Talk:Status of forces agreement

Korea
Could someone verify the following is true regarding Korean Law?

From the article: This prompted widespread protests across Korea, demanding that the soldiers be retried in a Korean court, where murder is defined as simply causing the death of a Korean citizen without regard to the presence or absence of motive or negligence, quite different than the definition under U.S. law. Is there really no distinction with respect to negligence? This particular example makes it sound like there is a distinction. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B03E5D71738F935A25756C0A967948260&n=Top%2fNews%2fInternational%2fCountries%20and%20Territories%2fSouth%20Korea &#8213; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.115.81 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-28T16:11:01
 * This is long overdue (especially because the section has already been removed), but just for the record/future reference, there does exist a distinction between murder (살인 sarin) and manslaughter (과실치사 gwashilchisa) in Korean law. &#8213; blue-kun 00:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The way the article reads now it highlights this one issue without really shedding light on what really happens in south korea. A treasured passed time of korean university students is to go out and protest. They will protest about everything and anything that makes the news. In 2002 this was the vogue protest. The actual merits of the case were ignored, that being a large track vehicle doesnt sneak up on you and given that the girls who died were on a one lane dirt road they should of reasonably expected that they needed to get out of the way. Also the vehicle was part of an annual war games practice so it wasnt a surprise that vehicles would be operating in that area at that time. The point of all of this is none of the established political parties take the uni. student protests seriously and at no time was the ROK SOFA ever in jeopardy due to this action. --Zynkin (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

One host country where such sentiment is widespread, South Korea, itself has forces in Kyrgyzstan How on Earth did South Korea end up with soldiers in Kyrgyzstan of all places? Nik42 09:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The US has warriors as the backbone of its military and farms out support actions to contractors and in the case of korea and japan to host nation nationals. This results in both japan and korea having a much larger ratio of support soldiers which are often sent overseas in support of multinational forces and/or relief efforts. --Zynkin (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Re "How on Earth did South Korea end up with soldiers in Kyrgyzstan of all places?", the supporting source cited in the article for that information says, "There, Korean soldiers serve in peacekeeping operations." This BBC article says, "About 1,500 troops from the United States, France, Denmark, Spain, Australia and South Korea are stationed at the Manas base, providing support for military and humanitarian operations in Afghanistan." -- Boracay Bill (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Bucharest / Hungary
U.S. embassy in Bucharest, Hungary - Is it Bucharest or Hungary, could someone check?--193.178.141.144 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2013 (UTC)h.s.

Adultery and the Van Goethem case
This edit, in which an anon removed mention of adultery and said "What does this case have to do with adultery?" caught my eye. That had followed on a ClueBot reversion of earlier edits in which the same anon had inserted uppercase text asking that question into the article. The affected article sentence is supported by a cite of this Guardian article, which makes no mention of adultery.

Out of curiosity, I looked back and found that this seems to have first appeared in this March 2, 2011 edit, which added a description of the incident mentioning adultery and citing this Newsweek article which says, "VanGoethem was found not guilty of negligent homicide and adultery in a military trial that ended Jan. 31, 2006, but guilty of obstruction of justice and making false statements."

I am apparently partly responsible for the confusion here as in this January 19, 2014 edit I removed a failed verification tag and replaced the cite of the Newsweek source with a cite of the Guardian source. I don't recall the edit, but I imagine that the link to Newsweek source had temporarily gone dead, prompting the tag, that I found the Guardian source by googling, and that I failed to notice that the Guardian source did not mention the adultery charge.

The case apparently did have something to do with adultery; per Newsweek, adultery was apparently charged. The alleged adulterous behavior probably had had little or no direct relationship to the traffic accident leading to the negligent homicide charge (that is WP:OR on my part); the accident may have occurred on the way to or from an alleged alderous assignation (more OR). Whatever the details might be re the adultery charge, I don't think re-adding mention of that and re-citing Newsweek in support would improve the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)