By The juicy girl issue has been a much discussed topic here on the ROK Drop and now the Philippine Embassy is weighing in:
Philippine Embassy officials in South Korea have established a “watch list” of bars where they believe Filipinas are forced into prostitution or otherwise exploited and are considering sharing it with the U.S. military in hopes that commanders will put those located near bases off-limits to troops.
Delmer Cruz, Philippine Embassy labor attaché, said the embassy’s list of 103 “performance venues” includes around 20 so-called “juicy bars” that ought to be placed on the U.S. military’s off-limits list.
Patrons at juicy bars are expected to buy expensive juice drinks for the female employees in exchange for their conversation and company, but prostitution and human trafficking have been recurring problems at many of the bars.
Earlier this month, Stars and Stripes reported that, despite the military’s expressed zero tolerance for human trafficking, prostitution continues to be affiliated with many of the juicy bars that cluster in seedy entertainment districts near U.S. military bases across South Korea.
U.S. Forces Korea has placed about 50 bars on its list of off-limits establishments, and another 19 near Osan Air Base narrowly escaped being added earlier this year after bar owners collectively agreed to conditions aimed at eliminating prostitution.
USFK spokeswoman Col. Jane Crichton said the command will “welcome any outside agency that is willing to partner with us, particularly in information sharing,” to combat prostitution and human trafficking. [Stars & Stripes]
Read the rest of the article for more information about the juicy girl situation in Korea. However, I have the easy answer to all of this which I have been advocating for quite sometime, USFK should put juicy bars off limits that hire third country nationals.
8:00 pm on September 25th, 2009 1
"However, I have the easy answer to all of this…USFK should put juicy bars off limits that hire third country nationals."
Heck, I have an easier answer. Just restrict all soldiers to post at all times. The "easy" solution is not always the best solution. Which is why we have leaders.
Oh, and I don't know if you are aware of this, but in the days before the foreign nationals worked in these clubs (until the late-90s), the juicy girls were all Koreans. And there was PLENTY of prostitution going on (maybe even more than today).
8:55 pm on September 25th, 2009 2
My sentiments also. In 2000, there were few Korean juicy girls. But, as the number of Philippine and Russian girls dropped, the number of Korean girls increased. Nature abhors a vacuum.
BTW, before USFK defined barfining as prostitution, guys would take their 'girlfriends' on base, to the clubs, the restaurants, and the movies. The kinds of things people do on regular dates. So apparently it wasn't just a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am transaction.
When barfining became prostitution, all that changed. I wondered, at the time, if restricting guys access to girls off base would result in increased incidents of sexual assaults on base. I am sure it wouldn't be politically correct to say it or admit it, but I suspect we may only be seeing the tip off an iceberg in the criminal reports. It just SEEMS we have been hearing more about sexual assaults on base in recent years. USFK may actually have statistical data, including the restricted reporting, to support that suspicion.
9:07 pm on September 25th, 2009 3
Until I saw that photo, it hadn't occurred to me that having a job requiring one to consume several caloric drinks every evening would be hazardous to one's BMI. Asians tend to get metabolic syndrome and its related diseases like diabetes at lower weights than whites or blacks. The two women in the middle look like they're at risk of acquiring much worse than a curable STD. When the women put on weight, are they still able to attract customers or are they replaced?
9:50 pm on September 25th, 2009 4
If the PI Embassy is really interested in protecting their citizens then they should drop into the suspected bars with KNP in tow. "Excuse me miss, are you being held against your will and are you a PI citizen?" My guess is that very few are held against their will, how long in this day and age does it take to get the word out?
10:00 pm on September 25th, 2009 5
The Philippine embassy officials are taking what steps to protect their citizens from the sex trade industry? Making a list and checking it twice? They want others to take action while sit back and do nothing. What a joke.
10:17 pm on September 25th, 2009 6
Don't worry. Americans like em fat and hefty.
10:41 pm on September 25th, 2009 7
With the murder of a British woman in Japan a few years ago, we learned of the Japanese hostess business. Here is how Time magazine describes the hostess profession:
A hostess sounds like a high class juicy to me. Are these already well to do and educated western women, including American women, the victims of human trafficking? Should the foreign ministries of their home countries be called on to protect them and prevent them from working in these jobs?
12:01 am on September 26th, 2009 8
I can tell you haven't read the site for very long because I have long posted on when Koreans used to work exclusively in the clubs and my concerns are not prostitution but human trafficking:
http://rokdrop.com/2008/05/28/rok-drop-review-sea…
http://rokdrop.com/2009/04/02/ville-memories-chan…
Putting clubs off limits that use TCN's would virtually eliminate the human trafficking concerns. Korean women have much more recourse in regards to human trafficking than the Filippinas do if they want to work in the clubs.
12:04 am on September 26th, 2009 9
You can go through the court martial results in my archives because any sexual assault will be a court martial offense. I don't think there has been any increase but the court martial results would have to be analyzed to determine this.
12:06 am on September 26th, 2009 10
Sonagi the ugliest juicy girl can still attract customers just due to the amount of available men. It isn't just the juicy girls either, the female soldiers are not called "queens for a year" for no reason.
12:08 am on September 26th, 2009 11
If GOD didn't want Jucies then he would not have made their cream so yummy. I think that Mary Magdalene herself was a Juicy.
12:22 am on September 26th, 2009 12
Human Trafficking can be interpreted in many different ways but the most pathetic form is where greedy and sleazy bar owners import poor young girls from destitute places like The Philippines. Those same sleaze bags trick young GI's into buying drinks for $10-$30 or to "go home" with the modern day slave girl for $300 and then pocket all but a small percentage of the money.
I think the heat is really on this time, maybe the military will be forced to take serious action instead of continuing to look away from the problem. The odds are low but we'll see.
12:42 am on September 26th, 2009 13
All sexual assaults are not reported. That's why they came up with Restricted Reporting. So, Court Martials won't reveal the complete picture.
12:47 am on September 26th, 2009 14
And, when USFK imposed an age limit for GIs to drink, they created another deterrent for underage GIs who were drunk when assaulted to report it.
