I heard this story on CNN yesterday but could not access the story under its own name on the Internet. So here's Anderson Cooper's blog:

http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/

Apparently the armed services are lowering their enlistment standards in order to meet the quotas necessary for the Commander-in-Chief's wars.

Here are the questions:

1. Should convicted felons be allowed to serve with the reputed "best and brightest" of America in situations of peril and chaos overseas?

2. If those in charge of setting the guidelines for recruitment do not think that having convicted felons within the ranks will cause morale problems or peril among those ranks, how can they continue to justify refusing to have known gays with clean records serve in the military, even in non-combat capacities?

3. Is allowing convicted felons to enlist and serve in the military to meet quotas preferable to reinstating the draft?

No, they aren't. The Armed Forces have been enlisting felons since the Revolution. And they've always done so on a case by case basis.

Here are the questions:

1. Should convicted felons be allowed to serve with the reputed "best and brightest" of America in situations of peril and chaos overseas?
'Reputed' "best and brightest"? Given that only one in six of age-eligible Americans are qualified to join the all volunteer military, maybe its not so much a matter of "reputed." But the answer is 'yes', they should be allowed to serve, depending on the nature of their felony offense.

2. If those in charge of setting the guidelines for recruitment do not think that having convicted felons within the ranks will cause morale problems or peril among those ranks, how can they continue to justify refusing to have known gays with clean records serve in the military, even in non-combat capacities?
I laughed out loud when I read this. Talk about obsessive. How is it that it always comes around to gays?

Those "in charge" have 200+ years of experience with convicts in the ranks, and are familiar with the risks, which is why they're pretty selective about it, but also why they know it can work. Especially when many of the felonies in question come under the heading of "young and dumb." Ironically, your argument confronts a conundrum at this point, because folks can grow out of "young and dumb". The military has a pretty good track record of helping this process along, witness the practice of "well young man, you have your choice, you can do 2 years in the clink, or go with the Sargeant Major over there." Since you subscribe to the concept of "once gay, always gay", there's no reform possible for gays. And the military has long experience with the risks presented by sexual dynamics and promiscuity, risks that until recently were always at arms length and still caused serious problems, problems that have only gotten worse. Here's an example...
Astronauts love triangle

We won't even get into the promiscuity aspect.

3. Is allowing convicted felons to enlist and serve in the military to meet quotas preferable to reinstating the draft?
Yes. Its worked for 200+ years and its cheaper than housing felons in prison, instead giving them a chance to contribute to society. To be clear though, even without the felons, the military is making its recruiting goals. The enlistment of felons isn't what's "saving us from the draft." But that does raise an interesting question:

If we do follow your implied approach of instituting the draft in place of enlisting felons, do we draft felons? If not, it seems like some low grade felony would be the perfect way of dodging the draft...

Man... these are some loaded questions, aren't they?

Yes- Felons should be able to choose military service over prison for certain offenses, which maybe this is a good example. Drug offenses are probably the ones that come to mind the most.

The issue is generally that without skills, proper guidance, or confidence in themselves, many poor kids get into trouble. I think many of us agree with this. Sure, it was their choice to be criminals, but why not give them a chance to straighten things out? Maybe they'll learn a skill, garner confidence, and learn to be productive men/women of our society. The military does just this for thousands of listless youth that join every year, why not do it for people who strayed down the wrong track? Obviously career hardened criminals are different, but someone without a violent or extensive record could surely change.

In reference to homosexuals in the military, the stark contrast is that someone who sold pot and went to jail and now serves in an infantry unit, most likely won't undermine the morale or success of a mission due to his old habits. If he's in Iraq, he obviously can't smoke/sell pot (or steal cars, etc). Homosexuals would be forced to be "part of the fold", and serve in close quarters to very testosterone driven men, showering and sleeping within arms reach or worse. Regardless of the professionalism of the men, it would be impossible to keep a cohesive unit in the field and give "field showers", etc with a known homosexual in your platoon/company/battalion. This is the difference.

I think it's a great alternative for many offenders, such as DWI's, drug offenders, larceny offenses, etc. Clean out our jails, and hopefully provide a future for these guys. Surely a better future than prison presented.

A few points AEvans:

1) Yes these are incredibly loaded questions. They are basically designed to create a flame war for and against the US Mil.
2) I think the problem with homosexuals in the military has NOTHING to do with homosexuals but with homophobes. Being homosexual doesn't make you some slack jawed, groping, sex maniac anymore than being heterosexual does. Clinton wasn't far off the mark with "Don't Ask - Don't Tell". Homosexuals have been in the Military (all of them - all countries) forever. Mostly it's not an issue.

