There’s one more, if you define “in the US” liberally. The US (and some other countries) claim the Seranilla Bank islands; the Colombians have a permanent naval base there.
**Your answer was being called cheeky **(cocky), thus you were directed to read up on how Canada shares one (a US base).
Under USC 14, Federal Aviation Regulations Part 91. 123, you will find the Federal govt changed policy a few years back, after 9/11, to require United States aircraft operating in United States airspace, to contact and abide by instructions from foreign Air Traffic Control established to control foreign AIRSPACE in the United States. This applies to Class “C” and Class “D” airspace, arrivals and transiting aircraft, which means airspace surounding airports with an operating control tower. Why did the FAA deem it necessary to specfically designate foreign ATC authority in the United States unless there IS or there WILL be foreign airspace over our land? Look it up.
Perhaps you should “look it up”.
Nary a mention in there of foreign air traffic control authorities, much less of any in the US. And §91.123 hasn’t been changed since 1995.
And, even if there were such a regulation, wouldn’t it most likely be for the situation where a Canadian or Mexican airport is right near the border with an approach or departure path over US territory?
The Chippewa County airport near Sault Ste Marie is one example. The airport is physically in the US, but IFR services are provided by Toronto Centre.
And vice versa, of course. US and other troops frequently pass through Hereford (are they still at Hereford?).
RAF Hereford closed in 1999 and is now used only by the SAS. I doubt any foreign forces are allowed there. I don’t think there’s ever been a regular army base there.
Followed the link to find Canadian NORAD fighter jets flew over Superbowl XL in Detroit in 2006, not as a courtesy but actual air defense of the stadium for the game.
Probably the critical issue with military bases in other countries, is the matter of legal jurisdiction. The US typically negotiates an agreement whereby the base is subject to US military, not local, law, and that base personnel are often protected from prosecution for crimes committed outside the base. Indeed a number of high profile cases over the years, where murders or other serious crimes have gone unpunished, and the alleged culprit was simply shifted to another base have made such bases a significant political problem. It is extremely difficult to imagine the US ever considering providing such rights on its own soil. Diplomatic treaties provide such protection for designated embassies and staff, but the idea of doing so for military purposes is a very different question.
Apropos of little, I saw a 6’+ tall Aussie soldier at the Exchange at Robins AFB yesterday, here in Middle Georgia just south of Macon.
That’s a good argument, but when I think about it : why would any country even want a base on American soil (at least in the mainland)? What conceivable purpose could it serve? There’s nothing around the USA that would require allied countries to have a military base nearby.
The only situation I could think of would be some oversea possession of the USA in some “hot spot” if said allied country had no other mean to establish a base in the area.
And anyway, as it has been mentioned previously, almost no other country than the USA maintain any military base on foreign soil. See JRDelirious’ post.
The British have plenty of distant bases in old colonial possessions they never gave up (e.g., Ascension Island, the Falklands, Gibraltar); so do the French (e.g., French Guyana, Mayotte, Tahiti) and they keep bases in former African colonies as well (in recent years they have had soldiers in Ivory Coast, Chad, Central African Republic, Djibouti, and Senegal although they have closed some of these).
Besides Russia with it numerous foreign bases, India built an air force base for itself in Tajikistan but apparently never occupied it.
And of course everybody has a base in Antarctica.
I don’t think NORAD counts. It is a US base that we share with our friendly neighbors to the north. Honestly the only reason we probably let them join was because we wanted all of our early warning ICBM system up in the arctic circle. Although for what it is worth I read that on 9/11 in NORAD you could not even tell the difference between the US and Canadian servicemen as they were acting as one. But the US being who we are I am sure we reserve the right to kick them out whenever we want
Not necessary bases, but there is a good reason for e.g. foreign air forces to want to train in the US: lots of sparsely settled spaces, i.e. no locals complaining about the noise.
This isn’t true, when you’re stationed overseas if you commit a crime off duty in the local community the local power has the right of primary jurisdiction. I know of specifics in Germany, while stationed in Germany if I committed crimes outside of base the German authorities had the option to either prosecute me under the German criminal system or to hand me over to the U.S. authorities.
In most cases, they chose to hand soldiers over to the U.S. authorities. Which makes sense, why would the Germans want to spend the time and money on dealing with it? Even more time and money if you’re talking about incarcerating someone for a lengthy prison term. Plus, for almost every crime you’d care to think of, the UCMJ specified far harsher punishments than the German’s criminal system. For example if I lost my mind one day and walked off base and killed three people at a local grocery store, I’d probably much prefer to be tried by the Germans. The military can and does have the death penalty for things like that (which makes me wonder if European countries that are anti-Death Penalty might actually choose to try a soldier who did such a thing, to avoid the chance of execution? I don’t know because such a serious offense never happened that I was personally familiar with.)
To my knowledge all of the countries we have friendly relations with and have bases on their territory, the host country maintains the right of first jurisdiction for crimes committed on their soil by off duty members of the U.S. military. Obviously active war zones like Iraq and Afghanistan are different situations. I have also heard that in the case of Japan, there was a “secret agreement” that was not part of the official Status of Forces Agreement between the United States and Japan, in which Japan basically agreed it wouldn’t exercise its right of first jurisdiction. I believe there was some complaints by the Japanese opposition parties a few years ago over this.
No it wasn’t well at least that’s not how I read Pushkin’s post.
Precisely. The agreements vary. In countries where the US is clearly the dominant power, the local government will often waive (or be convinced to waive) such rights. The nature of the relationship between the US and the local governments can be messy at best. One can hardly imagine the Germans agreeing to drop its jurisdiction rights, but Germany is probably the most powerful friendly nation the US deals with with bases. Once you get to small poor nations on the edge of trouble spots the relationship tends to switch.
You might want to read the NORAD Agreement. I see nothing in it that would indicate that the US reserves the right to kick the Canadians out at anytime–it seems pretty equal; lots of sharing, cooperating, agreeing, and so on. Of course, either country can quit the treaty upon 12 months’ notice to the other country (Art. IV(3)), but that is not the same as one country being able to kick the other out.
This is covered in the Status of Forces Agreementbetween the countries.
Not quite right.
The SOFA between the US and Japan stipulates that the US military don’t not need to turn over suspects until they are (formally) charged. This offers a greater protection to military suspects than what Japanese national enjoy, who can be questioned by police without attorney present.
There was an incident in 1995 where three military members kidnapped and violently raped a 12-year-old girl, and the subsequent massive public demonstrations and outrage lead to movements to have the US based kicked out of Japan. It didn’t help that the commander of the US Pacific Command said
for which is was demoted and forced to retire.
Although the agreement was informally modified, lingering distrust and other incidents have meant that public anger has not been eliminated. One of the factors of the change in governments was that the current ruling party, the opposition during the time, promised to relocated forces from Okinawa, a promised much easier made than enacted.
Also, Japan cannot be called either small or poor, but accepted what the Japanese public feels is an imbalanced SOFA.