1:47 am on September 26th, 2009 15
I am somewhat skeptical that the juicy girls are held as "slaves", and many people I've talked to who have worked in TDC a long time feel the same way. Phlippinas have been coming to Korea for many, many years now. And word never got back to the Philippines about what juicy girls actually do? (After all, their embassy seems to know!)
But even if they are held against their will, I'll ask some questions I brought up in another thread (which no one could answer) consider:
Much clothing is made from human-trafficked persons working in sweatshops, should the US military ban these? The world's chocolate is harvested in Africa, much of it from child labor. Should chocolate be banned? The bluefin Tuna is on the verge of extinction. Should tuna be banned at commissaries?
Things should be kept simple. The DoD does better when it concentrates on fighting and winning wars, not taking up causes outside of its scope.
When does it end? Heck, as it is, darn near half of Korea is already off-limits to soldiers (Bodies of water, Barber shops, Pharmacies, a huge number of clubs). Yet drugs, prositution, and all sorts of things are still to be found. If you ban the bars, then the owners will find another way to exploit the women. Maybe they will work in Karoke clubs, non-alcohol establishments, or just walk the streets instead.
3:44 am on September 26th, 2009 16
John, the point is that the US should not condone Human Trafficking. Of course it can't be stopped but allowing it to happen right outside their bases is a sore source of contention. Right now girls are being trafficked soley because the military is turning a blind eye to it.
3:50 am on September 26th, 2009 17
Human trafficking comes in several different flavors but the most unsavory is where sleazy bar owners traffick poor girls from impoverished countries. It's the lowest of the low and unfortunately the US military and government are basically condoning it by taking a blind eye to it in South Korea. On one hand the military tells their troops not to engage in human trafficking and on the other they allow it to run rampant right outside their bases.
4:09 am on September 26th, 2009 18
The other things I mentioned are happening on bases too. Why single out the bars only?
Anyway, of course the US government shouldn't condone it. But USFK is not the Korean government (nor is it even the US government). And you are assuming that all Philipinas are being trafficked which is extremely unlikely.
But if we are going to apply US standards to Korea, what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? I would much rather that any bar caught in involvement in human trafficking be placed on the off-limits list, rather than a ludicrious blanket ban on any establishment that hires Philipine nationals. Wouldn't that make a little more sense?
6:13 am on September 26th, 2009 19
John, the US government changed the laws back in 2005 to help tackle the ever expanding problem of Human Trafficking. The new law stated anyone in the military caught with a prostitute would face more severe punishment to include a bad conduct discharge. Now, several years later they're faced with the fact that they're not enforcing their own rules and they're in all actuality supporting the one thing they pledged to fight against. The Korean Government pledged to support this effort, they've backed out on their end of the deal too.
As far as innocent until proven guilty, take one step in any ville bar and you'll practically be assualted to buy drinks and take the girls home. Everyone (The Korean Government, The US Government, and the bar owners themselves) has pledged to stop Human Trafficking and they've done nothing about it.
Throughout all their pledges the problem has become increasingly worse because the bar owners, who were once scared, now think that nothing will happen to them. Go to the Sting Club in Songtan, they're now trying to charge these GI's $30 for a drink with a poor filipina girl, $300 to have sex with her. Dozens of clubs in Songtan do the same thing but prices may vary. It's out of control and thus is becoming more and more of a black eye. Hopefully, some action will be taken soon to curtail the problem and hopefully more people will join in the fight against human trafficking.
7:59 am on September 26th, 2009 20
If a soldiers is sexually assaulted while underage drinking she cannot be brought up on Article 15 charges for reporting the rape.
9:57 am on September 26th, 2009 21
11:17 am on September 26th, 2009 22
I guess my original point was lost in the shuffle. The Philippine Embassy wants to look like they're "doing something about the problem", so they made a list of bars with Juicy's. That's not "taking action." A couple of E4's with some money to spend and some free time on their hands could have done the same thing.
11:40 am on September 26th, 2009 23
Arrrgh!! Are we forgetting something?
Not all Drinkie girls in the Ville are prostitues!
Not all Drinkie girls in the Ville were trafficked to Korea! (actually, I believe almost none of them were)
I know this might be an alien concept to some, but some of these clubs don't participate in either one of these. Not all of them are like the Sting Club.
Although it's rather stupid, there's nothing illegal about soldiers buying girls drinks for $30 a pop. A blanket ban would mostly catch legitimate businesses in its net.
Anyway, USFK is enforcing the rules. Soliciting a prostitute is illegal. Clubs have been put on the off-limits list. If the Sting Club is breaking the rules, then report it. Have you done that? As far as the Korean government goes, please make your case to them. But I think at some point we just have to accept the fact that it's their country to manage, not ours.
11:40 am on September 26th, 2009 24
I just think the minimum drinking age in the US is ludicrous, especially for those who are GIs. Old enough die for your country (what was it, 17?), but too young to handle a drink!?
11:41 am on September 26th, 2009 25
Probably because the Philippines don't want to lose the cash remissions sent back home. In toto, it's a huge source of outside revenue for the country.
11:43 am on September 26th, 2009 26
No, it's just that people have gotten so god damned fat back home over the last 10 years, so they are kind skinny by North American standards.
11:51 am on September 26th, 2009 27
Just playing the devil's advocate here, but don't you think you should pixelize their faces if they are indeed victims of human trafficking?
11:52 am on September 26th, 2009 28
I don't know how I did it, but this was not meant as a reply.
4:48 pm on September 26th, 2009 29
Ahh yes! The infamous, much publicized and laughable change to the UCMJ to make hiring a prostitute a felony offence. Yet, so far as we know it has only been dealt with by Article 15s, if at all. When was the last time someone was court martialed for hiring a prostitute? Check the records.
Do you really want to see the parade of 0-6s and above standing trial?
Again with DoD bluster. A whole lot of smoke, but no fire.
5:26 pm on September 26th, 2009 30
Not that I believe the Bible should be taken literally…
There is no mention of her being a prostitute or an adulteress in the Bible. She was misidentified as such nearly 500 years after her death in a sermon by Pope Gregory.