Here are the questions asked without clear bias:

1. Should convicted felons be allowed to serve in the US Military?

2. Should convicted felons be considered as dangerous to morale as homosexuals?

3. Would allowing convicted felons to enlist and serve in the military to meet quotas be preferable to reinstating the draft?

1. Depends on the felony. Arson crosses a line in my head that makes me think the citied person should not be in the US Mil.

2. Convicted felons should be considered on a one on one basis.

3. There is no reason to ever reinstate the draft. The induction of felons is not new and is not helping the US Mil meet their quotas.

1. Should convicted felons be allowed to serve with the reputed "best and brightest" of America in situations of peril and chaos overseas?

yes; for reasons already stated: every military has a lot of experience with separating the wheat from the chaff in such cases.

2. If those in charge of setting the guidelines for recruitment do not think that having convicted felons within the ranks will cause morale problems or peril among those ranks, how can they continue to justify refusing to have known gays with clean records serve in the military, even in non-combat capacities?

one of the sad facts of life is that sometimes the qualities that make someone placed in a highly structured environment more likely than most to obey an order to charge into 'hell' with a bucket of water, by virtue of the same qualities, results in him being more likely than most to have a very difficult time functioning well in the much less structured environment of civilian life.

see: Tommy by Rudyard Kipling

so, i think the case for gays in the military is largely irrelevant to this analogy. to draw the point more precisely, since a convicted felon's being admitted to the military is purely a matter of discretion, not an affiirmative right, i don't find a logical link of the sort: felons, in some cases, can make brave soldiers, therefore no gay person should be disqualified for military service solely on the basis of being gay.

the case for gays in the military, which trumps every objection, imo, is the 5th Amendment "equal protection" clause, not exceptions made for special cases.

3. Is allowing convicted felons to enlist and serve in the military to meet quotas preferable to reinstating the draft?

i am still agnostic on the issue of universal conscription for some form of national service. but, allowing questionable, but select, individuals a 2nd chance with his or her individual consent is not, imo, a reason for preferring that no young person have any choice in the matter at all.

This will definitely be an interesting debate...

On one side you got the left who may attack allowing the felons in as it adds to their argument that the war is going "soooo bad" that they're letting felons serve. Which would seem to oppose the left ideals that human aren't beyond redemption, and should be given more opportunities even after messing up.


On the other side, we'll have people on the right who generally could care less about 2nd chances defending felons, who they usually wouldn't pee on if they were on fire, defending the crooks right's to serve their nation and become better citizens.


Ding, ding... Let's get ready to rumble.

Here's my take as in my previous 2 jobs were closely related with military recruitment field.




Actually, they are lowering standards. Granted, waivers have always been used for the military, one can gauge if standards are lessoning by degrees and amounts of waivers now granted. It's a numbers game, and the military will play better than reporters, because reporters won't know the questions to ask. And even if they did, good luck getting the answer.

Different branches have different standards... One could need a waiver for tatoos, gold teeth, medical, physical(i.e. your too fat) inability to perform certain basic fitness requirements (40 situps in 2 minutes) education (when you graduate), testing(ASVAB), age, criminal or moral waivers(drugs, arrests) etc... And depending on the severity depends on what level waiver you are dealing with.

Was the guy 2 pounds overweight, or 10... less than a year over the age limit, several years over the age limit. 2 points shy on the ASVAB 5 points short on the ASVAB test...

If you never worked within this system, you just can't truly get a grasp at how bad things can be getting, but at the same time not be shown through a numbers game.

Should convicted felons be allowed to serve with the reputed "best and brightest" of America in situations of peril and chaos overseas?

Yes, because this is an opportunity that may never come their way again. It is a way that socially right's the wrong that many employers will see if all he/she has is a felony when they put in their application. It removes them from an environment of disorder to an environment of structure. My only beef is that they only want to let people get these opportunities when people who are better off decide they're no longer willing to chance getting blown up for a GI Bill.

Any ways what's the worst the Felon could have did... kill someone... hello they're joining the military.



Because a felon isn't necessarily a homosexual, and the reasons they don't want gays in has nothing to do with their past... it has to do with their present. By the way I'm not saying the military is right, but it's the wrong question for this debate.



