Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 13, 2008 @ 3:07 pm

The Marine involved is apparently admitting to forcing the girl down and kissing her, but maintains that he didn’t rape her. He’s guilty of some form of sexual assault, the question now is what exactly he’ll be charged with.

Comment by Turner

February 13, 2008 @ 10:59 pm

Still deplorable. As to your last point, rape often gets overlooked when expats are victims as well. The famous “Scribblings of the Metropolitician” author reported on situations in Korea where women reported attacks but weren’t treated by doctors until they had definitely proven they weren’t Russian prostitutes who “probably deserved whatever they got”:

http://metropolitician.blogs.com/scribblings_of_the_metrop/2007/11/holla-back-seou.html

But you’ve definitely found the biggest issue of this story, in that why is this particular crime so newsworthy? Because of the political situation in Okinawa, nothing more. Oh don’t get me wrong, it’s still a disaster, a disgrace, and a case that should be pursued, but without the international spotlight.

I personally don’t think the proliferation of idiotic rape-condoning comments by public officials or rape-related pornography significantly raise the number of crimes in Japan, because with the interconnectedness of the world, anyone can be exposed to those things 24/7; if you want to find it or if you can imagine it, it will come to you. But those reported could certainly be increased by greater public awareness, better trained officials, and knowledgeable medical personnel.

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 13, 2008 @ 11:39 pm

After all, the age of consent is 13 in Japan, right?

This is just a quick comment. Although the age of consent in Japan is 13, according to article 177 of the Penal Code, most prefectures have laws in place that raise the age of consent. I’m not sure how many or which ones - but I think that needs to be clarified a bit…

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 13, 2008 @ 11:51 pm

I think just what the age of consent is should be clarified, too. Many US states, for example, have an age of consent of 12, which means that it is not a crime for a 14-year-old and a 12-year-old to have relations. This age of consent, though, is coupled with what are often called “over-under in 5″ laws and 18, the age of majority, as the full age of consent, which would make sex between a 17-year-old and 22-year-old OK, but between people 17 and 23 statutory rape.
In Japan, a woman can get married at 16, a man at 18, but they’d need parental consent. What seems to be unclear is what can be consented to at 13. Would that include consensual sex with a 35-year-old?

What we need in this thread is a lawyer methinks.

Does anybody think this will lead to a slowdown in the move to Camp Schwab or an acceleration of the move to Guam?

Comment by Pellegrini

February 14, 2008 @ 12:16 am

Turner,

Good point. A definitive link between the availability of porn and relative increases in crimes of a sexual nature has yet to be discovered. Or, at least, I haven’t read about it.

You’re also correct in asserting that politicians’ public statements are often not in lock-step with reality, so it’s probably safer to seek a barometer of public opinion elsewhere. At the same time, if politicians’ warped opinions seem to mirror those of other people in positions of power (such as the police), which appears to be the case according to the McLean and L’heureux interviews, then that is indicative of a wider problem.

However, just as people’s attitudes about rape (particularly men’s) can be changed through education, their attitudes can be just as easily influenced or formed by whatever other bile happens to be out there. In order to change those attitudes, it’s important to address those factors that cause people to think the way that they do. I suppose this is why most people who offer support to victims of sexual violence in Japan cite the pervasiveness of rape-themed manga, anime and movies as an obstacle to changing the way that men view victims of rape.

The fetishization of young females, especially schoolgirls, is another problem, but that’s not entirely related to this issue. At least it doesn’t appear to be at this point.

Your contention that this is a big problem, but not big enough to be international news, is spot on.

With Defense Minister Ishiba recently being quoted as saying:

“This is not a crime involving a single U.S. serviceman. If you take the stance that it is at the core of the Japan-U.S. alliance, this is not a matter I think can be solved simply by demanding tighter discipline or efforts to make sure something similar doesn’t happen again”

it’s clear that this one is going to be shaping public opinion in the news for a while.

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 14, 2008 @ 12:33 am

“Your contention that this is a big problem, but not big enough to be international news, is spot on.”

I have to disagree. I don’t think there’s a litmus test for what deserves to be international news, and that the more information (reporting) that goes on, the better.

A heinous crime is alleged to have been committed against a citizen of Japan, on Japanese soil, by a member of a foreign military. That’s a serious and newsworthy event (actually, whether it’s on Japanese soil or not).

I think it’s important for people to see the way that issues are spun. We’re seeing this in a host of other issues as well. Anything newsworthy can be used for political gain or to advance a cause - by all sides. It’s good to see it publicly in the media so that power structures and their use of information can be discussed and dissected.

I have to say that the US is dealing with these issues (post-crime) better than in the past, by not dragging feet over handing Marines, Sailors, Airmen or Soldiers (though I don’t remember anyone in the Army being arrested on such charges in Japan, given the low numbers of that branch stationed here) who have committed such crimes over to Japanese authorities.

That said, I wonder what’s happening in terms of prevention. There are bound to be incidents, and there are bound to be crimes, even serious ones, committed by a population of 50,000 or more people. But is the US really doing all it can to try and prevent such incidents happening? If so, the burden of proof is on them to show it.

Comment by Christopher Pellegrini

February 14, 2008 @ 12:50 am

I read that there is a curfew in place to keep young soldiers on the base late at night. However, Hadnott is married to (but separated from) a Japanese national, so he was allowed to live off base.

Don’t US soldiers have lower crime rates than the citizenry of Okinawa?

Comment by Mark in Yayoi

February 14, 2008 @ 1:22 am

Long-time reader, first-time poster. Love the site.

I hate to make my first post a complaint, but could this sentence perhaps be altered?

A man took advantage of a junior high school girl and we should be thankful that the police were able to apprehend him so quickly.

“Took” is the problem. He might have taken advantage of her, and he might not have. The presumption of innocence should be respected until the case is decided one way or another.

The police are not exactly famous for their fairness and dedication to justice:

http://www.transpacificradio.com/2007/03/11/forced-confessions-and-the-japanese-justice-system/

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 14, 2008 @ 2:11 am

Pellegrini:

Don’t US soldiers have lower crime rates than the citizenry of Okinawa?

Do you mean Soldiers, Marines, Airmen or Sailors?

Sorry to get all nitpicky on this, but the terminology matters: I don’t think there are any US soldiers in Okinawa (I’m willing to bet 0, but want to verify that), but there are plenty of Marines.

“Soldier” refers exclusively to a member of the US Army. “Marine” refers to a member of the US Marines. If you don’t believe me, call a Marine a Soldier.

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 14, 2008 @ 2:18 am

Mark, Thanks for your comment.

Well…he did admit to kissing her, which should amount to taking advantage.

However, you have a good point (and one that I needed to keep in mind earlier), which is that as of right now we have an allegation and not a conviction of rape.

