Military doubled felony waivers for recruits in 2007.
By on Apr 21st, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Military doubled felony waivers for recruits in 2007.
The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released a report today that found “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 with felonies rose from 208 to 350.” According to the House report, nine waivers “involved sex crimes and six involved manslaughter or vehicular homicide convictions.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has asked the Pentagon to explain the increase in conduct waivers.
Update The Pentagon also recently released figures showing that the number of Army recruits requiring a waiver doubled since 2004, not including waivers for sex abuse crimes or drug and alcohol abuse.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Felons in the military…at least it’s consistent with the caliber of the top administration, bush, cheney, rice, etc…
April 21st, 2008 at 7:33 pmRecruiters be trolling mental wards next.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:33 pmThe US is being well represented on the battlefield, huh? Since the DOD will take anybody, why not send Jenna and not-jenna over there to bore the Iraquis to death? How about Newt’s kids, or Norquists kids, or Addington’s kids, or well, you get the idea.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:33 pmWhy is it acceptable to have a soldier serving who was once convicted on terrorism charges, but it’s not okay to have soldier serving who once loved another man? Are they trying to send the message that being a terrorist is better than being gay?
April 21st, 2008 at 7:36 pmCorporatism is a total disaster. And it is the driving ideology behind virtually all the “down the line” happenings like the Iraq invasion, Abu Ghraib, torture, killing social security, deregulation or even this attempt to shore up our decaying military without the people knowing it.
It is this corporatist reality that we need to understand and fight. The ends justifies the means is the program. Lying and deception are the tools. Lets not get lost in the small items and lose sight of the real solution.
Those behind this ideology must be exposed and removed from their destructive power.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:37 pmI guess Blackwater didn’t scoop them up first.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:40 pmI find it strange that a convicted felon would not be able to get a job at a bank – even as a bank teller – because nobody would bond (insure) them for the potential monetary loss if they stole or embezzeled from the bank. But we can take that very same person and put a weapon in their hands and send them off to kill people – no need for insurance in Iraq, right?
I’d like to get off this ride, please. I’m not havin’ any fun.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:41 pmBetter not have the gay fightin’ for us. Might cut into the gangster quota.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:49 pmStratRat Says:
I find it strange that a convicted felon would not be able to get a job at a bank… But we can take that very same person and put a weapon in their hands and send them off to kill people – no need for insurance in Iraq, right?
April 21st, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Well, they are sort of trained do dirty work, aren’t they? These corporatists, with their private army called Blackwater, have no problem with their qualifications. They feel, no doubt that they are a big +.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:50 pmGuess what? The Civil War, WWI and WWII all featured a felon-laden U.S. military. Anyone who wants to defend our country should be allowed to–regardless of race, sexual preference or criminal history.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:50 pmCNN said the list included some who were arrested for making terrorist threats! Great. Then we teach them how to kill and handle explosives. Then after their military stint we give them preference in hiring for the Postal Service. Terrific!
CNN also said they (CNN) have hired Tony Snow—so there are no standards anymore.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:51 pmA citizen with a felony conviction is not allowed to possess a firearm.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:51 pmJoin the military and they’ll give you one (at least one, if not several, not to mention missiles and bombs and such; and encourage you to kill other human beings.
The point to take away from this tidbit, is that gangs have decided that the military is so incompetent, they can infiltrate, and steal big-time. The Crips and La Em can use intel gathered by the military to further their illegal enterprises here at home.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:53 pmThinkBalanced Says:
Guess what? The Civil War, WWI and WWII all featured a felon-laden U.S. military. Anyone who wants to defend our country should be allowed to–regardless of race, sexual preference or criminal history.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:50 pm
You paint with way to broad brush when it comes to criminals. The ends does not justify the means!
