Fight the curfew
Are you a DoD civilian pissed off about USFK’s midnight-to-5 a.m. curfew? Well, this would appear to be the site for you.
62 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://blog.marmot.cc/archives/2005/01/26/fight-the-curfew/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
The points raised on this site are totally valid from a legal perspective, but one salient point remains. He who takes the King’s shilling, does as the King bids. And we are living very well in Korea on King George’s shilling. We may not agree with the policy, but if we aren’t willing to live by its spirit, we are free to leave. After all, troops who get paid far less than we do have no other choice.
My question is, how do you fight the curfew. Write your congressmen? that is a joke. Is there a lawsuit going on. Who konws of any stories of people losing their jobs. Besides making a crappy website… what are the DOD people doing.
There are ways around the curfew since the CPs and MPs don’t go anywhere outside of Itaewon (and they don’t cover even all of that). The only punishment for DOD contractors is the loss of SOFA status - but that’s a pretty big thing for those guys. To me, it would depend on the contract you sign as a SOFA contractor. If there’s a clause allowing this kind of thing then I’d say there’s no recourse.
As far as the merits are concerned, the idea that the curfew prevents “human trafficking” is ridiculous. Show me one female in Itaewon who can’t walk away from her job. Also, force protection is nonsense as noted above. There’s no good reason for it and the only thing that makes sense is that LaPort and Campbell don’t have the guts to overturn something not started on their watch (i.e. the institutional inertia is too great).
What do you mean the kind of contract you sign? My contract doesnt say anything about a that stuff. How would you find out how much troube you can get in. Is there a process to revolk your sofa status?
It is my understanding that SOFA status is a privilege extended/revoked at their whim. If this is the case then they don’t need to have anything written into the contracts. Also, keep in mind that they may also ban individuals from entering the installation which would in turn prevent that individual from going to work.
My Solution: Stay out of Itaewon until someone successfully takes this to court.
I’ve read the link and other comments and still I’m not sure I believe this, but it’s a fascinating and enjoyable story nonetheless. I particularly enjoyed the part on the link where someone implied that there should be a valid claim for overtime pay for 20 hours a week, because of the 5 hours restriction! I presume this computation is based on the restriction of 5 hours a night, 0000 through 0500 hours, Monday through Thursday.
I would guess that a “normal” DoD civilian worker who has to be at least minimally functional for his job during the duty day would need to be in bed during these hours, but perhaps the ones resident in Korea belong to some special superhuman subspecies not needing normal amounts of sleep.
Junior’s info about on base privileges sounds correct. Even military commanders in CONUS have almost absolute authority to control who is allowed on base. They have administrative authority to expel seriously disruptive military dependents from government quarters on post, for example.
However, I don’t know what “court” a civil case about this could be “successfully” taken to. No federal court has jurisdiction over a military commander acting within the scope of his administrative authority. Intervention by Congressional representatives is at least theoretically possible (though disparaged as a joke above).
But – if somebody seriously wants to fight this legally (by methods other than posting gripes on the internet), they should read their contracts as suggested above and then read the SOFA. The Judge Advocate General (military legal office) should be able to readily provide a copy of the SOFA. I notice no extract from the SOFA was placed on the web site – I’d think that would have been the first document consulted, with appropriate extracts posted.
Once the legal facts are fully known and understood, if the commanding general has an “open door” policy I suggest that any and all aggrieved DoD civilian workers should make an appointment and march in to state their case to him in person. Call this the
“personal-appeal-to-"King George” method (in the manner of Benjamin Franklin in London, just before the American revolution).
(You might try mentioning this analogy to the CG, btw, it’ll definitely get his attention).
If the CG doesn’t run such an open door policy, there may be a “garrison commander” on his staff who will see you, probably a full colonel who deals with routine administrative matters involving the day to day running of the installation(s).
You could try asking for a “special pass” privilege for DoD civilians, perhaps consisting of a card carried to flash at (and presumably deter) MP’s bearing down on you with delighted expressions and drawn nightsticks.
Expect a particularly stony expression on the face of the colonel or general once he gathers the import of your complaint, but I’m sure he will hear you out and render a decision one way or another. The first civilian DoD “Daniel” to venture into the lion’s cage will undoubtedly earn a “biblical” notoriety among the general and his staff, but hey an American’s gotta stand up for his rights against these tinhorn brass petty dictators with a Napoleonic complex – right?
Make sure any saga of such an “in-person” visit and protest to the CG and/or his staff is published on the web site. I’m looking forward to reading it.
If the solution is to defy the policy, DoD workers should travel after curfew in groups, ideally a mixture of “smart” ones and “stupid” ones. With this method (thoroughly documented in scores of movies and novels), upon arrival of the MP’s the “stupid ones” start a furious fistfight, while the “smart ones” shinny out an upstairs window, perhaps pulling on their pants in the process. (Of course, any DoD worker reading my suggestion here will naturally fall into the category of “smart ones". Make sure the “stupid ones” don’t know about the Marmot’s web site).