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 14, 2008 @ 3:46 am

Good points on the presumption of innocence, but I read this:

If the allegations are true, then this is a despicable act that deserves all the condemnation in the world. A man took advantage of a junior high school girl and we should be thankful that the police were able to apprehend him so quickly.

as a connected statement, as in: if it’s true, a man took advantage of a girl.

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 14, 2008 @ 3:51 am

And, to add to Ken’s last comment, he admitted to forcing her down and kissing her, which makes that at least assault, doesn’t it?

Comment by Turner

February 14, 2008 @ 8:52 am

At the very least, it’s perverse.

Comment by Matt@occidentalism.org

February 14, 2008 @ 9:33 am

The way I see it there are 4 different elements that make this story more newsworthy than a regular rape.

1. It involves a member of the military.
2. It involves the SOFA agreement, which means the accused cannot be tried under Japanese law, unless the US military agrees to it.
3. It involves an under aged girl.
4. There have been incidents involving members of the military protected under SOFA raping under aged girls in Okinawa before.

Given all this, I don’t think the implication of bias really holds up.

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 14, 2008 @ 1:49 pm

Matt, it seems to me that reasons 1 & 2, while important, are essentially the same and reason #2 is not quite accurate. The relevant portion of Article XVII of the Status of Forces Agreement reads:

In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply:
a. The military authorities of the United States shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States armed forces or the civilian component in relation to
i. offenses solely against the property or security of the United States, or offenses solely against that person or property of another member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component or of a dependent;
ii. offenses arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.

b. In the case of any other offense the authorities of Japan shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction.

And also from Article XVII:

a. The military authorities of the United States and the authorities of Japan shall assist each other in the arrest of members of the United States armed forces, the civilian component, or their dependents in the territory of Japan and in handling them over to the authority which is to exercise jurisdiction in accordance with the above provisions.
b. The authorities of Japan shall notify promptly the military authorities of the United States of the arrest of any member of the United States armed forces, the civilian component, or a dependent.
c. The custody of an accused member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component over whom Japan is to exercise jurisdiction shall, if he is in the hands of the United States, remain with the United States until he is charged by Japan.

Japan clearly has jurisdiction here. Moreover, since the 1995 rape case, the US has handed suspects over to the Japanese authorities even before formal indictments were made. Although, under the SOFA, the US would have the right to insist on holding Hadnott in American custody until formal charges are filed, they have waived their right to do so.

If you know of a case since 1972 in which an American serviceman, formally charged, has escaped prosecution altogether due to either the 1960 SOFA or any of its admendments over the years, by all means, let me know.

Keep in mind that Japan has the right to elect not to prosecute individuals in Japan and instead waive its right to jurisdiction on the understanding that the suspect will be tried and/or sentenced in the US or another territory by the US military in the event of a crime that violates both Japanese and American law, such as rape. It seems, however, that for a vairety of obvious reasons, Japan rarely elects to waive its right to prosecution.

The complete SOFA is here.

Comment by Matt@occidentalism.org

February 14, 2008 @ 1:54 pm

Hi Garret,

My point was not this specific case, which I know almost nothing about, but the elements of the case. If indeed the soldier was off duty, then he may be tried in the Japanese courts. But I still think it is newsworthy. Even the foreign, non-Japanese media, seem to think so.

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 14, 2008 @ 2:12 pm

I would agree with Matt here. This is a crime committed by a member of a foreign military on Japanese soil. That’s going to make it very, very newsworthy just by definition. The fact that this sort of things happens again and again is only making it worse. It also sells a shitload of papers, which is the ultimate goal of the media (number of eyeballs).

If anything, the media should give more attention to other cases (such as the ones Chris cited), not less attention to this case. The comments and attitudes of politicians are also good to see. Mr Fukuda had a real corker himself a few years back.

“rape is only rape in Japan when it involves either a young victim, a famous person or organization, or a non-Japanese.”

I would say it’s that rape is only reported heavily in the media when one of those conditions is satisfied. This should hardly be surprising. Same goes for most crimes.

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 14, 2008 @ 2:18 pm

Just to clarify, for a crime committed off-base, it doesn’t matter whether or not a servicemember is on duty or not, the important distinction is whether or not the crime was related to his official duties or a lapse therein or was unrelated. Rape is neither related to any official duty nor arises from a lapse in any official duty, therefore, as long as the crime was committed off-base or involved a Japanese national not serving in the US military, Japanese authorities have clear and explicit primacy in jurisdiction.

It is worth noting, though, that the US not only has the right to participate and assist in the investigation, but is required to do so.

Comment by Vimy

February 14, 2008 @ 6:13 pm

What sets this rape apart from others is the diplomatic shitstorm attached to it. The US has been quick to issue apologies from its military leaders and diplomats and feed Hadnott to the Japanese authorities so to speak.

No matter how many times the Japanese or Okinawan governments ask the US military to get a grip on discipline and no matter how many times the US military says it will do so, the Okinawans know that it’s only a matter of time before the next incident.

In the end, what is worrying here is the fact that this is quickly devolving into a ’soldiers (and by extension all non-Japanese) are rapists and criminals’ type of discussion.

Are you sure about this? Can you point to any examples? I don’t think the story is being spun this way.

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 14, 2008 @ 6:35 pm

Vimy,

the Okinawans know that it’s only a matter of time before the next incident.

Absolutely. Given the population sample size we’re talking about, we can assume violent crimes will happen, and probably make a decent prediction on their frequency.

I don’t think the story is being spun this way.

I agree with you. I’ve yet to see a Japanese media source taking this angle, or anything resembling it.

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 14, 2008 @ 7:21 pm

The unfortunate reality, it seems to me, is that anywhere you have more than a few people, you are going to have crime of many varieties, including rape. If the US military, with eight incidents resulting in ten criminal convictions for rape and sexual assault in Okinawa since 1945, is a major factor in the incidence of rape in Okinawa, then either Okinawa should count its blessings for having what must be one of the lowest rape rates in the history of the world or, just as Pellegrini asserts, rape is not taken nearly as seriously as it should be and rapes by US servicemen get more publicity than other rapes by orders of magnitude.

The very fact that there are large protests against the USMC shows that quite a few Okinawans see this incident as emblematic of the USMC, as something Hadnott did thatbears a connection to his profession, and do not see it as a crime perpetrated by an individual, separated from his job. This view is reinforced by the reaction of Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba, who replied, “Oh give me a break!” when told the news. He is looking at this as a Marine problem as well.

It is also abundantly clear that this case has received many times the coverage than all other rapes in Japan last year received together.

Now, is this valid? Sure it is. This case has implications beyond the crime itself. Serious, violent crimes should be publicized, too.
The again, one of the main reasons that this crime has implications beyond the crime itself is that it is receiving so much publicity and the USMC is being cast in a bad light, which increases negative sentiment towards them. It’s kind of a chicken-and-egg problem.