Tough question... I would like to see both. I will say this: Don't shut doors on criminals, you only increase the chance they'll be a life long criminals. Boot camp will weed out those incapable of the discipline necessary to be in the military. Trust me if a street thug can stand someone yelling in his face, purposefully letting his spit fly all over their face... and not make a move to stop that person, they have what it takes to protect their brothers in arms.

And let me also add, thugs that are felons usually already understand the code that the military trains you with. Don't be a snitch... us vs. them... get your boys back when they're in trouble.... handle your business!!

I beg to differ, BA, since I'm the one who started the thread. You are making an incorrect assumption here.

Why did I phrase these questions the way I did?

Do you remember someone named Arlo Guthrie who put out an album about "Alice's Restaurant" during the time of the Vietnam war? I don't know your age, so I'm not sure.

On the album, Guthrie does a narrative about his friends, who own Alice's Restaurant, dumping their trash down a cliff to get rid of it, which is against the law, naturally. There is one piece of paper that can be connected to Guthrie that is found by police, so he is arrested for littering.

Well, the character is drafted, so he reports to the recruitment office. They test him, basically, to find if he's suited to duty in the military. To one question he responds, "Kill, kill, kill," to which the Sergeant says, "You're our boy!"

Guthrie fills out the forms as he is supposed to when he comes upon the questions regarding whether he has ever committed a crime. He writes it down. The next question is, "Have you rehabilitated yourself?" at which time he loses his patience and asks the sergeant just why he has to rehabilitate himself from littering in order to go overseas and kill. And that, in a nutshell, is "Alice's Restaurant". Perhaps BoF or nighttimer can fill in more details; it was a long time ago.

And yes, the members of the U.S. Armed Forces are characterized to be the best and brightest among us for their dedication to defending this country and what it stands for. That is probably true in most cases. Then we have Charles Graner and Lynndie England and those others rightly characterized by Bill Maher as the "low-hanging fruit" who give the whole military a black eye from time to time. It's a mix just as the rest of society is, except for an absence of minors and senior citizens (unless they happen to be generals).

I do find it hypocritical that the military continues this discrimination against gays. It is a well-known fact that it is predominantly heterosexuals and not homosexuals who commit acts of rape and incest. And how many alleged heterosexual men stand next to you guys at urinals and watch you urinate? If rude and socially unacceptable behavior was restricted to gays alone, then the military would have a basis for their prejudice. Moreover, as some of you have asserted in previous posts that felons have always been in the military, so have homosexuals. The military bites its nose to spite its face kicking out or refusing to accept gays, all because a man or a woman showering with other men or women *might* get their jollies looking at another naked man or woman and *might* approach them. However, sexual assault, which is their fear, has already been well-documented to be a violent exercise of control more than it has to do with sexual gratification. If military leaders could purge the urge to exert control over others from among the ranks of the military, they would have very few troops left at all.

Those, and not an invitation to a flame war, were the points I was hoping to make in light of this news brought to us by CNN, which was also responsible for stating that once again (cf. May 2005 or 2006) the military was lowering its enlistment standards. I'm not making this up, folks, as Rush Limbaugh is known to say.

As far as instituting a draft again, naturally I would be against it. I just want to see fairness regarding who the military allows to enlist. If gays want to defend their country, who am I or anyone else to say they can't?

And barring that, just PULL OUT OF IRAQ NOW!

I have listened to Alice's Resturant every Thanksgiving since I can remember - 1974 on the BQE comes to mind as one of the first... That said your using Arlo Guthrie as a defense for your loaded questions is just silly. You do know that the song is humorous; right?

My version of your questions are much better for a reasonable debate. Unless what you really wanted is a bash-fest of the US Mil and a dissertation on why President Clinton is an evil Liberal who got impeached for lying to the US and his ugly wife.

Your questions should not make a point. You should. Your questions should seek an honest answer.

You know, BA, I don't particularly think that you are in a position to lecture me about should's and ought's in a thread. If you don't like the way a particular thread's questions are phrased, perhaps you can take a chapter out of lordhelmet's book, butt out of the thread (EDIT: Pardon me for my plain words. Perhaps it would be better phrased as "decline to participate" in the thread), and start a thread of your own that you find more suitable. I've seen in the "Nuke Mecca" thread just how facetious you can be about serious subjects.

As far as the Arlo Guthrie example goes, you seem to have missed the forest for the trees. Did you know that Arlo Guthrie was against the war? Don't you know that he was making a point about the war and recruitment inconsistencies in amongst the humor?

Or were you just cherry picking what you were going to respond to in my post?