However, be you “smart” or be you “stupid” – if caught, subdued, and then lined up in front of the MP desk sergeant, remember that under this Hollywood ethos you are required to accept your lot with good-humored resignation (at least once the alcohol wears off and sobriety returns).
SOFA civilians: If it’s past curfew hour and a KNP asks for your ID card, simply take out your card and show it to them. As long as you’re not breaking any Korean laws there’s nothing he can do to you, and therefore there’s no proof that you were outside past curfew. Deny that you were there. They do not have proof! MPs have no jurisdiction off-base and they cannot legally gather information via a Korean National Security Law ID search. That information would be inadmissible in an American court. If an MP cannot ask for your ID card, he cannot ask a KNP to ask for your ID card!
And by the way, how do the MPs choose which people to check? Are East Asian female ID cards’ checked? There certainly are plenty of Korean females with SOFA cards. Are the MPs/KNPs going on to the disco dance floors and checking Korean females, or are they only going after the guys with high-n-tight haircuts sitting in the 3 Alley pub? Hmm, now what would an American court/judge think of that?
And how often do the American MPs end up harassing third party nationals? How many Brits/Canadians/Aussies/etc…have been asked for their ID cards? Is it legal for the MPs to indirectly conduct ID checks on these folks? Why is the Korean government going along with this nonsense?
Well, on and on…………I think the only thing we can do is disregard the curfew, deny you were there, and if the USFK does take legal action then take them to court - you’ll win.
I envy you USFK civilians. At least you guys have a glimmer of hope.
It’s illegal for Korean citizens to be in public without their “Resident Number” card, any police officer may ask for anyone’s ID at any time, regardless of circumstances. Hope that answers your question to some extent hardyandtiny.
Hey Kromozone what question are you answering?
I know KNP’s can check my civilian SOFA ID card. I also know that US MP’s cannot.
If an MP requests a KNP to check my civilian SOFA ID card that is tantamount to an MP checking my ID card and that is unauthorized. MPs cannot check my ID card off-post. Any ID information gathered by an MP, in ANYWAY, off-post is illegal and inadmissible in court. Therefore the USFK has no way to legally enforce a curfew on civilians. As long as civilians are not processed for breaking the Korean law they cannot be proven guilty of violating the curfew.
Look at the PDF.
http://www.freefed.com/StaffAttorneyAdvisesMPs.pdf
It says the KNP has the authority to conduct ID checks under Korean law but the MPs have NO SUCH authority. It then says, “Accordingly”, but then goes on to state information, which is not “in accordance” with the preceding statements.
The Korea law does not give MPs jurisdiction. A KNP ID is an unrelated event, which does not temporarily authorize jurisdiction to US MPs off-post.
I was just referring to the last question, “Why is the Korean government going along with this nonsense?"… i.e. since they already do the same thing with their own citizens, it seems perfectly logical to allow the guest military to do the same thing.
Kromozone
This has nothing to do with Korean law or what the Korean government has the right to do to people in Korea.
The US military police have no legal jurisdiction outside of their military installations in Korea. They do not have the authority to check civilian IDs. KNPs can check IDs but that is unrelated to the US MPs.
My statement “Why is the Korean government going along with this nonsense?” is related to the subject in its paragraph. I am asking why would the Korean government allow US MPs to randomly check IDs and end up harassing innocent third party nationals? If an MP asks a KNP to check an ajummas ID the KNP will most likely not do it. If the MP asks the KNP to check two female Koreans the KNP will most likely not do it. If the MP asks the KNP to check the ID of two Caucasian males with short hair sitting at a bar he most likely will check it. Oh shit, Ooops! Those guys at the bar were from Ireland! And guess what, the three women they didn’t check were all SOFA cardholders. Now do you see the nonsense? Who establishes Korea’s image to tourists the US MPs or the Korean government? Who establishes law and order in Korea?
I read the memorandum by the USFK Staff Judge Advocate and it correctly describes the limitation of military justice applicability to civilians, even SOFA civilians. In a time where the U.S. military is “outsourcing” many core functions to civilian contractors ("camp followers” have always been found with military forces across the ages) this poses a problem to effective policing of all U.S. personnel. One law review article I read years ago, when I was researching SOFA issues (i.e. before I had to earn a living) described the problem of US Forces/SOFA-related crimes in which the host country has no interest; one sensational case involved an American military spouse who murdered her servicemember husband in Saudi Arabia and was not prosecuted by the Saudis. Since there was no military jurisdiction and no federal statute extending American criminal jurisdiction to camp-follower civilians, the woman got off scot-free. (Well, at least she lost her commissary privileges.)
