The political issue of the VFA is complicated by the fact that many host countries have mixed feelings about foreign troops on their soil and that the VFA`s renegotiation requests are often linked to requests for the total withdrawal of foreign troops. Questions of different national practices may arise. Many American observers believe, for example, that the host country`s judicial systems provide much lower protection for defendants than the host country`s courts may be under pressure from the public to commit guilt; In addition, U.S. service members who are invited to send shipments abroad should not be forced to waive their rights under the U.S. Bulletin of Rights. On the other hand, observers of the host country who do not have a local equivalent of the law of rights often feel that these are irrelevant excuses for seeking special treatment and resemble the extraterritorial agreements demanded by Western countries during the colonial period. A host country where this sentiment is widespread, South Korea, has itself forces in Kyrgyzstan and has negotiated a SOFA that gives its members total immunity from persecution by the Kyrgyz authorities for any crime something that goes far beyond the privileges that many South Koreans, in the couch of their country with the United States Accuse. other parts of the British Commonwealth during a visit to the United Kingdom or a colony; With regard to the exercise of command and discipline, when Her Majesty`s forces from different parts of the Commonwealth serve together; with regard to the attachment of members of such a force to another force, and with regard to the deserters of such forces.  Below you will find some examples of laws concerning visiting troops in different countries: In addition, some peculiarities of the agreement create areas of perceived privileges for American soldiers. For example, because SOFA excludes most U.S. military personnel from Japanese visa and passport laws, incidents have occurred in the past where U.S. military personnel were returned to the United States before being charged in Japanese courts. In addition, the agreement requires that U.S.
authorities, when a U.S. service provider is suspected of a crime but are not captured by Japanese authorities off a base, must remain in custody until the service member is formally charged by the Japanese.  Although the agreement also requires U.S. cooperation with Japanese authorities in investigations, Japanese authorities have often denounced the fact that they still do not have regular access to questions or interrogations of U.S. service providers, making it more difficult for Japanese prosecutors to prepare cases for indictment.  This situation is compounded by the singularity of the Japanese pre-charge hearings, which focus on access to confessions as a precondition for prosecution, often without a lawyer and can last up to 23 days.  Given the difference between this interrogation system and the system in the United States, the United States,