The deserter to NK should be in US custody right now

But, he's not...

Published on July 19, 2004 By chiprj In Current Events

First edit - took the name out of the title...

I get emails all day long from Yahoo! News. I have a news 'pull' that keys on any mention of Korea in a news article that sends the headline and the first sentence to me in email form. For weeks, I've been getting articles about Robert Jenkins and his situation. Here's a link to the most recent oneLink . There's another here Link.

I know that I'm not alone is saying that Robert Jenkins should be in US custody right now. Health issues... I understand the humanitarian issue here, but as anyone can see in the article, he's still considered to be on active duty and that means that he could be in a military hospital right now. I don't know the name of the medical center in Japan for servicemembers, but I'm sure there is one. There's a fantastic hospital in Hawaii - oh, but that would mean upsetting the Japanese... They want the US to ignore the fact that he's a wanted man right now. That he allegedly deserted his unit and country. They want us to see how 'helpful' they were in apprehending and turning over Bobby Fischer. They want us to just forget that we have a treaty with them that specifically states we have the right to his custody.

His Japanese wife (and her mother - who is still unnacounted for) was abducted by North Korea and forced to help train agents to infiltrate both Japan and South Korea (and who knows where else). I feel for her and her family. I truly do. I can't imagine how horrible that experience was for her. At some point, she met Robert Jenkins and they got married and later had two daughters. Good for them. It changes nothing, though. My sympathy for her does not transfer to him.

His stateside family maintains his innocence. They claim he was kidnapped and brainwashed. Even though the military has evidence to prove otherwise. Now, they have not been allowed to examine the evidence, so they can not truly dispute it. I concede that point. The best they have received was what the Army told them what was written in the notes he allegedly left behind. They dispute the notes based on the name Jenkins signed to the notes. They claim that he goes by his middle name 'Robert' but the notes were signed Charles (his true first name). Well, I go by one name (a nickname) but still sign all documents with my real name. So, if that's all they got, I don't buy it. If the Army went to the trouble of forging notes, I think they would have gotten the name right. I mean, if he really went by Robert with his family, he most likely used the name with friends, too. That wouldn't have been missed by a forger. Another note gives the combination to his locker, so the field jacket inside can be given to another soldier. It could be forged, but that would require more effort than finding out what name to put on the note. I mean, the Army couldn't find out what name to put on the note, but could get the combo to his lock? I just don't buy it.

His family has gone so far as to petition the President to pardon Jenkins. He hasn't even been tried yet. But, again, I can see the why. If the President should step in, as the Commander in Chief, he can make a decision on how to (or whether to) prosecute the case. I doubt that the President will do this, though. He could very well estrange many military voters by doing this before the election and I hope that this will not stretch out until December when he (whoever that is) could act without worrying about (re)election.

In this day, when servicemembers are dying almost daily, we must demand custody and prosecute this case. The military can not be soft on deserters. It would set a dangerous precedent to allow Jenkins to go free without a Court Martial. If he is innocent of desertion and was truly kidnapped, then he can tell his story and be found innocent. There are other charges against the man - aiding the enemy, soliciting other servicemembers to desert, and encouraging disloyalty. The North Koreans used Jenkins to broadcast messages across the DMZ over loudspeakers to encourage other servicemembers to disregard their duty or desert to North Korea. He also acted in a propoganda movie as an evil American bad guy. Both acts could have been under duress. Again, if he's innocent, let him stand before a Court Martial and tell his story. On the positive side, if he is found innocent, he's got a lot of benefits coming his way (That may sound flippant, but it's the fact and I don't say it to be funny).

If he's found guilty, the sentence would depend on which charges he's actually found guilty of and the penalty could still be very minor (or even none at all). There are circumstances here that would allow flexibility in sentencing. Jenkins' health, his age, time served (I mean, how good could his life have been in North Korea? Better than the average North Korean's, but still), his ability to provide information about other soldiers thought to be deserters and also about North Korea itself (I doubt he was privy to their nuclear weapons program, but he could still have valuable information). All those factors could weigh on the sentencing.

