Category: News and Views
U.S. Department of Defense records show the number of
Army recruits with criminal backgrounds has risen
65 percent in the last three years.
The number of waivers granted for U.S. Army recruits
with convictions on their records rose from 4,918 in
2003 to 8,129 in 2006, The New York Times said Wednesday.
The majority of the waivers were issued for serious
misdemeanors including aggravated assault, burglary,
robbery and vehicular homicide. Felony waivers also
increased to encompass about 11 percent of the overall
waivers granted in 2006 from 8 percent in 2003.
The Army in recent years also has accepted increasing
numbers of enlistees who dropped out of high school,
scored low on aptitude tests and fell short of weight
and age restrictions.
Some have criticized the Army's lower standards, saying
they put the rest of the military at risk. "By lowering
standards, we are endangering the rest of our armed
forces and sending the wrong message to potential
recruits across the country," said Rep. Martin Meehan,
D-Mass., who served as chairman of the House Armed
Services Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight.
"Our men and women in uniform represent the best and
brightest in America, and we need to keep it that way."
What are your thoughts on Army recruits having criminal
backgrounds?
I see irony in this situation
Well I don't see anything wrong with it. I mean after all we are expecting our army people to go to war and kill aren't we? So obviously these people they are getting now have no problems with killing people. Shrugs.
Some criminals are very intelligent. So if they want to use their skills to help the US, then what's wrong with that? I mean, maybe the ARMY is offering these recruits an opportunity to redeem themselves, to turn away from their criminal inclinations. I can see some risks though, like such soldiers committing crimes in whichever country they're sent to or just abusing their authority. And there have been countless stories of supposed straight-arrow soldiers who violate the rules so I guess it doesn't really depend on the kind of history one has. I've heard of gang bangers entering the military, and they go into their missions fearless of the sound of gunfire. I mean, some of these criminals are already trained in being disciplined, fearless, loyal, etc. Some gang bangers out here would die before they'd ever betray their buddies. Aren't these characteristics that a soldier is supposed to have? I mean, who does the US want to have as its defense: A bunch of sissies, or men and women who are too scared to fire a gun? But I do see some risks, if anyone wants to, you can identify these risks, I'm too lazy right now to do so. Thank you.
Oops, I meant to say in the previous post: "...or men and women who aren't scared to fire a gun?" Thank you. :)
Yes to kill innocent British troops in friendly fire.
There are numerous incidents of trigger happy yanks, killing brits, and blowing up clearly marked british army vehicles in Iraq alone, can't thse delinquents shoot straight.
Thats what you get when you scrape your recruits, from the bottom of the evolutionary barrel.
I always knew that the US Army were a criminal bunch.
The entire world knew it.
From Vietnam right through to Iraq and possibly Iran.