What do you think of Americans arrested by US gov. for travelling to some countries ?

[Maciamo]

The media have recently been covering 2 incidents in which Americans citizens who travelled to communist countries have been arrested or could be arrested in Japan and extradited to the US facing emprisonment.

The first and most mediatised case is of Charles Jenkins, 64, who went to North Korea in 1965 and was only allowed to leave the country thanks to his Japanese wife and children and the Japanese government negotiation to return the whole family to Japan. However, being considered as a deserter by the US government, he faces emprisonment if he returns to America. Worse, the extradition treaty between Japan and the US would also force the Japanese authorities to hand him over to the US once he comes to Japan. He arrived in Tokyo yesterday and will not be arrested as he he seeking medical treatment. However, he should be arrested as soon as he leaves hospital (probably in 1,5 years).

=> US 'deserter' arrives in Japan

The second case is that of ex-chess world champion Bobby Fischer, 61, who is wanted by the US government since his match in 1992 against Spassky in Yugoslavia. Fischer didn't apparently do anything wrong except going to Yugoslavia when the US government forbid its citizens to go there. He was arrested at Narita airport a few days ago and should be extradited to the US.

=> BBC News : Japan holds ex-chess star Fischer

What do you think of this tyranical attitude of the US government to pursue his citizens for decades, extradite and emprison them just because they have overlooked a travel restriction at one time of their life (just a few days, and for the sake of the US pride in staying world champion of chess, in Fischer's case) ?

That doesn't make me want to ever become an American citizen.

 

[Brooker]

I think it's terrible!! It's as if American citizens are treated as prisoners of America. People should (ideally) be able to travel wherever they want. This is why I envy my brothers and sisters from other English speaking Western countries who have more freedom to travel and work in other countries (see my post "I want to be Canadian"). So which countries can't Americans go to (Cuba, North Korea, Iran, any others?) I didn't know you'd be arrested for going to those places though. It's hard to pass that off as "freedom".

 

[m477]

You're misrepresenting the Jenkins case at the very least.

You start off by claiming that the US is prosecuting its citizens for "travelling" to other countries. However, Jenkins wasn't doing what most people would describe as "travelling", and he isn't being prosecuted for "travelling". He is accused of deserting his post as a soldier, and he is being prosecuted by the military, NOT as a citizen. Are you trying to suggest that it's a bad idea for the military to have a rule prohibiting soldiers in the middle of a war zone running off and joining the enemy?

Also, look what happened recently with the Japanese citizens that defied the government and went to Iraq. Just as the government expected, they were taken hostage, there was a huge international incident, and the government had to spend large sums of money to get them back. Are you saying that it's unreasonable for my country to ask me not to go someplace when there's an extremely high possibility that lives will have to be risked and millions of dollars will have to be spent to get me back home?

Not that I'm trying to suggest that the US can do no wrong of course, but let me respectfully say that I find some of the extreme black-and-white mentality here to be a bit childish.

 

[Brooker]

Fair enough, Army desertion is one thing, but what about the chess champ who they want to arrest because he played chess in a country I believe you can go to now.

And okay, I can understand why a government wouldn't want its citizens traveling to dangerous places, but what's up with Cuba? America's reason for not wanting its citizens to go there isn't because they want to keep them safe, but rather to punish the Cuban government at the expense of the citizens of both countries.

 

[Maciamo]

You start off by claiming that the US is prosecuting its citizens for "travelling" to other countries. However, Jenkins wasn't doing what most people would describe as "travelling", and he isn't being prosecuted for "travelling". He is accused of deserting his post as a soldier, and he is being prosecuted by the military, NOT as a citizen.

Be it travelling, staying or doing business, that is basically the same. The point is that the US forbids its citizens from "going" to some countries, which to the best of my knowledge doesn't happen in any other developped countries.

As for the army prosecuting him, I don't think it is normal as his desertion happened in 1965 (39 years ago !). In Europe, there is usually a period of prescription of 30 years. After that, any crime (even serial-murder) becomes "unprosecutable" and therefore the person cannot be arrested anymore. Isn't it normal to give a second chance to people after such a long time ?

I dont consider desertion to be such a big crime, first because I think that the concept both of army and citizenship are out-dated and belong more to the nationalistic movements of the late 19th or early 20th centuries. Nowadays, people change their nationality, live in many different countries, get married with people from the other end of the world (like Japan in my case), so that protecting "one's country" is becoming a very confusing expression.

What do we do of people who have two or more nationalities and can only serve in one country's army ? How would they feel to be considered as deserters for wanting to live in another country ? What if that particular country (let say North Korea) had bad relationship with the current country of residence (let say the US) and it was impossible to go there just as an ordinary traveller ? Jenkins took his chance to go and live in North Korea. The US government could have banned him from coming back to the States and withdrawn his American citizenship. That would have been fair. But spending money and energy for almost 40 years trying to get him is really unbelievable for me.