Korea has ZERO interest in foreigner-on-foreigner crime. I have experience here in Korea where an Australian was pretty savagely attacked and beaten by two gigantic GIs (in Itaewon, it figures), the offenders were chased, caught and restrained (by me), a police report was filed but ultimately the Korean prosecution declined to exercise its jurisdiction over the soldiers. They got Art. 15s and are probably now out of the Army, but the victim didn’t get “justice” in the form of the Korean state action which would have been mobilized if he were Korean instead of Aussie.
This USFK judge advocate’s memorandum basically sums up all that research I did so many years ago. So much for that.
However, as an attorney in private practice now with a Korean law firm, I’d had occasion to consider some of the same issues in connection with paying matters as well as my own run-ins with the law. On one point, I think the USFK memorandum is misleading and perhaps a little dangerous, and that is in respect of the privilege of MPs to use force to protect themselves and in defense of others. “Here is Korea.”
While Korea does recognize a right of self-protection, this right had best be thought of as opposed to right of self-defense as we Americans understand it. When under attack, a Korean has the right to protect and cover himself but may not undertake a counter-offense – i.e., the law says you can’t hit back. Similarly, the use of violence in defense of others is frowned upon; if witness to a crime citizens may restrain the offender until police arrive, but may not attack him to rescue the victim. These are fundamental differences in the way Korean and American criminal justice systems view the use of force in self-defense or defense of others. I believe that the advice to MPs contained in the USFK SJA memorandum might lead some of them to trouble.
What is the difference between a US MPO directly asking for a civilian ID and a US MPO asking a KNPO to ask for civilian ID? In both instances the US MPO is checking the civilian’s ID and that is unauthorized and illegal.
The US MPO either has the right or does not have the right to perform civilian ID checks off-post in South Korea. Encouraging the KNPO to illegally discriminate by using part of the Korean National Security Law is abusive and does not magically transfer jurisdiction to the US MPO. Information gathered by a US MPO via a KNPO ID check cannot be used as evidence in an American military court or any other US court.
If a civilian commits a crime in Korea and that civilian happens to be a SOFA status US civilian then the USFK can punish that civilian for violating the curfew, otherwise there is no evidence of USFK curfew violation.
“When under attack, a Korean has the right to protect and cover himself but may not undertake a counter-offense – i.e., the law says you can’t hit back.”
Brendon can you elaborate on this? Under what circumstances? Do you mean in the case of an MP or foreinger being attacked by a Korean, or just in general? Haven’t you exagerrated a bit here? The law says you can’t “hit back"??
I have not exaggerated.
Brendon
Before this gets too complicated I think you should first recognize that you stated “a Korean", “has the right to protect……” Is the law you limited to Koreans?
Isn’t it possible that a self-defense action may include a “hit back” where the person “hits” the other person “back” in self-defense without creating a counter-offense? Again, haven’t you extended/exaggerated the concept of counter-offense to include self-defense?
Nope. If you’re attacked, cover up or run. Or hope that police are around, or that they will come in a timely fashion after your neighbors – hearing your screams – call the police.
There is no privilege for a person, regardless of nationality, race, or military/civilian status, to “hit back” against an attacker. To do so is a crime under Korean law. In a typical fight situation, where both parties survive, both parties are charged with the same crime of battery. Who hit first is irrelevant to the determination of whether a crime has occurred.
The Korean legal system has a decided preference for discouraging “self-help” in favor of enforcing citizens’ dependence on the state. This is common in most European countries, and to some degree in the U.K., especially after accession to the European Union.
The fact that you are having such a hard time comprehending how this could be possible is the reason I think the military judge advocate’s memorandum to the military police is dangerous. Our understanding of these concepts is fundamentally different from that of Koreans.
Brendon:
My impression, from the military law classes I received (long ago, no notes) is that in cases where the host country declines to prosecute (such as the Saudi Arabian example you cite), there are federal courts designated with jurisdiction.
In the Saudi case, was the wife not prosecuted because of a shortcoming in the law – or was it that the US attorney simply declined to prosecute her due to the difficulty and/or individual circumstances?
I also vaguely recall that at one time military spouses were subject to the UCMJ overseas, but thist was overturned by the courts (maybe the Supreme Court, 1940’s or 1950’s?)
Maybe this Saudi case occurred in the “gap” between the loss of UCMJ jurisdiction and the establishment by Congress of new procedures for such cases.
The presence of military families overseas is much reduced now from what it was prior to 1990, but I’m sure that if a a non-military spouse kills his/her spouse now, and the host country declines to prosecute, there is a way for a CONUS US attorney to prosecute the case (?)
I think one question on Marmot’s Hole does not define my difficulty, if there is any, in understanding this topic. Hold on to your pants and try not to get emotional. I’ll make one personal comment: I’ll be certain to NOT retain you as my lawyer if If I’m ever gang raped in Korea.
What do you mean by “a typical fight situation” counselor. That is not law. You’re presentation is not logical. Please define for me a “typical fight situation”. “Typical”, is not a legal term. I need to see the law.
