There is plenty of warranted criticism of Korean law enforcement, but when it comes to drugs they appear to quite a good job cracking down on this activity:
A U.S. soldier has been sentenced to five years in a South Korean prison on charges he helped traffic 30 pounds of marijuana into the country and assaulted two investigators during a sting operation in Itaewon, according South Korean court officials and documents.
Army Staff Sgt. Victor C. Aruwah, 28, of the 35th Air Defense Artillery at Osan Air Base, was convicted Nov. 21 on multiple charges, including drug trafficking, assault, and interference with government official duties, according to South Korean court and U.S. Army officials.
Aruwah, with the the artillery’s headquarters and headquarters battery, remains in U.S. custody, according to 8th U.S. Army spokesman Lt. Col. Jeff Buczkowski.
Aruwah is appealing the conviction in Incheon District Court, according to his lawyer, Lee Jang-han.
“He remains innocent,” Lee said of his client in a phone interview earlier this week. “He said he happened to be at the wrong place and at the wrong time.”
Court documents, however, paint Aruwah as a member of a three-man team that arranged to bring 30.6 pounds of marijuana into South Korea, a country with an aggressive anti-drug policy.
Last year, the country handled 231 cases involving foreigners accused of drug crimes, according to the Korean National Police Agency’s Web site. An Incheon court spokesman said he couldn’t even estimate the street value of marijuana involved in this bust because of the quantity.
In the United States, a pound of marijuana has an estimated average street value of $4,000, according to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. [Stars & Stripes]
Doing a quick Google search on SSG Victor Aruwah shows that he is a native of Lagos, Nigeria and the 2004 US Forces European boxing champion in the 201 pound weight classification. He is also a heavyweight boxing champion in USFK as well. So he is a big guy that could easily manhandle two Korean police investigators as claimed and his Nigerian background explains how he probably became linked to the Nigerian drug smuggler in Itaewon.
Prior GI potheads sitting in Korean jail will now have some company with this conviction of Aruwah.
9:00 pm on November 26th, 2008 1
I think 35th ADA Brigade is going to make a run on the trophy for most incidents in a year like they did in 2005-2006.
[Reply]
10:55 pm on November 26th, 2008 2
IMHO…do drugs = Go to jail.
Sell/Traffic in Drugs = Death Penalty…
[Reply]
11:27 pm on November 26th, 2008 3
CalmSeas,
Not much for the humble notion of personal freedom are you?
[Reply]
11:48 pm on November 26th, 2008 4
Drug busts are a waste of police time, taking time and resources away from the policing of real crimes. You know, the ones with actual victims.
[Reply]
12:11 am on November 27th, 2008 5
We should not forget that up until 1976, pot was not criminalized here; it is also reportedly still available in the North, even in Pyongyang.
Of course, pot interferes with worker productivity, hence it is verboten in workaholic modern-day Korea.
[Reply]
1:44 am on November 27th, 2008 6
I had a Korean co-worker who went to college in the US. After returning to Korea, he was (rightfully so) afraid to have anything to do with trying to buy marijuana or to grow his own. But by chance he found a patch of wild marijuana growing at the Korean Folk Village (Minsok Chon) ~ and for many years that place his favorite tourist destination.
[Reply]
3:25 am on November 27th, 2008 7
WTF is it with the 35th ADA and being in the news? (and not for helping make winter kimchi for the elderly and needy, either)
[Reply]
6:28 am on November 27th, 2008 8
Yes Nomad, it does seem that 35th ADA is always in the news for something this year. However in 2007 when I compiled by unit blotter stats 35th ADA was really on average with everyone else:
http://rokdrop.com/2008/04/30/statistics-by-unit-of-usfk-court-martial-results/
When I total up the by unit blotter incidents at the end of this year it will be interesting to see how many incidents 35th ADA has had.
[Reply]
10:26 am on November 27th, 2008 9
I find the legalize drugs argument rather hallow and dishonest (when we aren’t talking about pot).
A couple of commentors here remind me of the 3rd season of The Wire – where a precinct chief set up a drug free zone wherein drug users and dealers were free to do as they please with whatever drug they pleased.
But, I didn’t like the fact that the only real violence and crime that show depicted were the gang wars.
