• Atomic@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      Because this deal gives US access to military based starting now. And can place soldiers there.

      Just because Sweden is in NATO doesn’t mean other NATO countries can place soldiers in Sweden during peacetime

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s all done on a case-by-case basis. Joining NATO isn’t like Civ’s “your armies can travel in my territories” negotiation perk that applies to all of NATO. It needs to be a bilateral agreement. NATO is a mutual defense alliance, but it is absolutely not intended to undermine any member’s sovereignty.

        • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          Very difficult for me to tell you the difference because we are not privy to that type of information. Seeing as it is incredibly sensitive. I didn’t strike the deal with Lituania. And I didn’t strike the deal with Sweden and USA. (Sorry)

          But the similarity, is that Lithuania agreed to it.

              • bungalowtill@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                to our conversation, yes. I ask a question, not necessarily to you, you know, and you derail the conversation with: how should I know, I didn‘t make the deal with Lithuania? yeah it‘s relevant to my appreciation of you, I guess.

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yes it does.

        This NATO treaty already lays out the rights of troops and host countries:

        https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17265.htm

        There are plenty of provisions in NATO for stationing troops on each others’ territory that don’t require massive, far-reaching agreements. This DCA treaty goes above and beyond NATO standards, to the detriment to Swedish security and rule of law.

        • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          Ok let me clarify. It does not mean they can place soldiers however and wherever they want.

          This deal gives US access to specific bases and they can put soldiers there and work alongside Swedish military.

          If that was already included in NATO. They obviously wouldn’t have made a separate deal about it.

          Why you think it’s to Swedens detriment is something only known to you. I strongly disagree.

    • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      From the link you posted:

      The offenders were tried and convicted in Japanese court by Japanese law, in accordance with the U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement.

      So:

      • not legal
      • Criminals gonna crime
      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        5 months ago

        The US military protected heinous criminals in their ranks, and refused to hand them over for nearly an entire month. Consider the scale of the crime needed for Sweden to have any legal recourse here. Do you really think Ulf Kristersson is going to risk an international incident over some violent drunk soldier getting into a bar fight? No, that soldier will get arrested, flash his ID, and go home free.

        The NATO SOFA treaty is sufficient for giving soldiers access to military bases, and it’s what every other country in NATO has accepted. The US wants special privileges and exemption from Swedish law, and we just gave it to them.

        • Atomic@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          The beauty here is that the courts are separate from the government. The government can not in any way shape or form. Influence the courts in who or what they prosecute.

          If they prosecuted a US soldier. There is nothing the Swedish government could do.

          There is no special exemption. A deal was made. It includes no get out of jail free card for soldiers who brake the law.

    • Rakonat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Military Service Members do not have diplomatic immunity nor are they exempt from host nation laws and ordinances.

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        This treaty exempts US soldiers from Swedish law, unless the case is of “special importance”, and the Swedish government explicitly requests the US to drop the exemption. Basically unless the soldier violently kills someone or worse, the Swedish police will have no authority. The legal grey area opened for violent crime is obvious.

        • Skua@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          It looks like it’s not a case of Sweden asking the US to drop the exemption, rather Sweden can simply decide that there is no exemption for that case and only have to tell the Americans that they are doing so.

          In specific cases of particular importance to Sweden, Swedish authorities may withdraw the waiver by providing a statement in writing to the competent U.S. forces authorities not later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the notification described in Paragraph 2 of this Article.

          Paragraph 2 says that America has a duty to notify Sweden about anything relevant

    • tobogganablaze@lemmus.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Just gonna point out that this treaty now makes this legal in sweden:

      Make what legal? Prosecuting rapists? Pretty sure they already have that in Sweden.

      • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m pointing out the very real risk that exempting US soldiers from Swedish law has, and pointing out the international crises that the same policy has caused in Japan.

        You can’t just call everyone you disagree with a “trollbot”.