My question is what to do if MPs know you are DOD or DA or whatever they are called and you dont have ID or ditch out. What does the KNP/MP do then. Do they go to your office the next day on post and kick you out of Korea.
Paul
That story about an American spouse murdering an American service member in Saudi Arabia and not having to face an American prosecution is absolute bullshit! Ask the “lawyer” to show the links to the story.
My question is what to do if MPs know you are DOD or DA or whatever they are called and you dont have ID or ditch out. What does the KNP/MP do then. Do they go to your office the next day on post and kick you out of Korea.
Dingles
You must have your ID with you in Korea. That’s Korean law. If you do not have your ID then the KNP can arrest you and then you are fucked because you have broken Korean law. Always carry your ID and if a KNP asks you for it do not argue and hand it over. That is all. It has nothing to do with the USFK.
However, if you’re a military member, you should obey the curfew because you can not counter-loophole the law.
Paul H.,
You are correct. In November 2000 President Clinton signed the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (18 U.S.C. §§ 3261-3267 (2000). This law extended Federal civilian court jurisdiction over crimes committed overseas by American civilian camp followers, provided that the crime – if committed in the United States – would have been a felony.
The Supreme Court finally rejected military courts-martial jurisdiction over civilian spouses of military members in 1957 (Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957)). For forty-three years from 1957 to 2000, there had been no American criminal jurisdiction over civilian camp followers.
Since I commenced earning a living as a lawyer in summer 1997, this topic became less important to me and I packed up all my research materials. I also missed the MEJA becoming law three years ago, which means that my “advice” (God help you if you rely solely on the Marmot’s Hole for your legal advice).
But as to hardyandtiny’s “challenge” (I am coming to believe that person to be a halfwit) I can only offer the following bibliography to the MEJA:
These articles, many of which I read in the period 1994-1996 (i.e. back when I thought it was possible to change the world by telling truth to misinformed halfwits), detail many instances of unpunished felony crimes by American civilian camp followers. They are still packed in my box of research materials. Since I think the point has been made, and anyone who really wants to look up the truth will be able to do so based on this bibliography, that will be the end of that.
Apparently, “that” will not be “the end of that.” Two minutes’ Googling turned up the 1979 report of the General Accounting Office re: unpunished crimes. Check it out yourself, jackass.
Brendon
Try your best to get away from the childish name calling and the extended meaningless references and just show proof that an American woman married to an American service person was able to murder that American service member in Saudi Arabia and not have to face an American prosecution.
Show me that case. One article, one file, one reference…something. You have shown me nothing that proves what you said is true.
“one sensational case involved an American military spouse who murdered her servicemember husband in Saudi Arabia and was not prosecuted by the Saudis. Since there was no military jurisdiction and no federal statute extending American criminal jurisdiction to camp-follower civilians, the woman got off scot-free.”
Brendon,
Define “a typical fight situation”?
This PDF http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/110369.pdf
Does NOT refer to the case you mentioned.
Having been at the wrong end of such a situation once too many, I can tell you that what Brendon says is true. Someone can call your wife a whore, then hit you, if you hit back you’re in deep shit. ==> my advice: if you’re gonna hit back, go for the biggest damage, without marks. And wreck the place, if indoors: the owner will prolly pay off the cops [don’t ask how I know that].
I used to be a bit rowdy here a few years ago (before curfew, off-limits, “buddy” policy, etc.), and I can vouch for dda’s advice. Pick your fighting location; this doesn’t work if you walk into unfamiliar turf crowded with Hanchongnyon. Make sure it is someplace where you are a regular and on good terms with the owner/bouncer/etc….anticipate the enemy’s first strike, then ruthlessly destroy his groin, neck, limbs, and guts (don’t bloody the face), and the owner will vouch for you with the security or police.
I can confirm that hardyandtiny is a dimwit. I can understand B.C.’s frustration at your inability to comprehend his complex sentences. Your defenceness conveys a person who hasn’t passed his grade 12 exams. Ahhh, the quality of the US military in Korea. The best and the brightest, right? Right??
Stop moving your lips!
Brendon, thanks for the comprehensive answer, didn’t know about the 2000 law. I still find it hard to believe that the gap had existed for 43 years but I’m in no position to dispute you.
We still had military families stationed in KSA in the early 90’s. I got to know many of the ones in my organization when I was stationed over there as an advisor (single guy, always accepted a dinner invite).
I’m sorry I didn’t know about the “gap", the wives would have enjoyed hearing about it, would have made great dinner conversation.
I thought I remembered Army JAG Corps lesson plans from the late 80’s, that said the gap had been covered years earlier, but could be faulty memory and I got it 180 degrees wrong.
I had an outstanding military law class in the mid-70’s as an ROTC cadet, from a JAG major who loved this kind of stuff as well, he may well have talked about this subject too. I know the subject made an impression, everybody loves technicalities and loopholes; don’t worry I’m not married so in my case it’s just a theoretical interest.
