More American Arrogance and Hypocrisy

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: rmnunez Its relative, if you can buy lunch and drinks for 5 with $20 you will spring for the tab easily, even if you are just average middle class. You will feel affluent because your $20 makes you seem so among people for whom this is much more than they make on the average day.

I agree. When I worked for Volkswagen of America I used to speak with the auto engineers from Mexico (Puebla, home of the Beetle) and they would say how much better they had it in the U.S. although they made less than the guy who parked the new cars.

[castille]

Like that American soldier who raped a preteen in Japan? I heard he got 3 years.

[rmnunez]

What to do about soldiers deployed overseas who break the law is usually set up in Status of Forces Agreements enacted to regulate this when the US makes arrangements for the bases. Although it would seem only fair to subject US forces to the same laws as govern the locals, this is not the way its done.

US forces under Status of Forces Agreements are expected to go into combat to defend their host, just as the host's military would. The military everywhere are subject to their own justice system, distinct from the civilian legal process and at worst the US military would be subject to their host's military laws. Generally what prevails is the arrangement US forces will be subject first to their own jurisdiction (UCMJ), next to the military laws of the host, and then (if the host thinks so) subject to their civilian laws. Usually this means US forces get punished by their own military and often based on a subjective estimate of the harm wrought to the Status of Forces Agreement rather than to any civilian victimized.

[giuliano]

it's fundamentally unjust. there is no attempt to even address the rights of the victim.

[PatrickHenry]

I was reading Blowback, by Chalmers Johnson, and he recalled this story as another of the egregious provocations by the military "Empire" of the US:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9903/04/marine....02/index.html

March 4, 1999 CAMP LEJEUNE, North Carolina In a verdict with international consequences, a U.S. military jury acquitted a Marine pilot Thursday of all charges that he recklessly flew his jet into an Italian ski lift cable, killing 20 people more than a year ago. A whoop went up in the courtroom at the Camp Lejeune Marine base when the decision was announced. Capt. Richard Ashby, 31, had faced more than 200 years in prison if convicted of all counts, which included 20 counts of involuntary manslaughter plus one count each of destroying government property, destroying private property, dereliction of duty and failure to plan the flight properly. The jury of eight Marine officers deliberated 7 1/2 hours, beginning when closing arguments ended Wednesday. Testimony in Ashby's court-martial began February 8 and ended Tuesday. The accident on February 3, 1998, caused an uproar in Europe and strained relations between Italy and the United States. It happened on the final leg of a 42-minute, low-level training mission in the Italian Alps. Ashby's EA-6B Prowler, a four-man radar-jamming jet, tore through the cables in a valley near Cavalese, hurtling the gondola car into the valley below. Two Poles, seven Germans, five Belgians, three Italians, two Austrians and one Dutch person died. Afterward, Italians demanded that U.S. landing rights be revoked at bases in their country and that the crew be tried in Italy. People living in the Alpine ski area said they had long complained about low-flying jets from Aviano air base and their "Top Gun" antics. Attorneys for the victims are seeking damage payments from the U.S. government. John Eaves, an attorney representing the families of the seven German victims, said victims' relatives who were in the court to hear the verdict were "shocked." "If (Ashby) is not responsible, then who is, and why aren't they here?" he said victims' relatives asked. "These people want some sense of closure and some sense that responsible powers will take responsibility," he told CNN. " And, of course, the United States government has not paid these families for their losses." Defense lawyers claimed Ashby and his navigator, Capt. Joseph Schweitzer, 31, of Westbury, New York, were charged because of political pressure that went as high as the White House. Schweitzer faces a trial on similar charges later. Charges against the two crewmen in the rear cockpit of the Prowler were dropped. During Ashby's trial, prosecutors accused him of "flat-hatting," or reckless flying. They said he violated the mission's 517-mph speed limit and 2,000-foot altitude restriction. His jet, traveling at 621 mph, cut the cable about 370 feet above the valley floor, prosecutors said. Ashby, of Mission Viejo, California, said he thought the altitude restriction was 1,000 feet. He testified he was unaware of a mission speed limit. His attorneys also contended the jet's altitude gauge malfunctioned, and an optical illusion made Ashby think he was flying higher than he really was. Both sides agree the Mount Cermis ski lift wasn't marked on Ashby's government-issue map. Ashby testified last week that he didn't see the cable until the last second.

Is it any wonder the US is facing increasing opposition when our military keeps on killing other friendly nations' civilians?

