’t reenlist then. If you hammer these guys the first time they do something you may get their attention before they do something really stupid. UCMJ is tool and leaders need to learn to use it.
Also 6AM accountability formations occassionally on a Saturday and Sunday mornings is a great idea. When you announce the formation have PSGs standing in the hallways. You will be amazed what you uncover after doing a few of these.
Also breathalyzers at the gate at curfew is another great idea. Heck just having senior unit leadership at the gate causes people to drink less if they know their 1SG, commander, PL, PSG’s are sitting at the gate when they walk in. These are all things I have done before in my unit and I think they work very well.
There are plenty of other things that can be done but these are all real solutions to indiscipline problems instead of coming up with more curfews, restriction, Bell Sends, blaming recruiters, PTSD, the Iraq War and whatever else people have been saying.
Mr Chips:
My bad, I thought you were serious. Sorry bout that – I did misinterpret your post.
H.Kim:
Kim has a GREAT idea in his post – the wearing of Class A’s or B’s! I’m not sure of the other branches of service but if you are in A’s or B’s – in the Army – you are ***NOT*** allowed to drink (I wish I could cite that regulation.).
So if USFK would take this into account and also employ MY idea of scanning all outbount CAC card holders – it may help a LOT with lowering USFK related crime!
In fact, in uniform military need not have their cards scanned when leaving base. Only scan CAC card holders in civilian attire (outbound). Then scan EVERYONE coming back in (as it is now).
This means town patrol can immediately identify soldiers drinking in uniform and cart them back to base (for punishment of violating the regulation I sorta mentioned above). Again, anyone on RESTRICTION would have it show up on their CAC card when entering (or exiting) the bases.
I digress.
DOGBERT:
Dogbert is DEAD ON! I don’t like it either – but he is CORRECT that military are held to a ‘higher standard’.
I think commanders can easily control their ‘restricted’ people – IF THEY TRY. Thats what NCOs, 1SGs, section leaders, platoon leaders, are there for! Commanders would be LESS likely placing blanket restrictions on ALL members of their unit’s is faced with ‘accountablity’ for repeat/restricted offenders. This is mainly cause the problem people are only a small fraction of the whole unit.
Face it – its FAR easier to track/monitor the goings-on of 5 people versus 50 people right?
So yes, hold leaders accountable.
Parents should be accountable for their children’s (dependants) actions (JUST LIKE LAWS STATESIDE)!
For accompaning personnel – make a ZERO tollerence rule – if a dependant is a ‘problem’ – that servicemember loses his/her sponsorship. Then the family is FORCED to move back stateside – leaving behind the servicemember.
It all comes down to this:
Is going off-base a right or a priviledge?
I know the bases are (generally speaking) set up to cater to all the needs of the servicemember without forcing him or her to HAVE to go off-post (for neccesary goods or services).
I would ask the command to LIFT the curfew times and reduce the drinking age to the recognized legal drinking age of local laws!
This way, you are REWARDED with off base access (and in civilian clothes) based on your discipline, performance, and candor!
Contractors?
Let them run wild.
Does the USFK have any type of open forumns or lines of communications to forward these ideas to the commanders of USFK (as a suggestion) on how to lower crimes rates (from USFK personnel) in the RoK?
I’d love to go to a town hall meeting (or send an e-mail) to ‘BB’ relating these ideas for improovement. The curfew and drinking violations can be fixed ASAP by eliminating these STUPID regulations.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater USFK!
I dunno what else I can say – but thanks to those who took the time to read my diatribe.
Lazy_Contractor, I have to agree that the Class A or B uniform idea is an interesting one but I would not implement it on everyone. JAG would have to look at the legality of this but what about a policy stating that if you receive a Company Grade Article 15 you lose the privledge to wear civilian clothes off post and have to wear Class A or B uniforms for the remainder of your tour. This way you are punishing the people causing trouble and not the ones minding their own business.
A few year back at Camp Casey I saw guys that had an alcohol related incident that had to stand at the front gate in Class A’s and offer safety advice to people coming in the gate.
You do not have the right to go off base, it’s a privelege.
“Where do you get that?”
Common sense. It’s not necessary to go off base.
“You have the right to do anything you want that isn’t clearly restricted by law.”
USFK commander’s policy is law for military in Korea.
USFK commander can NOT make a policy that says all soldiers are not allowed to eat on Mondays and Thursdays until everyone is at the proper weight. USFK commander CAN make a policy that says all soldiers who live on base can not leave base until everyone is fully-trained in proper off-base behaviour. Argument is proper training never took place.
There are certain legal rights that can not be denied but going off-base is not one of them.
