More than 1 in 10 Army Recruits Now Given "Moral Waivers"
It has been rumored for some time that the U.S. Army has had to lower its standards to get enough recruits for its expanded war-fighting needs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now firm evidence has emerged, and it is not pretty.
For instance: The percentage of Army recruits receiving "moral conduct" waivers jumped from 4.6 percent in 2003 to 11.2 percent in 2007. Many of them in this group have criminal backgrounds, yet are still allowed in the military, to carry a gun and engage in what is essentially "police work" in Iraq.
Not surprisingly, trouble often follows them in the service. Their rate of misconduct, at 6%, is almost twice the average.
In 2007, almost 10,000 recruits were granted waivers for past misdemeanors. over 2100 for "serious criminal misconduct" -- over four times the 2003 rate - -and almost 1500 for drug or alcohol abuse.
These revelations come in part one of a four-part series starting today in the Sacramento Bee by Russell Carollo, which is also being carried by other McClatchy papers.
Here is an excerpt from that article:
Before Army Sgt. 1st Class Randal Ruby was accused in Iraq of beating prisoners and of conspiring to plant rifles on dead civilians, he amassed a 10-year criminal record documenting assaults on his wife in Colorado and Washington state and a drunken high-speed police chase in Maine for which he remains wanted.Before Lance Cpl. Delano Holmes stabbed an Iraqi private to death with a bayonet, he was hospitalized after threatening suicide in high school, accused of assault, disorderly conduct and trespassing, and, in the months leading up to deployment, was twice linked to drug use.
Before Army Spc. Shane Carl Gonyon was convicted of stealing a pistol at Abu Ghraib prison, he was convicted twice on felony charges and arrested four times, once for allegedly giving a 13-year-old girl marijuana in exchange for oral sex. He enlisted weeks after his release from a federal prison in Oregon.
During a yearlong examination, the Sacramento Bee studied the civilian and military backgrounds of hundreds of troops identified from recruiting documents and other military records, focusing on those who entered the services since the Iraq war began and those linked to in-service problems.
Though not a representative sample, the 250 military personnel analyzed most closely for "Suspect Soldiers" included 120 with questionable backgrounds, including felonies and serious drug, alcohol or mental health problems.
Risks associated with employing people with criminal histories multiply in a war zone, where a single incident by one soldier or Marine can affect entire units and fuel anti-American sentiment.
Ruby, Holmes and Gonyon were among 70 with troubled pasts whom The Bee linked to incidents in the military, most occurring in Iraq. A number of those incidents were identified for the first time through military records; even in some well-publicized incidents, The Bee uncovered criminal records not previously made public.
Though dozens of these soldiers would not have qualified for law enforcement jobs in this country, the military sent them to Iraq, where troops often function as police officers.
"These guys are out there carrying weapons, fighting on the streets with drugs in their pockets," said Tressie Cox, whose son, Lee Robert, had a history of drug and mental problems before he was charged with selling drugs in Iraq. "Shame on my son, but shame on all you people out there who are policing this and allowing this to continue to happen."
The military defended its recruiting policies, including granting more waivers for past conduct. "Standards in our society have changed over the years; we are a reflection of those changes," said Douglas Smith, spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command. "Considering offering a waiver to otherwise qualified recruits is the right thing to do for those Americans who want to answer the call to duty."
*
Greg Mitchell's new book is So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits -- and the President -- Fails on Iraq.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Did you really expect a morally corrupt adminstration to not waive a moral clause....That's like asking a lion to stop eating meat. Let name them all lies, murder, theft and a rape of a entire country. I can truly say I'm not surprised.
TRUTH BE TOLD...
We could probably ALL use "moral waivers." (Come to think, isn't that kind of like the forgiveness of sins in Christianity? --Well, maybe not....)
"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God...."
--KJB
Of course we have all sinned, but we have not all been convicted repeatedly of violating the laws of man. I am all for forgiveness, but sometimes we need to use good judgment.
