Double Number of Ex-Cons Join the US Army
The US army doubled its use of “moral waivers” for enlisted soldiers last year to cope with the demands of the Iraq war, allowing sex offenders, people convicted of making terrorist threats, and child abusers into the military, new records released yesterday showed.
The army gave out 511 moral waivers to soldiers with felony convictions last year. Criminals got 249 army waivers in 2006, a sign that the demand for US forces in Iraq has forced a sharp increase in the number of criminals allowed on the battlefield.
The felons accepted into the army and marines included 87 soldiers convicted of assault or maiming, 130 convicted of non-cannabis-related drug offences, seven convicted of making terrorist threats, and two convicted of indecent behaviour with a child. Waivers were also granted to 500 burglars and thieves, 19 arsonists and nine sex offenders.
The new data were released by the oversight committee of the House of Representatives. Henry Waxman, the Democratic chairman of the oversight panel, said that while “providing opportunities to individuals who have served their sentences and rehabilitated themselves” is important, the waivers are a sign that the US military is stretched too thin.
The number of moral waivers in the military, mostly for misdemeanours such as speeding fines, reached 34,476 in 2006, or nearly 20% of all enlisted soldiers, according to the Palm Centre at the University of California. Recruits with felony convictions are more likely than other soldiers to drop out or be released from the military.
More than one felony conviction disqualifies recruits from the army or marines, but the navy and air force can admit those with multiple offences.
© 2008 The Guardian
Good old Guardian, making its usual Hempstead Heath mountain out of a Muswell Mole Hill.
“The army gave out 511 moral waivers to soldiers with felony convictions last year. Criminals got 249 army waivers in 2006, a sign that the demand for US forces in Iraq has forced a sharp increase in the number of criminals allowed on the battlefield.”
A sharp increase? It’s barely enough to form a battalion! 160,000 troops in Iraq-Nam, and the Guardian is worried about 511?
And are we sure all of these guys were guilty? Non-cannabis drug offenses make me wonder.
And aren’t some crimes the kind the military would encourage in battle, like maiming? I don’t think the child molesters belong, but give the arsonists a flame-thrower and suddenly, you’ve got a combat soldier with a specialty.
I wonder if someone convicted of insider trading would get such a waiver.
Hmmm, 511 out of 160,000 insignificant! No disagreement there, but how many soldiers (Officer, Noncommissioned, and enlisted) were (allegedly) actively involved in the Abu Gharaib scandal? It really only takes a few bad apples to spoil the bunch or even leave an indelible stench. I know I commanded two Cavalry troops (one of 200+ soldiers, the other of 145+ soldiers). And believe me one, two, or three bad apples are enough to give a company level command a very interesting and challenging flavor. And no, the criminal mind or criminally inclined have no place in a combat formation. The very nature of active (they’ve been convicted!) rebellion (law breaking) against authority makes them by definition unfit. That’s why by regulation convicts are excluded and require a waiver. In 13 years in the US Army I have come across only one person convicted of a crime that I recommended for a waiver for re-enlistment. The soldier was convicted while in the Army sent to a Retraining Brigade and then rehab’ed back into a regualr unit. All the others to include two avowed gangbangers a Crip and a Blood from LA were menaces to my unit I Chaptered them out. I also had two soldiers that were waivered in for low IQ and psycho-social problems. I ended up chapter (separating) one and Court Martialling the other. So perhaps the real numbers are insignificant but the impact at the unit level is really incalculable until they either work out or act true to form and become a thorn in the side of some poor unit commander trying to keep all his soldiers alive, paid on time, and focused on the mission at hand.
I will defer to your vastly wider experience, and thank you for the insight.
I wonder how well they will get along with all the former prison guards that have enlisted. Makes you wonder just what constitutes preparation for military service?
… economic servitude ?
“very nature of active (they’ve been convicted!) rebellion (law breaking) against authority makes them by definition unfit.”
Look on the bright side : the higher percentage of enlisted
“rebels” could lead to a higher incidence of desertion and possibly Vietnam-style fragging . Now , if that is what is necessary to break the military completely then I would say “mission accomplished”
On a slightly down side , the “rebels” could hardly be more “disrespectful” of Iraqi civilians than the loyal troops are.