Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Five Facts That Put America to Shame
- Colonized by Corporations
- Accidentally Released - and Incredibly Embarrassing - Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in 'Naked Short Selling'
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
Popular content
Today's Top News
More Entering Army with Criminal Records
WASHINGTON - Nearly 12 percent of Army recruits who entered basic training this year needed a special waiver for those with criminal records, a dramatic increase over last year and 2 1/2 times the percentage four years ago, according to new Army statistics obtained by the Globe.
With less than three months left in the fiscal year, 11.6 percent of new active-duty and Army Reserve troops in 2007 have received a so-called "moral waiver," up from 7.9 percent in fiscal year 2006, according to figures from the US Army Recruiting Command. In fiscal 2003 and 2004, soldiers granted waivers accounted for 4.6 percent of new recruits; in 2005, it was 6.2 percent.
Army officials acknowledge privately that the increase in moral waivers reflects the difficulty of signing up sufficient numbers of recruits to sustain an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq; the Army fell short of its monthly recruiting goals in May and June.
Since Oct. 1, 2006, when the fiscal year began, more than 8,000 of the roughly 69,000 recruits have been granted waivers for offenses ranging in seriousness from misdemeanors such as vandalism to felonies such as burglary and aggravated assault.
Army officials say the majority of such recruits committed relatively minor offenses and have not been in prison. They point out that waivers are granted only after a careful review of each soldier's history -- and only when the applicant has shown remorse or changed behavior.
But former military officials and defense specialists said they fear that enlisting more soldiers with criminal backgrounds will increase the risk of disciplinary problems and criminal activity among soldiers in uniform.
"Somebody who has demonstrated themselves to be guilty of misbehavior in civilian life has a good chance of behaving in the same way in the military," said John Hutson , judge advocate general of the Navy until 2000 and now dean of the Franklin Pierce Law Center at the University of New Hampshire.
Hutson said he witnessed the consequences of allowing former criminal offenders to join the ranks in the 1970s, the last time the military enlisted high numbers of soldiers with criminal histories. The numbers of recruits with criminal pasts who were allowed to join in the 1970s is not available, according to the Army. But Hutson said such soldiers often showed up in military court for committing new offenses.
"There were all kinds of what I call 'frustration offenses,' " he said, citing drug use, burglary, and violent behavior. "Some people are incapable of coping with the regimen of military life so they act out in all kinds of ways."
Moral waivers must be approved by an officer of the rank of lieutenant colonel or higher and are required when an Army applicant has been found guilty of committing four or more minor offenses such as littering or disorderly conduct -- or two to four misdemeanors such as larcency, trespassing, or vandalism.
Applicants who have committed a single felony such as arson, burglary, aggravated assault, breaking and entering, or marijuana possession must also receive a moral waiver to join. Applicants with more than one felony -- or with a single conviction for a more serious crime such as homicide, sexual violence, or drug trafficking -- are not eligible.
"In most cases we see, the charges were from a period of time when the applicant was young and immature," said a two-page statement from the Army Recruiting Command, based in Fort Knox, Ky., provided in response to queries from the Globe.
"We look at the recent history such as employment, schooling, references, and signs of remorse and changed behavior since the incident occurred as part of the waiver process," the statement said. "The Army does not rehabilitate enlistees who receive waivers; they have already overcome their mistakes."
Allowing former criminals to fight for their country "is the right thing to do for those Americans who want to answer the call of duty," the statement said.
But other Defense Department officials maintain that the rise in criminal waivers is also a direct result of the Army's struggle to meet recruiting targets.
"There is terrific pressure put on the recruiters," said Alan Gropman , a professor at the Pentagon's National Defense University. "They have to meet their mission so they request more waivers. In order to make the numbers they have to lower the standards."
Since 2003 the Pentagon has taken unprecedented steps to try to meet its recruiting goals, including lowering education standards, raising the maximum age, and steadily increasing the amount of bonuses for new volunteers. But granting more waivers for criminals, specialists said, could end up backfiring.
One former senior Defense official, who remains a consultant to the Pentagon, said there is growing concern in the ranks that members of street gangs have been joining the military and then engaging in criminal activity.
A spokesman for the Army's Criminal Investigative Division said he was not aware of any formal investigation into gang activity in the Army.
But David Isenberg , a senior analyst at the British American Security Information Council, a nonpartisan Washington think tank, said studies from past decades indicate that soldiers with criminal histories were more likely to violate military regulations.
"The worse . . . moral background you came from, the lousier job you did, not only in terms of your personal performance but in dragging down unit cohesion," said Isenberg, a Navy veteran.
Even some of the staunchest supporters of the Iraq war believe the Army is signing up too many people with criminal histories.