I should think a stint in Iraq is a good way of earning forgiveness.
Didn't the Commander in Chief sort of get a moral waiver when he got his job?
NO, JUST A MORAL WAVER...
As in, Bush waved morals goodbye....
In my youth it was not uncommon, in fact, more the case that if you got into trouble the service was your ticket to sink or swim. Having a record as a soldier? Who cares! Millions of Americans have records, what are they supposed to do, just receive government hand outs and not work ?
There is no correlation between a soldier and a police officer. A soldier operates under the UCMJ, a policeman to uphold the law in his/her jurisdiction. Any inference as to qualifications to be one or the other is spurious.
Soldiering is not police work, never has been and never will be.
And as they go house to house? There are some of these guys I wouldn't want in my house or near my daughters. I bet you wouldn't want them near yours either. It may have been one thing to put them on the banks of Normandy, but it's another to put them where they have power over civilians. Would you want another country's felons running around your neighborhood with guns? I know I wouldn't. I bet the generals who made these decisions wouldn't want them near their families either.
So, it is all right for a person to defend your rights as long as they do not have a felony record, right? You do not want them around your family.Their willingness to die for the protection of your rights is irrelevant, in fact you say that because they have a felony record and are in your service, they are not welcome around your family.
What a pity and a shame upon a shame. How charmingly elitist.
Felons surround you. They teach at universities (Bill Ayers comes to mind), schools, fix your car, date your kids and are your customers. Speaking of Bill Ayers a convicted felon, he is a good friend of the Obama family, but you would be too good to associate with him.
Note that this article discusses an INCREASE in moral waivers. According to the numbers above, these waivers have more than doubled in the last four years. This cannot imply that society is getting worse - it simply shows that the military has lowered the bar for which crimes they will or won't accept.
And soldiering is absolutely police work. Now that war has gone urban, they deal with people, not battlefields.
Well, we want guys who don't take no guff.
Absolute nonsense.
4,000 plus have died to date in Iraq since 2003. How did they die, as community activists in anger management sessions? Soldiering is not police work. A soldier sho is an MP does police work. Urban? In Stalingrad in the second world war 144,000 Germans and two or three times that many Russians died in an urban battlefield.
Fine with me. They may have needed a draft to make up this ten percent if they didn't utilize the moral waiver.
The military has been a proving ground for many people looking for a second chance at life. Yeah, it sucks that some citizens of Iraq were mistreated by US military (with and without moral waivers). Unfortunately there's not much we can do about it, and I am quite satisfied that Carl Gonyon is willing to go in my place.
No shocker actually, 7 years of a politically stacked court system from higher to lower courts, DOJ, you name it ... minorities carted off to state & local institutions (many privitized) ... re-enters into society totally criminalized for the "use" of "illegal drugs" no real rehabilitation, so recidivism is assured ... gee, there must be millions of viable young AA men & women with no other alternative but military .... was this the design anyway!?
For awhile there, I wondered how many prison institutions would be constructed in our country to house drug addicted minorities ... so, they will recycle ... huh!?
I love it.
The military will let violent criminals in with the "moral waiver", but god forbid a gay person get to serve.
Right! Where's the waiver for THAT?
1500 waivers for drug and alchohol abuse.....
Well why not, we have a president who can't "remember" if he ever used cocaine....I'm sure these recruits are entitled to the same leeway.
Sorry. Wrong thread. I give up.
I meant Eve Harrington and Margo Channing. That's what I get for making gratuitous "All About Eve" references.
In the bad old days a younger offender was often give the choice by judges of enlisting or doing time in the slammer. The practice was controversial then. Some argued that a 4 year enlistment could make the offender a man or break him. The pay & living conditions for enlisted men in the army were much worse than lousy. Some said that ending the draft would allow the armed services to attract motivated, mature, enlisted people by raising pay to above poverty levels & improving living conditions for GI's. It looks like we're back to the bad old days where the USA's forces will take you if you're alive & won't ask any questions about your past, just like the Foreign Legion.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