5:39 pm on September 26th, 2009 31
Two courts martials in Area V for Pandering (prostitution). Only in Area V, not in Area I, II, III, IV or VI……
5:42 pm on September 26th, 2009 32
…nor should the Bible be interpreted without taking into account the historical context in which it was written. The Book of Revelation, for example, was most probably written as an attack on Roman society under the rule of Emperor Nero.
5:47 pm on September 26th, 2009 33
Contact the embassy–they have actually helped women who's passports were taken by either bar owners or promotion companies return to the Phillipines. They also help recoup "lost wages" that the bar owners have refused to pay girls before they leave Korea for the Phillipines.
The Phillipino embassy has actually been very active in supporting and advocating for their expat community; more so than the anyone in leadership positions from Korea or the U.S……
5:58 pm on September 26th, 2009 34
"…Much clothing is made from human-trafficked persons working in sweatshops, should the US military ban these? The world’s chocolate is harvested in Africa, much of it from child labor. Should chocolate be banned? The bluefin Tuna is on the verge of extinction. Should tuna be banned at commissaries?…"
John–if you can identify companies that AAFES or the Navy/Marine EX are dealing with that are engaging in illegal activity, yes we should prohibit them from buying their products. If you can identify local business' selling products that the U.S. has banned because of the way they are manufactured, harvested, produced, then by all means do the right thing. Your request is very general compared to the very specific conversation we are having about Phillipinas in Korea outside U.S. military installations, with USFK policy that is very specific regards "bar-fining" and it's various derivatives.
As long as the Korean government tests all Phillipina "entertainers" for STDs and only kick the ones with HIV/AIDS out of the country, then you have to call the trade what it is—P&HT; and that is a treat against soldier readiness and against USFK policy.
Ultimately it's about knowing the difference between right and wrong.
6:09 pm on September 26th, 2009 35
Hmm? Korea also requires the immigrant English teachers to take an HIV test. Is that an indicator for human trafficking too?
6:47 pm on September 26th, 2009 36
The Phillipino embassy stood by and did nothing FOR YEARS while Korea was flooded with "entertainers" from their homeland. Now, after a couple of newspaper articles have appeared in print, the embassy staff wants to paint the "problem" as one of USFK inaction when, in reality, it's caused by bad economic policies by its own government and "business as usual" in South Korea. You can't see that?
7:19 pm on September 26th, 2009 37
Interesting how you bring in one hisotrical context but deny that another one existed. Just because it was not written in the Bible doesn't mean there is no history of her being a juicy. Also, it was not written in the Bible, but it was implied.
Koolaiddrinker, try reading the Bible more and reading less feminist dogma.
12:04 am on September 27th, 2009 38
yea the philippine embassy will do something? bullshit! the embassy staff get their cuts from the juicy bars. give me a break ok!
3:45 pm on September 27th, 2009 39
GI Korea,
No he/she (remember both sex's may be raped) can not be charged for reporting. But afterwords they can be brought up on charges for underage drinking (completely separate investigation) but using their own testimony "I was drunk" against them.
As a soldier, one of the rights you give up is the right against self incrimination. Its one of the biggest reasons you NEVER speak to CID without consulting a lawyer first.
1:32 pm on September 29th, 2009 40
Yes you re right! The girl calls the embassy then someone from the embassy calls the club… then the club owner scares/beats the hell out of the girls.
I know a girl that ran away to work at a factory and offered to help her with a lawyer. She said if she attempted to fight the system here her manager in the PI would find out and simply have the family's nuts cut off.
There is nothing wrong with a good whore… they are everywhere. However, most these girls going into the clubs have no idea what they are getting into and the KOREANS are to BLAME. Hello MR KOREAN, if you want a whore in your club bring a whore here… not a innocent singer. Damn, the PI is full of whores like everywhere other country. USFK is to BLAME for not putting these (forced prostitution) places off limits and for being TOTALLY IGNORANT about the situation. BUT LEAVE THE WHORES ALONE – I LOVE THEM!
2:01 pm on September 29th, 2009 41
The PI has women who are more then willing to do a little "on the back" job. Most of you do not understand Philippine culture. In the Philippines women do that sort of thing all the time. Just go to Angles city aka city of angles. Also, Google "trike patrol" to see how easy it is to meet girls who will do anything you ask them. It’s part of their culture that they enjoy themselves like that. They are just happy people who like to be juicy girls.
Sure some have problems at home, and I know this one girl whose mom really was sick. I saw pictures!!!, and you can’t fake that. They are just sweet girls who love their job.
2:46 pm on September 29th, 2009 42
I agree with you Hardhead except I don't blame the Koreans totally because the US could do a lot to prevent it from happening right outside their bases. Although there's a lot to see and do in Korea I'd say at least 90% of the GI's or more will just go to the ville.
2:55 pm on September 29th, 2009 43
You have no idea what is going here in Korea. The girls come here because they need money. Most can only make $100 a month in the PI. They are told they can make $800-$1000 a month here. Once in Korea they find out only 400,000 won. Most don't have a choice or are stuck in the system due to ignorance.
3:00 pm on September 29th, 2009 44
In all my 16 years in Korea I have seen many changes. I have seen the day when it was only Korean women in the bars, I saw when the first girls from the PI came then the Ruskies and now the Chinese. The game is still the same as it was when it was only Korean women (sometimes 18/19) except that now the girls come to Korea (willingly under guise of a legitimate job) and end up working in a club. Not all these girls end up in clubs, some end up as singers in restaurants, some work in clothing stores and little shops. Most of the girls (illegally) end up having to turn their passports over to the owner of the establishments. A number have been busted by the KNP.
The issue of human trafficking to Korea is a guise made up by the US to try and force US standards on the world. Problem is, we have prostitution in our own country that is legalized. Only after former president and commander -in-chief Billary Clinton got caught with his pants down and a fat ugly intern under the desk in the oval office did it become an issue for the military. The hipocrisy has got to stop. We are not the worlds policemen and should not be out enforcing US military law on the rest of the world. I don't pay my taxes to support enforcement of US law on foreign territory. I pay my taxes to support the US government's support of my freedom.
