# Felons In The Military



## MJS (Apr 23, 2008)

Thoughts?
http://www.courant.com/news/nationworld/hc-felons0422.artapr22,0,2214707.story



> WASHINGTON  - The military is looking for a few good ... felons?
> 
> Under pressure to meet combat needs, the Army and Marine Corps brought in significantly more recruits with felony convictions last year, including some with manslaughter and sex crime convictions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 23, 2008)

That's a small percentage of recruits I would imagine?  In the 'modern' age, tho',  I think that it's probably not the greatest of ideas to have such individuals representing your country out in the wider world.  Not because the poor souls might get killed but because of the likelyhood that they can do something that will besmirch the reputation of all soldiers who share their uniform.

Of course, in not so 'olden' times, we used to build entire armies out of the criminal and disadvantaged .


----------



## MJS (Apr 23, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> That's a small percentage of recruits I would imagine? In the 'modern' age I think that it's probably not the greatest of ideas to have such individuals representing your country out in the wider world. Not because the poor souls might get killed but because of the likelyhood that they can do something that will besmirch the reputation of all soldiers sho share their uniform.
> 
> Of course, in not so 'olden' times, we used to build entire armies out of the criminal and disadvantaged .


 
Well, that was pretty much my thinking as well.  There was a thread here, I believe in the General section regarding gangs in the military or something of that nature.  

Now, IMO, we have had quite a few cases of criminal activity in the military.  Do we want to add more fuel to the fire by having people like this represent the military?


----------



## terryl965 (Apr 23, 2008)

I guess that is all we can get these days, nobody wants to serve so when in need look elsewhere. I personally do not like the ideal, but then again I do not have a say so.


----------



## grydth (Apr 23, 2008)

Let's not forget that, for literally centuries, people have gone into military service after first having trouble in civilian life. You might find upon research that some of America's most renowned military heroes had a bit of a checkered prior life. John Paul Jones? Jim Bowie? I bet a Civil War buff could easily name a dozen more.... Springsteen's "Born in the USA" alludes to "got in a little hometown jam..." That wasn't just imagination.

I'd be inclined to more believe in the rehabilitation of a felon who earned the Silver Star than one who'd simply sat in Club Fed. Some ex cons are certainly unfit for military service, but many without records also do not belong in the Army.

Other countries have even fielded units of convicts, real life "Dirty Dozens" with varying results. Some have restored soldiers back to the military and society, but one SS unit under SS Oberfuhrer Dirlewanger committed crimes almost beyond belief for years on the Eastern Front.

As a prior poster has noted, though, the larger issue may be a drying up of recruits.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 23, 2008)

plus, lets remember something.

the two kinds of felonies mentioned.

manslaughter, which is by definition the accidental killing of someone, and sex crimes, ...you can be convicted of a felony sex crime just for being a senior in high school and dating a freshman who puts out.....

this doesnt mean that they are allowing ANYONE in


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 23, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> Of course, in not so 'olden' times, we used to build entire armies out of the criminal and disadvantaged .


 
Armies?  Hell, you used to build entire nations out of the criminal and disadvantaged!  sorry, Steel Tiger 

On-topic:  I guess for me it would depend on the type of felony.  And it probably comes as no surprise to know that there is already a pretty shady element within the armed forces as it is.  I may not have known Marines who entered as felons, but I knew a few who _exited_ as felons.


----------



## Topeng (Apr 24, 2008)

We used to joke about some of the people we served with. "Go to jail or join the Navy" was the choice some told they had.
Not only have the rates of felons gone up but the Army has also lowered the required ASVAB score for entry. 
I agree it would depend on the type of charge. Isn't writing a bad check a felony?
I hope that some of the bad seeds somehow find a way of getting it together through the military. I've served with a few that have done just that. I've also served with people who had clean records getting in and like CoryKS stated, got out as felons.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Apr 24, 2008)

I know of at least one marine who back in the day was given the choice of "go to jail or join the marines."  The up side is that he is now a great citizen, taxpayer, etc. and served admirably in the marines.  It literally did change his life.

