Pages: 1

 

2008-04-22 05:22:11
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6647|Brisneyland
US military increases recruitment of criminals.

ABC news wrote:

US military ups recruitment of criminals
By Washington correspondent Kim Landers

Posted Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:00am AEST

A United States Congressional committee is asking the Pentagon to explain whether the increase in convicted criminals being recruited into the US military can be linked to the strains from the Iraq war.

Last year the US Army granted waivers to allow 511 convicted criminals to join up, almost double the number from the year before.

Almost 250 Army and Marine recruits had convictions for burglary while 130 had been charged with drug offences, excluding marijuana.

There were also a handful of waivers given for those convicted of rape and sexual assault, along with terrorist threats, including bomb threats.
This sets a dangerous precedent. Criminals should be allowed to get normal jobs, however the military should be very choosy as to who they recruit. I dont think the guys that got waivers for terrorist threats should be given guns, or access to explosives.
2008-04-22 05:25:04
BVC
Member
+325|7120
Terrorists and sexual assaults = not cool.  The others, maybe, but the should have to prove themselves beforehand.
2008-04-22 05:27:04
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7182|Argentina
The President is the Commander in Chief, isn't he?
2008-04-22 05:28:34
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6647|Brisneyland
True. Not all criminals are unsuitable. You should have to pass an upgraded psych test to get in if you had a criminal history.
2008-04-22 05:28:42
JahManRed
wank
+646|7052|IRELAND

Its a criminal war, so why not send criminals to fight it?
2008-04-22 05:32:59
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6647|Brisneyland
I would say that increasing the amount of criminals would discourage non criminal people from joining up. I think there may be a stigma attached to the military if too many crims are recruited.
2008-04-22 05:33:42
rammunition
Fully Loaded
+143|6286
i remember a case were in Iraq that a 14 year old girl was raped and killed with her family by a few animals. One of the u.s soldiers involved said it only joined the U.S army to kill !!!!

its a wrong move and a paradise for criminals to kill,rape etc and get away with it
2008-04-22 05:37:53
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7266|Cologne, Germany

well, if we're talking convicted criminals, who have done their time, why not recruit them into the armed forces ? I mean, in theory, they have paid their dues to society by serving their sentence, and should have every right that any other non-convicted citizen has, shouldn't they ?

I mean, what better way to prove yourself to your fellow citizens than doing the most patriotic thing that one could ask for, joining the armed forces, defending democracy and all of that ?
Isn't that every social worker's wet dream ?

if they pass the initial tests, I see no reason not to allow them in.
2008-04-22 05:38:57
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6647|Brisneyland

rammunition wrote:

remember a case were in Iraq that a 14 year old girl was raped and killed with her family by a few animals. One of the u.s soldiers involved said it only joined the U.S army to kill !!!!

its a wrong move and a paradise for criminals to kill,rape etc and get away with it
Good point. Giving unstable crims guns and an environment where they can get away with more shit is a big mistake. I am sure the US doesnt need troops that badly. This may bite them on the ass in the long term.
2008-04-22 05:40:21
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6944|Πάϊ
Those guilty of sexual assault are the only ones that should be totally excluded imo. The rest, well, they seem fine so long as they go through some sort of special inquiry or sth...
ƒ³
2008-04-22 05:42:52
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6647|Brisneyland

schuss wrote:

mean, what better way to prove yourself to your fellow citizens than doing the most patriotic thing that one could ask for, joining the armed forces, defending democracy and all of that ?
Isn't that every social worker's wet dream ?
Some crims will do their time and be suitable. Others that have done their time shouldnt be let anywhere near a rifle of explosives. Of course this would be down to a psych test, but I am sure these could be fooled.
2008-04-22 05:45:31
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6647|Brisneyland

oug wrote:

Those guilty of sexual assault are the only ones that should be totally excluded imo. The rest, well, they seem fine so long as they go through some sort of special inquiry or sth...
I reckon any crims involved in violent crime shouldnt be allowed either ( assault etc) if they lose it in public, whose to say what they may do in a high pressure situation.
2008-04-22 06:03:03
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7266|Cologne, Germany

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

oug wrote:

Those guilty of sexual assault are the only ones that should be totally excluded imo. The rest, well, they seem fine so long as they go through some sort of special inquiry or sth...
I reckon any crims involved in violent crime shouldnt be allowed either ( assault etc) if they lose it in public, whose to say what they may do in a high pressure situation.
strange...given the violent nature of war, I would have thought those who have experienced a certain amount of violence already are best suited for it...