Congrats Horatio for getting in your cheap shot at the US military. I suppose I could reciprocate with sneers at the current trial of British army servicemembers in Germany, or recite some horrific cases of British military misconduct I’ve heard over the years, but in fact I have too much respect for the overall quality of the British military forces to do so.
BTW, I have no idea who hardy is or if he is even in the US military in Korea, perhaps you know better.
Hardy, if you are military in Korea I suggest you go talk to JAG types over there. I’d suggest you get an appt with (and bounce your ideas off) someone from US military Trial Defense Service (if that’s what it’s still called, ie military lawyers who provide legal advice and representation to US military members in Korea).
I’m sure they deal with the issues you raise on a practically daily basis, based on both the theory (and the actual application “on the ground") of the UCMJ, Korean law, and the SOFA.
Wow. You do learn something every day. I’ve been here a while and never knew that Korean law stated one isn’t allowed to defend himself when attacked first.
Say Brendon, why did you stop blogging? You had a good thing going there while it lasted…
Nomad
I usually view the personal attacks and “holier-than-thou” attitudes here on Marmot’s Hole as great comedy. However, since this has taken a turn for the worse, I just want to point out to the reader that in light of Engrish-Spectrumgate, certain parties have a vested interest in making sure USFK civilians and soldiers are off the market 0000-0500 daily, so just consider the source as you read these comments.
A link to an earlier trial whereby two dependent wives convicted of murdering their hushands on overseas bases, had their trials by Courts Martial overturned on the basis that the military tribunals lacked jurisdiction. But note that these were civilian dependents, and that the dissenting judges cited plenty of precedent to argue that military commanders did have jurisdiction over other classes of civilians accompanying the military under various conditions.
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/354-001a.htm
For some folks the decision to hit back or run is clear. If you have SOFA status and it’s past curfew then run like hell!
Some of the advice given is unusual.
“If you’re attacked, cover up or run. Or hope that police are around, or that they will come in a timely fashion after your neighbors – hearing your screams – call the police.”
I wouldn’t follow that advice. You could end up in a coma. Actually it doesn’t matter which country you’re in or who’s attacking you, if you have no choice but to defend yourself by striking back then do so. Better to be charged with battery than have permanent brain damage for the rest of your life.
“In a typical fight situation, where both parties survive, both parties are charged with the same crime of battery.”
That may be part of Korean law but it doesn’t make any sense. It should be changed. Having a law doesn’t make the law sensible.
“Who hit first is irrelevant to the determination of whether a crime has occurred.”
Yes, and who smokes cigarettes is also irrelevant to the determination of whether a crime has occurred.
“Your defenceness conveys a person who hasn’t passed his grade 12 exams.”
Grade 12 exams? What the hell? Prissy talk? Back in the day I was smoking weed, driving my 64 Buick Special, listening to I Am Iron Maaaaan!, with my girl next to me on that big slippery bench seat! What the hell are Grade 12 exams?
“You do learn something every day. I’ve been here a while and never knew that Korean law stated one isn’t allowed to defend himself when attacked first.”
I think you CAN defend yourself, but bear in mind that you will also be charged with battery. It’s stooopid. Like this… http://www.seoulrecord.net/foodwaste.jpg
Why not just stay away from places where you are likely to find yourself confronted with the dilemma of whether to have to commit battery or not?
That’s the point of the CG’s curfew, 18 to 25 year old males the world over tend to think with their hormones regardless of how well or poorly they did on their grade 12 exams.
So mildly coercive measures must be enforced on them when necessary no matter how loudly they scream about it. Believe it or not, while most senior US military officers do what they have to do along these lines, they don’t lie awake at night scheming about what they can do next to violate people’s “human rights".
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander so the measures are made comprehensive for all. Ingenious folks will attempt to find ways around them, and if they’re smart enough they’ll succeed and get away with it until they get caught. If they have no sense of shame they’ll then whine about that too.
So has it been and so shall it ever be….
BTW, Horatio, a search of a couple of online dictionaries confirms what I thought I already knew – that there is no such word as “defenceness". I think you mean “defensiveness", old boy.
Perhaps a review of your own grade 12 instruction is in order.
(Yes, I know “defence” is the predominantly British spelling of defense).
Try to explain that to the cop [or rather a bunch of them] who brought you to the local 경찰서. I tried. They sympathized, but the law is the law. Well, unless you know people, of course. It *is* Korea, after all…
BTW, unless they have a 구속 영장, you can refuse to follow them to the 경찰서. It’s a so-so strategy, though… Only works so long. Again, direct experience speaking here.
Apparently, you are still smoking weed. Nobody argued smoking had relevance in determining who’s at fault in a fight, whereas the general assumption of foreigners in Korea was/is that self-defence is a right. It is not. So we could rephrase it as: “In a fight, self-defence doesn’t exist.” All parties involved are guilty. Period.