And okay, I can understand why a government wouldn't want its citizens traveling to dangerous places, but what's up with Cuba? America's reason for not wanting its citizens to go there isn't because they want to keep them safe, but rather to punish the Cuban government at the expense of the citizens of both countries.

Exactly. Cuba is far from dangerous. There are plenty of European tourists travelling there. Maybe even more than any other Caribbean island. Anyway, many Americans know that they can go there via Mexico and just get their entry stamp on a separate sheet of paper, so as to avoid problems when going back to the US. They do the same in Israel for people who want to travel to other Middle-eastern countries, as they wouldn't let them enter if they have been to Israel before. But this is a problem between Israel and its neighbours. At least tourist going to those countries don't risk being arrested when going back home.

 

[Haivart]

You're right, it is stupid. I'm torn between calling it paranoia or bragging "see, we can control the little stuff, which means the bigger stuff is under control". Then again, maybe it's a protectionist/ big brother thing: can't have people exposed to "bad things". I still haven't figured out what was wrong with letting people see pictures of coffins (there was a lot of comment about that).

 

[bossel]

As for the army prosecuting him, I don't think it is normal as his desertion happened in 1965 (39 years ago !). In Europe, there is usually a period of prescription of 30 years. After that, any crime (even serial-murder) becomes "unprosecutable" and therefore the person cannot be arrested anymore. Isn't it normal to give a second chance to people after such a long time ?

I think, you're slightly wrong here. At least regarding Germany, that is. The statute of limitation here is maximally 30 years. But murder & genocide don't have a statute of limitation, that's why we still have prosecution going on against war criminals of WWII.

For the rest of your posts, I'm completely with you. I remember the case of some lady who went to Iraq before the last war to protest against the upcoming attack. When she went back to the US (I think, even before hostilities started) she was prosecuted. Ridiculous! Don't know how that ended, though.

Another fact that should be noted (just as ridiculous) is the threat of sanctions by the US against foreign companies which do business in countries the US considers rogue states or alike. :silly:

 

[Mandylion]

I agree with the visiting other countries comments. The Bobby Fisher thing is really odd.

A note about limitations, it seems for desertion in a time of war, a offense punishable by death (that is key) there are no statute of limitations. Granted this also makes it a capital court martial and the government would have to prove beyond a resonable doubt that Jenkins deserted (same as for civilian trials), and was not captured and held against his will. The letters the Army says he left behind in South Korea spelling out his desertion are missing. The fact that he was on TV in N.Korea saying he deserted cannot be considered reliable - I mean when was the last time N. Korean news broadcasts were considered to be reliable? Unless there is other evidence, the government only has hearsay to convict him on. Minus a smoking gun, or some very devious legal tricks I haven't found yet, they might make Jenkins stand trial for the sake of looking tough on crime, but they probably won't convict him.

 

[Maciamo]

The statute of limitation here is maximally 30 years. But murder & genocide don't have a statute of limitation, that's why we still have prosecution going on against war criminals of WWII.

Well, genocide or any of the so-called class A war crimes are always tried separately (by international courts ?) than the average murder. Then, among "ordinary murders", there is also the possibility of manslaughter or extenuating circumstances, so that the crime becomes much less serious (maybe less serious than rape or arson).

 

[Brooker]

I can understand why desertion would be treated very severely. You can't have soldiers leaving in the middle of a battle or going over to the other side.

But yeah, the reason the military is going after this guy is probably just to look tough. But if the military doesn't seem tough against deserion, it could encourage desertion in the future. When you sign up for military service (in America it is presently optional) you are agreeing to do as you're told. If you're not ready to do that, you shouldn't join.

 

[Lina Inverse]

It's just one of many extremely ridiculous things the US is doing nowadays :relief:
I can see why they would want to prosecute desertion, but after such a long time it's really ridiculous.

 

[cross-platform]

I think it's terrible!! It's as if American citizens are treated as prisoners of America. People should (ideally) be able to travel wherever they want. This is why I envy my brothers and sisters from other English speaking Western countries who have more freedom to travel and work in other countries (see my post "I want to be Canadian"). So which countries can't Americans go to (Cuba, North Korea, Iran, any others?) I didn't know you'd be arrested for going to those places though. It's hard to pass that off as "freedom".

It is just another example of how this country is teaching our kids wrong. I remember being taught in school as a child that the U.S is the most free country on earth, and I really never questioned it until I became an adult. There are still many adults who don't question it.

As far as the Bobby Fischer thing goes, I think he is an anti-semetic whack job, but he shouldn't have to go back. I just think that he has antagonized the U.S so much, that they really want to get a hold of him and "teach him a lesson," such is the attitude of the U.S. Check out this interview where he totally bashes the U.S, and says that he is glad 9/11 happened and such... here

As far as the other guy, if the U.S just said he wasn't allowed back in the country, that would be fine, but don't interrupt the guy's life if he doesn't plan on going back anyway.

 

[Winter]

In response to the initial post; there has got to be much more of a backstory to that. I am confident enough to say that I know there is more to the story than just that.