One question that should be asked here is whether or not the USMC is actually a large component of the rape problem in Okinawa or just the most publicized part of it. Again, considering that we’re looking at an average of one conviction every eight years, it seems unlikely that the former is the case.

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 14, 2008 @ 8:09 pm

The very fact that there are large protests against the USMC shows that quite a few Okinawans see this incident as emblematic of the USMC, as something Hadnott did thatbears a connection to his profession, and do not see it as a crime perpetrated by an individual, separated from his job.

Not really…It shows that now there is a reason to go out and protest. I don’t think it necessarily shows that anyone sees this incident as emblematic of USMC behavior. There are bound to be protesters who want to see the USMC off their island no matter how they behave. Even if they were saints. And there are bound to be some protesters who want the Japanese off their island as well. I think it’s impossible to say how many are there just because there is a good reason to protest now or because they have been spurred by this incident.

Marines are adults, and treated that way when off duty. Hadnott’s crime was an action that he, as an individual, will be punished for.

The question is whether this type of behavior is prevalent enough to find some responsibility with his employer. If so, they need to do a better job educating their employees in very basic things. Is an average of one conviction every 8 years (I’m using your numbers Garrett) amongst a population of 50,000 enough to find grounds to find fault with USMC training procedures? That’s a matter for debate, though I think we can all agree that one violent crime of any kind is one violent crime too many.

The media will focus on issues such as these because of the tangled history behind them and because it sells papers.

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 14, 2008 @ 8:16 pm

On or off duty, on or off base, a crime committed against a non-member or dependent of the US armed forces falls under Japanese jurisdiction. It’s just that the US can hold the accused until charges are formally filed, if the accused lives on base or happens to be on base when the police come knocking. If you live off-base, the Japanese police can just come to your house and arrest you, as they should be able to do. I think some of the confusion comes from the Japanese authorities being unable to come on base and make arrests, which makes the rules seem a bit confusing.

The condition in the SOFA agreement that the US can hold the accused until charges are filed is meant to protect members of the armed forces from arbitrary arrest. In other words, the police have to be sure enough that a crime was committed to actually go and press charges. I have no idea if arbitrary arrest of on-base personnel was ever actually a worry, but protections against it worked their way into SOFA nonetheless.

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 14, 2008 @ 8:59 pm

Ken, re: your second comment. To add to what you wrote, the main change the US would like to see to Article XVII of the SOFA are clauses guaranteeing an accused serviceman access to an interpreter certified by the US military and access to the defense attorney of his choice throughout his detention. As these things are not normally allowed to Japanese nationals who are arrested, the GOJ has resisted those requests. That leads me to believe that the concern is prolonged detention without charge, which might also lead to coerced confessions or confessions obtained through misrepresentation.

Pingback by Fewer Boots, More Vision, More Allies: Left Flank

February 14, 2008 @ 9:06 pm

[…] The 2-11-08 arrest of an American soldier for rape. […]

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 14, 2008 @ 9:34 pm

Ken, Re: your first comment. Perhaps I should rephrase the statement of mine that you quoted.

The fact that there are sizable protests in front of American bases shows that a fair number of Okinawans (in the broad sense, meaning residents of Okinawa), see this case as a reason to be angry with the US military, not just as a crime committed by an individual.

Given the chance that the uproar over this could well have an effect on the Futenma relocation and the move to Guam, which both affect, if only slightly, US defense posture in the Western Pacific, that a high percentage of Marines in Okinawa are going to have little if any chance to have anything other than strained relations with the locals for some time to come, and that (according to news reports) parents in the area re warning their kids to steer clear of Marines, Hadnott might be the only one going to prison over this, but he won’t be the only one suffering adverse consequences due to this.

If not with the view that this case represents a USMC problem, what is the reason to protest?

My best guess, seeing as I obviously can’t speak for the protesters in Okinawa, would be that there’s a general resentment toward the Marines’ presence in Okinawa and that incidents such as this assault cause that resentment to boil over. To me, that looks a lot like a link is being made between Hadnott and every other Marine.

No news outlet has to explicitly say every Marine is dangerous for that to be the general impression people get. Just as people hear “poisoned gyoza” and come to the conclusion that China can’t be trusted, many people hear “a Marine stands accused of raping a young girl” and immediately start drawing connections between being a Marine and being a potential rapist.

Given that the US, for over a decade now, has been turning suspects in serious violent crimes to the Japanese authorities (when appropriate) and cooperating with investigations, that would seem to be sending the message that military is not going to protect criminals. Thus, on that level, it would be hard to find fault with the USMC in this case.

On the other hand, a strong argument could be made that the USMC does not go far enough in training its personnel to deal appropriately with the local population. Better cultural understanding, language ability, and more interactions with locals other than to buy drinks for them or try to sleep with them would probably go a long way in instilling a greater respect for the locals and might reduce the incidences of crime among the Marines in Okinawa. As it stands, I could see how someone with no real interaction with the people of Japan could look at the prevalence of rape porn, the reported incidences of rape and molestation of young girls, and the reported burgeoning of the teen and preteen prostitution business and come to the conclusion that Japan was not as averse to rape or to inappropriate relations with minors as some other countries.

This a problem not only for the USMC to address, but the whole society to address. It’s also a reminder that it’s time to take a look at Japan’s defense policy as a whole.

Comment by Mark in Yayoi

February 14, 2008 @ 10:01 pm

Ken and Garrett, thanks for remembering the presumption of innocence. It is one of the cornerstones of civilized society, and whether this suspect is being accused of something he actually did, of something worse than what he actually did, or of something he’s completely innocent of.

I found the “if” at the beginning of the previous sentence to not have enough power to keep “A man took advantage of a junior high school girl and we should be thankful that the police were able to apprehend him so quickly,” one sentence downsateam to still be in the hypothetical sense, but other readers might of course disagree.

When the suspect admitted forcibly kissing the girl, was he in Japanese police custody? That would make his “confession” a bit doubtful, but it certainly doesn’t clear him of the charges.

It’s clear that this isn’t an out-of-whole-cloth false accusation such as we saw in the Duke case last year, but rather a situation with conflicting viewpoints. And none of the parties involved — a 14-year-old girl who goes out partying with dangerous older men, a military man who may have forced a girl to kiss him, and of course the National Police Agency — strike me as being 100% honest.

I think the SOFA clause that prevents arbitrary arrest from Japanese police is a good thing (from the prespective of justice, not from international sovereignty). Given the NPA’s actions, I wish every embassy would negotiate it for their non-military resident aliens as well.

Comment by Pellegrini

February 14, 2008 @ 10:48 pm

We already know that the government avidly pushes the “foreign crime is out of control” angle when expounding on what ails this country (even though, surprise surprise, the NPA’s numbers show that foreign crime is decreasing despite a growing non-Japanese population), and anything that the media reports without proper qualification is further evidence of that tendency.