Not always possible, as I had the displeasure of finding out. One can *not* avoid showing up at the workplace, for instance. Sitting quietly in a bus or metro isn’t normally too life-threatening either. I found that some supposedly rowdy places were sometimes safer than the street or the workplace, actually. At least, in a bar, you usually have bouncers…
Just another reason to live in Texas… where one can use deadly force to defend one’s property in certain circumstances.
My mom used to tell me “nothing good happens after midnight". I guess I wouldn’t be grousing about a curfew that included the hours I’m asleep…
“…the general assumption of foreigners in Korea was/is that self-defence is a right. It is not. So we could rephrase it as: “In a fight, self-defence doesn’t exist.” All parties involved are guilty. Period.”
Self-defense exists in Korea. People use it ALL the time. Self-defense just might be the #1 crime in Korea. You’ll never stop people from defending themselves by creating a law. You can’t rid the world of self defense. The law doesn’t make sense.
Here’s another rephrase: “In Korea self-defense is illegal.”
I would advise everyone to disregard a law that says self-defense is illegal.
I just asked my Korean friend about the self-defense law and the first thing she said was, “Oh they don’t want wife to kill husband":)
hardyandtiny thinks this blog is Davesesl and will go on and on about nothing. I think brandon is right and hardyandtiny is a nitwit.
Here’s my point: Westerners might be better off knowing that “self-defense” is not a legal privilege to use violence. Instead of blithely bellying up to trouble, smug in the belief that everything will work out “because he hit me first", different choices might be made.
I think this blog is going in the wrong direction. Back to the point of the legality of the USFK to lump a curfew on civilians under the pretense of force protection without clarifying on what grounds this force protection is based on. The USFK Contractor Regulations states that Invited Contractors or Technical Representatives must follow force protection guidelines. When they first tried to impose the curfew on the civilians (Late Jan 04) they didn’t put in under force protection and the DAC Union tore it to pieces and it was rescinded shortly there after. The latest curfew from 24 Sep 04 was based off of information the embassy put out about civil disturbances for the Korean Government sending troops to Iraq. The embassy no longer has that warning posted. So the question is why is the curfew still in-effect for civilians? What information is the force protection issued on?
Bottom line…Gen HalfPint has over-stepped his authority. But heck, he needs to “accomplish” something on his watch in Korea since Gen Schwartz did more to improve the quality of life here and not deminish it like HalfPint.
Being married to a Korean and a Civilian I do not have the right to attend events in the evening like late movies, shows, shopping in Namdemun after midnight because of this curfew. But my wife, having a valid ID card can!!!! This is a mess that USFK has made and there is no legal merit.
Yes, back to the point please. Nobody gives a crap about the bickering over who killed who in Saudi Arabia. Focus People!
The bottom line is the CG and his dirty henchmen have lied about force protection measure requirements to institute a curfew in order to close down the bar districts catering to USFK personnel. It’s the biggest case of fraud I’ve ever seen outside of the 2000 election. With no state department warnings or facts to back up their actions, shrimpy has forced an illegal curfew on all DOD personnel and their dependents living in Korea. Have we any legal recourse? What is the DAC union doing about this?
The answer is pretty simple: The whoremongers’ lobby is weakened by the preference of its would-be members to skulk about anonymously, and the fact that the underlying (so to speak) activity being restricted is itself unlawful. Break curfew outside the foreigners’ red-light and booze areas and your chance of getting away with it goes up to 99.9% – i.e., no curfew outside Itaewon and Hongdae.
The USFK does not need a limited curfew but instead a 24 hour curfew or an off-limits list restricting US personnel from obvious terrorist strike points, i.e.; well know places where expats congregate, shopping areas, bars, restaurants, etc. The current force protection curfew does not prevent a terrorist from striking a popular bar or restaurant in Itaewon at 10:30pm on Saturday night. If such a tragedy were to occur how would the command explain that they imposed a force protection measure curfew from midnight to 5:00am to deter a terrorist strike on its personnel?
This seems more like a curfew on partying than a force protection measure.
If there is a threat then the Senior Military Leadership should be able to let us know what the nature of it is and what steps we need to take with our families to ensure their safety. The so-called “Force Protection” should not just be to lock us down from 2400-0500, this is not protection, this is confinement. Further, if this is “Force Protection” then where are the roaming patrols in the areas off the military installation where American civilians live? What the Command fails to realize is that the Contractor Community “Lives” here, we are not transient guest as most military Commanders, personnel and even DOD Civilians are.
Given that if this policy is going to continue restriction of civilian contractors, when is the issue of compensation for time going to be addressed. Not all contractors are here under salaried positions and time is money. By directing that we be at either our homes or places of employment from the hours of 0001 - 0500; if we comply, then doesn’t that form the basis for compensation? A point I was asked to get clarification on and a good one since it dictates how we use our time. Also consider the fact that some individuals work various shifts and this directly impacts on their “free time.” Further, due to the nature of the work we do, some of us have to be there during the day so do we add those hours to our timesheets for compensation???