Human trafficking is real, it is an absolute shame that it goes on and "HUMAN TRAFFICKING" should be stopped but not by the military, it isn't in the charter. We have a congress of wimps who would rather spend our taxes to line their pockets and squeeze blood from turnips than to take care of what they really should be taking care of, this country. Korea does not have a trafficking problem, the girls come willingly. They are stupid enough to get caught up in Korean mafia activities but they are paid, albeit very little.
What the military should do is send a clear message to the troops by making a big example out of every prostitution case, every military police infraction of pimping, every soldier, sailor, airman and marine from E-1 to O-10 who violates the rules. Stop hiding the fact that officers (who can afford it) are just as likely, if not more so, to go out and hook up with a prostitute as and enlisted person. Don't mass punish, punish the individual and really punish them.
We also need to re-itterate to the JAG and the military police that they enforce UCMJ law and the jurisdiction ends at the gate. They should not be walking downtown with weapons. It is really stupid to walk even in a small group with weapons into a crowded club where someone can knock you down, take your weapon and shoot up the place. Who's responsible in a situation like that?
Human Trafficking in Korea is a Korean problem, if it exists. "The United Nations definition of human trafficking is “The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation". "
The UN identifies "The Asia Pacific region is seen as the most vulnerable region for trafficking because of its huge population pyramid, growing urbanization, and extensive poverty" and states that "Trafficking is a violation of human rights. Victims of trafficking suffer from physical and mental abuse and social stigmatization. They become isolated, losing ties with their former lives and families."
As far as I can see, the definition "loosely" fits some of the way the girls are treated because the last statement is contradictory to much of what goes on in Korea. Very few are subject to physical abuse, every girl from the PI I've run across plays the game well because of the way it is played in the PI so the mental abuse is questionable, and the social stigmatization was already earned through the activities in the PI. I would venture to say that "none" are isolated, losing ties with their former lives and families. Have you not seen the girls running around with cell phones and buying up cards to call home?
The UN also states that "Women who are most vulnerable to being trafficked are those aged 10-35 and who are impoverished, uneducated or from indigenous, ethnic minority, rural or refugee groups. Such women often lack access to education and meaningful employment opportunities." From what I've seen, there are no girls from any country aged 10-18 (unless they lied to get to Korea) and all the girls from the PI are educated to at least a high school level, although they do fit the rural statement and lack of access to meaningful employment due to voting for a communist gov't that lead to the US bases closing there.
For the rest of the UN statement see http://www.unescap.org/esid/Gad/Issues/Traffickin….
I could go on for hours on this subject as I am against: Human Trafficking, USFK enforcement of US laws on foreign soil, congress making a law that if you commit an act that is "illegal in the US" in a country where it is "legal to do so" they can swoop down, pick you up, and prosecute you in the US or wait till you come back to the US and prosecute you then, prostitution in the US when the US enforces a no-prestitution policy in other countries through coercion in congress and military support.
To sum all this up, we need to clean up our own back yard first before we try to persuade anyone else to do it in theirs. You can't make a fair assessment of the other guy if you've got a tree branch sticking out of your own eye.
I love this forum, thanks for a place to vent GI Korea.
3:11 pm on September 29th, 2009 45
Why don't the GREEDY KOREANS simply visit clubs in PI and invite GRO's that can sing. Yes, to get into Korea they have to have a video recording ,VTR, singing a song like "Who's my Daddy."
I called the USFK hotline once to report a club for forced barfines…. the Staff Sgt on the line stated, "Barfine, what is that?"
I visit most clubs here in Korea – yeah I'm a bar slut. But the clubs in Tokori are the worst… back to the same crap they were pulling back before 2004. These clubs are forcing the girls into the trade and after a while some girls enjoy making the 40,000 won for a overnighter and the solider is paying $150 or more. If a girl doesn't have a barfine/boyfriend for the night the barowner will find her a local Korean… usually a connection with the local Korean hotels.
If any USFK official needs my help shutting down these jack ass clubs – email me at luvgoodpookie@gmail.com
Prostitution is a fact of life!
If one partakes in forced prostitution you should have your nuts cut off along with your head!
4:38 pm on September 29th, 2009 46
Hyungboo…
Good.
One point you could have added.
While USFK's jurisdiction absolutely stops at the main gate, this doesn't mean businesses that openly rip off GIs must be tolerated.
In fact, quite the opposite happens.
The owners of the clubs which have caused numerous problems for USFK, cost millions in on-base legal hassles, destroyed the careers of expensively-trained servicemembers, broken American families and deteriorated readiness in a number of ways, are actually treated as Good Neighbors… always up for a round of golf, a shopping trip or dinner and drinks with top leadership… as they introduce their "friends" who are looking to grift USFK in one way or another.
Sh!tbag leadership by sh!tbag example.
10:10 pm on September 29th, 2009 47
JoeC—do the English teaches have to take the test every 30 days?
10:25 pm on September 29th, 2009 48
"We also need to re-itterate to the JAG and the military police that they enforce UCMJ law and the jurisdiction ends at the gate. They should not be walking downtown with weapons. It is really stupid to walk even in a small group with weapons into a crowded club where someone can knock you down, take your weapon and shoot up the place. Who’s responsible in a situation like that?"
UCMJ authority does NOT end at an installation perimter ANYwhere in the world. UCMJ authority exists wherever there is someone in uniform. Legal jurisdiction for prosecution is negotiated in the Status Of Forces Agreement–to which US forces patroling villes and areas where US forces congregate is covered. Additional fact is most of the Koreans in villes prefer the Courtesy/Town Patrols to the KNP; I've seen the KNP chased away by business owners while at the same time welcoming the Courtesy Patrols.
Regards who's to blame for some assuaulting an MP and possibly taking a weapon—the criminal who committed the assault is to blame. Simple.
8:29 am on September 30th, 2009 49
You appear to misunderstand my comment. When I state that their jurisdiction ends at the gate I mean that they cannot enforce anything without local authorities requesting assistance. For example, when the MP's raided Hongdae last year at the request of the KNP in Hongdae (of course this was orchestrated by a request to do so by the * Army MP Command Staff). This resulted in the MP's being barred from Hongdae and the KNP commander being repremanded for letting it happen. When an idiot USFK civilian hit my car down town and ran off, I tried to press charges on-base and the NCOIC yelled at me for wasting his patrolman's time and informed me that they have no juridiction downtown and if I wanted to press charges I'd have to go through the Korean Courts.
The CP is fine, that is leaders looking out for the interest of their subordinates. Town Patrol is a military policeman with a weapon walking the streets of a bar district along side a KNP lackey who obediently walks over and asks for an individual's id then turns it over to the MP without question for the MP to make a determination if the KNP should apprehend the individual or let them be because they don't fall under USFK jurisdiction (which ends at the gate). I could banter this all day but the fact of the matter is, I've spent 16 years in Korea as military and contractor and I've pretty much seen it all. I've been on lockdown for 11.5 of those years through over-zealous policies to include Gen LeFlunky's dictatorship. He was booted out of Korea because he overstepped his bounds and got slapped down. Ask Gen Bell what he though of the idiot.
I can handle the truth, I've LIVED it. USFK, USFJ, USFX jurisdiction lies at the feet of SOFA agreements only. If a soldier is apprehended, it has to be done by local nationals not USF's. Hope this educated you a bit on the real truth.
10:07 am on September 30th, 2009 50
MP can apprehend any military individual for UCMJ offense downtown. If it is a matter of Korean Law, then KNP has jurisdiction, however US Military can ask for prosecution if KN Prosecutor concurs; usually they do unless it is high-profile, Korean victim incident. The hook for MP to be able to apprehend in the ville is to identify individual as military at time of apprehension. There a lot of ignorant barracks lawyers that believe they can say "I am a contractor" or "I am from Canada" and the MPs can't touch them. This means they will now be detained until KNP arrives to force ID. Once military identity is confirmed they are now charged with the original crime at time of detention and now false official statement as well as possibly obstruction of justice. Again MPs can charge UCMJ offenses for off-base activity.
10:13 am on September 30th, 2009 51
In the first post John asks if other things should be put off limits: Yes! Let's not ignore the human trafficking just because other evils exists. Take them on one at a time.
I do agree that the problem is easy to solve: Either the PI embassy or U.S. command could go in to a club and ask: Let me see your passport (it is supposed to be ILLEGAL to take the girls passport, so they should have them, right?), and the follow up the question with "Are you here against your will, do you want to go home?
Now, a lot of girls may just decide to say "yep, i'm outta here" and the ajimas get screwed. The ajima paid a management fee for a girl that gets tired and goes home early. Or, if the girls have their passports 80% would run away with their boyfriend whom they love so muchee.
This policy that would put a serious dent in the problem. When ajimas lose money, they don't hire the TCNs. At that point we'd have Koreans back as juicys quick, and I prefer them anyway. At least the human trafficking would be over, then it's just a prostitution problem for the local authorities.
10:18 am on September 30th, 2009 52
I agree. If they want whores for the juicy girls, then go to Angeles and hire whores. Why mess with the whole 'entertainment' thing or trick girls? The fix is in on the immigration anyway, or do the Koreans actually thing there are 20,000 Filipina singers here?
4:38 pm on September 30th, 2009 53
You Can't Handle The Truth,
Stop spreading the misinformation.
"UCMJ authority does NOT end at an installation perimter"
…and…
"their jurisdiction ends at the gate"
…are not the same thing.
UCMJ authority over servicemembers is undisputed.
Town patrol's ability to forcibly detain someone on Korean soil for any reason and for any length of time is a different matter.
This is why town patrol will eventually walk away if you insist you are not in the military… especially if you get indignant and abusive. Civilians do this all the time… military guys are programmed at the lowest level not to… and have a hard time doing it convincingly (especially after lots of alcohol).
Town patrol knows they have no real power except what cowed servicemembers give them… and, since they have no real power, they cannot afford to be wrong.
Of course they have been programed to believe they "own the ville" and they take their mission to catch curfew violators very seriously… so they will hassle perceived violators as far as they can get by with… a human nature trait… and definitely a cop trait.
Once you are spotted they will start questioning. They cannot force you to answer and you can ignore them and walk away. Until they have formed an opinion, they will try blocking your way so that any physical contact is YOUR fault. Once backup arrives, the ones in charge will put their heads together and make a decision if they think you are military or not… and, in reality, they are pretty good at telling the difference between military and non-military.
They will let you go if there is even a possibility you are not in the military… although your description will be left at the gate in case you try to come back on after curfew.
Why?
If they wind up dragging a Canadian English teacher off to the lock-up, they have a problem. If they bug KNP to wake up from their nap to check a civilian ID every 15 minutes, they have a problem…
…plus, as per a Korean lawyer in very broken English… Korea is no longer a police state and KNP cannot ask for ID from someone on the street unless there is probable cause that a crime exists. Violation of USFK's curfew is not a crime. KNP will continue to bend this law as a courtesy unless an issue is made of it. Any English-speaking lawyers who can comment on this?
So, contrary to your thesis, town patrol has NO real power downtown. If they did, anybody who told them to get stuffed would find themselves in handcuffs until identity was confirmed… like they would on post/base where they DO have the power you claim they possess off-post/base.
No. Instead, they pussyfoot around anybody who fights back.
The lesson here is… if a military guy gets busted after curfew and it is a career-ender making it worth the risk, one can probably get away.
"I'm a Canadian citizen, eh. Don't funking touch me you funking baby killers, eh."
Because… wait for it… TOWN PATROL HAS NO REAL POWER ON KOREAN SOIL.
4:40 pm on September 30th, 2009 54
PART 2
If they wind up dragging a Canadian English teacher off to the lock-up, they have a problem. If they bug KNP to wake up from their nap to check a civilian ID every 15 minutes, they have a problem…
…plus, as per a Korean lawyer in very broken English… Korea is no longer a police state and KNP cannot ask for ID from someone on the street unless there is probable cause that a crime exists. Violation of USFK's curfew is not a crime. KNP will continue to bend this law as a courtesy unless an issue is made of it. Any English-speaking lawyers who can comment on this?
