this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
66 points (95.8% liked)

News

30220 readers
4103 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Denmark has voted overwhelmingly in favour of a new defence agreement giving the US sweeping powers on Danish soil, including “unhindered access” to its airbases.

The deal, which has been strongly criticised by politicians and human rights experts, means US soldiers in Denmark will remain under US jurisdiction. It gives US soldiers access to Danish airbases in three Danish cities – Karup, Skrydstrup and Aalborg – and grants American soldiers and military police powers over Danish civilians at these locations and outside them.

If US soldiers were to commit a crime in Denmark, they would be punished under the US, not Danish, legal system in the first instance. The US will also be able to carry out military activities in and from Denmark – including stationing personnel, storing military material and equipment, maintenance, training and exercise activities.

Despite heightened tensions between the US and Denmark amid Donald Trump’s unprecedented push to acquire Greenland – a strategically vital part of the Danish kingdom – and reports US intelligence agencies were ordered to increase espionage in the territory, a broad majority of the Danish parliament (Folketinget) voted in support of adopting the agreement. A total of 94 MPs voted for the bill and 11 against.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] troed@fedia.io 7 points 3 days ago (2 children)

AFAIK it's standard terms and conditions whenever US has a military presence in another country, and we believe that presence is beneficial in deterring Russia - above and beyond NATO article 5.

I have no opinion myself beyond having read in the internal debate both "US soldiers are above Swedish law" and "Of course Swedish law applies to them" ...

[–] thebestaquaman@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago

We had US troops doing rotations in Norway long before we made a deal allowing US jurisdiction on certain bases.

It's quite (very) common to give some degree of immunity to visiting allied soldiers. Often, this involves that they will be tried by courts in their home country if they are accused of a crime.

These new deals are a whole different matter. They give full jurisdiction to the US inside their bases. The major argument against them is essentially that they undermine Norwegian sovereignty on Norwegian soil. For example, we have laws prohibiting storage of nuclear weapons on our soil, but if the US lands a plane carrying nukes on one of these bases, we have signed away our right to inspect them. Even if we knew they carried nukes, we've signed away our right to seize them and send them out.

My personal opinion is that these deals are a major infraction on Norwegian sovereignty, and are possibly unconstitutional for that reason.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

I have no opinion myself beyond having read in the internal debate both “US soldiers are above Swedish law” and “Of course Swedish law applies to them” …

Well both are kind of true. They must follow local laws, but if they don't, it has to be enforced and prosecuted by the Americans themselves.