April 21st, 2008 at 7:53 pmThinkbalanced, please don’t suggest that we are “defending our country” in Iraq.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:53 pmThinkBalanced Says:
Guess what? The Civil War, WWI and WWII all featured a felon-laden U.S. military. Anyone who wants to defend our country should be allowed to–regardless of race, sexual preference or criminal history.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I agree with alowing people to serve regardless of race or sexual preference. But the criminal history part presents a problem. By definition, criminals are people who have committed crimes. That means they have a problem following orders (in this case, the law). Such people can often present disciplinary problems for the people who must lead and command them. This was something we learned as a result of letting many, many felons serve in the military during the Civil War, WWI, and WWII. We call it learning from our mistakes. Right up until we repeat them again.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:55 pmAnyone who wants to defend our country should be allowed to–regardless of race, sexual preference or criminal history.
Tell that to the dishonorably discharged gay Arabic translators.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:55 pmJust a thought—considering that the death rate to active command troops ratio in the military is probably about the same as the ratio of death row prisoners to the regular prison population why not release all the prisoners to the Military and send them to Iraq to replace our regular troops? It would solve McSame’s problems for at least 99 years out of his 100, there would be no need for the criminal waivers, the cost of wages would drop significantly if they are paid the same wages as what they make now, the cost of law enforcement here in the States would drop to nothing if the prisons are emptied and all convicts are sent to Iraq instead, Blackwater’s personnel have the experience to be in charge, and Bush and Cheney could have their third and more terms as the In-Place Commanders-in-Chief.
However, a better solution would be to just bring our troops home where they belong and there will be no shortage of good volunteers if they are allowed to do the job our Military was comissioned to do and are respected as they should be.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:57 pmThinkBalanced Says:
Guess what? The Civil War, WWI and WWII all featured a felon-laden U.S. military. Anyone who wants to defend our country should be allowed to–regardless of race, sexual preference or criminal history.
Guess what? You’re a liar.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:57 pm10. ThinkBalanced Says:
Guess what? The Civil War, WWI and WWII all featured a felon-laden U.S. military. Anyone who wants to defend our country should be allowed to–regardless of race, sexual preference or criminal history.
_____
What about those who actually want to defend our country — U.S. citizens, mom, apple pie, etc. — not just multinational corporate profits?
You know — patriots.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:58 pmThinkBalanced Says:
Guess what? The Civil War, WWI and WWII all featured a felon-laden U.S. military. Anyone who wants to defend our country should be allowed to–regardless of race, sexual preference or criminal history.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:50 pm
As you can see from the posts following yours, your opinion, justified by a sterile look at historical fact, does not hold any water. Your opinion contains no thought and is severely off balance.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:01 pmWhat I can’t get over is the fact that two of these waivers went to people who in the past have been convicted of making terrorist threats. I mean…WTF?!?!?!? Am I the only one who considers it completely psychotic to make it possible for a convicted terrorist to serve in the military and fight in the War On Terror? Indeed, truly a sterling example of BushCo logic at its finest…
April 21st, 2008 at 8:02 pmFor historical reference material, the counter-culture comic, “Dopin’ Dan,” offers valuable insights into what our military is now becoming.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:05 pm22. Bluestocking Says:
… fight in the War On Terror? Indeed, truly a sterling example of BushCo logic at its finest…
______
Shoot’em some dough. Turns Iraqi “insurgents” into “freedom fighters,” ya know. BushCo logic = if ya can’t beat’em, buy’em. WTF not? $10B a month can BUY some sh!t.
Not for YOU, sucker — but it can BUY some sh!t.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:08 pmWayne A. Schneider Says:
April 21st, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Nicely put, Wayne!
April 21st, 2008 at 8:08 pmAccording to the House report, nine waivers “involved sex crimes and six involved manslaughter or vehicular homicide convictions.” Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has asked the Pentagon to explain the increase in conduct waivers.
Considering how many women in the military are being raped in Iraq and Afghanistan, I really can’t understand why the military thought it would be a good thing to allow men involved in sex crimes to join. What has the Bush Crime Family done to our military.