He was a soldier before he was a husband to Hitomi Soga. He was a soldier before he was a father to two daughters. He still has to answer to the US Army. The US should ask for custody immediately, the Japanese government should live up to the treaty, and Robert Jenkins should face the music.

Comments

fussyvet

on Jul 19, 2004

> He was a soldier before he was a husband to Hitomi Soga. He was a soldier before he was a father to two daughters. He still has to answer to the US Army. The US should ask for custody immediately, the Japanese government should live up to the treaty, and Robert Jenkins should face the music.

So, how long do you think one should cast back to be purnished?
I don't mean America should break the law to help him. But if he is take away from his wife, it'll result in Ms. Soga being expropriated of her mother, her husband, her life, almost everything around her by nations. There're some other ways to get through this problem. That's should be the law.

dharmagrl

on Jul 19, 2004

The law of this country, Fussy, is that he is still a deserter from the US Army and is thus subject to punishment under the UCMJ. To the best of my knowledge he did not retain citizenship of any other country, and is still a US citizen. The US military has adequate medical facilities to take care of his 'health problems', as we do for many other US military personnel who happen to be incarcerated.

I have yet to ascertain whether Ms Soga knew about his deserter status when she married him. If she did not, then I feel for her. If she did, then I have a limited amount of sympathy for her because she should have known that sooner or later he (her husband) would be caught up with and dealt with.

fussyvet

on Jul 19, 2004

I want you to imagine the situation Ms. Soga was forced in. She was abducted by strange people, separeted from her mother who had been abducted with her, and must have felt so lonely, unstable, horrified and other emotion we cannot imagine enough to understand her. She needed something or someone to throw herself on. I think she didn't have any option when someone in that country introduced him. He might be only thing she could feel easy. In such a hopeless condition, who could afford to guess what would happen after 20 years in the country which abducted them in terrible way?

chiprj

on Jul 19, 2004

So, how long do you think one should cast back to be purnished?

It would seem that the UCMJ doesn't have a statute of limitations on desertion. Or else, I'm sure 39+ years would have cleared it and this wouldn't be an issue.

I want you to imagine the situation Ms. Soga was forced in.

I may seem crass or rude in saying this, but Ms. Soga's situation has no bearing on the case against her husband. While she is pitiable, it is immaterial to her husband's alleged crimes.

A little extra info: He was her english teacher. That's how they met. He was nearly 20 years her senior, also, if I remember correctly (it's a signifiacant gap).

Like I said in my original post, I feel for her, too. It was a terrible situation to find herself in. If he was truly a deserter, though, then when he married her, he likely never had plans to return to US custody, so they didn't have to worry about being seperated by the US government. Returning to Japan was his choice (although, I'll grant, returning to North Korea wasn't much of a second option). But the law is clear. If they get separated due to jail time, that is a direct result of his actions. Should the Army not prosecute its case because of her situation? Extending that logic, then any case where the spouse has been/could be negatively affected should not be prosecuted. That is ridiculous. Like I said, she has my sympathy but it does not extend to him. I would guess that if found guilty of any of the charges against him, he would likely serve very little time. The US has to be tough on the case and prosecute it, but due to the circumstances I mentioned in the original article, I can see the sentencing being very lenient. The important point is that the Army must show that you can't desert. What's to stop a soldier in Iraq from deserting and spending 5 years away and then trying to use this case as a precedent to get out of prosecution? I know that's a stretch, but it could be attempted.

There is some positive in this situation though, she is now home in Japan and has been reunited with her daughters. She also has the chance to meet her extended family in the states. And if he's innocent, then it's only a matter of time before he would be cleared.

Yes, it will be another terrible situation if she is once again seperated by her husband, but I would assert that she is not a victim of the US Army policy. She is a victim of the North Korean government and the actions of her husband.

chiprj

on Jul 19, 2004

And another thing (I am in a reply mood tonight)

I am willing to bet that if Jenkins was returned to the US for hospitalization/prosecution, his wife would be able to join him with little problem. While many active duty servicemembers have to wait months, even years, to have their foreign born spouses join them here in the states, his wife and daughters would probably have little problem getting visas to follow him here because of the Japanese governments plees and the public support.