If this Command thinks this is such a great Policy for force protection, safety, good order, and discipline and optimum readiness then why don’t they propose it as a Worldwide DoD standard? Impose a curfew on all DoD personnel, Government Employees and Contractor support to include the US!!! I’ve walked down the streets in Seoul after midnight and never got harassed or approached (except by a drunk GI or over zealous Military Law Enforcement person) but if you have ever walked through the streets of Fayetteville NC, Downtown Denver or Miami after dark you would know what danger is. Even our Nations Capital is not a place to be caught out after dark unless you are a Congressman or Senator and have protection. Maybe the Command is right, maybe the Military should extend its authority further and impose a National Curfew. This measure works so well I’m sure there has not been an increase in assaults or incidences On-Post especially given all the Security personnel retreat to the Post after approximately 0030. But don’t ask USFK for it unless you are willing to do a Freedom of Information Act request since USFK has put a moratorium on providing this information.
“Queries concerning curfew, crime and crime rates (including statistics) are not to be addressed until further notice. Any queries of this sort must be relayed up the chain through 8th Army to USFK.”
One of the many complaints I have about the curfew is that not every base in Korea caters to people like on Yongsan. It is easy for someone like Half-pint, who never has to leave the base for any reason because his every want and needs are given to him, to place a curfew on everyone else because it doesn’t affect the senior leadership on any base. When they impose a curfew they should fork out the money to support all the people affected by it. They should keep all restaurants, clubs, bowling alleys, Movie theaters, and any other MWR activity opened 24 hours a day. Where I work they just started closing all the restaurants at 2100, the only other place to go is to the club (no food after 2100) where there are fights and brawls every weekend.
Another big complaint I have is since LaPorte is the UN commander, why is he making the curfew just for the Euro and African descent Americans? Why isn’t this a UN based curfew that would wrap all of the UN forces in Korea under the curfew? Apparently we don’t care if the other forces get killed by terrorists. Why aren’t the Korean Emergency Essential Employees under this force protection, ready to fight tonight, curfew? Why aren’t the rest of the Korean work force under the curfew?
SOFA personnel were given an order to obey a curfew imposed in response to this…..
“Detailed and ongoing analysis of the situation highlights a continuing, potential terrorist threat against USFK personnel, installations, and facilities; this threat is linked to recent Al Qaeda statements urging terrorist attacks against the United States and her allies in the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT), specifically South Korea.”
A decision was made to oppose this threat with force installation enhancements and a 2100-0500 curfew that was eventually augmented to 2400-0500.
But if there is a threat of an attack why are we only opposing it from 2400-0500? Well, supposedly this is a balancing act between quality of life and force protection. The command decided that a 24-hour curfew is not necessary and it would disrupt quality of life for personnel. However, at the same time they conclude a terrorist attack is possible and we should have a curfew to protect our personnel.
Solution: A curfew that limits force protection in order to maintain quality of life. Brilliant!
Now the command is beginning to slowly shift their curfew justification to a new “readiness” concept. (A concept that was not part of the original curfew) It basically states that we should have the ability “to fight tonight”, and drinking/being out past midnight limits our readiness to fight and support a fight at any given moment. That might make sense, but it still doesn’t justify a limited curfew that stands with its main purpose as a deterrent to terrorism. Did someone suddenly wake up after 50 years and decide a midnight curfew would limit alcohol consumption, or is this an attempt to reconcile with a poor anti-terrorism curfew policy?
How does having a curfew limit drinking on base? Last time I can remember we were allowed to have a six pack and a 750ml bottle in the fridge in our rooms the barracks on base. In which we consistently bought the limit everyday and drank it all before the morning, especially on the weekends. Plus I’m not Emergency Essential, I’m not “ready to fight tonight”, I’m “ready to leave tonight”.
Al Qaeda has historically hit a target that would have a great impact. The Bali bombings killed 200+ people. What clubs here in Itaewon has the capacity to hold 200+ people? The best target I can think of in Korea would be the US Embassy. Would Al Qaeda really want to bomb the rice paddy in Waegwan, Chinhae, Wonju, or any other small base in the middle of nowhere?
We all know the real reason for the curfew. LaPort got burned in the congressional session and no he is trying to cover his ass by enforce mass punishment on everyone.
Drinking has nothing to do with the curfew. Stopping human trafficking is not the issue. Force protection is not the issue. It is HalfPint enforcing his morals and beliefs. There is no real justification for the curfew at all.
I have been in areas in the world both as a soldier, contractor, and DoD civilian where force protection was and still is an issue. I had no problems obeying the policies and directives about curfews in those areas becasue there was a REAL force protection issue. Yes….service members and American civilians getting killed.