In that light, I don’t think that anything necessarily has to be “spun” a certain way in order to qualify it as being misleading or patently false. As Garrett said, even if it is not stated explicitly, the implication of the reporting, that US servicemen love to sexually assault people and generally cause trouble, is easily decipherable.

I’m not calling for a political correctness revolution here in Japan, but the print media has seen fit to report the opinions of numerous politicians on the rape allegations without any attempt at providing balance to the story. Some more of the press’ energy needs to be spent on reporting things like…how police officers are sometimes reluctant to use “rape kits” (ie. they collect no evidence) when dealing with rape victims because they’re worried about dropping below the required number of kits that they’re supposed to have on hand at all times.

However, as Ken has mentioned a couple times now, that’s not what sells newspapers.

That said, this statement was approved by the Okinawa Prefectural Assembly on Tuesday:

Rape is an extremely vicious crime in that it not only gives the victim physical and mental pain but also infringes on her dignity. Considering the victim is a girl who cannot resist such an attack, the latest incident is unforgivable.

The more times people hear talk like that, the better. Even though Hadnott hasn’t been charged yet, the silver lining is that this case has gotten people in Japan to (repeatedly) decry sexual violence in a very public manner. That is definitely a step in the right direction.

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 14, 2008 @ 11:21 pm

Garrett:

As these things are not normally allowed to Japanese nationals who are arrested, the GOJ has resisted those requests.

Japanese nationals or Self-Defense Force members? It seems as though it would make little sense to demand something for all members of one group, but only a small segment of another group.

I don’t know anything about this discussion, though I’d like to see what’s been proposed and discussed - have any links to something about it?

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 14, 2008 @ 11:26 pm

Japanese nationals. Under the current SOFA, US military personnel get largely the same treatment as Japanese nationals in cases where Japan has jurisdiction. The US apparently finds that treatment lacking and wants something closer to the rights guaranteed under US law and, in theory, Japanese law (although obviously with somewhat different interpretations than those of the US.) Japan, as you point out, doesn’t want anyone to get special treatment.

I was reading around on a lot of SOFA-related sites this morning, but didn’t save any of it. I’ll see what I can dig up.

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 14, 2008 @ 11:27 pm

Better cultural understanding, language ability, and more interactions with locals other than to buy drinks for them or try to sleep with them would probably go a long way in instilling a greater respect for the locals and might reduce the incidences of crime among the Marines in Okinawa.

Would it? Hadnott is married to a Japanese woman.

Comment by Turner

February 14, 2008 @ 11:37 pm

Going back to the connection between porn and the exposure to rape-related media, there’s an interesting argument from the Law and Order world:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=el-GR8K3QmA

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 15, 2008 @ 1:40 am

Thanks for the clip, Turner. Although admitting it is often considered tantamount to endorsing blanket censorship, I’d be surprised if anyone who reflected at all or really thought about it didn’t come to the conclusion that what a person sees, watches, listens to, etc. can affect his behavior, often dramatically.

Unbelievable lines given to the boy aside, interesting clip. The actress playing the defense attorney reminds me a lot of Rhea Perlman, whom I haven’t seen as any character other than Carla from Cheers. It’s not her, is it?

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 15, 2008 @ 1:49 am

What? You’ve seen Rhea Perlman only on Cheers? She had a bunch of guest episodes on Taxi. And she was in Canadian Bacon. Nothing else I can think of though.

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 15, 2008 @ 1:53 am

Oh yeah! How could I forget that? I’ve seen Taxi and Canadian Bacon, although I do associate her with Carla. But is it her in that Law & Order SVU clip?

Comment by Andy

February 15, 2008 @ 7:33 am

Once again we see that the world hates the US for her freedoms*!

(*freedom to terrorize innocent people, either by aerial warfare, breaking down doors, torture, economic sabotage, or in this case, rape of schoolgirls)

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 15, 2008 @ 12:54 pm

Andy, this isn’t the old Japan Today. Irrelevant, non-sequitir, baseless attacks on entire groups of people are unwelcome. You can score points with your puerile zingers elsewhere. If you have something relevant to say, go ahead. If not, keep it to yourself.

Comment by Matt@occidentalism.org

February 15, 2008 @ 1:20 pm

Just to clarify, for a crime committed off-base, it doesn’t matter whether or not a servicemember is on duty or not, the important distinction is whether or not the crime was related to his official duties or a lapse therein or was unrelated. Rape is neither related to any official duty nor arises from a lapse in any official duty, therefore, as long as the crime was committed off-base or involved a Japanese national not serving in the US military, Japanese authorities have clear and explicit primacy in jurisdiction.

A friend of mine is in the NCIS in Okinawa. He investigates rape cases, and he is probably on this one.

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 15, 2008 @ 1:47 pm

Good luck to your friend. I don’t envy him, especially on a case fraught with so many attendant issues, attention, and high emotions from the public in general. Let’s hope he’s freed up enough to be allowed to do his job thoroughly and expeditiously. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear, though, that he’s facing pressure from all sides and working with one hand tied behind his back.

Keep us posted if you hear any developments.

Comment by Matt@occidentalism.org

February 15, 2008 @ 6:55 pm

Garret, he told me before than many of the rape claims made against soldiers are nonsense or vindictive, not that it has anything to do with this case.

Anyway, in my opinion, anything inter-racial is going to be more controversial than the normal type of happening. Add onto that the foreign military aspect (which some insist is an occupation force), raped jail bait, plus his bizarre behavior (I read the article ), and we have something that people want to see.

Even so, it still doesn’t have the kind of elements that fueled the Duke case, but it should still be pretty big in Okinawa.

Comment by Turner

February 16, 2008 @ 12:02 am

Yes, that was Rhea Perlman.

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 16, 2008 @ 12:11 am

I can certainly believe that about rape claims against servicemen. While rape is certainly among the most serious crimes, it is also just about the easiest way in the world to tar someone for a long time. All a vindictive person has to do is mention her adversary’s name in proximity to the word “rape” and much of the damage is done.

I can also certainly see why there’s a media circus surrounding this case. My prediction at this point would be that Hadnott sits in detention for a while - not as long as someone in a case without publicity might, but longer than other servicemen probably would as the US will be very careful about pushing for a speedy trial. Once he is finally tried, he’ll wind up with sexual assault charges, as opposed to full rape charges and get a few years, part of which will be time served. At that point, I wouldn’t be too surprised of there were a petition to have him serve the time in the US, but I don’t know how that part works.

Comment by Julián Ortega Martínez

February 16, 2008 @ 11:52 am

I’ve just came quite late to this discussion.

I strongly agree with TPR staff when they say this story is newsworthy. At least this story is having some news coverage. Last October, Colombia’s major (and only national non-tabloid) daily ran a story about the allegedly rape of a 12-year-old girl by 2 U. S. soldiers inside a Colombian army base in central Colombia (English link here, original Spanish story here). Besides that report and a short radio interview with Colombia’s Interior Vice Minister, the “incident” got almost no coverage in most local media, let alone foreign press. And we’ve not heard about new developments yet.