I think it is very safe to say the majority of crime in my semi-rural area of North Georgia (and elsewhere) is fueled in some way by drugs – from neighbors and family members ripping you off to feed a habit to prostitution to muggings to domestic violence and so on.
Meth has been a huge problem in this area – and legalizing it isn’t going to stop most of the ill effects.
We don’t have many gang wars around here – but we’ve got the crime to go with the spread of hard drugs.
[Reply]
11:14 am on November 27th, 2008 10
I was actually referring to the 2005-2006 regime….
[Reply]
12:05 pm on November 27th, 2008 11
[...] one of the actors comes: A busy day on the drug front as earlier we learned that a USFK soldier was sentenced to five years in a Korean prison for helping bring 30 pounds of marijuana in. So that’s five years for marijuana, [...]
12:05 pm on November 27th, 2008 12
#3:
When you have to watch those around you have their lives destroyed by Illegal Drugs, then you might just change your ridiculous notion that “Personal Freedom” has anything to do with “Illegal Drug use.”
“Freedom” has everything to do with “Responsibility.”
Illegal Drug use is just that…Illegal.
“Jail the User…Kill the Pusher.”
[Reply]
12:12 pm on November 27th, 2008 13
Mark unfortunately I was not keeping accurate USFK blotter stats from those years so I can’t draw any hard conclusions if they were committing more incidents or not compared to other units.
[Reply]
5:15 pm on November 27th, 2008 14
I love it when some mental midget confuses “personal freedom” with the “right” to smuggle in 15 kilos of pot. Yeah, right, it was for personal use only. Here’s hoping that Aruwah pulls the full hard 5 years.
[Reply]
8:58 pm on November 27th, 2008 15
CalmSeas & Lirelou ,
It’s none of the governments business if you, I, or “people” destroy their lives, by using drugs or by any other means.
Should it also be a crime to destroy one’s life over some other form of obsessive/cumpulsive behavior? Should alcoholics be thrown in jail, how a about sexaholics.
Addictions are a health problem, not a criminal one.
[Reply]
6:51 am on November 28th, 2008 16
And notice NOSPAM avoided addressing the issue — very much tied up into the drug trade — I brought up.
Addiction is most certainly tied into criminal problems.
Even something like alcoholism is tied into criminal problems – like DUI fatalities where assholes sometimes take other people out with them or child abuse and other domestic crimes.
The question isn’t a black and white one between personal freedom vs criminal behavior.
The discussion can be about how much the drug use impacts on the society – with a big part of that impact being its ties to crime.
Is alcohol a big enough problem beyond the individual to regulate with criminal offense? Is pot? Is heroine? Is crack? Is meth?
Meth has had a huge impact on the crime rate in my semi-rule area. Heroine and cocaine have long had a big impact on the crime rate. We didn’t start locking our doors or even taking the keys out of the car in my area until crack first made its way down here.
Domestic court is filled day after day with crimes related to addiction.
If you want the freedom to smoke a joint, fine. Just drop this BS about drugs being a personal issue and not something criminal beyond unless possession laws.
I’d also add, it would be useful to get into a discussion in society about other areas where “personal freedom” impacts on all of us. I for one am not terribly happy with the idea of my tax dollars going in part to pay massive medical bills for life-long smokers or alcoholics. I don’t advocate making those issues criminal, but I wouldn’t mind hearing some ideas on how the federal and state governments can limit tax-money exposure to medical bills related to personal choices centering on addictions well known to cause serious health problems.
[Reply]
7:23 am on November 28th, 2008 17
USinKorea
Keep in mind that a lot of drug-related crime is related to expense and availability issues rather than people enjoying a high wanting to do something illegal.
Do you believe heroin users would be out causing “crime” if it was easily available at a fair market price? No, they would be shooting up in their dirty, rat-infested den.
Prohibition is a great example of how to take a substance that caused minor crime and make it into a substance that caused major crime.
I am certainly not advocating “hard” drugs but statements like “drugs cause crime” are inaccurate and are part of the problem. This is the reason we have lost the Drug War.