“I think the commander would have a hard time selling the USFK-wide lockdown to the JAG as a case of “security” when it’s a clear reponse to the actions of a few individuals’ misdeeds.”
Why does he have to cite security?
“Also, since no public intoxication is a clearly defined regulation, utilize breathalizers at all gates after say, 10pm.”
People of legal drinking age don’t have the right to drink? How do you justify that with the idea that people have the right to do anything they want that isn’t clearly restricted by law?
“I can’t speak to the UCMJ, but wouldn’t it be possible to discipline a criminal soldier’s commanding officer not for the same crime, but for not keeping control of the soldier in his charge? Does he not bear responsibility over his men 24/7? Maybe he doesn’t.”
At some point they’re on their own.
Surveying some of the suggestions in this thread, there are a lot of you out there who would make great commanders and first sergeants.
Then again, there are a lot of you apparently from the same stock of brain surgeons who brought us curfew, off-limits lists, and prohibition.
In the belief that the interest noted above is in good faith I’ll respond to a few of the concerns listed.
1. Privilege is not defined by what isn’t necessary. Logic of contradiction – US citizens don’t voice their opinions or travel for the holidays or go to private school out of necessity. But, they certainly have the right to, and such would never be considered privilege. Likewise in the military, what hasn’t been explicitly restricted by law is hence a right, necessary or not. That’s simply the American heritage of what a “right” is and the UCMJ is consistent with that philosophy.
2. Drinking is not the same as public intoxication. The latter is legally defined and the former is not. Drinking is not restricted by law and public intoxication is. Therefore, soldiers have the right to drink, they do not have the right to become intoxidated in public. Given that, it is acceptable to test for intoxication. If the breathalyzer shows signs of drinking but not to the legal limit of intoxication then no problem. Over the limit? – you’re busted.
2. “The commander’s policy is law.” Rephrase – The commander can only issue policy if it is consistent with the law, i.e. UCMJ. Punishment of soldiers for the actions of other soldiers is prohibited by LAW, period. The commander is also bound by that law. Citing security is a legal out for the commander; it’s a way to formulate policy that doesn’t appear to be punishment which the JAG simply wouldn’t allow and yes the commander will accept the input of the JAG.
3. “At some point they’re on their own.” At some point yes, but the point being raised concerning commanding officers is that they have thus far done precious little to effect any change in soldiers’ behavior and its time to emphasize the importance of their influence on their troops by placing the onus of responsibility on them. Given that pressure they might finally realize that they are leaders and they need to come up with measures to promote good behavior without alienating those soldiers who are already well-behaved.
There are a number of soldiers who were sent in to the Army by judges who gave them the choice of Army or jail. I had a number of recruits with me in Navy boot camp eons ago who were there for the same reason. Those judges gave them the choice of the military in the belief that military leadership was up to the task in remolding young men’s attitudes. So far, the leadership up in 2ID has betrayed that trust. I’m not saying that Army leadership can solve every deviant’s criminal shortcomings, but good god they can at least try and do something.
“Privilege is not defined by what isn’t necessary”
I am not defining privelege. I’m being specific. Going off-base overseas as US military personel is not a constitutional right, it’s a privelege. Need, is simple one of the the key factors in determining if restricting people to base is within the Commander’s power.
“Drinking is not the same as public intoxication. The latter is legally defined and the former is not. Drinking is not restricted by law and public intoxication is.”
What law restricts public intoxification? Is that a Korean law?
“So far, the leadership up in 2ID has betrayed that trust. I’m not saying that Army leadership can solve every deviant’s criminal shortcomings, but good god they can at least try and do something.”
how can you prevent a person from hiding out in a toilet stall to attack a woman? Why would you think that has anything to do with the army leadership?
Are you pulling my chain? So far I’ not sure. Doing whatever you want is a constitutional right as long as it isn’t prohibited by law. That’s the nature of our constitution. All those rights you hear of: press, religion, bearing arms… those are just reinforcements to ensure that government understands its restrictions. Those come from the bill of rights not the constitution and there was great debate whether they were even necessary given that the constitution was so tediously worded to emphasize a restriction on government not citizenry. Some goes in the military so yes, going off base is a constitutional right!
“how can you prevent a person from hiding out in a toilet stall to attack a woman? Why would you think that has anything to do with the army leadership?” Really? You think that happens in a vacuum and leadership has absolutely no influence over behavior whatsoever? That’s why I think you might be taking me for a ride here. If so, well done.
Good luck leaving the base and going downtown to Havana. It’s ya constatushanul right, right?
#98 – The puzzo dei pesce (red herring, if my nose doesn’t deceive) is nothing short of unbearable. Going off base at Gitmo is qualitatively different than leaving a base in a country with which the US has friendly relations and a Status of Forces Agreement. Indeed, the impossibility of leaving base at Gitmo is amply explained by the security issue (not to mention numerous others).
