A Japanese prefecture has no more control over the choices related to relationships between the national control than a state might control the choices of the Pentagon and made law by the Congress and POTUS. The CD article leaves out the very long history of the choice to move the Marine air field which has gone on for more than a decade with battles in the Japanese legislature and the U.S. Congress. The protest related to the underlying Status of Forces Agreement is hardly new.
The copy and paste for those unfamiliar explains, whether posters approve or disapprove of such Pentagon arrangements about SOFAS. Would it do any good to protest the SOFAS with the current militarist GOP Congress?
It's rhetorical as I suspect all are aware of. A little education on this issue can't hurt.
Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA): What Is It, and How Has It Been Utilized?
The United States has been party to multilateral and bilateral agreements addressing the status of U.S. armed forces while present in a foreign country. These agreements, commonly referred to as Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs), generally establish the framework under which U.S. military personnel operate in a foreign country, addressing how the domestic laws of the foreign jurisdiction shall be applied toward U.S. personnel while in that country.
Formal requirements concerning form, content, length, or title of a SOFA do not exist. A SOFA may be written for a specific purpose or activity, or it may anticipate a longer-term relationship and provide for maximum flexibility and applicability. It is generally a stand-alone document concluded as an executive agreement. A SOFA may include many provisions, but the most common issue addressed is which country may exercise criminal jurisdiction over U.S. personnel. Other provisions that may be found in a SOFA include, but are not limited to, the wearing of uniforms, taxes and fees, carrying of weapons, use of radio frequencies, licenses, and customs regulations.
SOFAs are often included, along with other types of military agreements, as part of a comprehensive security arrangement with a particular country. A SOFA itself does not constitute a security arrangement; rather, it establishes the rights and privileges of U.S. personnel present in a country in support of the larger security arrangement. SOFAs may be entered based on authority found in previous treaties and congressional actions or as sole executive agreements.
The United States is currently party to more than 100 agreements that may be considered SOFAs. A list of current agreements included at the end of this report is categorized in tables according to the underlying source of authority, if any, for each of the SOFAs.