About the “blame the victim” mentality, here is not as widespread as in Japan -there’s still some solidarity-, but of course you can find plenty of people ready to say: “hey, she’s 12, she can think for herself, she knows what’s she doing” (this also applies for the cases of child molestation by Catholic priests).

(I’m still catching up after weeks of not reading TPR )

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 16, 2008 @ 12:55 pm

Thanks for the link, Julian. I hadn’t heard about that case in Colombia. It’s disheartening to say the least, especially in a country where I would assume any US presence is even less welcome than it is in Japan.

Whether members of the military are actually more likely to commit sex crimes or not, I think it is safe to say that the US military certainly has a serious image problem and all too often gives ammunition to its critics.

Comment by jim

February 20, 2008 @ 4:24 pm

I feel as though I need a shower. A 14 year old girl was sexually assaulted. All I hear here is ways to get over. There should be a fair trial, and if found guilty the good SSG should be put in Japanese jail to answer for his crimes. Spending time in jail is actually to good for whoever did this. It is not about the SOFA, or the Americans, or the Okinawans. It is about a 14 year old girl who has been violated. who gives a crap about the rest of it. Can’t we get past all the rhetoric and look at the real picture. Children are special and all you people can do is worry about words and status and abunch of crap. Why can’t you say the truth. A little girl was molested. The SSG admits to being with her and kissing her and “pressing” up against her. Actual intercourse aside, that is disgusting and he should pay for that. As a 38 year old man and a leader in the United States Armed Forces, he knew the deal. Who cares the level of the assault. He admitted assault. everybody needs to shut up and let the SSG go through the process.

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 21, 2008 @ 9:22 am

Who in this thread, Jim, has defended Hadnott? Who has advocated a light sentence? Who has advocated or even suggested anything other than his spending a long time in a Japanese prison? Is what makes you feel so dirty even present here?

Criminal acts, as you might have noticed, especially very serious ones, involve legal processes. That you would think those legal processes are irrelevant or that discussing them favors criminals or demeans victims is confusing, if not troubling.

Societies have laws for the protection of both sides and has different crimes on the books for the same purpose. There’s a name for going after someone as soon as an accusation is made and viewing the law with contempt: lynching.

Is Hadnott, by his own admission, guilty of sexual assault of at least some form? Yes. Is he a rapist? We don’t know. There is a difference.

SOFA matters because it is a part of the law that governs what happens, on a procedural level, in cases such as this. Convictions based on the law, applied in open court, in an atmosphere of transparency are what brings justice. Every crime, especially one as heinous as this one, has a strong emotional component. Are we to throw out the law every time we’re shocked?

If time in prison is too good for Hadnott (who did it is not a question, the question is whether he did it), that would require a change in the law. What do you suggest?

We could have a thread in which a whole bunch of people say, “My god, that’s horrible,” but that’s been said, here and everywhere, and everyone agrees. The discussion at this point can only be about legal processes and the broader consequences of this crime. If we stop at “My god, that’s horrible,” progress will never be made, justice will never really be served, and everything that occurs as a result of this crime will come as a shock. If discussing an ongoing case is somehow detrimental, our society is in a whole heap of trouble.

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 21, 2008 @ 2:26 pm

Can’t we get past all the rhetoric

Examples, please.

Comment by Neo Sparks

February 26, 2008 @ 6:55 pm

Wow! Did you read every thought I had before you wrote this?? Kudos to you for a job well done. You really hit the nail on the head for a variety of issues in this article.
I am a journalist working in Japan and I have been on an absolute tirade about this. The lack of follow-up and in fact the absolute lack of care for the alleged rape victim shows the true agenda here. It also paints the Japanese officials and unfortunately to some degree Japanese people as insincere and naive. I really love living in this country, and I respect their customs and culture, from which I think makes for a generally well-ordered society. THIS though, pisses me right off. To watch the news and to hear the “man on the street” interviews, you would think NO crime happens at all in Okinawa, and that Okinawans have been utterly victimized. For three consecutive days after that, incidents involving servicemen made the top story, and of course the story about the latest incident included the line “this follows a string of misdeeds by US military personnel” or something along those lines. Sadly, I think many Japanese don’t question what’s presented to them, and this story and following incidents have been presented in a way as to inflame and incite the local people.

Meanwhile, this “rape victim” fades into obscurity, and nothing is done to advance the entire rape issue, including prevention, educating elected officials (and society as a whole for that matter) about blaming the victim, teaching victims they are not to blame, and teaching society that there is some nasty stuff out there that doesn’t go away by ignoring it, or finding a convenient scapegoat to hang it on.

I do not in any way take away the responsibility of the US soldiers, or other foreigners living, working and interacting in Japan. US soldiers know ALL TOO WEll how important our strategic alliance is with Japan, and they know even better the volatile situation in Okinawa. The onus is on them to conduct themselves as decent human beings first. They should be proud enough to be a soldier, who by virtue of the uniform they wear are given blind faith and respect, and not do anything to tarnish the US military’s already battered image around the world. They must go above and beyond in their dealings in Japanese society. Whatever the reason, they do have a stigma attached to them and they have to deal with it and deflect it every chance they have by going against expectations. While I do believe Japanese need to be more tolerant of gaijins, gaijins need to respect their host country. Loud, obnoxious, disrespectful, stereotypical foreigners, please understand you do nothing to help matters.

With Japan’s rapidly graying society, low birth rate, and not to mention globalization, foreigners may have to play an increasingly important role in the future of this country. I suggest Japan dust off the welcome mat, and foreigners that come here gladly take off your shoes.

Comment by The Okinawan Kid

February 28, 2008 @ 12:48 pm

Guys, let’s not twist words and try to defend the U.S. military. The bottom line is that Japan doesn’t want U.S. Marines on Honshu. They don’t want to tolerate the burden so they keep them on Okinawa.

The problem? Okinawans aren’t exactly Japanese. We are Japanese as much as Hawaiians are white. We have our own language, culture, and food. Ethnically and historically we were our own country.

That’s the missing element in the dreaded reports and lack of respect from American media.

Would you tolerate U.S. servicemen, say 3 guys raping a 12 year girl in Hawaii on the islands? Imagine you’re a dad in Pearl and some stupid pedophiles rape your daughter?

Or in this particular case, your 14 year old daughter is off with old 38 year man who attempts to kiss her in the car and drives her around town?

Heck would you tolerate this in Tyler Texas? Or Cumberland RI? Would you tolerate this anywhere in your towns?

That’s the sentiment of the people. I think the islands belong to Okinawans. It ALWAYS had. Not Japan, not USA, not any foreign interferences!

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 28, 2008 @ 4:13 pm

Okinawan Kid,

I don’t understand what you’re getting at. Are you saying these crimes don’t happen in those places? Are you saying that the people in those places tolerate these crimes when they do happen?