"The military depends on good order and discipline and we should be seeking the type of recruits most likely to fill that profile," said Elaine Donnelly , president of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group in Washington.
© Copyright 2007 The Boston Globe

28 Comments so far
Show AllAbout the picture : "Newly naturalized US soldiers at an oath pronunciation ceremony at Camp Victory in Baghdad in this July 4,2007"
If a foreigner died in iraq while fighting, wearing the US uniform under US command but before taking the oath, is he/she counted as american in the american death count (3600+)?
If one accepts that Iraq war is illegal and is crime against humanity, then what difference does it make if criminal or non-criminals are sent there to fight. Once the good guys start killing people, they become criminals too. The only difference is that one group graduated in crime before being dispatched, but the other group graduated after being dispatched
A few good men. A very few perhaps?
The question is, how many honest soldiers came out from Iraq as criminals? Whether it was their intention or not, committing war crimes even if you are following orders, is a criminal act.
And it is our administration, Bush and Cheney & Co, that are responsible and guilty of the war crimes. Anyone who justifies 'enemy noncombatants' is committing a war crime. The fact that much of Iraq still doesn't have safe access to water is a war crime. The US government is responsible for the murders that are occuring under our occupation.
If you don't want to be a criminal, don't join the military.
peace, justice, and Human Rights for all
They point out that waivers are granted only after a careful review of each soldier's history — and only when the applicant has shown remorse or changed behavior.
I know how the recruiters play the game. Hey sign this waiver and make sure you state that you are "remorseful and sorry" for what you did and your in. I keep on forgetting how moral the recruiters are... Military recruiters are like used car salesmen, but during war they are dealing in lives.
I can hear the military talking now - Geez we missed our recruiting quota again and their killing more soldiers each month. Lets start lowering the bar and enlist some delinquents. After the insurgents kill them we can start enlisting hardened criminals. If Libby can get his sentence commuted then we can get Bush to commute the sentence of other criminals to serve in the military... At least they already know how to kill and they aren't doing anybody any good in prison. Their sentences are probably too harsh anyway... -
Everyone knows a bad soldier is gonna get a lot of people killed on all sides including civilians. When they get home, if they get home, they are gonna have more problems.
Okay, I'm done.
I recently heard on NPR that some recruits were receiving $20,000. sign-up bonuses. Have you ever heard of such a thing.....paying people upfront to join the military to protect the nation in a so-called "war on terror"?
What happened to the good-old-days when our government used the military "draft" to protect our nation? We are consistently being told that terrorists are a serious threat to our nation. If so, why are we paying people to sign-up for duty? Sounds like the threat isn't as serious as some would like us to believe.
Applicants with more than one felony — or with a single conviction for a more serious crime such as homicide, sexual violence, or drug trafficking — are not eligible.
But if the recruitment quotas continue to be not met those applicants will be magically elible .
In the above image, what do they mean by
"Newly naturalized U.S. soldiers"? (especially since they seem to be being sworn in in Baghdad)
We allow people from other counteries to join our services, they become naturalized citizens of the US. For the past 70 years or so, most of the waiters and household maids for the Navy were from the Phillipines.
It is not just crimnal records that are now being ignored, it's the ammount of education and IQ tests that have been dramatically relaxed also. So we really do have a large number of uneducated, dull, sychopaths in the service. It's not very funny.
"In most cases we see, the charges were from a period of time when the applicant was young and immature," said a two-page statement from the Army Recruiting Command, based in Fort Knox, Ky., provided in response to queries from the Globe.
"We look at the recent history such as employment, schooling, references, and signs of remorse and changed behavior since the incident occurred as part of the waiver process," the statement said. "The Army does not rehabilitate enlistees who receive waivers; they have already overcome their mistakes."
I'm totally with the Military on there assessment. The entire concept of a "system of retribution" is a fallacy. Who would have thought the US MIL would be the first in a federal agency to publicly admit this hard reality?
"We shall overcome"
3 strikes you're out shouldn't apply to "In most cases we see, the charges were from a period of time when the applicant was young and immature," which means anyone the age of 24 years or younger (see the development of the pre-frontal cortex).
----------------
fear that the Military will be overrun by psychotic morons rather than state sanctioned (ie society) killers:
I'd bet there are more "psychopaths" on Wall Street and as CEOs than there are admitted into the US Army as enlistees. At least in the MIL there are a battery of tests people have to go through before they are given "special" training.
Political candidates don't have to take a PSYCH EVAL.
Try and cheat an
i thought they were all criminals.
Rob Price:___ The psychos on wall street aren't armed with machine guns___ and all candidates should have to be tested, and then take a polyograph. What exactly is your point. Not many years ago, anyone who had recieved a traffic ticket for drag racing could not get into the armed service.