So, contrary to your thesis, town patrol has NO real power downtown. If they did, anybody who told them to get stuffed would find themselves in handcuffs until identity was confirmed… like they would on post/base where they DO have the power you claim they possess off-post/base.
No. Instead, they pussyfoot around anybody who fights back.
The lesson here is… if a military guy gets busted after curfew and it is a career-ender making it worth the risk, one can probably get away.
"I'm a Canadian citizen, eh. Don't funking touch me you funking baby killers, eh."
Because… wait for it… TOWN PATROL HAS NO REAL POWER ON KOREAN SOIL.
12:19 am on October 1st, 2009 55
So wrong. There is a difference between "apprehension" and "detention." It's a legal difference. It is legal for MP to detain an individual they have probale cause to be military when suspected of UCMJ offense. If suspect is non-compliant it is acceptable to restrain until KNP can make positive identification. Sometimes that is quick, other times that takes quite a while. MP won't transport until positive ID is made. I have no doubt you have witnessed military bluff the MPs and have no doubt you have witnessed civs berate when stopped by MPs and I have no doubt that MPs have failed to utilize their authority. But the facts of their ability to apprehend and detain as I have explained them are facts.
12:24 am on October 1st, 2009 56
I've also seen a night club with over 150 GIs, US civilians and Korean nationals erupt into a riot over fight on dance floor. Seen the MPs respond, kill music, close doors, call KNP–who pulled out Korean Nationals and gave rest of crowd to MPs. MPs sorted out the US civilians, for which they don't have jurisdiction (they were detained like rest until ID was made), and then took the GIs back to base via bus to be processed as either witnesses or suspects. All on Korean soil and all with the cooperation of the ROK government. Its a matter of whether the MPs want to do their job or not.
2:11 am on October 1st, 2009 57
"It is legal for MP to detain an individual they have probale cause to be military when suspected of UCMJ offense."
I'm very curious which Korean law and/or article of the SOFA allows an American to "detain" someone on Korean soil.
There may somehow be one that I am not aware of… being that I am hardly a lawyer…
…however, while this action may be overlooked in the villes because town patrol is usually right and the rare mistake is kept quiet, it sure doesn't fit with my understanding of the Korean legal system and certain aspects of the Korean Constitution. It might even be against the UCMJ (Article 97, Unlawful Detention) to "apprehend, arrest, or confine" someone who is not under the UCMJ.
Please elaborate… because I still think you are buying into a USFK-perpetuated myth.
The best proof of this is that town patrol's action is VERY different inside and outside the gate. If they had the authority you claim, they would exercise it outside the gate.
Keep in mind… we are not differing on what is being done… we are differing on what is legally being done.
9:49 pm on October 1st, 2009 58
The defense for A97 is that there is a "reasonable belief held by the person imposing restraint that it is lawful."
An apprehension is different from detention of a person for investigative purposes. An apprehension must be based on probable cause. An investigative detention may be made on less than probable cause and normally involves a relatively short period of custody.
Probable cause to apprehend exists when there are reasonable grounds to beleive than an offense has been or is being committed and the person to be apprehended committed or is committing it. MPs are authorized to apprehend persons subject to the UCMJ "who take part in quarrles, frays, or disorders, wherever they occur."
10:51 am on October 2nd, 2009 59
You are absolutely correct… on military installations.
Now kindly explain under what authority town patrol can use law enforcement powers on anyone other than those who fall under the UCMJ… on Korean soil.
While you have repeatedly stated that they can, you have failed to even try to explain HOW they can.
3:00 pm on October 2nd, 2009 60
please in form to korean embassy that there is a name missionary here in the philippine who uses other name to say here in manila. namely "bishop rev. joseph you-shik kim. who even doing some molested act in the his members and he even had relationship in his secretary. This korean is under presbyterian church in the philippines located in mandaluyong city manila. who has school in antipolo ANC. but he tries to make his own orgranization so called followers of Jesus.
5:41 pm on October 2nd, 2009 61
I don't live in a town with a ville, however I happened to be in one yesterday in the day time and they had the juicy girls cleaning the sidewalk outside the club. All of them were fat and ugly.
7:28 pm on October 2nd, 2009 62
Yeah, please explain where in Korean civil code, it is allowed for a US military policeman to detain an Irish/Nigerian/Canadian/German/Peruvian/Bangladeshi/Pakistani/Russian/British national on Korean soil (outside the installation)because said policeman believes the individual being detained just might be a military member. Has the US military enacted martial law in Korea? This is a serious issue with broader implications that some of you chowder heads seem not to comprehend.
Also, the KNP is supposed to accompany MPs. At least in TDC, the KNP has declined and ceased to assist the MP's further because they are not interested in all the silliness.
I am amazed there hasn't been a diplomatic row over crap like this.
1:12 am on October 7th, 2009 63
Leon,
Are we still waiting for You Can't Handle The Truth to answer your question?
This is how Authority Creep ™ works. The police overstep their authority bit by bit and anybody who complains gets hassled with that, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, why are you resisting?" mentality.
Pretty soon, normal people just allow intrusive and illegal action by the police to avoid hassle… forgetting that excessive authority was purposely denied for very good reasons.
After some time, people think infringing and illegal actions are normal because that is what is being done so it must be right.
Then, they get on the Internet and defend it because they believe it to be so.
Then, the peanut gallery gets real quiet when asked to prove the police have the authority they claim to have.
8:48 pm on October 7th, 2009 64
Chick—keep ahold of your horses, I got the full time job with the "in the spare time on the weekends" leisure reading/writing on www interests. I'll get to you by the weekend, but I appreciate the eye connection when we talk…
1:15 am on October 8th, 2009 65
Right on, brother… I eagerly await.
1:13 pm on October 8th, 2009 66
You brought up A97 here. Have you really read it?
"§ 897. Art. 97. Unlawful detention
Any person subject to this chapter who, except as provided by law, apprehends, arrests, or confines any person shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
The "except as provided by law" (in this case during wartime) is the kicker here. Hence, any Military Policeman or any other member subject to the UCMJ who illegally detains a civilian on foreign soil is subject to court-martial.
