In his Aug. 7 letter, "Prosecution hurdles needed," Jeffrey Snow argues that since "the Japanese police have a horrible track record of maintaining the rights of those under arrest," U.S. service members suspected of crimes must be protected from this defective justice system by all means.
But why only U.S. service members? Even if Japan's justice system is defective, should it not be equally applied to all, both Japanese and foreign, on Japanese soil?
True, the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement was agreed upon by both countries, as Michael Logan writes in his Aug. 7 letter, "Human side of Japan's burden." But he must know the circumstances under which it was signed.
In exchange for ending military occupation, Japan gave in to Washington's unsparing demands for the same unrestrained use of land, sea and airspace by its armed forces and the same extraterritorial privileges for its service members as provided under the Japan-U.S. Mutual Security Treaty and the concomitant SOFA signed at a backdoor meeting right after the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty was concluded.
U.S. forces left the Philippines not because they were asked to "leave" but because they couldn't afford to pay rent and maintenance costs. A volcanic eruption hastened the withdrawal. U.S. bases in Japan are a different story. The vast amount of land for these bases is provided free of charge, with maintenance costs ($2.181 billion in 2006) shouldered by Japanese taxpayers, many of whom are mesmerized into believing that U.S. soldiers are stationed here to defend Japan at the risk of their lives. In reality, they are here to defend America's security and interests, as the U.S. military Code of Conduct manifestly states. Would U.S. forces leave Japan obediently if told to do so? I doubt it.
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.