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 28, 2008 @ 5:39 pm

And who’s tolerating what happened in Okinawa?

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 28, 2008 @ 6:48 pm

And who’s defending the US military?

Please cite examples.

Comment by The Okinawan Kid

February 29, 2008 @ 11:47 am

Just finally remove the U.S. military. Wouldn’t Taiwan be a better spot? 2-3 hours flight away?

The Tokyo central government hides behind the so-called “security treaty”. What I’m saying is don’t mix up Japanese national policy with the history of Okinawa.

This wouldn’t even be an issue if the military was removed. Plus they were never “invited”, they kind of invaded? If our history books served me right.

Make sense? The most important part of the entire ordeal is the sentiment of the people.

Comment by Pellegrini

February 29, 2008 @ 1:17 pm

Neo Sparks,

“Meanwhile, this “rape victim” fades into obscurity…”

“…educating elected officials about blaming the victim”

I don’t know about you, but I was actually pleasantly surprised that nobody has engaged in blaming the victim in this case.
Something along the lines of, “Well, why did she accept a ride home from somebody she didn’t know?” I don’t think I heard anything like that in the media during the week following the alleged crime.

However, I suspect that the lack of ‘blaming the victim’ in this instance is partly due to the fact that the alleged perpetrator is a foreign soldier.

Comment by Pellegrini

February 29, 2008 @ 1:28 pm

Okinawan Kid,

“We have our own language, culture, and food. Ethnically and historically we were our own country.

That’s the missing element in the dreaded reports and lack of respect from American media.”

How is this related to Japan’s insufficient response to rape in general?

Which disrespectful actions (or reports) on the part of the American media are you referring to?

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 29, 2008 @ 2:59 pm

Okinawa Kid:

Just finally remove the U.S. military. Wouldn’t Taiwan be a better spot? 2-3 hours flight away?

After you pitch that idea to the Taiwanese government, let me know what they had to say.

You are aware that the Japanese government demands that the US keep a military presence in Japan, right?

As far as the plight of the people and all that, you’re preaching to the converted.

Comment by The Okinawan Kid

February 29, 2008 @ 7:16 pm

Guys, don’t apply what the central government of Japan wants with the sentiments of Okinawans.

And are you saying that Taiwan doesn’t want U.S. Military protection?

Does Okinawa “need” U.S. military protection? From whom? When did Okinawa “invade” any country?

When did Okinawa “historically” have any problems with any of the neighbouring countries?

Don’t mix the history, security, and the war of Japan with the history of Okinawa.

I use Hawaii as an example because the media seems to understand the history and culture of Hawaii as the last annexed state of the U.S.

Okinawa was the last prefecture to be under Japan. But before World War II, and even today, Okinawans never had anything to do war. Or “security threats” from other countries.

U.S. military presence in Japan? Then move the U.S. to Honshu (Japan) and keep Okinawa free of the presence.

If Taiwan doesn’t want the U.S. military, it’s okay? But if Okinawa doesn’t, it isn’t? Is than an argument? Who’s security is more at risk? Okinawa or Taiwan? Honshu, Japan? or Okinawa?

The only threat Okinawa has is the U.S. bases themselves, which are the targets and happen to be in Okinawa.

Come on guys, Okinawa’s history with China was a thriving one. Koreans and Chinese, not to mention Taiwan (Formosa) were all trading partners with us. We thrived before the war started. It is ironic that Hawaii was a target due to U.S. (Washington DC) policy and Okinawa was a target due to Japan (Tokyo) policy. Both people suffered attack for no reason’s of their own.

Make sense?

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 29, 2008 @ 7:20 pm

U.S. military presence in Japan? Then move the U.S. to Honshu (Japan) and keep Okinawa free of the presence.

Once again, I would suggest making such recommendations to Japan’s political leadership.

…don’t apply what the central government of Japan wants with the sentiments of Okinawans.

Did Okinawans not elect a governor who is an LDP member in December 2006? This makes it difficult to say that the sentiments of Okinawans are not at least to some degree in line with the mainland political leadership.

Comment by The Okinawan Kid

February 29, 2008 @ 7:22 pm

I might add, we should mention that all short range missiles from threats like North Korea are pointed at Okinawa Islands. But does that threat exist if the U.S. bases weren’t there at all?

Did Tokyo not become the true target of the Taipo Dong II missile for threat? And how many missiles are pointed at Taiwan at the moment by the PRC?

Why should Okinawa be involved in all this? What did Okinawa do to be involved? Well the answer is “U.S Military” presence. Remove them and Okinawa would be “more” secure.

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 29, 2008 @ 7:28 pm

all short range missiles from threats like North Korea are pointed at Okinawa Islands.

All short range missiles?

You’re going to have to cite some evidence to back this claim up.

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 29, 2008 @ 7:30 pm

And are you saying that Taiwan doesn’t want U.S. Military protection?

If you can find where that has been written and find someone making that claim on this thread, please let us know.

I’ve yet to see such a claim made anywhere here. Please point out where it came from.

Comment by The Okinawan Kid

February 29, 2008 @ 7:30 pm

Making recommendations? Wasn’t the 90,000 strong protest of the people a statement enough? Wasn’t the constant local passage of laws statement enough?

The pressure for change certainly won’t come from the Japanese government because again it’s “convenience” for them. Like the nuclear power plant argument. “Great cheap energy, but don’t want it in my back yard.”

Do you really think these rapes will end in Okinawa by U.S. servicemen? Does anybody have a solution to stop the rapes?

The media has understand the historical factors of the islands. Then they have send a strong signal about the true sentiments of the people on the islands.

Since when does the Diet fold on policy? It has always been the power of the media who decided tell the story of the victims. Do your part to tell the truth and they’ll break.

Politicians in both Japan and U.S. all care about is getting re-elected. Anything to threaten that, they just may finally change.

Comment by The Okinawan Kid

February 29, 2008 @ 7:32 pm

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-3006550_ITM

Comment by Ken Worsley

February 29, 2008 @ 7:34 pm

Politicians in both Japan and U.S. all care about is getting re-elected. Anything to threaten that, they just may finally change.

Agreed. So why did the people of Okinawa vote for a member of the ruling coalition to be their leader if their sentiments are in fact as you say they are?

That article does not support your claim.

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 29, 2008 @ 7:51 pm

Okinawan Kid, who are you arguing against? Are you even reading people’s replies to you?

What you say is largely true, but irrelevant.

First, the gist of your argument seems to be that Okinawa is not a part of Japan. Quite simply put, that’s just not reality. Different? Sure. A more recent addition? Yes. But the Okinawa Dokuritsuto never wins an appreciable percentage in any election and the LDP does fairly well there. That alone shows that independence is not the number one issue on most people’s minds.

