politics

Gov't OKs bill for foreigners-only evacuation by SDF

20 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© KYODO

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

20 Comments
Login to comment

How insane that anyone would draw up that original law. Head-scratching to say the least.

3 ( +14 / -11 )

How insane that anyone would draw up that original law. Head-scratching to say the least.

Just another lamentable example of Japanese law.

-7 ( +9 / -16 )

Nobody could have ever expected this. How could they have known? They had never had this case before, and I'll bet there is no record of anybody warning them of this neglected situation. I guess nobody informed the relevant ministry by fax to have proof that they knew.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

The real reason behind this lamentable example is the article 9 of the US-imposed pacifist Constitution that prohibits Japan from having armed forces.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

-the SDF can carry out evacuations only from a "safe place"

Presumably because nobody ever needs to be evacuated from a "safe place". Sneaky eh?

-they rescued just one Japanese and 14 Afghans.

The government must have been furious. Three years worth of asylum seekers in just one mission!

3 ( +11 / -8 )

Why did we evacuate 14 Afghans? If they needed to be evacuated, it probably meant they helped the illegal invaders murder they own people. I guess it is same as the French who helped the Nazis.

save Japanese yes. But…

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

foreigners-only evacuation.

In any country other than Japan, isn’t everyone ‘a foreigner’? Maybe the law should be written for the SDF to rescue, evacuate ‘all people requiring rescue/evacuation.’

Or would that lead to ‘confusion’ by the politicians in charge of the SDF?

2 ( +9 / -7 )

What kind of dumb, discriminatory bill is this? Isn't it the job of the SDF to rescue ALL people in distress? What are they supposed to do, leave people behind in a terrifying and unsafe situation because previously, the law forbade them to carry out rescue missions for non-Japanese folk? Good grief.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

A thinking person would have defied the law and face conseuences later for the greater good. Japanese is just not this kind of people. Rule is more important that logic.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

borschtToday  10:36 am JST

Maybe the law should be written for the SDF to rescue, evacuate ‘all people requiring rescue/evacuation.’

purple_depressed_baconToday  11:26 am JST

What kind of dumb, discriminatory bill is this? Isn't it the job of the SDF to rescue ALL people in distress?

On what fantasy planet do you peole live on? The military of any country only has jurisdiction with repect to it's own nationals when in another country. The US had extreme difficulty with respect to the many Afghan citizens who had been working for/with the US and coalition forces. Evacuation is not the same as "Rescue". There are legal ramifications to be considered, and that is exactly what the J-Gov has addressed.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

The real reason behind this lamentable example is the article 9 of the US-imposed pacifist Constitution that prohibits Japan from having armed forces.

Japan is not prohibited from having an armed force.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

Japan is not prohibited from having an armed force.

I think our armed forces are ranked at number seven.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The last thing Japan needs is hundreds of refugees coming here.

-12 ( +1 / -13 )

The original law was probably drawn up by the Americans!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The last thing Japan needs is hundreds of refugees coming here.

1000% Agree..

Please Japan, don't change, stay so Japanish..

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites