Status-of-Forces Treaties PRINCIPLES RAISED BY THE GIRARD CASE

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28314, 27 June 1957, Page 12

Status-of-Forces Treaties PRINCIPLES RAISED BY THE GIRARD CASE

[By

(Reprinted by Arrangement)

NEAL STANFORD

in the "Christian Science Monitor’’}

Washington, June 12.—1 t is no secret that the Government is worried over the mounting attacks on the status-of-forces treaties that it has with many of its allies. It considers these treaties essential to friendly relations with its overseas allies, a necessary consequence of America’s global responsibilities. But it is obvious that an increasing number of Congressmen are having doubts about these treaties, touched off by the controversial case of Army Specialist 3/c Willianj S. Girard, charged with homicide in the death of a Japanese woman. Status-of-forces agreements are agreements made with foreign governments which provide that United States military authorities have legal jurisdiction abroad for any offence arising out of an act or omission by a serviceman on duty. Foreign courts are given the right to try and punish American servicemen for non-military offences committed while off duty. But in such cases it is promised that the accused .will have certain legal safeguards—speedy trial, information on charges, legal aid, and interpreters, etc. On or Off Duty?

There have been other attacks on status-of-forces cases in the four years that such treaties have been in force, but none equalling this arising from the Girard case. The reasons for this are two. First, this as border-line a case as could be imagined, it being extremely difficult to decide whether Specialist Girard was “on” or “off” duty when firing the empty cartridge that killed the Japanese woman. Second, the vacillation in Washington, where officials first decided for Japanese trial, then against it, then for it. The result was that on top of Congressional criticism of such treaties was Congressional denunciation of the Administration for “appeasing Japanese public opinion.” This combination of circumstances has built up the Girard case into the greatest threat to the status-of-forces programme since its inception—and one that the Administration is not too sure it can successfully weather.

The relevant details ,of the Girard case are as follows: Specialist Girard had been ordered to guard a machine-gun between firing sessions at a range at Somagahara. Some Japanese women appeared, looking for spent brass shell casings to sell as scrap. When they failed to leave after warning, Specialist Girard fired an empty shell case from the grenade launcher on his carbine. It killed Mrs Naka Sakai. The Army insisted .Girard was on “official duty” at the time and so came under its jurisdiction. The Japanese argued he was not on “official duty,” it being a rest period at the time, and,-anyway, it was not his duty to fire at scavengers. On second thoughts the Army decided to surrender jurisdiction over Specialist Girard to* the Japanese. But then the Defence Secretary, Mr Charles Wilson, rescinded the Army order. Later the Pentagon came to the conclusion that Specialist Girard’s action was “not authorised” and therefore was not in performance of duty. President Eisenhower approved the decision. Treaties Necessary

The storm that has broken over the Girard case has made rational discussion of the status-of-forces treaties increasingly difficult. Yet the fact is that these treaties are a necessary corollary to America’s numerous defence obligations the world over. Theoretically it would be possible for the United States to station troops abroad without status-of-forces agreements. Actually it did so during the war and for a few years after. But American’s allies, in spite of their appreciation of the presence of United States forces, chafed under

this exhibition of extra-territor-iality. They did not question the right of United States military courts trying United States soldiers for offdhees against foreign nationals when “on duty.” but insisted that local courts should have jurisdiction over “off-duty" incidents. From America's point of view there was merit in such an arrangement, for Washington could hardly ask for jurisdiction over any foreign troops in this country for “off-duty" offences if it would not grant a comparable right to its allies. This matter of reciprocity played a large part in America’s original decision to negotiate these status-of-forces treaties.

Actually many foreign courts have waived jurisdiction over United States servicemen who have committed crimes “off duty.” In the last year, for example, 14,394 American servicemen committed crimes abroad, putting them under the jurisdiction of foreign courts. The foreign courts wa’ived jurisdiction in 9614 cases. Some were dropped. A total of 4437 cases reached trial, resulting in 275 acquittals, 3876 fines or reprimands, ltB suspended sentences, and 108 confinements, 12 of them for more than five years. Of the more than 14,000 cases arising last year, though, only the Girard case has reached the proportions of a cause celebre.