April 21st, 2008 at 8:17 pm>Recruiters be trolling mental wards next.
why not..it already seems like they are recruiting trolls from the mental ward around here…
April 21st, 2008 at 8:20 pm>Anyone who wants to defend our country should be allowed to
pray tell, what position in the military do you think they should give someone like Charles Manson, who could, theoretically, be released on parole? I hear hes good with a knife, maybe he could peel potatoes?
April 21st, 2008 at 8:30 pmTed Kozinski?
April 21st, 2008 at 8:37 pmWait’ll they get turned loose in your home town after serving in Iraq!
April 21st, 2008 at 8:38 pmAaahhh, yes, the Bush crusader force – exporting democracy at the barrel of a gun all over the world.
Does this mean we’re winning against the terrists?
April 21st, 2008 at 8:43 pm>Ted Kozinski?
I.E.D’s of course..the mans a regular McGuyver of Death… he promises to only use them on insurgents tho, he SWEARS!
April 21st, 2008 at 8:45 pmCJ, he’s never lied to me before!
April 21st, 2008 at 9:02 pmApril 21st, 2008 at 9:22 pm
well, hey – kudos to the Crips and the Bloods, for being able to spread the street-gang gospel far and wide on Uncle Sam’s dime. That’s just fukkin peachy, isn’t it – recruitment numbers met, and all that….
April 21st, 2008 at 10:23 pm>well, hey – kudos to the Crips and the Bloods
speaking of the Crips and Bloods, let me take this opportunity to do some Exlexlia/Kilotwatt/Random Troll logic involving these two organizations..
the Crips are a criminal organization whose goal is to profit from illegal narcotics trafficing and violent crimes. they are based in many american cities and the police and other american law enforcement agencies are thier enemy.
AND
the Bloods are a criminal organization whose goal is to profit from illegal narcotics trafficing and violent crimes. they are based in many american cities. the police are also thier enemy as well
THEREFORE because they share a common enemy and common goals, the Crips and the Bloods are working together.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:19 pmThis is the classic tip of the iceburg. The data only speaks to the hundreds convicted. Your volunteer army is comprised of many thousands who avoided conviction by agreeing to enlist. This of course was accomplished through plea bargaining or other coercion. Then again, paying poor hicks from largely small town central states large sums so they can avoid debtor’s jail is no different. Your patriotic military relies on failure and poverty to maintain a pool of people desperate enough that they will naively put their lives on the line to escape their own personal misery. You have to then bribe or deceive them into staying. Heroes my ass. Aside from Tilman and a small percentage of others, patriotism is very low on these victims list of motivations. However, to keep the dupes rolling in, keep up the hypocrisy about all your support for the trrops while your kids get to wear flag pins and think McCain is a maverick.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:43 am>who avoided conviction by agreeing to enlist.
this reminds me of the cubans shipping thier convicts to the united states…hey…theres a certain twisted logic to it…i mean, if the guys going to shoot somebody, shipping them off to a foreign country dramatically increases the likelyhood he wont be shooting one of his own..
April 22nd, 2008 at 3:33 amEvilPoet Says:
“A voluntary millitary has only two paths. It can lower standards to fill its ranks. Or it can inspire the best and brightest to join and stay.” -George W. Bush, A Charge To Keep (1999)
Thanks for the quote, EvilPoet. It’s a great example of the kind of two-sided thinking this president (or, in this case, his ghost writer) engages in all the time. You are either 100% behind something or you have to be 100% against it. There are no gray areas. (”We don’t do nuance”, someone from this administration once said of itself.)
A third choice would be that we can leave standards where they are and not abuse the military so much (by lying to them, by sending them to fight illegal and unconstitutional wars, by not equipping them adequately, by trying to cut benefits like hazardous duty pay, by not treating its injured soldiers properly, etc.) that no one in their right mind would want to join (after being told the truth, of course.)
April 22nd, 2008 at 8:26 amA great idea. I’m sure the Unabomber can’t wait to put his hands in some high efficiency explosives & send some presents to police chiefs.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:22 pm