I might add that drugs such as pot and Ecstasy, which even government propaganda doesn’t make a great case for banning, should probably be legalized since they are choking our legal and prison systems, taking great resources away from our investigative and enforcement agencies, and hindering efforts to stop the effects of drugs that have more serious social side effects (such as meth).
Further, they create a class of non-violent “criminals” who learn nothing in prison except how to become real criminals, which is one of the few choices they are given once released.
Before all the knee-jerk anti-druggies jump on me, be aware that I have never done any drugs as I find getting stuff done to be difficult enough without the demotivating effects of pot. But, like cigarettes and alcohol, the choice belong to others as long as they don’t affect me.
[Reply]
9:23 am on November 28th, 2008 18
USinKorea,
I’ll bite your strawman. What did I avoid?
The problems of the “drug trade” are because the commodity itself is illegal.
“Do you believe heroin users would be out causing “crime” if it was easily available at a fair market price? No, they would be shooting up in their dirty, rat-infested den.”
Do you really think the threat of jail will deter someone from taking a drug they think will make them fell better?
[Reply]
12:52 pm on November 28th, 2008 19
To legalize or to not legalize; that is the question.
Well, a former Mexican president jumps into the fray and offers his assessment. Consider it an example of someone once in power speaking truth rather than the usual speaking truth to power.
Money quote:
“Contrary to government claims, the use of heroin and cocaine in the U.S. has not declined significantly, the report says, and the use of methamphetamine is spreading. Falling street prices suggest that the supply of narcotics has not declined noticeably, and U.S. prevention and treatment programs are woefully underfunded, the study says.
“‘Current U.S. counter- narcotics policies are failing by most objective standards,’” the report says. “‘The only long-run solution to the problem of illegal narcotics is to reduce the demand for drugs in the major consuming countries, including the United States.’”
Read the full report here: http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2008/1124_latin_america_partnership.aspx
[Reply]
12:58 pm on November 28th, 2008 20
#15: As usual, people with your line of thought bring it all down to the government having no business interferring with your lifestyle, & then try to relate Illegal Drug use as a medical problem.
A load of crap!
If people who use drugs were only doing it in the privacy of their own residence & it NEVER affected those around them, nor eventually led to crime that did affect others, then you might have a leg to stand on…but reality tells us a completely different story.
Ilegal Drug use DOES affect those around the user/addict. It DOES lead to crime on various levels that affects the entire nation as a whole…and News Flash, the Illegal Drug trade heavily supports International Terrorism, i.e. FARC Guerrillas in Colombia as just one glaring example.
As far as addiction being a medical problem…that is Bunk…it has just been labelled a medical problem by our weak society as a way to deal with it because we lack the national will to face the problem head on and stop it in it’s tracks. Drug Addiction is self-Induced…not caught like the Flu, or received as an hereditary trait.
You want to bring up the old arguement that Alcohol leads to addiction, cars kill, etc., then you are only trying to lay a smoke screen over the real topic, which is “Illegal Drugs.”
Alcohol use has been heavily regulated in relation to Drunk Driving…even have an open container anymore and you are screwed. During Prohibiton certain elements of society tried to outlaw alcohol, but the public spoke & it was defeated. The public has also spoken in reference to Illegal Drugs…and they have said that they will remail “ILLEGAL.”
[Reply]
3:00 pm on November 28th, 2008 21
Fair market price — at least the discussion is now getting more interesting.
How expensive is heroine? It’s highly over priced now and that is why junkies have to rob people blind in order to feed the habit? Legalizing it is going to bring the price down so much that addicts will be able to afford it on a pittance? If that doesn’t work, and the crime associated with drugs like crack and heroine remain too high, will we ask the government to help the poor addicts who can’t afford their fix so we can lower their need for cash or trade-able goods? Wasn’t crack such a hit because it was so cheap and addictive?
These drugs are cheap but they are highly addictive. Making them cheaper just helps more people become addicts – and helps addicts increase their need for it and dependence on it. Crack was is the best example of this, perhaps. It made cocaine something Everyman could ruin his life on (and spread dispair and chaos around him.
Nospam,
Thanks for biting. You noted two oppositions to your comment but skipped mine.
And now you still skipped it completely with your attempted bite.