[rmnunez]

The ski lift incident reminded me of a conversation I had with an Austrian student who told me across Europe they had to develop mountaineering teams to provoke avalanches with rockets since the USAF based there no longer would swoop low on training missions to provoke them as they used to.

[Nono]

Quote by: rmnuunez The ski lift incident reminded me of a conversation I had with an Austrian student who told me across Europe they had to develop mountaineering teams to provoke avalanches with rockets since the USAF based there no longer would swoop low on training missions to provoke them as they used to.

Jeez, rummie, what you're implying is that the Europeans scored a huge own-goal with that one: (hand slapping forehead ) "Damn, we didn't think of that!"

But your anecdote is laughable. They all had far more reliable means of provoking avalanches long before jet turbines were invented. And even if they hadn't ... they have their own jets. (Also, the US had to vacate Austria under the 1955 State Treaty... :)).

[Scribbler1]

That whole post is suspect. They use cannon with exploding shells to start controlled avalanches and NOT missiles as far as I know, and I've NEVER heard of jet aircraft of ANY kind used for that purpose. One, because the sonic shock wave is undirected wheras the cannon fire is SPECIFICALLY targeted and two, I don't believe there is any predictable result when such a stunt is attempted at a safe altitude if there is a result at all. And I certainly don't think a USAF pilot would deliberately and with permission skim mountains in another country just to provoke a snowslide. Our military hates to see our multimillion-dollar jets get all banged up while doing ridiculous stunts like that. Unless of course we are currently at war with Austrian snow.

I realize the post is anecdotal and I'm not demanding a source for the claim, but for my own curiosity I'd love to see some kind of source for this. rm.

[Nono]

Yes, a sonic boom would:

1) provoke the desired snowslide
2) provoke a number of undesired snowslides
3) break windows for miles around
4) scare the cattle

I have a better version:
They used to fly in real low over the offending patch of snow and light their afterburners, thus evaporating the hasard. But then them candy-ass comnists over in Yurp made a fuss about a couple of dead skiers and now avalanches are a Major Threat and they don't know what to do about it.

[Scribbler1]

No, they would NEVER do that! Once you lit one of those things up thaty close to the ground, the little kegs of brandy on the St. Bernards would just explode. That would just be wrong.

Also a waste of brandy.

[blibbka]

It's a shame that this thread seems to have become hijacked by concerns as to whether the original post is baiting or not - the point to be debated is the rights and wrongs of the actual story, not the manner in which it has been posted, in my opinion.

I think the manner in which the soldier is punished (whether by a militray court or a local one) IS important. In terms of diplomacy it is important that the countries one is supposed to be allied to PERCEIVE that they are being treated with respect. It seems un-wise of the US to apprantly snap the guilty party from Rumania, him having just been involved in (if not perhaps responsible for) the death of a high-profile and presumably popular Rumanian public figure.

Perhaps America has been very useful to Rumania - I don't know. The point is that this kind of incident comes along and instantly knocks peoples perception of America to the negative; it can undo a lot of good diplomatic work in an instant and thats why it should be taken seriously and dealt with carefully if you want to be viewed with respect by the rest of the World.

I think a wiser response would have been more sensitive to the perception of their actions, and I think this particular instance does seem to be symptomatic of a more general failing in terms of American diplomacy. That's certainly how it would be perceived by the majority of non-Americans.

[rmnunez]

Never said they did their sonic booming to control avalanches, or that this was done in Austria. A student of mine who came from Austria told me about it. I have no idea what the usual method is, would not think it inconceivable avalanching would be a side effect of training exercises by US jets. The areas where avalanches can result are not populated and the seasons when these could result are predictable so the locals could be warned.

[PatrickHenry]

Okay here's another one: Remember the rape of the Okinawan schoolgirl in 1995? The feces hit the fan there. Okinawans are tired of being occupied by the US military fifty years after being conquered by the Yankees.

And they want their land back: http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9604/01/japan_leases/
The US siezed people's family property and refuse to give it up. Any wonder they're pissed and want the US military to leave?

[rmnunez]

These are different things covered here. There are people (mostly college students and flaky journalists) around the world who regard the US military as some sort of imperialist force, they oppose military presence anywhere, as a matter of principle (and, in their minds, self-preservation). Then there are people who may differ with what they perceive as US foreign policy and when this involves military arrangements with the US these would be also opposed, they would also want the US military gone. In-country there may be a third group of people who live away from the US military installations and are concerned over some of the activities which surge around them (particularly prostitution). Closer to the base we find a few of these three groups just mentioned, plus locals who somehow have been adversely impacted by the US military's presence, they were expropirated for the bases or suffered some mishap which involved the US military.