Second, the Ryukyus were in a tributary relationship with Japan for centuries. Yes, they also traded with other countries, but this doesn’t mean that they are not now a part of Japan. Every part of Japan, at one point or another, was annexed through force or purchase. Okinawa is one entity for the same reason - one kingdom overpowered the other two. Okinawa was subsumed by the Satsuma domain at the same time that Japan was being unified and was incorporated into the order of Japan prior to Hokkaido. That’s true for pretty much every country on Earth.

Third, the US Marines in Okinawa have an off-base crime rate less than half that of the civilian population. Is that a threat? Does the very presence of the USMC attract attention from the DPRK and PRC? Yes. Does Okinawa’s history of invading its neighbors or not have anything to do with it? No. Since when are attacks always retaliatory for invasion? How reductive do you want this to be? Does Okinawa really only have a beef with present-day Kagoshima?

Fourth, you claim that all of North Korea’s short range missiles are aimed at Okinawa. Do have any evidence that any are? Of the two Taepodong missiles fired in Japan’s direction, one passed over Honshu and one fell into the Sea of Japan West of Tohoku.

Fifth, moving to Taiwan or any non-American, non-Japanese territory is irrelevant. The US has a defense agreement with Japan and Okinawa, as repeatedly upheld by the voters of Okinawa, is Japanese territory. The US State Department cannot negotiate with individual pressure groups within one prefecture of an ally’s territory. You might be happy to hear, though, that there are plans to move the bulk of the Marines stationed in Okinawa to Guam.

Finally, the unfortunate reality is that the current Okinawan economy is based on three things, almost exclusively: tourism from the “home islands,” subsidies from Tokyo, and the US military presence.

Should Okinawans have the right to change that? Absolutely, but it won’t be easy and it won’t be pleasant.

I digress, though. The only relevant point is what any of this has to do with the rape case at hand.

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 29, 2008 @ 8:06 pm

Wasn’t the 90,000 strong protest of the people a statement enough?

Statement enough of what? The recent protest was reported by the organizers at 100,000, but, according to local police estimates and the estimates of reporters at the scene, was not even a quarter of that. More importantly, the protest was against the approval of textbook revisions downplaying the role of the Japanese Army in mass suicides during the Battle of Okinawa. What does that have to do with this rape case? Or Okinawan independence?

Do you really think these rapes will end in Okinawa by U.S. servicemen? Does anybody have a solution to stop the rapes?

Every rape is horrible. It was be great if there were a way to end all rapes forever.

Is rape what you’re actually worried about, though? If so, you won’t look at the USMC for long. There have been eight sex crime convictions of US military personnel in Okinawa since 1945. Eight. Local men smash that total open every year, possibly every month. All the same, I’d say everyone has to do his part to stop the rapes - all rapes. For starters, rape investigations have to be carried out in a competent and professional manner, which includes not only forensic investigations, but proper care for victims- including mental health care and counselling. At the same time, the US military should make sure that discipline is a priority at all overseas bases. Most of all, if decreasing rape in Okinawa is the goal, women’s rights have to be aggressively pursued, which would include drastic reforms of the civil court system as a starting point, accompanied by civil rights laws with teeth. Or is stopping rape just a code word for venting rage at the USMC?

Comment by The Okinawan Kid

February 29, 2008 @ 8:10 pm

Just remove the U.S. military is the best “security” for Okinawa.

Comment by The Okinawan Kid

February 29, 2008 @ 8:17 pm

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F06E3D7143FF932A3575AC0A96E958260

Nodong missiles can reach Okinawa. Taipo Dong designed to reach Tokyo.

Comment by The Okinawan Kid

February 29, 2008 @ 8:23 pm

There were two protests in Okinawa. Yes, the text book issue is an entirely different matter.

The true sentiment is correct. The rape is the ultimate insult on the disliked policy of U.S. military presence.

That is the core problem. Why keep bases on the island where the people don’t want them?

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

February 29, 2008 @ 9:11 pm

What’s best for Okinawa is not entirely the issue. Okinawa is a prefecture in Japan. The question is what’s best for Japan. (Although I do agree that moving the Marines to Guam is a good idea.)

Nodong missiles can reach Okinawa. Taipo Dong designed to reach Tokyo.

What’s your point? Having a missile be capable of hitting Okinawa and having “all short range missiles from threats like North Korea. . . pointed at Okinawa Islands” are two entirely different things. That 1998 NYT article doesn’t support your claim.

The Taepodong II, currently the DPRK’s longest-range missile is designed to go a lot further than Tokyo.

The true sentiment is correct.

What does that mean?

Again, Okinawans don’t like the Marines, but given that they elected a pro-US, pro-Tokyo LDP Governor, there are clearly other priorities for people living there.
And again, the agreement is with Japan, not Okinawa by itself.

The US does not have forces stationed in Okinawa to protect Okinawa or to make Okinawans happy. It has forces stationed there because its geographical location is good for responding to North Korea, China, and most of the Northwestern Pacific.

Again, all rapes are terrible, but an average of sex crime every eight years and one rape every decade is not an epidemic by any stretch of the imagination, nor is it causally related to the US presence in Okinawa.

Comment by Pellegrini

February 29, 2008 @ 11:59 pm

Okinawan Kid,
Do you have any opinions about institutional and media responses to rape in Japan?

Comment by Ken Worsley

March 1, 2008 @ 12:58 am

Okinawa Kid:

Taipo Dong designed to reach Tokyo.

Now that is an interesting statement.

Given that the Taepodong-1 is essentially a variant of the old Soviet SS-1, with a maximum range of 2,896 kilometers (WAY beyond what is necessary to go to Tokyo), and that its initial test launch was a (failed) attempt to put a satellite in orbit, I find this claim going against everything that is known about the missile and therefore very difficult to believe.

Please let us know what evidence this claim is based on. That is, if you can do so without giving up what must be a pretty high-up intel source as a connection (in the North Korean military command, no less).

Comment by The Okinawan Kid

March 1, 2008 @ 11:41 am

Well you’ll need a lot of Johnny-Walker for Kim Jong Ill. You’re kidding right? Who has proof of anything in North Korea. My point is it is clearly stated in the NYT article that Nondong will reach Okinawa, not Hokkaido, not Mars or Jupiter, but “Okinawa”. That’s a fact. And Taipodong and Taipodong II are different. Although both could reach Tokyo. And again, Taipodong will reach Tokyo.

The problem again comes down to the media who tends to just look at Tokyo’s treaty with the U.S.

Who’s covering the sentiments of the Okinawans? Does anybody outside of Japanese studies majors realise that Okinawans are separate people with a different history?

I think I made a good point in distinguishing that what’s okay for Tokyo to say is somehow for Okinawa. Maybe young Americans, especially the Military service men don’t have a clue about what took place on the islands. But that’s not the same with the people of the islands. The memories are clear and the 65 year occupation is very real. Have you ever been to Okinawa? Has anybody in the media taken time to differentiate the history? Maybe that’s why PM Abe and the education ministry were attempting to erase facts that took place on the islands.