The “crimes” I wrote about are not possession or trafficing cases. I’m talking about the crimes associated with use of hard drugs. I was specific. JAFO addressed it. You haven’t yet.
I have no strong convictions either way on pot or Ecstasy. I would say I think, especially if those type of drugs are legalized, employers, like the factories that drive the economy here in North Georgia, should be allowed to have mandatory periodic and surprise drug tests and the right to fire users of such drugs.
I do have a strong conviction about the legalization of the harder drugs. They do feed crime and in a variety of ways. The type of crime that does much harm to a community. And crimes that have ruined the lives of millions of children decade to decade.
I think the focus only on crimes like possession and gang violence are rather bogus and dishonest. That was my major beef with a rather good series – The Wire. It is a complete avoidance of the other major issues involved with drug use that influence the communities as a whole. And it avoids discussion of the types of crimes that will certainly not vanish if drugs are legalized and regulated. In fact, legalization would most likely make the problems worse as the drugs become legitimized and draw in more users.
[Reply]
4:17 pm on November 28th, 2008 22
“…legalization would most likely make the problems worse as the drugs become legitimized and draw in more users.”
True. But I think what’s also true is that this entire industry would finally be brought out into the open. That way far more rational and consensual mechanisms can be put into place by government and society at large to regulate and eventually mitigate to nearly nothing the nasty aspects associated with the drug trade.
Having the drug industry regulated by trasparent bodies accountable and beholden to society at large will largely dismantle the criminal element that has become synonomous with the drug trade. Look at what happend after liquor prohibition laws were lifted. Can you name any criminal element that has a huge and influential stake in manufacturing spirits at present?
I thought not.
[Reply]
9:03 pm on November 28th, 2008 23
CalmSeas & USinKorea,
If one of my grandsons becomes an addict and starts robbing liquor stores, I hope the government locks him up. And if the liquor store owner shoots him dead during the robbery – so be it. He deserved it.
The crimes you both associate with drug addiction occur because the drug is illegal and expensive. The drug does not cause the user to commit the crime; the user chooses to do it because he thinks he has no other choice to feed his habit. The criminal elements that feed on the drug trade are only able to do so because their product is illegal – it called smuggling. Smuggling exists because governments restrict markets.
The government should not be telling us what drugs we cannot use. The “do gooders” tried it with prohibition and it did not work, and the current war on drugs is not working.
[Reply]
9:18 pm on November 28th, 2008 24
#21:
The so-called “Do-Gooders,” elected by the people, are the elected-representatives who make the laws, which means that one of those laws is that certain drugs are Illegal.
Criminal elements are just that—Criminals. They get involved with endeavors that are illegal for various nefarious reasons…none of which have to do anything with restiriction of markets. If they were so noble, they would just invest in certain “Legal” markets.
Your arguement is getting weaker by the post.
[Reply]
10:08 pm on November 28th, 2008 25
Smugglers do it for profit. Drug profits are so high because the supply of the product is restricted by the government. And the criminal element is willing to take the risk of getting caught to make the profit. Remove the profit potential and the drug trade goes away.
[Reply]
10:37 pm on November 28th, 2008 26
CalmSeas,
“The public has also spoken in reference to Illegal Drugs…and they have said that they will remail “ILLEGAL.””
That’s odd considering, “According to an October 2002 Time/CNN poll, nearly half of Americans (47 percent) have smoked pot at least once.” I found no poll under 40 percent.
That is not exactly a mandate for keeping pot illegal.
But, in your defense, I do not advocate running red lights to be legal but I have done it, though perhaps not by choice.
In reality, many jurisdictions (counter to federal government policy) have decriminalized marijuana and turned it into a revenue source by issuing civil fines. This is becoming more common in the Western world and is probably the first step to eventual legalization, especially in the current economic state where there is no extra money for enforcement and a calming drug might actually have benefits for a society that could potentially grow increasingly angry and violent.
This might be a good place to start:
hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization_of_non-medical_marijuana_in_the_United_States
So, yes, the public appears to be speaking and the government seems to be slowly taking notice.
Allow me to add that, unlike alcohol drinkers, pot smokers cause much less crime while under the influence. Four decades of research back this up. Personal experience for anyone who has been to a party should agree.