What redress? In the first two cases, people who simply oppose the military have generally adequate means to make themselves heard through their governmental processes (there are pacifist parties in most countries). Since they are generally a small group governments are unresponsive, they often resort to rallies or demonstrations. The only way to satisfy the first two groups is by disarming and changing US foreign policy. Redress for the third group requires change in human nature.

Only those who have suffered some 'mishap' directly from the US military should be of concern to the US military. Those mishaps may be accidents or crimes, if it was an accident, there is no guilt, just fault and compensation. Compensation in the 3rd World naturally reflects standards of living there. But what of the crimes?

Criminal punishment is something based on custom. Certain crimes in some jurisdictions are not punished in others, while things not a crime in some, are elsewhere. Forces deployed abroad are generally informed of the local rules, warned of cultural particularities. Additionally there are usually arrangements with the local police to turn in members of the armed forces to the MPs. The question arises when the crime is grave and the punishment appears unsatisfactory.

We need to ask ourselves whether our dissatisfaction with the punishment is due to our pacifism, opposition to US foreign policy generally or distaste for what surges around US military bases.

[castille]

If Americans commit crime on foreign soil, they should be punished according to foreign law.

If they dont like foreign law or foreigners, they should get the hell out.

[rmnunez]

Castille, are you a pacifist, do you dislike the military, disapprove of US foreign policy in general, are you concerned with the proliferation of the 'entertainment industry' near US military installations, or have you (or kin) been adversely affected by US military deployment overseas?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Castille, are you a pacifist, do you dislike the military, disapprove of US foreign policy in general, are you concerned with the proliferation of the 'entertainment industry' near US military installations, or have you (or kin) been adversely affected by US military deployment overseas?

Yeah, no one can disapprove of the current American policies on principles alone. One must have some other reason for that disapproval. Disagree with the war? Ah, you must be a leftist! Oppose Bush policies? Ah, a self-loathing America hater.

Perhaps the lack of principles in some people leads them to believe that no one else has any either.

[rmnunez]

Zeeb, it behooves us all to acknowledge our own agendas, helps understand where we are coming from. The question here seems to be whether its arrogant or hypocritical for the US to secure arrangements contrary to local law to cover their forces when deployed overseas.

Seems to me the gringo approach makes sense since they are deployed everywhere and the laws differ, but the troops are all basically familiar only with US custom. Though it makes sense for gringo forces to be subject to foreign laws an easier solution is to arrange for this by means of agreements between the governments.

When the US negotiates base leasing they consider their own interest in being at some foreign location (proximity to US interests, trade routes, other allies, perceived threat...), the local govenrment's utility (supportive policy, relationship to the perceived enemy...). In light of the circumstances the US typically agrees to some sort of mutual defense agreement whereby gringoes are to deploy to confront the local's enemy in the event it is attacked. This places on the US forces the same obligations as apply to local forces. With obligations come rights or entitlements. What happens to a soldier from wherever the gringoes are deployed upon wrongdoing? This is what should happen to a gringan soldier there too. Typically, the military recognize how it it preferable all around for them to deal with their own, hence when the US negotiates specifics on their foreign deployments one of the conditions is that in the event of some transgression, the gringoes will punish their own and compensation will be paid by the government.

[rmnunez]

A jogger passes a billboard with scenes from Iraq's U.S.-run Iraqi prison Abu Ghraib, set up on Havana's seafront boulevard Malecon across from the U.S. Interest Section, December 17, 2004. The United States had rejected Cuba's demand to remove Christmas lights in front of the American mission, which include the number 75, in reference to 75 pro-democracy activists imprisoned in Cuba. Photo by Claudia Daut/Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...4VACRBAE0CFEY?

type=worldNews&storyID=7128419

[Zeebadee]

Off subject a bit, you seem to be quite fond of the term "gringo". I'm curious to know if the terms "spic", "wetback", and "greaser" are equally acceptable to you. As far as I know, gringo is a Latin-American term that refers to foreigners, especially American or English. Are you implying that there are no non-American or English troops in Iraq, or are you referring only to those troops that are American or English? No offense intended, just curious.