The down side is that truthfully we would like the highest possible candidates in our military at all positions.  However that simply is not always possible.  Still having said that we have at this point in time the finest military on the planet.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 24, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Armies? Hell, you used to build entire nations out of the criminal and disadvantaged! sorry, Steel Tiger


 
True :blush:.


----------



## Imua Kuntao (Apr 24, 2008)

We are using felons now because of clinton,he downsized our military in such a bad way we are now unable to do what we could of done, like end the war earlier. Please do not vote for another clinton.


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 24, 2008)

Not all felons are alike.  Some felonies are very minor, compared to others, and may have been brought on by justice not being served.  I strongly doubt that we have hundreds of convicted murderers / repeated violent rapists, etc. in the ranks.  

If anything, this line sheds some info:



> For example, in several of the Marine sex crime cases, the offenders were teenagers involved in consensual sex with other underage teens.
> 
> In one Army case, a 13-year-old who threw a match into his school locker was charged with arson and had to receive a felony waiver six years later.
> 
> "Waivers are used judiciously and granted only after a thorough review," said a Pentagon spokesman, Lt. Col. Jonathan Withington.


 
On the flip side, if felons in the military continue down their criminal paths, they're going to find that military justice isn't nearly as forgiving as civilian justice.


----------



## crushing (Apr 24, 2008)

Imua Kuntao said:


> We are using felons now because of clinton,he downsized our military in such a bad way we are now unable to do what we could of done, like end the war earlier. Please do not vote for another clinton.


 
The downsizing plan and implementation started before Clinton took office as we were supposed to start recognizing a 'peace dividend' after the fall of the Berlin Wall.  The downsizing actually started with President G.H.W. Bush with Dick Cheney as Secretary of Defense.

In 1992 after returning from the first Iraq war I was in one of the Army companies that was downsized out of existence that was based at a military post that was being handed back over to the host nation.  This was happening all across USAREUR before 1993.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 24, 2008)

This is a small, albeit growing, number of exceptions. The presence of a few carefully vetted felons doesn't bother me as much as the fact that a need--a pressure--to do so exists.


----------



## FieldDiscipline (Apr 24, 2008)

> Under pressure to meet combat needs, the Army and Marine Corps brought in significantly more recruits with felony convictions last year, *including some with manslaughter and sex crime convictions.*
> 
> Data released by a congressional committee show the number of soldiers admitted to the Army with felony records jumped from 249 in 2006 to 511 in 2007.
> 
> And the number of Marines brought in with felonies rose from 208 to 350.



Very very bad news.  These are not people you want peacekeeping or even warfighting.


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 24, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> this doesnt mean that they are allowing ANYONE in


yet


----------



## tellner (Apr 24, 2008)

By any standard we've stopped scraping the barrel and have kicked the bottom out of the sucker so that we can start digging. 

Up until the Iraq invasion the US military accepted at most, what was it, 4% of recruits who scored in the lowest category in the Aptitude tests. Now it's over 20%. The percentage who are under waivers for drug use, gang affiliation and misdemeanor convictions is at record levels. The fraction with felony convictions is higher than at any point in my lifetime. And that's not including recent scandals about recruiters simply falsifying records so that people with disabilities like severe autism are considered "1-A". 

Another recent scandal is covering up recruiting shortfalls by grabbing sailors and airmen out of the Navy and Air Force and assigning them as infantry or to Marine units. They don't have the training. They don't have the experience. But they're warm bodies who can carry rifles. 

There's also been a very disturbing trend in staffing. Senior non-coms - the backbone of any military - are leaving the Service at historically high rates as are career officers. That's with "stop loss" which is Army for "You'll die in the traces."

Chimpy and "Swinging" Dick Cheney may well have succeeded in destroying the US military for a decade or more.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 24, 2008)

tellner said:


> By any standard we've stopped scraping the barrel and have kicked the bottom out of the sucker so that we can start digging.
> 
> Up until the Iraq invasion the US military accepted at most, what was it, 4% of recruits who scored in the lowest category in the Aptitude tests. Now it's over 20%. The percentage who are under waivers for drug use, gang affiliation and misdemeanor convictions is at record levels. The fraction with felony convictions is higher than at any point in my lifetime. And that's not including recent scandals about recruiters simply falsifying records so that people with disabilities like severe autism are considered "1-A".
> 
> ...


