usf2

Japan Press Service Co., Ltd. is the only news agency providing information of progressive, democratic movements in Japan

U.S. sailor in hit-and-run freed unjustifiably
Akahata editorial

A woman U.S. sailor driving a vehicle on December 22, 2005 hit three elementary school boys (3rd graders) at an intersection in Hachioji City, Tokyo, and drove away. She was immediately arrested by the Hachioji Police on suspicion of professional negligence resulting in injury and violating the Road Traffic Law, but was released after the U.S. Atsugi Naval Air Station command sent a certificate stating that she had been "on duty."

Committing a hit-and-run is a serious crime. If such outrages of U.S. personnel are not ruled upon under the pretext that he/she was "on duty", how can Japan be considered a sovereign nation?

Unidentified provisions of 'on duty'

The incident took place outside a U.S. military base, requiring Japan to exercise its police jurisdiction. The Status of U.S. Forces in Japan Agreement (SOFA) stipulates, "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 offenses arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty." However, if an offender in a "hit-and-run" case is acquitted, the safety of the public cannot be maintained.

The U.S. command has reportedly explained that the sailor caused the accident on her way from the U.S. Navy Atsugi Air Station in Kanagawa Prefecture to the U.S. Yokota Air Base in Tokyo "to pick up parts." However, the sailor neither stopped the car to see the injured boys nor called for an ambulance. After hitting the boys, she fled from the site in order to escape her crime. The U.S. assertion that she had been "on duty" is groundless in this case.

In any case, the U.S. government has tried hard to prevent the Japanese government from exercising its right to jurisdiction by regarding that driving a car by U.S. personnel outside U.S. bases shall also be regarded as 'on duty' irrespective of circumstances.

There is an airgram dated February 28, 1970 the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo sent to the U.S. Embassy in Manila, titled, "U.S.-Japan SOFA: Criminal Jurisdiction," concerning U.S. personnel's violation of traffic regulations killing and injuring Japanese. It stated that in the Japan-U.S. Joint Consultative Committee meeting in 1955, the Japanese government agreed that "The term 'official duty' is understood to include travel by U.S. personnel from his authorized quarters or residence direct to his place of duty, and from his place of duty to his authorized quarters or residence." This means that any U.S. soldiers who violate traffic regulations while just commuting shall not subject to Japanese jurisdiction.

The definition of "on duty" is provided by Japan and the United States in their "understanding minuted in detail," according to the Foreign Ministry's "Points of View of the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement" expanded edition. However, they are kept in total secret.

Article 17 of the Status of Forces Agreement provides that a certificate issued by a commanding officer of the unit to which the suspect belongs is supposed to serve as "evidence material" to show that the suspect was "on duty." The sailor was thus released following the issuance of such a certificate.

However, according to a Supreme Court document published in February 1954, an "on duty certificate" should be issued only in special cases when the need is to ascertain whether or not the personnel involved was on duty.

This means that if only a certificate is issued, personnel involved in criminal offense can be regarded as "on duty" without considering the reality. If the certificate is used to acquit a suspect of a hit-and-run, it would literally be an indulgence that can not be condoned.

Abolish the privilege of U.S. forces

U.S. forces stationed in Japan are expeditionary forces deployed for preemptive wars. As U.S. soldiers are forced to take part in military activities that entail the danger of death, they are very likely to cause accidents or commit crimes. If they are free from worry about punishment for crimes they might commit in Japan, the danger increases.

As long as U.S. forces are stationed in Japan and as long as they have extraterritorial rights as a privilege, the security of the Japanese people continues to be threatened.

Let us abrogate the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty and get Japan free of U.S. bases. But, even before the abrogation of the treaty, we can demand an immediate revision to the Japan-U.S. Status of Forces Agreement.
-Akahata, January 4, 2006