As far as human trafficking the US Forces have no right to patrol areas where human trafficking occurs. This is a Korean issue. The Korean government needs to enforce their laws about prostitution. The MPs have no right to harass and detain US civilian government employees. I have seen first hand how the MPs have the KNP set up individuals in establishments and then proceed to physically detain American civilians and accuse them of solicitation (with no proof)or being a bad little child after midnightand being processed through the KNP and PMO.
What about all the other non-DoD Americans in Korea? Have the US Embassy wardens sent them emails stating to stay off the streets after midnight because of force protection issues? NO!. If there were real threats the US Embassy would contact them provided thay have registered with the US Embassy.
And to note….There has been an increase of brutal assaults, rapes, and alcohol related incidents on the military installations since the curfew is being stongly enforced and the raising of the drinking age for military members in Korea. Just read the Morning Calm police blotter reports every Friday.
Truly HalfPint has created a monster and USFK has no way of justifying thier actions. There are a lot of lies, half-truths, excuses, and civil rights violations that they are trying to justify.
I would like to know if anyone has contacted the press about the illegal curfew and what responses you have received.
I am a DAC who just arrived here in Korea over 2 months ago from Europe and wish I had known about the curfew policy imposed on civilians before I had accepted this assignment. No one in command informed me about it and probably didn’t want to do so fearing I might decline the job offer.
I do not intend to spend the remaining 22 months on this assignment locked down in my apartment from 0001-0500 everyday of the week because of a twisted policy that is based upon fiction and not fact. It’s a misuse of command authority in the worst of ways that I have seen in my 25 years of combined military and federal service. I intend to voice my concern about it through my congressional representative and Senator. It may not change anything, but at least I will have the satisfaction that I tried to challenge it.
If the command is serious about making Korea the “assignment of choice” for civilians over places like Europe and Japan where there is no curfew policy, then they really need to assess the impact of this policy on recruiting and retaining good people to take assignments over here. They may just find one day that there is no one left who’ll “fight to tonight”.
The only reason for the curfew is to close the bar districts that cater to USFK personnel. Half Pint has lied about the force protection measures being the reason. Anyone with any common sense knows a 0000-05000 curfew will not deter a terrorist attack.
Some of you guys know this, some still say the curfew is a force protection measure. Wake Up…it’s not. Now based on a new Memorandum I saw yesterday, Half Pint is saying these measures are based on the warning the Korean govt issued back in September saying there may be protests IRT the Korean deployment of troops in Iraq. This is BEYOND SILLY even for Half Pint. These warnings are issued every time there is a planned student protest at Yonsei University and this is what they are justifying their force protection measures on????
I’m not a DAC. I would like to know what the DAC union is doing about this.
This is just a saga now.
You know…I am all for it…I have proof that the curfew is justified…
I was just in Japan last week and I found out why we have a curfew from 1200 to 0500. I went downtown at 2100 until 2300 and couldn’t find any place open or find any people. So I went home, I couldn’t figure it out. I went out the next night and the same thing happened..I was confused?
I then went out at midnight and found out that they didn’t start partying until midnight and ended some time around 4 or 5.
And let me tell you, things were really dangerous…people were laughing, dancing and other disgusting behaviors…I couldn’t take it…and came home at 5 with all the rest, thank goodness I did, because right after I left, they had a dance-off!!!
So, keep away from Japan, they don’t have a curfew so things are scary!!! You are lucky you are in Korea and you should thank the half-wit!!
I stay in Korea for two major reasons…I like my job (most don’t) and it is safe for my family and children, I am scared to take them back to the states and have to walk through metal dectectors at school everyday. Korea is one of the safest places on earth, but if you don’t beleive me…then go see that dangerous dancing gang in Japan after midnight!!!
Media has been contacted. I have emailed several news outlets, leaving very detailed info on how to contact me as well as pointing to the wealth of info on the freefed.com site, but no response. I think the only way is for several people to email and often!!! Even contact your home town papers. If a home town reporter lists it on there AP topic report, it may get picked up. Plus, keep to the facts, this is a Constitutional Rights issue, detract from that and interest will be lost.
Also, writing ones Governmental representative is working!!! Half-Pint would not be putting out a Talking Points paper if he wasn’t catching heat!!! Everyone, please keep writing ones officials!!! As for marching in Itaewon, I am in!!!
To add fuel to the fire, did anyone catch the statement made in the Talking Points paper that said that “concerns about the curfew policy should be raised through the chain of command and not in public venues.” It was the last sentence in the message talking about the number of people busted for breaking curfew in 2004.
Is the command threatening us with censorship now? They are certainly implying it with that kind of statement.
I highly recommend everyone send a hard copy of the Talking Paper to their congressional representatives, highlighting that statement.
And I agree with WMonger, La Porte is catching some flak over this insane policy and we need to keep the pressure up!
People are writing their reps.Some are responding.Write the ones on the Armed Services Committee for the best chance.The more the better.LaPint is a Nazi.We can’t let him win.