Perhaps it is no surprise to you that convicted felons are serving in the United States armed forces, but to me it was a surprise. You see, I figured that the military hiring dangerous felons was the stuff of a World War II movie, The Dirty Dozen, starring Lee Marvin. I actually thought that the military utilized high standards when selecting those who were going to wear the uniform and represent the country. Tell me, was everyone here less naive than I was concerning this?

But hey now, gays are supposed to be sooo dangerous, so damaging to morale...Much better to have someone who will torch your car because he suspects you were seeing his wife working beside you in the foxhole or showering with you. Better hope that he doesn't get another wild hair up his hindquarters and suspect you for rifling through his kit or reading his letters.

Do you actually not see the inconsistency here?


What a perfect soundbite. Forget the fact that I am the one who wrote the questions; ergo, by extension I am the one making the point. And I don't recall, BaphometsAdvocate, asking for lying answers from anyone to whom I have asked questions, have you? Are you saying that you cannot answer these questions honestly? Why are you splitting hairs?

I did notice that you completely skirted the paragraph dealing with the hypocrisy on the part of the military.

It does look as though the recruiters have been instructed to be less selective when signing people up in order to meet their quotas. That's unfortunate, because I believe that there is more than a spate of fine, outspoken pro-war conservatives here who are hale and hearty and would be better than an arsonist in "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqis.

Congratulations on making the thread more about the tone of the questions rather than actually addressing the questions, slanted or not. Now, may we get back on subject?


Actually, I'm against a draft. I'm for people who want to serve being able to serve in the military. But I'll tell you what: When I was talking with my 13-year-old daughter about what the draft was, she said she would say she was gay if she had to in order to stay out of the military! I suppose that's safer than knocking over a 7-11 for the same purpose...


You make a good point.

Here are the questions:

1. Should convicted felons be allowed to serve with the reputed "best and brightest" of America in situations of peril and chaos overseas?

Like Paladin Elspeth, I was surprised to hear that felons were routinely recruited. It just didn't occur to me that you would want to take someone with a history of violent, antisocial behavior and say, "Let me arm you and teach you to kill efficiently." My recollection is of working with civilians who long after leaving combat situations kept their desks decorated with photographs of tanks at sunrise, flaming napalm photographed from the air, etc. One co-worker, when I would complain of life with my first wife, would point to such photos and say, "I'm a trained killer. Let me take care of her." (His brother, he would go on to explain, was a police officer.)

Could it be that the atmosphere in Abu Grab and Guantanamo was actually set not by the commanders, but by enlisted personnel who felt that they could get away with more because they were far from home?

2. If those in charge of setting the guidelines for recruitment do not think that having convicted felons within the ranks will cause morale problems or peril among those ranks, how can they continue to justify refusing to have known gays with clean records serve in the military, even in non-combat capacities?

I recall the hubbub in the lunchroom the day after a story broke that gays had been arrested for meeting in a rest area outside of town. There was a lot of noise about they should be castrated, killed, imprisoned for life, etc. A trucker, waiting for his truck to be loaded counted a couple dozen people involved in the discussion. "If the statistics are right," he said, "one person in ten is gay. That means that you folks are really frightening a couple of people in here."

I recall a High School history teacher telling us that being gay was a requirement in the ancient Greek (and probably Roman) armies. I don't know if what he was teaching us was real. I never wanted to know. He also taught us what it was like to be part of an occupational army. (Following the Battle of the Bulge, which he fought in.) When, The Ugly American was published, the title reminded me of the behavior that he had described.

I know that I have fended off homosexual advances enough times in my life to feel that "I'm sorry but that doesn't appeal to me." should work. I would suspect that a combat trained soldier should be able to emphasize that he is heterosexual.

3. Is allowing convicted felons to enlist and serve in the military to meet quotas preferable to reinstating the draft?

I remember the draft:

A fellow student told me that he had gotten a letter that he was being drafted. It turned out he was in his 14th year in a 2 year college. "I never took English 101, so I couldn't graduate."

On my 18th birthday, I had been searching for the draft board for days. It was not at the address listed in the phone book, not at the "We've moved" address posted on the door, not at the address at the Post Office, etc. I sat down at a Soda Fountain, ordered a burger and a coke, and the waitress said, "Curmudgeon, you look really upset." I explained that I had about ten minutes to find the draft board and register, and no clue where to look. She picked up the phone, spun the dial a few times, spoke for a couple moments, came back and said, "Dad said he'll keep it open for you. Here's the directions. I'll cook you a burger when you get back." Dad told me that his daughter thought a lot of me, asked about my future plans, and classified me as a father a year before my first marriage.