I mean, you don't want soft college dropouts either, do you ?
2008-04-22 06:22:05
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6604
Let's not jump the gun here. None of us know the reasons or the crimes committed nor do we know the level of conviction any of these guys got. If they served their time then they have the right to a job as anyone else. Again, none of us know. A lot of people here are jumping on the bandwagon too quickly and are jumping on assumptions way too much.

I am sure that a child rapist wasn't given a waiver. Maybe some guy who shoplifted or maybe had a fight in the street or drunk driving. We just don't know all the facts and to sit there and worry over a few hundred who may have gotten waivers is not a reason to panic. A few hundred out of how many hundreds and hundreds of thousands of military personal. It is a very, very tiny fraction.

Again, I highly doubt these are hard core criminals and I am sure they were properly screened. I have family in the military and its not that easy to get into, especially if you have something like this in your background. Anyhow....find the facts first before you say things like this.....

quoted.........i remember a case were in Iraq that a 14 year old girl was raped and killed with her family by a few animals. One of the u.s soldiers involved said it only joined the U.S army to kill !!!! its a wrong move and a paradise for criminals to kill,rape etc and get away with it.....
2008-04-22 06:34:54
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6944|Πάϊ

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

If they served their time then they have the right to a job as anyone else.
I don't think so. Maybe in other lines of work, but not the military.

example: a guy is sent to prison because he killed a someone while driving drunk. Would you hire him to be your driver after he had done his sentence?

When lives are at risk, you don't take your chances with things like that.
ƒ³
2008-04-22 06:43:38
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6604

oug wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

If they served their time then they have the right to a job as anyone else.
I don't think so. Maybe in other lines of work, but not the military.

example: a guy is sent to prison because he killed a someone while driving drunk. Would you hire him to be your driver after he had done his sentence?

When lives are at risk, you don't take your chances with things like that.
None of us knows the actual circumstances of why these people were given waivers. We just don't know and again it is a very small amount of people. I know of two people who were convicted of manslaughter and were guilty of killing others while drinking and driving. One that I know quite well, missed his kids growing up and when he was released from prison, put his life back together and is contributing to his family and work as he should. Now, if we took the attitude of not giving him a second chance....where does that leave a guy like that. He served his time and honestly, I would trust him to be my driver.
2008-04-22 06:56:10
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6944|Πάϊ

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

oug wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

If they served their time then they have the right to a job as anyone else.
I don't think so. Maybe in other lines of work, but not the military.

example: a guy is sent to prison because he killed a someone while driving drunk. Would you hire him to be your driver after he had done his sentence?

When lives are at risk, you don't take your chances with things like that.
None of us knows the actual circumstances of why these people were given waivers. We just don't know and again it is a very small amount of people. I know of two people who were convicted of manslaughter and were guilty of killing others while drinking and driving. One that I know quite well, missed his kids growing up and when he was released from prison, put his life back together and is contributing to his family and work as he should. Now, if we took the attitude of not giving him a second chance....where does that leave a guy like that. He served his time and honestly, I would trust him to be my driver.
Yea but we're not talking about each case here... We're talking about a general guideline to govern all of them.

And maybe my example wasn't so good. It certainly wasn't to be taken literally. To kill a person on the street, well it could happen to anyone, drunk or not (especially if you're driving in Greece, trust me ).

Anyway, not allowing certain criminals to join the army is not the same as not giving them a chance in general. It is inevitable that some restrictions should apply to them imo, according to what they've done, and their general behavior thereafter.
ƒ³
2008-04-22 07:03:35
DeathBecomesYu
Member
+171|6604

oug wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

oug wrote:


I don't think so. Maybe in other lines of work, but not the military.

example: a guy is sent to prison because he killed a someone while driving drunk. Would you hire him to be your driver after he had done his sentence?

When lives are at risk, you don't take your chances with things like that.
None of us knows the actual circumstances of why these people were given waivers. We just don't know and again it is a very small amount of people. I know of two people who were convicted of manslaughter and were guilty of killing others while drinking and driving. One that I know quite well, missed his kids growing up and when he was released from prison, put his life back together and is contributing to his family and work as he should. Now, if we took the attitude of not giving him a second chance....where does that leave a guy like that. He served his time and honestly, I would trust him to be my driver.
Yea but we're not talking about each case here... We're talking about a general guideline to govern all of them.