Would you say it would be alright for any who were convicted rapists, child molesters, or murderers, would be fit for military service?___ No!___ Oh I see, then you do agree there should be standards, you just don't agree with what the standards should be.
Well, the standards were drastically altered to meet the recruitng requirements,___ along with a hefty sum of tax payers bribe money.
When I first saw the picture in the article, in thumbnail size, the 3 flags center bottom, looked like 3 people with pointy heads. I thought, "They used an image from a KKKlan meeting, how appropriate." Even in the large picture, which is very blurry, the troops taking the oath of office in the front row look as if they're wearing sheets.
On topic:
In the latter years of Vietnam, enlisting in the Army to aviod going to jail was an option provided to many convicts. Just think of it, asking a sociopath if he/she would rather go to jail or go to a place where they can kill indiscriminately with immunity...
"I want to kill. I want to kill! Blood, guts and veins in my teeth..."
We need a new Arlo Guthrie.
Kate is right. It's Viet Nam over and over and over...
Evelyn Smith July 13th, 2007 4:44 pm
"So we really do have a large number of uneducated, dull, psychopaths in the service. It's not very funny."
No, it isn't funny, Evelyn. It is simply one example of the impoverished situation this country is in with respect to this occupation in Iraq.
"In most cases we see, the charges were from a period of time when the applicant was young and immature," said a two-page statement from the Army Recruiting Command, based in Fort Knox, Ky., provided in response to queries from the Globe.
Are we to believe that the respondents from these Army Recruiting Command Centers have completed their studies to become Medical Doctors in addition to completing advanced study in Psychiatry? Are they really qualified to determine that these recruits are now conducting their lives as enlightened and competent adults?
They might be qualified to guard U.S. Gold at Fort Knox, but I seriously doubt that their testimony in defense of prior criminal behavior would hold up in a civil court of law.
The big 'Support the troops' people treat veterans as bad as criminals anyway.
I guess if the choice is to send criminals or non-criminals they should start from the worst.
One more crime and you go to Iraq might be a whole new level of scared straight.
RE:" Evelyn Smith July 13th, 2007 5:45 pm
Oh I see, then you do agree there should be standards, you just don't agree with what the standards should be.
Should? I don't know about the word should, however, I do most certainly challenge standards. You are correct on that point. Specifically, I think the concept of a system of retribution is a fallacy.
I also think you are blowing my point way out of proportion. I never said psycho. I thought my point was clear: fear of the military "overrun by psychotic morons" ... is pervasive among some people. The use of the word "psychopaths" is intended to encapsulate the fear society has about the alleged lower standard. Which is another point. As far as I have found, The standards have not been lowered. The percentages of waivers have been increased. The percentage of lower tiered IQ enlistees have been increased. Perhaps I am mistaken.
The change in percentages doesn't indicate anything except that the military is attempting to 1)increase the total population of the armed forces over a course of several years, while 2) fighting in major combat.
I am sorry if I've offended you when I say people are afraid the military will be taken over by "unsavory" candidates.
I want to point out one more noticeable issue journalist and the general public tend to forget to mention: the US military service members who have committed the most monstrous crimes so far recorded in Iraq were in the military before the alleged lowering of standards.
Perhaps the original military standard is faulty and deserve to be seen as unsavory. Ironically, the military brag that officers will be excellent leaders in business. Perhaps there is a tie between the CEO and Wall Street and military service. I have no idea. Maybe the entire system is faulty. Societal fallacies such as the system of retribution could very well be challenged.
The point is that we are approaching an army that may be a little more agreeable to performance exercises here at home- more willing and less questionable about knocking US citizens heads.
So we combined with mercenary/private military, we have the perfect army to follow orders from the fascist born again leaders in the White House.
Very interesting research, Nationalpud.
I've come upon information like that before, but the way you put it all together makes for a very powerful critique of military recruiting. I believe that recruiters operating in minority inner city neighborhoods are in no way better than the local drug dealers, and maybe even worse.
The case of the death of a young, minority, working class recruit from my area which appeared in my local paper really hit home. He was killed in Iraq by a road-side bomb, and he was only 17. I don't know whether to consider him a patriot, a fool or well, just a KID.
His mother claimed that he always wanted to be a soldier, even in his early childhood, and so "honored" his decision to enlist at 17 and signed the parental consent forms.
Now I fully believe parents should let their 17 year olds make their own decisions; my problem is that decisions like these aren't made in a vacuum, and that parents should do all they can to suggest alternatives to fighting wars to make other people rich(who incidentally, are never soldiers).
At what age does the brain truly become "mature"? That it varies greatly between individuals goes without saying, and some people never mature. Some 18 year olds may in fact have the brains of 30 year olds, and even a 22 year old may still have the mindset of a 15 year old.