The military was probably better off without me. I have always had nerves of solid potato chips. A brother-in-law once tried to teach me to shoot a BB gun. Standing between his car and an apple tree, I aimed at an apple as instructed. I jerked when I heard the gun fire, and I hit one of his hub caps.

The draft was an unfair and frightening system when we had it, and I would certainly find nearly anything preferable to reinstating it.

Heh, I've got that dang thing memorized. The City of New Orleans is in my repertoire. Arlo is the son of Woody Guthrie (This Land Is Your Land), a famous folksinger from the days of labor organization (1930s & 40s). And yes, it is a Thanksgiving tradition that's played on NPR stations from coast to coast as people roast birds with all the fixins.

With all the snow we've gotten up here this year, the garage is looking a lot like Alice's Restaurant, where you can get anything you want ('ceptin' Alice). I'll be danged if they'll ever nab ME for litterin'.

But the father rapers moved away from Arlo on the bench when he told them that he was in for litterin'. And disturbin' the peace! Then they played with the pencils and forms to be filled out in triplicate etc. and so on.

A few observations:

Cervantes mentions servitude in Don Quixote for the King of Spain's war galleys as punishment for crimes. That's 16th century literature, so this has been going on for a lot longer time than just 200 years. It probably goes all the way back to the dawn of civilization. It's a form of draft: What would you rather do, take your chances on the battle field or rot in a dungeon? That's not much of a choice, is it.

Conscription into the Army and deployment to Vietnam was a common choice for criminals during that time. Seems to me the general consensus was that this was a fair tradeoff. At least with the Army the criminal would get a few months training on how to survive in a jungle full of VC and civilian soldiers who all looked the same. They don't give you survival training for prison.

1. Should convicted felons be allowed to serve with the reputed "best and brightest" of America in situations of peril and chaos overseas?

Criminals are often quite smart and fit for the street jungles. Other times not, as in white collar criminals. They should probably be barred from service and kept at the country club restraining compounds. Just flying over a battle zone would cause heart failure.

2. If those in charge of setting the guidelines for recruitment do not think that having convicted felons within the ranks will cause morale problems or peril among those ranks, how can they continue to justify refusing to have known gays with clean records serve in the military, even in non-combat capacities?

Because we're more hung up on sex than violence.

3. Is allowing convicted felons to enlist and serve in the military to meet quotas preferable to reinstating the draft?

Heh, allowing, that has ironic humor to it. Here are two hells. Take your choice, kid.

Here's another observation: We're losing one of our systems administrators to a second tour in Iraq. He's heading out for training in Texas next week. The banter is all about how much fun he's going to have in Texas. No mention is made of what happens afterward.

That's why Alice's Restaurant is so poignant and eternal. When things are bad, making fun of it is an effective defense. Cervantes has Quixote freeing the chained criminals heading toward the King's war galleys, one of his knight errant battles that he wins. Does anyone remember what happens to Guthrie at the end of Alice's Restaurant?



Source: www.arlo.net

I notice you've now used two pieces of fiction to bolster your positions. Alice's Restaurant and The Dirty Dozen are stories. Not real. Arlo's great song makes use of humor to get its point across - it's not real though. It didn't happen. Neither did The Dirty Dozen, although the producers wanted the story to be true. The story you cited, however, is real. Now before you cite the Prime Directive let's try and deal in reality more often.

I answered the root of your questions without your bias. I even went on to note that arson should probably disqualify a person from military service. I also addressed gays in the military. I don't know why you didn't just Google the topic to see that felons have always been part of Military forces.

As for Nuke Mecca I don't know what your problem with my answers were but you know, to each their own. My point that nuking Mecca isn't really an option until a Crusade is declared is pretty much on the money.

As for your questions - asking "When did you stop beating your wife?" is difficult question to answer if you've never beaten your wife. So your asking about the "best and brightest" when you clearly don't believe it is leading. You seem to be anti-war but not anti-Military. Your questions as written, however, make you out to be anti-Military with your "best and brightest".

Still I answered your questions. I also have the right to question them. Starting a thread doesn't shield you from criticism from any poster. Are you saying my versions of your questions are not what you were asking?

I resent that remark, as you OBVIOUSLY haven't ever been a soldier in a combat zone. Frankly, it's not like soldiers are shooting with wanton abandonment and attacking innocent people with glee. Seriously. Every soldier that enters a combat zone, or a zone that might have a level "red" danger is sincerely afraid. They shoot when shot upon, and only attack in self defense. It's just the way it is.