And maybe my example wasn't so good. It certainly wasn't to be taken literally. To kill a person on the street, well it could happen to anyone, drunk or not (especially if you're driving in Greece, trust me ).

Anyway, not allowing certain criminals to join the army is not the same as not giving them a chance in general. It is inevitable that some restrictions should apply to them imo, according to what they've done, and their general behavior thereafter.
True...from what I understand, having family and friends in the military and if I am wrong, maybe someone who has been or is in the military can clear this up....a thorough background check is done on anyone that wants to join the military. I am sure that these people who were given waivers were given them on a case by case situation and thoroughly checked out. I am sure that a hard core criminal would not be allowed to serve and I doubt that the military is that desparate to allow a few hundred more guys in just to meet numbers.
2008-04-22 07:20:12
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6819|The Gem Saloon

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

oug wrote:

DeathBecomesYu wrote:


None of us knows the actual circumstances of why these people were given waivers. We just don't know and again it is a very small amount of people. I know of two people who were convicted of manslaughter and were guilty of killing others while drinking and driving. One that I know quite well, missed his kids growing up and when he was released from prison, put his life back together and is contributing to his family and work as he should. Now, if we took the attitude of not giving him a second chance....where does that leave a guy like that. He served his time and honestly, I would trust him to be my driver.
Yea but we're not talking about each case here... We're talking about a general guideline to govern all of them.

And maybe my example wasn't so good. It certainly wasn't to be taken literally. To kill a person on the street, well it could happen to anyone, drunk or not (especially if you're driving in Greece, trust me ).

Anyway, not allowing certain criminals to join the army is not the same as not giving them a chance in general. It is inevitable that some restrictions should apply to them imo, according to what they've done, and their general behavior thereafter.
True...from what I understand, having family and friends in the military and if I am wrong, maybe someone who has been or is in the military can clear this up....a thorough background check is done on anyone that wants to join the military. I am sure that these people who were given waivers were given them on a case by case situation and thoroughly checked out. I am sure that a hard core criminal would not be allowed to serve and I doubt that the military is that desparate to allow a few hundred more guys in just to meet numbers.
when i looked into enlisting, they ran my background , and told me that i could be a mechanic/supply REMF basically.
i wouldnt even be allowed to carry a gun. my jaw hit the floor...i have only one violent offense, and it was when i was a minor...everything else is drug related, but they still didnt see fit to allow me into a combat position.
my family history dictates that if i joined the military, i better be a grunt, or not join at all.....so i said, "fuck it".


the funny thing is, a couple years later, i went and took my CCW test, and now i carry every day my ass leaves the house.
anyways, ive shot more guns than i think i would have been able to in the military anyway.....
2008-04-22 07:36:28
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6944|Πάϊ

DeathBecomesYu wrote:

I am sure that a hard core criminal would not be allowed to serve and I doubt that the military is that desparate to allow a few hundred more guys in just to meet numbers.
I guess it would bite them in the ass if they did...
ƒ³
2008-04-22 20:26:53
imortal
Member
+240|7089|Austin, TX

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

US military increases recruitment of criminals.

ABC news wrote:

US military ups recruitment of criminals
By Washington correspondent Kim Landers

Posted Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:00am AEST

A United States Congressional committee is asking the Pentagon to explain whether the increase in convicted criminals being recruited into the US military can be linked to the strains from the Iraq war.

Last year the US Army granted waivers to allow 511 convicted criminals to join up, almost double the number from the year before.

Almost 250 Army and Marine recruits had convictions for burglary while 130 had been charged with drug offences, excluding marijuana.

There were also a handful of waivers given for those convicted of rape and sexual assault, along with terrorist threats, including bomb threats.
This sets a dangerous precedent. Criminals should be allowed to get normal jobs, however the military should be very choosy as to who they recruit. I dont think the guys that got waivers for terrorist threats should be given guns, or access to explosives.
One of the humorous things (if you like this sort of morbid humor) is that the army, by federal law, can not let anyone who has been convicted of domestic violence be issued or allowed access to any weapon.  Since very nearly everyone in the army is issued, at the very least, a rifle, a domestic violence conviction gets you kicked out of the army for being unable to perform your duties.  Another grand leftover of the Clinton era.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard