Republican politicians like to say that they “support the troops”, but in fact, they dishonor those serving in the military by lowering the moral standards for enlistment. The number of character waivers for enlistees is way up since the Republicans took the White House in the 2000 election. Since the year 2003 alone, the number of convicted felons allowed to enter the military each year has increased by over 350 percent.
(Source: Chicago Tribune, October 11, 2007)
Yeah, why the hell are we letting convicted felons in and signing character waivers? After all, convicted felons can’t be rehabilitated and they haven’t paid their debt to society. When they get out, they should be destined to either be homeless bums on the street, repeat criminals, living off welfare/unemployment, or working minimum-wage jobs the rest of their lives. They shouldn’t be able to put their lives on the line to serve the country that ensures the rights and freedoms they have today. No way, no how.
Obviously, the above was sarcasm, and if any of you agreed with it, you’re insane. People get rehabilitated. They are serving the nation. Why would you want to RESTRICT people from volunteering to serve our country? Other than the fact the military trains and requires discipline (or they lock you up in a military prison or kick you out), it doesn’t seem like a bad move to let them in (especially since they learn skills for later in life), as long as they don’t start killing our own troops.
And, as an alternative argument, just for Peregin:
-If our soldiers are already terrorists/murderers/the same as the Iranian terrorist group/forces, as you’ve contended, why wouldn’t we let in convicted murderers? That way they wouldn’t even have to be trained, right?
I think the problem stems from two places.
Convicted felons can’t legally own or possess semi-automatic firearms as civilians. Why, then would we want them to have military grade automatic weapons?
Also, for someone convicted of a felony, they have already proven themselves dangerous in the past, so why then would you truth them enough to give them government training on how to be more efficient killers?
Typo, meant to say “trust” not “truth”
The few, the proud, the felons!
Oh, how far the apologists for war will go to stretch their standards!
What Joseph doesn’t get is that the character waivers aren’t being given at over three times the rate because there’s suddenly over three times the successful rehabilitation of felons. No, it’s because the military has lowered its standards that much more.
It would be interesting to know if any of the people involved with either Abu Graib or the Haditha massacre were either felons, or as some are saying is the bigger difference, high school dropouts. And how do people get recruited for Blackwater? Are those the felons that can’t get into the military?
There are two premises that can be looked at in regard to the military/convicted felons.
Either rehabilitation WORKS, and convicted felons leave prison better people to be productive members of society. Or rehabilitation FAILS and the ex-cons are still dangerous.
If it WORKS:
1. They shouldn’t have their rights restricted. Sure, they can’t own guns in the US, but why not let them use them overseas? Over there, they are shooting the enemy, and not risking our people.
2. They are given skill training and discipline through the military, along with pay and a way to go back to school. Currently, those “rehabilitated” often can’t find jobs and therefore are forced into poverty or crime.
If it FAILS:
1. Why have dangerous people in the United States? If we send them overseas, their violent tendacies can be taken out on the people their commanders TELL them to shoot instead of Americans.
1b. If they shoot/kill our own troops or Iraqis, they will be court-martialed and locked up or shot.
2. Un-rehabilitatable felons get killed. It’s better than them recruiting people from colleges and high schools who may have been the next Bill Gates if they didn’t go to Iraq and get killed.
3. The military may be able to rehabilitate their ways by giving them a greater vision and rehabilitating them through engraining honor and love of country on them. There are very few psychopaths in the world who ENJOY crime, they typically are put in that position.
4. War often causes previously sane people to snap and come back killers and others to come back pacifists. Previous felons may not come back and do harm.
No, I understand perfectly that the military has lowered its standards to get recruiting numbers and therefore giving the character waivers. I’m arguing that there’s no reason not to give those people the chance. And theoretically, ALL ex-felons are rehabilitated, so I’d never say “we have a higher rehabilitation rate”.
As for Blackwater, from what I’ve heard, usually the people in them are ex-special forces, such as ex NAVY SEALS, Army Rangers, Green Berets, SAS, etc. Typically not felons, just typically very good at what they do and wanting better pay/benefits. Blackwater and other security companies typically do not recruit criminals/felons. They don’t typically have military training, and therefore would suck at their jobs. Regardless of the recklessness Blackwater has shown, they are very effective at what they do and most support the United States, even if some are trigger happy.
“Over there, they are shooting the enemy, and not risking our people.”
Good thing they are just shooting up worthless Iraqi civilians on their way to the supermarket and stuff like that, and not valuable Americans.
By all means get those dangerous people with violent tendencies off of American streets where they might harm civilians and children and stuff and get them onto Iraqi streets with guns in their hands so the world can find out first hand what Americans are really like.