While not an "official" document, please see http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/b… where it plainly explains that "
(1) Scope. This article prohibits improper acts by those empowered by the code to arrest, apprehend, or confine. See Articles 7 and 9; R.C.M. 302, 304, 305, and 1101, and paragraphs 2 and 5b, Part V. It does not apply to private acts of false imprisonment or unlawful restraint of another’s freedom of movement by one not acting under such a delegation of authority under the code.
(2) No force required. The apprehension, arrest, or confinement must be against the will of the person restrained, but force is not required.
(3) Defense. A reasonable belief held by the person imposing restraint that it is lawful is a defense."
Please pay close attention to (3). The reason the MP's don't use force in detaining is because they know it isn't legal to do so. By stepping in front of a person, they are using force to detain them for what under Korean law "IS NOT" a crime. By the forceable detention of a non-military member (or even a military member as far as I can ascertain) the MP is in violation of both the UCMJ and Korean law and should be prosecuted. Now, the KNP will not press charges so it is up to the person whom the offense is committed to demand prosecution. The first time an MP is put on trial in a Korean court for "ARMED" assault, the MP's will not have weapons with them in any non-combat zoned location.
Also, realize that while this is not detention/or apprehension, extradition into US custody is an explicit violation UN 45/116. Model Treaty on Extradition A/RES/45/116 ANNEX Model Treaty on Extradition ARTICLE 3 Mandatory grounds for refusal (of extradition) Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances: (c) If the offence for which extradition is requested is an offence under military law, which is not also an offence under ordinary criminal law;
By this excerpt, it means that any KNP who turns over anyone to the MP's downtown for an offense that falls in this category that is expressly prohibited by UN Treaty is subject to prosecution in the international courts.
I'd like to see how that one turns out. While I was on active duty in Korea, the UCMJ was the legal guidance I had to follow as well as Korean National laws on the book at the time. Once I left the military the military legal system was not even in my scope of interest. As a matter of fact, as a contractor in Korea, USFK wouldn't even prosecute anyone unless they fell under SOFA and UCMJ jurisdiction. Had I gotten into a bind, USFK would have said kiss off, work it out for yourself, we have no responsibility in the matter.
Now that congress has passed a law about prosecuting offenders of US law in other countries, they have to wait until the individual returns to the US before they can apprehend them. However, curfew violations and prostitution are not against the law in every state of the union so it would be difficult for them to prosecute these offenses in the US. Of course if the prostitution involved children in the country of offense I wholly agree with repatriation and prosecution as a matter of principle, no matter who they are.
If you find legal precedence that justifies the afore mentioned detention I'm sure happy to read it just please don't misquote because there are individuals out here that will challenge it. Be sure to do your homework…
1:19 pm on October 8th, 2009 67
Hell, they can't even legally detain US personnel. See my comment above under thread 19. They can't detain dependents downtown either, only once they enter the gates. Gen. LaPorte found this out through his incompetence.
Sorry for the use of your last name here
but such is life… 
1:22 pm on October 8th, 2009 68
Amen!!!
BTW, can anyone see the same authority creep in the current Congress? 
You would think that the flaming they got from their constituents would carry some weight.
3:44 pm on October 8th, 2009 69
It's amazing that, while they can't maintain much day to day discipline on their people, in a desparate attempt to exercise SOME kind of control- and that's what this is REALLY all about, control- the command here comes up with stuff like this.
If the command climate was a bit more disciplined, you'd see a lot more esprit, proficiency, morale, and so on, and the need for the Nanny Patrol would be, if not eliminated, be more of an assistance thing than a "nail 'em"! thing…
But that might require involved and concerned leadership. That takes time, effort, and a generous helping of character.
There will always be some dirt bags out there- but when you have a unit with good small unit leaders and commanders you generally have a lot less problems and much less need for the Nanny Patrol – and the attempt to enforce orders which might, in fact, be unenforceable….
5:15 pm on October 8th, 2009 70
[DELETED BY ADMIN - Inappropriate Content]
9:38 pm on October 8th, 2009 71
Why are you brining up a Japanese MOFA agreement statement here. http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a… The referenced document has no legal bearing on the subject matter of this particular line of conversation. Each independent nation has its own agreement with the US. Additionally, the statements you bring up here refer to the "United States armed forces shall have the right to police any facilities or areas which they use…" nowhere does it imply to "off-installation" jurisdiction in Korea or any other nation.
10:41 pm on October 8th, 2009 72
Please re-read para 10b; this is the part of ROK-US SOFA that addresses how MPs operate off the installation. Earlier posts claimed this was not possible and was not allowed by Korean law; this is not accurate as the SOFA is the legal contract between US and ROK and gives US powers to police their own on and off their installations.
10:46 pm on October 8th, 2009 73
I believe you, you been there done that–between male DNA deposits of which you speak or the possible burst of infection, I will defer to your expertise of all things that drip in slightly yellowish discharge…
3:29 am on October 9th, 2009 74
From the Criminal Jurisdiction of the SOFA:
“10. (a) Regularly constituted military units or formations of the United States armed forces shall have the right to police any facilities or areas which they use under Article II of this agreement. The miltiary police of such forces may take all appropriate measures to ensure the maintenance of order and security within such facilities and areas.
(b). Outside these facilities and areas, such military police shall be employed only subject to arrangements with the authorities of the Republic of Korea and in liaison with those authorities, and insofar as such employment is necessary to maintain discipline and order among the members of the United States armed forces or to ensure their security”
The preamble to this quote discusses the concept of the US exercising exclusive jurisdiction over their personnel when the criminal activity is solely against US law; concurrent jurisdiction existing for other offenses, with the ability of Korea to exercise primary jurisdiction when Korean law is broken or when their is Korean victim. It also discuses that the US can request jurisdiction even when it is Korean law that is broken, provided that Korea permits it.
Bottom line it comes down to the professional operation of Military Police, the on-going relationship they have with their counterparts at KNP and continual discussion with the JAG and thier Korean Prosecutors Office counterparts.