Why does it seem like it is a big secret to certain families that this is a "rich man's war, poor man's fight"? Have they been brainwashed by the long baggage train of lies, propaganda, greed, cowardice and exploitation so extremely obvious to people like me? I dare ask that if these 17 and 18 year olds who enlist, are so "mature" and so smart as some people claim they are, why are they not mature enough to see through the propaganda BS? I find the values that families pass down to these recruits very disturbing, the authoritarianism, the love of violence, faux-patriotism, lack of critical-thinking skills, a poor sense of history, a lack of understanding of America's real place in the world, among other things.
I would love to think that they are their mostly for patriotic reasons. I would love to believe that they aren't stuck there because of their stupidity and gullibility. I hate that it seems I am insulting them, when some of these recruits may in fact have their hearts in the right place. But I do not see how the world is made a better place due to the presence of people willing to follow orders to commit horrible, violent acts against others, especially when this is based on lies and making non-combatants rich.
Soldiers, recruits, military families, everyone, remember, you can always desert, you can always mutiny! Spread the word, you know your leaders are treacherous liars, better than any of us, take orders from the truth, not from the chain of command which starts with some of the biggest liars and most vile creatures to ever sit in the Casa Blanca.
If the conservative group is so concerned about criminals diluting the military's rap, that group would be better off calling for an end to this Iraq war for OIL. It's not conservative or liberal to end a failed war any day. It is morally the right thing to do, PERIOD.
It makes sense though since Bush/Cheney are the only Prez/Vice Prez to have ever been convicted criminals.
Excellent points Dillon. I was not offended in any way by your opinions Rob, I just disagreed with them. You are an excellent writer and display a high degree of intellect. We all have opinions, but it is a fact that standards for joining the military have been lowered, also more waivers are now given. Finally, we must establish standards for any number of things, like traffic laws or aircraft safety regulations for just two examples. There should be strict standards for being allowed ot join the military also and there were. Why were they lowered? The answer is obvious.
Well said, Dillon. I might suggest that the fascist born again leaders in the White House are supported by fascist congress.
Someone once mentioned to me that in the very short history of the United States, there have been times of political extremes but that the country usually corrects and comes 'back to centre.'
The way it seems from here, that's wishful thinking. Watch out, U.S. Seems like your time is running out fast.
You are probably correct Jld, if Cheney, Bush, lieberman have their way it could end real soon.
I call it NATURAL SELECTION. let em go fight.....
This sounds like indirect captial punishment to me...
The military is the only workforce I know of that you can stay until retirment and get out just like you were when you entered, dumb as a rock.
They get training and indoctination but very little education.
The military is run much as the Hudson Foundation says an industrial corporation should be run.
It has a mass of trainable people led by a much smaller group of fairly well educated and innovative who manage the mass in ways that the elite top educated tell them to.
The lowest class of the lowest class employeee only has to know how to sign his name and recives basic skills in order to survive in combat situations.
This group is also the most impressionable and most easily indoctrinated and is also the largest group of retirees from military services.
They have known no other life than the military life.
It is the same within our old up or out programs of if you could not gain rank then you were booted out but those were mainly the ones who joined the National guard and tried to hang on long enough to get retiremnt.
Then so to did a lot of the better trained and more higher educated middle managemnt or lower officer ranks also.
Top echelon military are treated as Executives with the very highest actually acting in more of a CEO role than a millitary commander of old.The top drawer Officer Corp find that politics plays as much a role to advancement as does capabilitys but going to war academys and study groups helps a lot.
This mass of men at the bottom is the real problem we face in US today as there are litteraly millions of them who never had it as good as they did while in serivce. It made a man out of them and yes some were of criminal bent and yes they liked the killing and comradship it gave them. No different in reality than a slum gang or urban warfare racial groupings you find in every city in US.
American got to thinking that the draft was a normal part of life even though the rich could avoid it, find ways to go out of state so they could not have to fly planes or go to war Zoones if they joined and for a politico it was a step inot geting known as a hero by joining.
We have a nation with over 50,000,000 ex service members and some few million drawing pensions for their time of endurance living today.
To them it was the best of times and they have only that to differentiate them from other americans. They are veterans first and no matter where they work that is something they rely upon until death.
The semper fi types who actually try and act tougher the longer they are out of service than they did while in it.
You can spend generations, for it has been built up for generations, to try and destroy the notion that, The Military Made A Man Out of Them.
That they were indoctrinated into believeing no matter where they went who they killed it was defending the US and the Corp so it was always patriotic and Right they know not to question.
this not questioning is just what the military wanted in the first place, an easily trained dumb as a rock recruit who would believe he was a real man.
Cannon Fodder?