 
Yup.

Anytime a war breaks out in history, what's the first thing the generation of enlistment age is going to look at when deciding to enlist?

That's RI-iiiight!

They're gonna look at how the veterans of the LAST war were treated. 

After this, even if we are ever gonna HAVE the money to make those uniforms and gear for those next 20-30 years, who in the hell do they think they're gonna con into filling 'em after "stop-loss"?


----------



## tellner (Apr 24, 2008)

Oh, to the Anonymous Coward who just dinged me...

Did I get any facts wrong?
Nope.

Did I say soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors are evil?
Nope.

Are you upset because I'm not properly worshipful to your political heroes?
Yep.


----------



## tellner (Apr 24, 2008)

We saw things like this after Vietnam.

Morale was low.
Standards declined.
Readiness suffered terribly.
It took quite a while and a metric butt-load of money to rebuild important parts of the US military.

By many standards we're worse off now. And our economy is weaker. We only have an Army because it still amuses Chinese bankers to lend us the money for one. According to the Pentagon's and GAO's own recently-released reports the US military is not currently capable of defending the United States.

This is very, very bad.


----------



## newGuy12 (Apr 24, 2008)

The armed forces, especially the Army, is certainly going to be hard pressed to recruit now.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 24, 2008)

As an aside to the topic, my fellow members of MT.  

Just as it is only polite to 'sign' your comments when giving a rep 'buff', it is also only proper to do so when giving negative rep.  

If someone has so offended you with their words that you simply have to use this facility (and I *never* have, I'll tell you outright rather than from behind the 'curtain') then have the good grace to identify yourself.  

As well as the aspect of simple courtesy, what good does an anonymous 'ding' do?  You're registering extreme disapproval with negative rep, something I think those who use it sometimes fail to recognise.  If the poster who drew it doesn't know where it came from, how can they possibly respond in anything like a constructive manner?

Disagreeing with someone is not a crime and neither is using negative rep (tho' I have my own views on this).  Doing so without identifying yourself does not contribute to the debate.


----------



## grydth (Apr 24, 2008)

tellner said:


> We saw things like this after Vietnam.
> 
> Morale was low.
> Standards declined.
> ...



Don't know why you're getting nasty digs...I began my military service in the early 1980's and you could clearly see each of these things. It did take years to fix - and slowly. I had plenty of work as a JAG - and a large number of these guys never should have been in the Army to begin with. I believe they were slang referred to as Category 4s. There were unfit soldiers and mediocre officers because the services simply could not get anyone else.

Of equal concern is the material situation.... we may show hundreds of tanks, APCs and other vehicles in inventory - but how many are ready to roll? How many lack basic maintenance, repairs to battle damage, critical upgrades, needed spare parts? I saw my share of units that looked okay on paper - but neither men nor machines were ready for deployment.

Your hunch that we are in a bad  mess is probably optimistic. The 'saving grace' may be that most potential opponents right now don't look much better.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 24, 2008)

tellner said:


> By any standard we've stopped scraping the barrel and have kicked the bottom out of the sucker so that we can start digging.



thats your opinion. Is it based on your extensive military experience? or did you just read that on DailyPOS and regurgitate it?



tellner said:


> Up until the Iraq invasion the US military accepted at most, what was it, 4% of recruits who scored in the lowest category in the Aptitude tests. Now it's over 20%. The percentage who are under waivers for drug use, gang affiliation and misdemeanor convictions is at record levels. The fraction with felony convictions is higher than at any point in my lifetime. And that's not including recent scandals about recruiters simply falsifying records so that people with disabilities like severe autism are considered "1-A".



Please provide a cite for that accusation



tellner said:


> Another recent scandal is covering up recruiting shortfalls by grabbing sailors and airmen out of the Navy and Air Force and assigning them as infantry or to Marine units. They don't have the training. They don't have the experience. But they're warm bodies who can carry rifles.
> 
> There's also been a very disturbing trend in staffing. Senior non-coms - the backbone of any military - are leaving the Service at historically high rates as are career officers. That's with "stop loss" which is Army for "You'll die in the traces."
> 
> Chimpy and "Swinging" Dick Cheney may well have succeeded in destroying the US military for a decade or more.



You have a cite for any of these supposed transgressions or are you going to , like you did last time, ignore requests that you actually prove what you are saying is true?


And no, Clinton dmaned near destroyed the military. The FACT is that soldiers are re-enlisting at record rates.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0503/p01s01-usmi.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-17-soldiers-re-enlist_x.htm
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_numbers_041404,00.html?ESRC=airforce-a.nl
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339296,00.html



Tellner, just stop it, you are embarrassing yourself.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 24, 2008)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339296,00.html

"According to Army statistics obtained exclusively by FOX News, 70 percent of soldiers eligible to re-enlist in 2006 did so &#8212; a re-enlistment rate higher than before Sept. 11, 2001. For the past 10 years, the enlisted retention rates of the Army have exceeded 100 percent. As of last Nov. 13, Army re-enlistment was 137 percent of its stated goal."



http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20080123.aspx

"Reenlistments have been higher than before the war on terror began in 2001. The invasion of Iraq resulted in even higher reenlistment rates. "



starting to see a trend here? Or do i need to go on?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 25, 2008)

How does "Stop-Loss" fit in?


----------



## grydth (Apr 25, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> How does "Stop-Loss" fit in?




"Stop Loss" _may_ illustrate how both Twin Fist and Tellner are correct. I pretend to speak for neither, by the way.

Armies almost always grow a great deal in size to meet wartime demands. I believe it is quite possible that while more service members across the spectrum may be re-enlisting (Twin Fist) than pre-war,  those specialist types facing endless IEDs in Iraq (Infantry NCO) may be leaving in such large numbers as to be irreplacable (tellner) without a drastic step such as this.

My opinion is that "Stop Loss" is a bandaid solution, and one where the bandaid ultimately will produce infection and gangrene.


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 25, 2008)

It seems we have a wag in our midst.  

In response to my 'Mentory' comment about the utility of Negative Rep above I got the following 'ding':

*"You're wrong, and off-topic. The system is anonymous by design and choice. -Anonymous".*

Such mis-use is another evidential point as to why the system should not be annonymous.  Such a sentiment would've been better sent via PM - as I said above, that way we get to address the 'problem' rather than just 'stir the pot'.


----------



## Grenadier (Apr 25, 2008)

One question we need to ask is this: 

How thorough are those background checks that are being conducted on felons who wish to enlist?  

Unless someone really screwed up, I would have to doubt that top tier categories of felonies are going to be automatic disqualifiers, and that those who were convicted of sexual offenses, manslaughter, etc., had done so under certain circumstances. 

When those circumstances were reviewed, there's a good chance that the facts of the case painted a different picture, rather than painting these recruits with a broad paint brush.  

For example, suppose someone had decided to take a leak in a public place, and some child had seen the forbidden areas?  Right away, that could be classified as a very serious penalty, yet there may not have been any malicious intent.  

If these felons serve in the military honorably, then I have no problems with their being in the armed forces.  This is a chance for their redemption.  

However, if they choose to commit crimes in the military, then may they face swift, and very serious, military justice.  The military courts aren't nearly as forgiving as their civilian counterparts.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 25, 2008)

Sukerkin said:


> It seems we have a wag in our midst.
> 
> In response to my 'Mentory' comment about the utility of Negative Rep above I got the following 'ding':
> 
> ...


To end the tangent, the rep system is the way it is, we're not changing it, and this isn't the place to discuss/complain/lodge concerns.


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 25, 2008)

*Admin. Note:*

The reputation system is anonymous for a reason.  Better to analyze the comment for its worth rather than public mudslinging. Here is a link again to the reputation guidelines. 

If you feel the system has been abused according to those guidelines please file a complaint directly with a staff member and we will investigate.

Otherwise, let's please return to the topic.

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Assist. Administrator


----------



## MJS (Apr 25, 2008)

Well, I'd like to preface my post here, by saying that we all know threads in the study get hot.  Opinions are going to differ and thats fact.  Lets try to avoid taking personal shots please and stay somewhat civil. 

Ok..that being said...Im not in the military, so I really don't know what screening process, if any, is used when folks want to enlist.  Is there any background check?  Someone applying for a PD is going to go thru a long process, and of course, we hear about people who become cops, getting arrested for crimes.  Go figure.  

Could enlisting turn someone around?  Its really no different than offering someone treatment for an addiction rather than a long prison sentence.  But, the person has to want to improve themselves.  Would the military change a sex offender or a rapist?  Dont know.  But, IMO, I'd be more willing to see someone with a minor offense, serve rather than someone who is convicted of a serious crime.


----------



## Twin Fist (Apr 25, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> How does "Stop-Loss" fit in?



stop loss is an extended enlistment, not a re-enlistment. members who are stop lossed should not be counted as re-enlistments. if they are being counted that way, someone is breaking the rules to do so. And the military has always had the option to extend people's enlistment, they just rarely do so. When they do, it is always people in hard to replace positions.

Grenadier,
When i enlisted, they talked to my high school teachers, when my job required that I get a TS clearance, they talked to my middle school teachers and friends i grew up with.  The background check is extensive. Much more so than civilian ones.


----------



## tellner (Apr 25, 2008)

To expand on what TF said, "Stop Loss" is a program whereby the military can keep people in uniform even if their term of duty has expired. Most of the time it is not used or is applied very sparingly to retain critical people. Since the Iraq invasion it has been used almost universally. Finishing one's hitch no longer means leaving the military. It increasingly means being forced to serve indefinitely. 

Stop loss, reduced standards and the movement of airmen and sailors to the army and marines are the only way that the military has been able to maintain something like desired troop levels.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 25, 2008)

tellner said:


> the movement of airmen and sailors to the army and marines are the only way that the military has been able to maintain something like desired troop levels.


Oh, do you mean this:





> *US Sailors, Airmen Can Transfer to Army'Operation Blue to Green' offers Army promotion fast-track   *
> 
> _Dateline: August 2, 2004_ The Department of Defense announced July 29 that Sailors and Airmen are now able to Go Army under a new program intended to rebalance the size of the military.
> The program will generate new opportunities for continued service and career advancement for those willing to transfer into the Army from other services.
> Under Operation Blue to Green, the Army will reach out to Sailors and Airmen and underscore the advantages of swapping their present uniform for Army green.


Those bastards, offering career advancement! The nerve!


----------



## tellner (Apr 25, 2008)

No Don, and you can stop with the stupid strawmen anytime you want. They don't make you look smart. They don't show me up as the spineless America-hating French-wine-sipping feminazi lib'rul you imagine me to be.

In the approved fashion - your indoctrination has been handled very thoroughly - you've seized on one little thing that you imagine invalidates a huge number of mutually reinforcing points. If you can niggle one little ambiguity, especially if it makes the Enemy - because that is how you think of me - look evil, then everything is good. You can go back to congratulating yourself on the superiority of everything you believe. That's S.O.P. in what passes for the political process these days. That doesn't make it any sort of a close approach to the truth.

What I'm talking about is the "individual augmentee" policy of taking people from the Navy and Air Force whether they volunteer or not and sticking them in the infantry. This isn't the "Blue to Green" program that started a couple years ago. It's a newer policy of filling holes in the Army and Marines with people from other branches of the Service because not enough qualified warm bodies can be found who will willingly volunteer. At least one Navy officer has very publicly resigned a commission because of the deception. 

The Army and Marine Corps can not get enough people to serve willingly. To fill the gap they are making all hitches basically lifetime affairs. The Reserves and Guard are being used in ways they haven't since at least WWII. Standards are declining precipitously. The amount we have to bribe them to sign up is truly amazing. But they still won't go. One way to fill the gap is to cannibalize the other Services and destroy their readiness and structure in the process. It can not continue forever. And the damage it is doing to the United States Armed Forces is terrible.


----------



## Lisa (Apr 25, 2008)

Hey gentlemen, lets keep it civil and on topic and away from anything personal please and thank you.

Lisa


----------



## tellner (Apr 25, 2008)

Sorry 'bout that. Even if it is all Lisa's fault 

I apologize for the tone in that last one. It was wrong to use that form of attack.

I stand by my irritation with the technique and the degree to which it has become a standard in political discourse.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 25, 2008)

Duly noted. And FWIW, I would like to express my irritation with the use of terms such as Chimpy, "Swinging" Dick, sockpuppet, indoctrination, et al. that have also become standard in the political discourse here.


----------



## Lisa (Apr 25, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Duly noted. And FWIW, I would like to express my irritation with the use of terms such as Chimpy, "Swinging" Dick, sockpuppet, indoctrination, et al. that have also become standard in the political discourse here.



If you feel anything that is said goes against the TOS, please report it so we can look into it.  Remember, we are unable to see everything all the time.

Thanks.

And thank you gentlemen for your apologies and understanding.  Even with it being my fault. 

Lisa


----------



## KELLYG (Apr 25, 2008)

Thank you guy's for this usefully information..  I was wondering if your wives or daughters were serving in the military would you want them to them to serve along side people that were convicted felons of sexual assault??


----------



## Big Don (Apr 25, 2008)

tellner said:


> No Don, and you can stop with the stupid strawmen anytime you want.


 Calling you on lies is hardly using strawmen.





> What I'm talking about is the "individual augmentee" policy of taking people from the Navy and Air Force whether they volunteer or not and sticking them in the infantry. This isn't the "Blue to Green" program that started a couple years ago. It's a newer policy of filling holes in the Army and Marines with people from other branches of the Service because not enough qualified warm bodies can be found who will willingly volunteer. At least one Navy officer has very publicly resigned a commission because of the deception.


 Except the individual augmentee program has been around for DECADES, all US Navy Corpsmen in Marine units are individual augmentees, as are all members of the military seconded to NASA.





> The Army and Marine Corps can not get enough people to serve willingly.


 Except, the Army exceeded its fiscal 2007 recruiting goal. 





> *Active duty recruiting*. All of the active duty services met or exceeded their recruiting goals for the month of September. The Navy&#8217;s recruiting goal was 4,818, and it enlisted 4,886 (101 percent). The Marine Corps&#8217; goal was 3,694, and it recruited 3,738 (101 percent). The Air Force goal was 2,682, and it recruited 2,771 (103 percent). The Army's goal was 8,365, and it recruited 8,710 (104 percent).
> 
> *Active duty retention*. The Army, Air Force and Marine Corps exceeded their annual retention goals. The Navy achieved 91 percent of its mid-career goal.
> *Reserve forces recruiting*. Three of the six reserve components, Army Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve and Air Force Reserve, exceeded their September recruiting goals. The latter two also exceeded their goals for the fiscal year...
> Except you continue to state things that just are not true...



To fill the gap they are making all hitches basically lifetime affairs. The Reserves and Guard are being used in ways they haven't since at least WWII. Standards are declining precipitously. The amount we have to bribe them to sign up is truly amazing. [/quote] Incentives are not bribes. [FONT=arial, helvetica, swiss]*bribery
**n. the crime of giving or taking money or some other valuable item in order to influence a public official (any governmental employee) in the performance of his/her duties. Bribery includes paying to get government contracts (cutting in the roads commissioner for a secret percentage of the profit), giving a bottle of liquor to a building inspector to ignore a violation or grant a permit, or selling stock to a Congressman at a cut-rate price.* [/FONT]Law.com legal dictionary.


> But they still won't go. One way to fill the gap is to cannibalize the other Services and destroy their readiness and structure in the process. It can not continue forever. And the damage it is doing to the United States Armed Forces is terrible.


You continually mix in lies with opinion and then whine when you get called on it.


----------



## Lisa (Apr 25, 2008)

*ADMINSTRATIVE NOTE:

Thread locke pending admin review.

Lisa Deneka
MT Assist. Admin.*


----------