There is no juridictional, constitutional or national infringement of soverienty. Personnel subject to military jurisdiction are subject to that jurisdiction on and off base. The process of identifying military personnel will lead to the lawful detention of civilians, who will be released as soon as their identity can be confirmed, usually through the lawful and on-going liaison with KNP.
The MCM, SOP, SOFA and local liaison allows and encourages the US military to enforce the discipline and order of their personnel.
3:31 am on October 9th, 2009 75
I liked the comment made by previous post that identified that which you covet so much is not from the woman, but the many men that were there before you….
4:24 am on October 9th, 2009 76
Now that was a scary though,
5:10 am on October 9th, 2009 77
[DELETED BY ADMIN]
6:16 am on October 9th, 2009 78
Again I ask Why the Japanese MOFA? Additionally, if you read this paragraph, it refers to "right to police any facilities or areas which they use" not the surrounding area. as well as "within such facilities and areas" which by my understanding refers to the area within the gates.
I can't find this passage in the ROK-US SOFA documents. Please provide a link to the document.
9:55 am on October 9th, 2009 79
My comments aren't directed at the abiltiy to apprehend civilians which you are quoting above. My comments are stating that MPs can DETAIN–there is a legal difference between a detention and an apprehension. Read below on quote from the SOFA which explains how MP can operate on/off military installations. The MCM you quote explains he difference between apprehension and detention. It is critical that you understand that difference.
You are spot on about jurisdiction of civilians—they fall to the Koreans for prosecution, but again there is a difference between prosecution, what you are talking about, and the stop/identify/release of which I am talking about…
9:56 am on October 9th, 2009 80
Not true
9:59 am on October 9th, 2009 81
I am quoting the ROK-US SOFA, don't have a "JOFA" haven't seen a "JOFA"
There isn't a link to SOFA that I can find, that's why I went and got a hardcopy—visit the JAG, they'll hook you up….
10:36 am on October 9th, 2009 82
Point is that the MP's have no over encompassing authority to even detain off-installation. If they feel they might be dealing with a military member then they can "ask" the KNP to question the individual. If the individual fails to give an id to a KNP then they can be detained "by the KNP" not the MP. If the individual turns out to be an individual subject to the UCMJ then the KNP can "elect" to turn them over to the MP. However, according to the UN article I quoted, breaking USFK curfew is not a crime punishable under Korean law and the KNP, by virtue of KOREA being a member to the UN agreeing with this particular document, are not to turn them over to the MP's. If they do, they are in violation of international agreement and can be charged by the international community.
One other thing that bothers me is the fact that the KNP are willing puppets to the MP's and will blindly provide anyone's id data to the MP at their request. I personally have experienced this where my identification was taken by the KNP and he was going to hand it over to the MP. I confronted the KNP in Korean and explained that he had no right to provide the information. Let's just say that the KNP backed down, handed me my id and told the MP I wasn't military, all he had a right to say. If I had been military at the time, I would have then been required to produce my id to the MP "upon request" because the MP would have had positive verification that I was military. At that point, per previous paragraph, the MP could only take down my information and process it through my command. They could also direct me to return to the facility and report to the desk sergeant but they can't detain because UN documents prohibit detainment and transfer of this particular issue, other issues falling under Korean law can and will be handled differently. Funny how the US bullied Korea to pass a "no prostitution" law when the US has legalized prostitution in various states.
As for the reason the US-ROK SOFA is not on the WEB, it is stated on one site I ran across that parts of the US-ROK SOFA are classified. If this is true, does this go to ignorance of the law is no excuse? Classified rules, sounds like congress passing laws in the middle of the night to prevent coverage.
I honestly enjoy this debate but I still haven''t seen anything in black and white. Could you possibly find a scanner and upload the SOFA document to the web? It would be interesting to see what crap the current SOFA negotiators have agreed to regarding stripping of civil rights our men and women in uniform would have if they were stationed in the US or some other country. Hell, the current contractor rules in Korea aren't even in writing. The JAG is making them up as they go based on issues that arose in Germany. If it isn't in writing (and not a policy for policies are not enforceable) then it isn't so.
8:01 am on January 28th, 2011 83
We, as in the U.S shouldn't condone trafficking in Korea but we allow it happen here in the US? Double standard as usual
10:48 am on January 28th, 2011 84
#83 Where is it known to happen and ALLOWED to continue in the U.S.? Links.
Why have you not reported it?
Or are you a Korean in korea just throwing stones.
11:05 am on January 28th, 2011 85
So, I let this guy borrow my car and he wrecked it. I heard you visited his house so I want you to pay for it.
/What does this have to do with the US? It is between the PI government and the ROK government.
1:12 pm on January 28th, 2011 86
My thinking is that the ROK government could not care less about trafficking in sex as long as they get a piece of the action.
Same for the PI government.
Women are of little importance in both Korea and the Philippines. (spent time in both "countries" and know that for a fact)
Perhaps America should be more like Korea—a Red-Light area near every subway stop.
(I miss the Steam & Cream)
3:10 pm on January 28th, 2011 87
If comment #19 is correct stupid people are paying $30 to a drinkie girl for a drink and 300 f'in dollars for sex, you have got to be sh!+ing me? I agree with Leon LaPorte #85, this is between the ROK & the PI governments. If the Koreans & the Filipinos were to get together & go to these bars, interview the girls AWAY from the bar owners then you would find out which if any of the girls was 'trafficked." I suspect that the overwhelming majority if not 100% of the girls knew exactly what they were getting into. I'm not an expert but I do believe that they have telephones in the PI. I do know that they have telephones in Korea. If these girls were brought over here on false pretenses I would think that at least some of them would call home in the PI or a relative, or a friend and warn them about what is going on in the ROK. We are not talking North Korea, people in South Korea are allowed to make overseas phone calls. If some lonely & horny idiot GI wants to spend 300 f'ing dollars for some pogee, well let him.
11:09 pm on January 28th, 2011 88
People pay for sex in Korea?!?!? Who ever heard of such a thing?!?!?
I'll bet it is only because of Americans–and likely Bush's fault!! Obama will fix it right after he fills my gas tank and pays my mortgage…
