Does the US always repatriate its military offenders?

Forums: News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

An American sailor has been charged with a sexual offence against a minor here in Oz:

Ruddock considers US request over charged sailor

The Australian government may grant the US Navy legal jurisdiction over one of its sailors facing paedophilia charges in NSW.

David Wayne Budd, 28, today was granted bail in Sydney's Parramatta Local Court on charges of grooming an Australian child over the internet for sex.

He is set to be released from the city's Silverwater Jail once all his bail conditions are met.

Budd was arrested by detectives from the NSW Child Exploitation Unit as he arrived at Sydney Airport on Saturday, after allegedly engaging in an on-line conversation with a NSW Police Force detective posing as a 14-year-old girl.

The Petty Officer 2nd Class had been in Rockhampton as part of a joint US-Australian military training exercise.

He joined the operation from the US Navy's Southwest Regional Maintenance Centre in San Diego, California..........

Full story here

I was interested to know if the US always tries to have such cases of alleged criminal activity by its military personnel serving overseas dealt with in the US instead of the country where the alleged offence/s occurred?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 978 • Replies: 13

No top replies

Always? No.

I think this article might address the "how", "when" and "why" of some of your question.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/sofa.htm

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

Always? No.

I think this article might address the "how", "when" and "why" of some of your question.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/sofa.htm

Hmmmmmm.

This one then seems a little odd to me.....such givens as that the prosecution bears burden of proof etc being similar in both countries.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

fishin wrote:
Always? No.

I think this article might address the "how", "when" and "why" of some of your question.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/sofa.htm

Hmmmmmm.

This one then seems a little odd to me.....such givens as that the prosecution bears burden of proof etc being similar in both countries.

*nods* I can't imagine there would be any concerns about the quality of trial or protection of rights in this particular case. (That did used to be a huge concern in countries like Turkey. I'm not sure how things are with Turkey now with working the EU entrance angle but they used to be notorious for sham trials.)

Another issue that often plays into these things is the question of sentencing and that may be the case with this one.

If this guy has previous military discipline issues then the U.S. military might be able to sentence him to longer terms than he would be subject to in Oz for the charge.

I don't know what sort of punishment is typically metted out in Oz for this sort of thing but between the original charge plus charges of "Failure to Repair" and "Missing a Movement" this guy would be subject to what is referred to as "The Triple Play" under U.S. Military Law. That is - 3 felony charges stemming from a single event - which could subject him to up to 30 years confinement. If he has previous miliitary discipline issues, those could add to that sentence as well.

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

dlowan wrote:
fishin wrote:
Always? No.

I think this article might address the "how", "when" and "why" of some of your question.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/sofa.htm

Hmmmmmm.

This one then seems a little odd to me.....such givens as that the prosecution bears burden of proof etc being similar in both countries.

*nods* I can't imagine there would be any concerns about the quality of trial or protection of rights in this particular case. (That did used to be a huge concern in countries like Turkey. I'm not sure how things are with Turkey now with working the EU entrance angle but they used to be notorious for sham trials.)

Another issue that often plays into these things is the question of sentencing and that may be the case with this one.

If this guy has previous military discipline issues then the U.S. military might be able to sentence him to longer terms than he would be subject to in Oz for the charge.

I don't know what sort of punishment is typically metted out in Oz for this sort of thing but between the original charge plus charges of "Failure to Repair" and "Missing a Movement" this guy would be subject to what is referred to as "The Triple Play" under U.S. Military Law. That is - 3 felony charges stemming from a single event - which could subject him to up to 30 years confinement. If he has previous miliitary discipline issues, those could add to that sentence as well.

Yikes!!!!

In that case he ought to be fighting tooth and nail to stay in Oz!!!!

I can't imagine he's going to be getting much of a sentence here.....but I honestly do not know what the sentencing options are.

I suspect the government would be perfectly happy to get rid of him....but it's an election year, and they won't want to be seen as kow towing to your country, so there's likely to be bit of a show put on.

The French government almost immediately releasing (and treating as heroes) its two military people who were ordered to sink the Rainbow Warrior (killing a person) in New Zealand, after New Zealand repatriated them, supposedly to serve real prison time in France, has left a bad taste in everyone's mouths down here.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Yikes!!!!

In that case he ought to be fighting tooth and nail to stay in Oz!!!!

I can't imagine he's going to be getting much of a sentence here.....but I honestly do not know what the sentencing options are.

I suspect the government would be perfectly happy to get rid of him....but it's an election year, and they won't want to be seen as kow towing to your country, so there's likely to be bit of a show put on.

The French government almost immediately releasing (and treating as heroes) its two military people who were ordered to sink the Rainbow Warrior (killing a person) in New Zealand, after New Zealand repatriated them, supposedly to serve real prison time in France, has left a bad taste in everyone's mouths down here.

Without having looked further into the case my guess is that what will happen is the U.S. Attache will ask the Oz counterpart what the sentence would be if he is found guilty in Oz and then promise that the sentence would match or be more severe than that if Oz would allow the U.S. military to try him.

It is my understanding the the U.S. Military has a pretty good record of sticking to those sorts of agreements when they've struck them in the past.

0 Replies

Status of Forces Agreements are almost indispensable to negotiating permanent military facilities with foreign nations. And it is imperative to adhere to them, as well. When i was overseas, a GI slit the throat of his "live-in" whore in Korea, and was handed over to the Korean authorities, and a Marine in Okinawa was accused of rape, and was handed over to the Japanese authorities.

Americans wouldn't even tolerate having foreign bases on our soil, so we need to assure that we do everything consistent with good military discipline to maintain good relations with the host country, and the observance of local law is the most powerful outward sign that we are doing so.

0 Replies

That's why I keep wondering why the navy wants this guy back....

0 Replies

Probably for the same reason the ADF wanted that Aussie soldier that raped a woman while serving overseas back. They wanted the charge to be held by a military court rather than the civil courts.

0 Replies

HokieBird wrote:

Probably for the same reason the ADF wanted that Aussie soldier that raped a woman while serving overseas back. They wanted the charge to be held by a military court rather than the civil courts.

Why?

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

That's why I keep wondering why the navy wants this guy back....

I can't answer that, of course, and personally, i think it would be wrong, wrong, wrong not to leave this joker to the local civilian authority.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

dlowan wrote:
That's why I keep wondering why the navy wants this guy back....

I can't answer that, of course, and personally, i think it would be wrong, wrong, wrong not to leave this joker to the local civilian authority.

Damned if I know.

I am just interested in it...whether it be Australians being repatriated or Americans.

I get it if it is a sort of "we got you here, so even if you be bad we'll take you back...at least you will be able to be visited by family and such in your own country" thing.....or if the country in which the crime was allegedly committed has awful prison conditions, a rotten justice system, or extreme punishment (we'd try to get someone back you guys were going to kill, I assume, for example)....but if it is so someone can be tried in a military court? THAT I don't get.

0 Replies

The military can be funny that way - they like to care for their own. In the case of the Aussie soldier I mentioned, it went to your High Court with a 4-3 split in favor of the military. If I recall, the phrase, "code of behavior" was prevalent in the military's argument. Band of brothers and all that.

0 Replies

I'm not sure whether the notion is "We care for our own" or "A G.I. (Government Issue) is Government Property.

0 Replies

Does the US always repatriate its military offenders?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know