The enemy Iraqi babies. Yeah, that’s the ticket, Joseph.
They’re felons, going over to Iraq, learning how to kill, being put through intense psychological trauma, and then coming back here to the United States.
What a great version of rehabilitation, Joseph!
Okay, you’re not addressing which premise you’re operating under. Does our CURRENT prison system REHABILITATE people? From what both responses have said, you’re assuming that it doesn’t, and that the people who are enlisting have gone through prison and aren’t rehbilitated (and of course, you’re assuming that they all are violent, not just people who have committed fraud, etc):
1. Why have dangerous people in the United States? If we send them overseas, their violent tendacies can be taken out on the people their commanders TELL them to shoot instead of Americans.
1b. If they shoot/kill our own troops or Iraqis, they will be court-martialed and locked up or shot.
2. Un-rehabilitatable felons get killed. It’s better than them recruiting people from colleges and high schools who may have been the next Bill Gates if they didn’t go to Iraq and get killed.
3. The military may be able to rehabilitate their ways by giving them a greater vision and rehabilitating them through engraining honor and love of country on them. There are very few psychopaths in the world who ENJOY crime, they typically are put in that position.
4. War often causes previously sane people to snap and come back killers and others to come back pacifists. Previous felons may not come back and do harm.
5. They are GOING TO BE OUT OF PRISON anyway. If they are dangerous, better them be OUT of the US.
Maybe you’ve missed the argument, but again: If they shoot innocent civilians, they get locked up for life in a military prison, just like ANY OTHER SOLDIER. They probably won’t see combat if they don’t show discipline DURING BOOT CAMP. And they aren’t TARGETTING BABIES.
Who exactly do you want to go overseas to fight in wars that the US votes to engage in? People who volunteer, but not ex-felons. We should discriminate against them?
I want precisely no one to be fighting over in Iraq.
However, I think that if there are going to US soldiers fighting over there, they ought to be people that are more trustworthy and mentally stable than convicted felons.
Have you not been reading all the news about the incidents in which American soldiers go out of control in Iraq, and their commanding officers cover it up? Your assumption that felons with guns in the military will be easy to control doesn’t match reality. Consider, for example the news aout the growth in criminal gangs in the military. You think bringing in convicted felons to that system is goin to make it better?
Yes, I think that the military should discriminate, by not giving guns to convicted felons and training them how to kill.
Well, first of all, the article that you’ve linked to points out that a vast majority of the character waivers are for misdemeanors, and the final paragraph implies that the felons who receive waivers are typically people who have shown that they acted immature in their youth (it never states that convicted murderers/violent criminals) are getting waivers. There are a lot of felonies that aren’t necessarily violent (various types of theft or DUI, for example).
So if people are fighting over there, you’d rather it be people who aren’t ex-felons. What happens if they don’t have enough people? There are three possible results/solutions to that:
1. We never fight a war if we don’t have “enough” people in the military.
2. We institute a draft, in which people who aren’t volunteering end up fighting and dying.
3. We fight understaffed, resulting in higher casualty levels due to lack of personnel (support or fighting)
4. We issue character waivers.
If our system is rehabilitating violent criminals, then it shouldn’t matter if they go to fight in Iraq. If it’s not, then we should just make sure that VIOLENT felons aren’t getting into the military (which it seems like they aren’t), while those who may have stolen cars or had some drug issues when younger are still able to.
And yes, i’ve read the stories about soldiers going out of control in Iraq and COs covering it up, and that was happening at the beginning of the war, well before the character waivers. In today’s media-age, such events become very big news very quickly. But on the flip side of that coin, there has ALWAYS, since the beginning of warfare, been the problem of some troops snapping and doing harm to innocent people. Compared to other militaries/wars, however, America has one of the best trained and therefore best track record compared to others.
And felons in the military being easy to control is a fact. You simply mouth-off to your boss in the military and you get punished. They dont **** around. Any “gangs” that exist do so while not *significantly* undermining the overall effectiveness of the military.
But yeah, the most important question out of all of this, is what is the right thing to do when the country needs troops? Have people who didn’t volunteer get drafted? Or let those that volunteer get massacred due to lack of support personnel since we aren’t granting character waivers to past drug users, car thiefs, and drunk drivers?
Then…would that make bush a felon (DUI)?
I’m pretty sure if it’s a felony vs misdemeanor depends on the state law and specific charge. I’ve heard about it being a felony under some circumstances, so I thought it’d be good to include.
I think this would be a way for felons to re-enter society. A bigger question is what is going to be done when a felon serves his country honorably in a combat zone? When he is released from his duty are you going to say to them you can’t have a weapon to protect your self? Is it alright for them to protect himself with a weapon in Iraq but not in Washington D.C.?