If you just “don’t” want to see how Okinawans remember American military forces, let’s just say we have song and dance that very much tells the story… I’ll end it by dedicating photos and memories of Okinawa.

“The US does not have forces stationed in Okinawa to protect Okinawa or to make Okinawans happy.”

I think that statement only slaps the people in the face? What media member would take that stance as good policy?

When you think about Okinawa, think about these actual photos. That’s what Okinawans see. Also, “Shima Uta” meaning “Island Song” is an old folk song originally in Uchinaguchi which takes the very sentiments into musical form.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6hpKOgMUsE

For the girl who dropped her charges against the U.S. service mean, let’s hope she truly is the last victim of this.

Comment by Christopher Pellegrini

March 1, 2008 @ 2:24 pm

Okinawan Kid,

Sorry, same question as above:

Do you have any opinions about institutional and media responses to rape in Japan?

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

March 1, 2008 @ 2:37 pm

O.K., what can I say? You need to take a little more time to read the responses to you and you need to do a little more homework. You sound angry when there’s really no reason to be and your diatribes are getting farther and farther from any sort of relevance.

I’ll take your last point first. Tyrone Hadnott was not even charged. If the police had had evidence of a crime outside of the girl’s testimony, they could have pressed charges whether she wanted to pursue it or not. For you to insist on implying that he is a criminal is deeply unfair at best.

Second, Mr. Worsley simply pointed out that all evidence points to a much bigger role for both the Taepodong I & II, as well as the Nodong, than hitting Tokyo or Okinawa. Your argument here is entirely based on one nine-and-a-half-year-old NYT article, which you misread. The Nodong is capable of hitting Okinawa. Take a look at a map and you’ll see that that puts most of the rest of Japan in range, too. Nowhere have you produced any evidence or analysis to support the idea of Okinawa being primarily targeted, much less exclusively targeted as you claim.

As for proof of what’s going in North Korea, it was you who implied knowledge of North Korean intentions, no one else.

Oh, and it’s Henessy. Kim Jong Il is one of the world’s largest purchasers of Henessy.

The media look at the agreements between the US and Japan because that’s what’s relevant. Plenty of people know that Okinawans are different culturally, but Okinawa is a prefecture of Japan. It is not the prerogative of any responsible journalist, much less the duty of one, to respond to a fantasy world in which Okinawa and the US effect bilateral treaties to the exclusion of Japan.

No one doubts that Okinawa has many differences from the rest of Japan, but that is not at all the topic. For the purposes of discussing rape and the way it is handled throughout Japan, which includes Okinawa, when and under what circumstances Okinawa came under Japanese control is irrelevant.

It sounds as though you might be a proponent of Okinawan independence. You would be in the minority among Okinawans in Okinawa.

“The US does not have forces stationed in Okinawa to protect Okinawa or to make Okinawans happy.”

I think that statement only slaps the people in the face? What media member would take that stance as good policy?

That’s not policy or even an opinion. It’s a statement of fact. It may be an unpleasant fact and I might like to see it changed, but it is a fact nonetheless.

You can link to all the photos you want, but you’re not changing anyone’s mind because no one here is disagreeing with your central assertion. Yes, Okinawa is different from the rest of Japan. Yes, Okinawa carries a disproportionate burden in the hosting of American troops. Yes, Okinawa gets the shaft from Tokyo.

The problem is that none of that is relevant to the article above. Why don’t you read it, read what other people have written, then decide if there’s anything to be angry about.

Comment by Ken Worsley

March 1, 2008 @ 6:05 pm

And Taipodong and Taipodong II are different.

Who said they weren’t different? Please cite the relevant passage.

What I said was valid for the Taepodong-1, which was the missile in question (please also note the correct spelling).

Who’s covering the sentiments of the Okinawans? Does anybody outside of Japanese studies majors realise that Okinawans are separate people with a different history?

I don’t get who you’re arguing with here. Lots of people realize these things. But the political reality is far different; Most voters in Okinawa do not seem to support independence, based on the most recent voting results.

I agree that the Abe administration’s attempts to cover up history are shameful and part of an attempt at eradicating Okinawan identity in favor of “Japanese” homogeneity.

So, if you feel that no one is adequately covering the sentiments of Okinawans, then you should do something positive about it rather than arguing with people who basically agree with you.

Comment by Nico

April 8, 2008 @ 6:11 am

and still japanese likes usa??
japan should kick army out!
there is no right to rape japanese there!
i really hate us army in japan !!

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

April 8, 2008 @ 5:44 pm

Nico, redundant punctuation doesn’t make your point stronger.
If you had read this article, or the other comments, or followed the story, you’d know that Tyrone Hadnott was not charged with any crime.
You would also know that the US military cooperated fully with the investigation.
You would know that the crime rate among US military personnel in Okinawa is substantially lower than the crime rate for Okinawan civilians.
You would know that the US military is rather more likely to prosecute a rape than Japanese prosecutors.

But you don’t know any of these things because you are responding angrily to a tiny sliver of something you heard on the evening news or in an Internet chat room. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

Furthermore, if you had thought at all, you’d realize that no one has in any way, at any time even implied that rape was at all OK.

I know you’re probably not coming back and you probably won’t read this, but should you happen to, how about proposing a different idea? Do you want a larger SDF, for example?

One sex crime every eight years. Wow. The US military is terrible. What’s the sex crime rate among Japan’s civilian population? Want to start banishing, say, all salarymen? Carpenters? University professors? Choose a job at random and you’ll probably find at least one person accused of rape.

Think first. Shout later.

Comment by YasuO

April 21, 2008 @ 4:38 pm

Soildier`s act cannot forgive on ethical, and legal side. However, Japan cannot deal in this for defensive rule. Therefore, soildier`s privilege need to be re-examined.
Current Affairs

Comment by Garrett DeOrio

April 21, 2008 @ 7:04 pm

Yasuo, Hadnott is a Marine, not a soldier. More important, he was not charged with any crime. It’s unfair to talk about him as though he had committed rape, when there is no evidence that he did.
He might have been ethically wrong in picking up a 14-year-old girl, but legally he did nothing wrong.

What privileges would you like to see reexamined?

Comment by Christopher Pellegrini

May 21, 2008 @ 12:35 pm

All rape charges were dropped in Hadnott’s court martial, so it is now accurate to say that he was falsely accused of rape.

Where did the initial rape allegations come from? Were they initially claimed by the victim, the friends who contacted police on her behalf, the police, the media? These are questions that need to be asked now.

Comment by Ken Worsley

May 21, 2008 @ 1:07 pm

Nico,

Are you a parody?

i really hate us army in japan !!

Then go to Zama and protest the couple dozen US Army personnel doing desk jobs in Japan. What does the Army even have to do with this case at all?