Alas, I suspect MrChips is being excessively charitable in presuming that Kabiddles is yanking his chain. I’m afraid he actually smokes what he’s selling.
This has now taken on an eerie resemblance to Mahathir_Fan’s lecture on Chinese democracy. But I’ll play along.
Like I said, it’s your constitutional right to do anything not prohibited by law. Going anywhere in Cuba without special approval is indeed prohibited by Federal law. It has nothing to do with punishing someone for someone else’s behavior which would be illegal. Try again?
“Marmot’s Comment: I have absolutely no statistical data to back this up, but the sense I get is that since Gen. Leon LaPorte was replaced as USFK commander, there has been a deterioration in off-base discipline. What I would like to know, preferably from USFK readers, is whether this might actually be the case or just a mistaken perception on my part.”
Marmot, what is it that you think you are looking for? I sure don’t get a sense from his website http://www.usfk.mil/USFK/index.html
that when Gen Bell took over, he summoned all his cowering staff and lower-level commanders to a conference, loosened his tie, poured a few stiff drinks, and roared: “Alright, enough of this “being on our best behavior!” My troops work hard, and by God when they’re off-duty I want them to be able to relax and play hard!”
If serious court-martial level offenses have gone up by, say, 10% since Gen Bell took over, one would expect to find a 10% increase in the number of court-martials (or equivalent punishment under the Korean judicial system, for those offenses in which the Koreans have — and choose to exercise –SOFA jurisdiction).
Severe punishment for those offenders, well-publicized to other members of the command, should have the desired effect.
By the way, if you take a look at the above-mentioned USFK link, you’ll see “headlined” various items of “command policy”; even though I’ve just glanced at them w/o reading in detail, that’s enough to tell me something about Gen Bell’s “command emphasis” (ie “Bell sends”):
A partial quote:
a) “USFK Good Neighbor English Camp Message
Strong community relations (COMREL) are one of three pillars that comprise our USFK Good Neighbor Program…..”
b) “USFK 2007 Summer Safety Campaign
We are responsible and we are accountable. No deaths and no excuses is our charge…..”
c)”USFK Force Protection Advisory….”
d) “Good Neighbor English Camp: Host Families Needed
The USFK Public Affairs office is looking for families in the Seoul area who would like to host Korean 10th grade Students….”
Etc etc.
If I were a senior USFK military commander, one of the last things I would want associated with my tenure of command is being associated with the idea that the wearing of the Class A or B uniform is a form of “punishment”.
It seems to me that a potential malefactor who is deliberately planning to commit a serious offense off-post will find a way to change out of the uniform and “blend in” anyway.
Some of you seem to think military leadership is simply a matter of opening the “authoritarian” portion of the “manual” and then issuing the appropriate order.
These are American soldiers and this is 2007 — it’s not the Prussian Army of the 1770’s with Frederick the Great in charge.
There’s one thing the troops prize above all else and that’s their “time off”. Take it away from them as a form of mass punishment and you’re going to have informal and formal complaints going up the officer and NCO( chain of command; poor morale will also quickly manifest itself in other ways that will become noticeable to outsiders (such as a serious drop in the re-enlistment rate).
A total lockdown of any unit (company, battalion, brigade, division) and/or confinement to base can be justified normally only in extreme circumstances that the troops can readily understand, such as the impending outbreak of war, or the existence of a serious threat from portions of the civilian population (ie at the heighth of the mass demonstrations (2002?) about the two schoolgirls run over by the AVLB).
Another case I can imagine would be the possibility of a serious breakdown in discipline and order of a particular unit or installation. Such as the discovery of a sizeable conspiracy to engage in gang warfare within members of a unit, say by gangs organized along racial lines, ready to go after each other with weapons (as evidently commonly occurs in max security US prisons).
Some of this type of thing occurred in the US Army towards the end of the Vietnam war, but nothing I’ve seen in the news media reporting from Iraq (or from Korea, to include the individual USFK disciplinary offenses featured on this blog) suggests to me that anything like this is even remotely possible.
“Going anywhere in Cuba without special approval is indeed prohibited by Federal law”
Special approval!
hahahahahahahaha
That takes the cake!
Special approval!
hahahahahahahahahaha
Dude, now you’re just making yourself look like an idiot. It’s the law or perhaps you’re advocating disregard for the law?
Here’s the law if you care. It’s called the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and it clearly prohibits US citizens from travel to Cuba without special approval.
http://www.treasury.gov/office.....bertad.pdf
You must be approved for a license by OFAC in the Treasury Department to travel to Cuba. Period.
You must log in to post a comment.