“…and News Flash, the Illegal Drug trade heavily supports International Terrorism”
If we believe government propaganda, EVERYTHING they don’t like suddenly supports “terrorism” from counterfeit goods to pirated music. But, if you really want to argue this out, a case could be made that oil sales support vastly more terrorism than drug sales making your statement, however valid, a trivial point.
USinKorea,
I beg you to no longer reference a fictional TV show dreamed up by people who live in a different reality than the rest of society. Much like quoting the bible to argue against evolution, it weakens any legitimate point you might make.
“will we ask the government to help the poor addicts who can’t afford their fix”
Good point, but we already do, in a manner of speaking. We support a huge, non-productive underclass through “entitlement” programs that, much like drugs, create a debilitating dependency. Many of these people are already poor addicts who only afford their fix through crime. It might actually be socially cheaper to supply them with “happy” drugs to minimize their interactions with the rest of society, reduce violence and take the edge off of a hard and stressful life.
Apart from the rather unethical social engineering, I don’t see any exact flaw in this thinking. Comments?
“Making them cheaper just helps more people become addicts”
At least for pot, current variations in price and punishment don’t seem to have any affect on use. Perhaps being drawn and quartered for possession of a joint might work.
“employers…should be allowed to have mandatory periodic and surprise drug tests and the right to fire users of such drugs”
Of course. With every right comes responsibility. The Market will sort out what is acceptable. Companies that hire druggies can pay less and people can make a choice. We all know people who have made an economic decision to give up drugs to maintain a lucrative military or civilian career.
“make the problems worse as the drugs become legitimized and draw in more users.”
Maybe or maybe not. The Netherlands has a much more lenient policy than America yet a much higher percentage of Americans smoke pot.
From a personal point of view, I wouldn’t smoke pot if it were legal so this argument is not strong to me. I also don’t one-shot Robitussen or huff gold paint regardless of its legal status and availability, nor do any people I know.
In my experience, I have seen no lives truly ruined by smoking pot (other than a general apathy toward achieving a better state in life) but I have seen a number of lives ruined by a legal system gone amok with Draconian punishments for non-violent, victimless crimes.
[Reply]
4:07 am on November 29th, 2008 27
I think the question should be this:
Is it just to punish a person for ‘using’ drugs?
I’m not talking about punishing a person for committing a crime in order to buy their drugs…that is a different question which I think we all know the answer to.
Justice is a concept not often considered when talking about the drug war.
[Reply]
5:00 am on November 29th, 2008 28
Calmseas….you stated:
Ilegal Drug use DOES affect those around the user/addict. It DOES lead to crime on various levels that affects the entire nation as a whole…and News Flash, the Illegal Drug trade heavily supports International Terrorism, i.e. FARC Guerrillas in Colombia as just one glaring example.
Yes. Ok. LEGAL drug use affects those around the user/addict. Funny how you lump them together.
Yes. Ok. It does lead to crimes on various levels. So does LEGAL drug use.
Yes. Ok. ILLEGAL drug trade supports international terrorism blah blah FARC…Colombia etc.
So, why not take away the profit incentive from these narco terrorists and legalize it? You’ll take away a large majority of their incentive to produce, ship and sell it. The guv can tax the #hit out of it, control its quality and quantity and ensure a good product for consumers to CHOOSE IF THEY WANT TO BUY IT OR NOT.
It’s really rather simple.
[Reply]
5:13 am on November 29th, 2008 29
Calmseas:
You are truly a work of art. From which school I do not know.
[Reply]
1:45 pm on November 29th, 2008 30
#29:
Am I supposed to be impressed by your personal attack?
[Reply]
1:53 pm on November 29th, 2008 31
#26:
“In my experience, I have seen no lives truly ruined by smoking pot (other than a general apathy toward achieving a better state in life) but I have seen a number of lives ruined by a legal system gone amok with Draconian punishments for non-violent, victimless crimes.”
I have, thus I call for very strict measures in combatting Illegal Drug use…to include “Consequences for Illegal Actions initiated by the User.”
If & when Marajuana useage is made legal, then more power to them, but it ain’t going to be today.
As for marajuana useage leading to harder drugs…I would say yes, based on what I know, but I’m sure that there are many a report out there that says otherwise.