If that sounds bitter, it is. I know soldiers who have been seperated from their spouses for long periods of time while they tried to get the paperwork completed (from across the ocean) to bring them to the states. Where is the government intervention on their behalf? Where is the public outcry of support?

dharmagrl

on Jul 19, 2004

Reply #5 By: chiprj - 7/19/2004 10:21:24 PM
And another thing (I am in a reply mood tonight)

I am willing to bet that if Jenkins was returned to the US for hospitalization/prosecution, his wife would be able to join him with little problem

Oh hell yeah. You know the INS isn't going to pass up that free good publicity offer.

I too know active duty servicemembers who have to fight tooth and nail (not to mention spend thousands of dollars) to ge their significant others into this country. No-one gives a shit about them.

As for Ms Soga's situation....I'm sorry for what she's been through. But the US military will have it's pound of flesh.

Here's a thought - had he been in any kind of mortal danger d'ya think he'd have gone to a US Consulate or Embassy to ask for help? I wonder.

chiprj

on Jul 19, 2004

Here's a thought - had he been in any kind of mortal danger d'ya think he'd have gone to a US Consulate or Embassy to ask for help? I wonder.

Do you mean in North Korea? We don't have normalized relations with NK, so there is no embassy or consulate. He was kept isolated from outsiders in most cases, too. A while back ( I really have no idea exactly when), a US delegation went to NK and during the visit asked to speak with Jenkins. They were told that he didn't want to talk to them. That could mean that he truly didn't want to talk to them or that the NK government didn't want them to talk to him...

An interesting note... Kim Jong Il is a film buff and years ago, he was dissatisfied with the films being produced by NK. So, he had one of South Korea's most famous actresses kidnapped and he personally directed at least one film starring her. He also had her husband kidnapped. He was a famous director in SK. He survived years of solitary jail time, never knowing if his wife was dead or alive. After many years, they were reunited and worked together on films. Eventually, they escaped NK and returned home. The reason this is interesting is that if they could escape, why couldn't Jenkins. I'd say their visibility was probably higher, as they were of personal interest to Kim Jong Il. You could argue that they had the advantage of speaking Korean and being able to blend in. But I'm guessing after the first 10 years of being in NK, his Korean was pretty good and if he wanted to escape, he could have found a way to try. No stories about escape attempts, though... The Code of Conduct says that soldiers must resist and attempt to escape to the best of their ability... Oh, he was brainwashed, of course...

fussyvet

on Jul 19, 2004

When someone were under very specific, extreme condition, others could discuss about them only from the point of normal, regular, ordinal view. It would so much easier than the central players. All they could do is to bear in quiet while we are arguing in our own way.

If they could live together following the law, It'd be O.K. All I hope is that they can live their life left together, happily.

chiprj

on Jul 19, 2004

If they could live together following the law, It'd be O.K. All I hope is that they can live their life left together, happily.

I understand your sentiment. The problem right now is that so many people want to ignore the law for the benefit of this family. I just don't think that's right. This isn't a case of an unfair law hurting people in a way it wasn't intended to. The law (and it's application) needs to be blind to the situation outside it's scope.

dharmagrl

on Jul 20, 2004

The law (and it's application) needs to be blind to the situation outside it's scope.

That's why Justice is shown as being blindfolded.

I have sympathy for the circumstance, I truly do. it just seems that he could have, and should have, done the right thing sooner.

greywar

on Jul 20, 2004

The Code of Conduct says that soldiers must resist and attempt to escape to the best of their ability...

Chip - How long did he hold out?

chiprj

on Jul 20, 2004

Well, I put the Code of Conduct part in there to cover whether he was kidnapped... I still think that he deserted... But the SK couple were there for years before the oppurtunity presented itself for their escape... If he was kidnnapped, he was making broadcasts over the DMZ speakers within three weeks... could have been under duress, I concede that possibility, I just don't buy it.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!