If the surveys are as you quote, then I would ask, “Why hasn’t a law been passed legalizing pot yet?”
[Reply]
3:07 pm on November 29th, 2008 32
I still stand by what I wrote about not believing the idea that legalizing hard drugs would make them cheaper and regulated and cut down the prices.
The expense of drugs like heroine and crack and meth today come from their addictive value and the need to consume larger quantities – not the price of an individual fix. I don’t see how legalization is going to change that. I do see how it would increase the number of users and thus a growth in the spiraling effects on individuals and thus the crime rate.
Recently, like over the last couple of months, I’ve even started to wonder about this idea that the gang violence would dry up if hard drugs were legalized: the profits involved in these drugs are so high, would gangs simply give up and let Walmart corner the market?
If these drugs are legalized, they would be highly regulated and taxed, right? So, wouldn’t the gangs be in a position to undercut the legitimate markets by lowering prices on a black market?
I don’t know…
Much of this is debatable.
But, I rarely hear people talk about the kind of crime I’m talking about in relation to the drug trade.
As for the fictional TV series, I don’t think that otherwise valid point applies here:
The Wire was written by a long-time journalist who covered the crime beat. It shows in the work he does – at least in the first two seasons of that show.
And that show also touched well on exactly this kind of debate that is on going in American society concerning drugs and what to do about them.
So the show does fit, though fictional.
And it also fits the big complaint I have about the contemporary debate in American society: the focus is on crimes like possession charges and very little on the important ripple effect drug use – at least hard drug use – has on communities.
And I can relate to it from my own experience living in several areas of the country.
[Reply]
4:08 pm on November 29th, 2008 33
“And it also fits the big complaint I have about the contemporary debate in American society: the focus is on crimes like possession charges and very little on the important ripple effect drug use – at least hard drug use – has on communities.”
You could say that about a whole host of other things: fast food chains (obesity, type-2 diabetes, and other attendent health care costs); McMansions (zoning, land-use, energy-use), automobiles (traffic congestion, pollution, energy dependency); the right to possess firearms(I don’t think I need to enumerate for you).
Frankly, legalized drugs and the societel ripple effects you talk about are on a more manegeable level for law enforcement agencies than illegal drugs and the massive criminal enterprises that have become symbiotic with it.
[Reply]
8:41 pm on November 29th, 2008 34
USinKorea,
If you want to argue over how price is established, please read up on microeconomics first. Here’s a couple links to get you started.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microeconomics
economics.about.com/od/microeconomics/a/micro_text.htm
[Reply]
2:04 am on November 30th, 2008 35
CalmSeas,
“I have (seen lives ruined by marijuana use), thus I call for very strict measures in combatting Illegal Drug use…”
I guess Clinton, Bush and Obama should all be in jail.
I’m curious how smoking pot ruined somebody’s life; not including legal consequences for the “crime” of using it. I have high school friends still working at the same McJob which I credit to a good pot habit. For the most part they are content with their place in life, which I also credit to a good pot habit. As they are happier than many “accomplished” people I know, I’m not entirely sure their life is “ruined”. There might actually be something to learn there.
“As for marajuana useage leading to harder drugs…I would say yes, based on what I know, but I’m sure that there are many a report out there that says otherwise.”
There is an indication that the “gateway” effect of pot is due to having to associate with criminal dealers who are interested in selling more profitable/more addictive drugs.
“If the surveys are as you quote, then I would ask, “Why hasn’t a law been passed legalizing pot yet?””
That’s not a very sincere question, CalmSeas. You are a smart and experienced guy. Considering all the money and interagency power involved in the War on Drugs, do you think what’s right or what’s practical or what’s just has any part? Pot will be legal once the government no longer has the ability to keep the bloated agencies funded or something more important shifts their focus.
[Reply]
8:08 am on November 30th, 2008 36
Here is an interesting coincidence making the news at the moment.
If the link is too convoluted to work, Google it.
hxxp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1090404/Switzerland-set-approve-prescription-heroin-safe-alternative-addicts.html
The basic idea is that the voters in Switzerland will probably vote to make a prescription heroin program permanent. The people are talking and the government is listening.
In the last 14 years that it has been running, the open drug scene has disappeared, addicts are assisted in being part of society and addict-related crime has dropped 60%. The program has been a success in a number of other ways as well.
Except for the American government, many other developed counties are taking notice.
You have to love Switzerland, with one of the highest personal firearm ownership rates in the world (and most households having their very own SIG 550, gasp, fully automatic assault rife) they also have one of the lowest firearm crime rates. What does it all mean?
[Reply]
8:40 pm on November 30th, 2008 37
it is very important that you get the fact regarding this drug issue and charges against this troop,the ROK convicted this troop with no fact at all.he was investegated by the CID and even took a polygraphy test to show that he was innocent which he also passed,i read the article and can clearly tell you that this is Deformation of character and will be overturned in the appealant level court as the District court was Baised
[Reply]
11:23 pm on November 30th, 2008 38
After reading the Friday edition of the Stars and Stripes I was disgusted by the article written about Army SSG Victor Aruwah. The persons responsible for writing the article should feel ashamed that they would defame a Soldier’s good name in the United States Army as they did. Clearly, they did not attend the trial or read any of the court transcripts except for the one sided summation of the events. If they had they would have surely wrote about the following points:
1. SSG Aruwah volunteered to take a polygraph test given by the Military Police and passed.
2. The United States Army conducted an investigation and found no evidence to prosecute SSG Aruwah.
3. The entire case was based on alleged hand wave. The testimony given by the investigators involving the alleged hand wave not only conflicted with the South African’s testimony but conflicted with other investigators.
4. Kevin” The South African” showed no remorse. He laughed and smiled the entire trail. He was given a lighter sentence for testifying against the two co-defendants, which he admitted to during the trail.
5. When asked to repeat what was said during the arrest, not one of the Korean arresting officers could state one sentence in English. Even when given a SOFA card to read they could not.
6. SSG. Aruwah was beaten by the police( (9 of them and the only time he resisted was to protect himself when he was being stepped on and kicked in the face while he was on the ground.
7. The police continue to beat SSG Aruwah until one pulled his id out and realized he was an American Soldier.
8. During the trail neither SSG. Aruwah or the Nigerian denied them knowing each other. During the time of arrest when SSG. Aruwah was being beaten police asked the Nigerian if he knew SSG Aruwah and his reply was “I don’t know him like that”. Which anyone from America knows that means you don’t know a person well or do not know them in an intimate manner.
The fact is a Solider who has been a Drill Sergeant , awarded the Audie Murphy and Sergeant Morales Award stands to lose 5 years of his life in a Korean Prison due to the fact he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.
[Reply]
7:23 am on December 1st, 2008 39
Johnnie and Frank thanks for your comments. If what you both say is true Aruwah has a chance of having the conviction suspended on appeal similar to what happened with the policewoman rape case which was a dubious conviction as well:
http://rokdrop.com/2008/01/16/policewoman-rape-case-gis-released/
In a case like this the Korean court is not going to find a GI innocent because then the police will lose face. Thus the case can go on appeal and if what you say is true the judge will probably keep the conviction but give the soldier a suspended sentence. This allows him to get out of jail while at the same saving face for the Korean police.
[Reply]
11:04 am on December 3rd, 2008 40
GI Korea.do you know how long the appeal process usaually take,this soldier is confined and is currently not recieving any pay nor allowances.i feel for his family,but i pray that justice be servered in this case
[Reply]
9:02 pm on December 8th, 2008 41
Many of Amsterdam’s Brothels, Marijuana Cafes to Close
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,463004,00.html
[Reply]
10:34 pm on December 8th, 2008 42
Frank the appeals process from prior cases I have followed usually takes 3-6 months to be resolved with the soldiers left to sit in jail until the appeals are resolved.
[Reply]
6:25 pm on December 16th, 2008 43
[...] : http://rokdrop.com/2008/11/26/usfk-soldier-sentenced-for-smuggling-30-pounds-of-marijuana-into-south... [...]
1:04 pm on December 18th, 2008 44
[...] A GI in Osan has been sentenced to five years for smuggling 30 pounds of marijuana into Korea and assaulting two investigators during a sting oper…. [...]