Murders and other violent offenders SHOULD NOT and probably are not being allowed to enter service. Drug offenders, petty theives, etc are great people to let in to the military. The fact of the matter is that MOST soldiers involved in the war don't see combat and don't ever fire a weapon on the battlefield. Depending upon the unit and branch, there are often 3-5 support troops for every man fighting in the field. Felons could learn to be cooks, quartermasters, communications technicians, medics, etc. There are a plethora of roles that don't involve an M-16 and a forward combat role.

What does it cost to house a felon in a prison in the US? Anywhere from about $35-45K near as I can tell. What do they learn in prison? Probably to be better criminals. What future do most have when they get out? More felonies. In my experience, I did serve with a few people who had spent time in jail, albeit not for felonies. Frankly, what's interesting is that the military, particularly the Army and Marines in my opinion, teach a confidence and competence that these people may never have received in life. It gives them a sense of accomplishment that their lives may not have seen. If they were terrible students and got caught up selling drugs, the Marine Corps basic training alone can change the attitude of a self-defeatist criminal. They now feel like their bodies are strong, their minds are honed, and emotionally they're in a better place. Then MOS school adds icing to the cake. Now they have a skill that someone really needs. It gives them the chance to go to college, the opportunity to learn a trade, and time to change. Prison doesn't usually afford ANY of these.

Why not allow recruiters to pluck non-violent (pre-screened) felons from prison? What do we have to lose?

The Gays argument is literally ridiculous and rarely argued by a veteran (if ever). If you've ever been in a combat zone or even in the field with a unit, you come to realize that showers, sleeping arrangements, and even fighting can be done at extremely close quarters. Homosexuals in an open shower would never make for a cohesive unit. It would be like allowing men in the women's latrine. Seems crazy doesn't it? Not to proponents of the gays in the military argument. Felons aren't going to spend time "checking out" their bunk mates. It's IMPERATIVE, particularly for combat arms units, to have trust and cohesion. It needs to be an indivisible unit, where bodily contact and shoulder to shoulder proximity never causes wonder. A man that stole a car isn't going to consider cuddling up to his 'tent mate'.

Spoken like a true Officer. And spare me your feigned resentment... If you believe half of the things you say you must be one of those type officers that are too concerned with CYA to really see what is going on around them. And if you don't believe in half of what you say... continue on with the show for the viewers of I'll try not to make any more comments that you will "resent"

As for the rest of your post... Good Job, Sir!!

1. Yes. Non-violent felons who may have committed a crime, but otherwise pose no security risk should be allowed to serve in the armed forces. Who says the only way to repay a debt to society is by being locked down in a prison cell? There is also a matter of practicality: the military needs warm bodies. It would be nice if was only " the best and brightest" joining the armed forces, but sometimes you have to settle for "the average and flawed."

2. There is the world as we wish it was and there is the world as it is. In the former, the matter of one's sexual orientation should not be a exclusionary factor to serving one's country. I don't think being gay means you can't love your country and want to defend it.

But in the latter, it matters quite a bit in the military if a soldier is openly homosexual. I have no doubt I served with gays and lesbians. Big deal. As long as the job got done what did I care what someone did behind closed doors? There were guys who were hopeless alcoholics, wife-beaters, drug fiends, and sick perverts in the military. There were troops who joined to escape bad debts, child support, bad marriages and broken homes. Every solider is born a civilian and they enter the military complete with whatever baggage they schlepped around with in back in the world. The paranoia about gay soldiers is overblown. Gays have always been in the military and always will be. The question is can they be openly gay and serve, and the short answer is "No."

3. Yes. I would prefer to have a military of motivated volunteers than reluctant draftees. People who want to be where they are usually do a better job than those who are just putting in time and counting down the days until they get out.



I think it is extremely rude to tell the originator of a thread, "You posed your questions the wrong way. Here, let me show you how you should have posed them." NOBODY has to post in a thread. If you don't like the questions as they are presented, don't answer them. If you think the questions are loaded, you're free to say so as Aevans176 did, but it's arrogant and condescending to try to edit and hijack a thread once it's been started. Don't like the questions? Start your own thread and may the best one win!



Errr...I'm guessing you're referring to the vast amount of trivial and otherwise useless information that I have stored in my memory banks, Paladin Elspeth or are you just saying that I'm really old?

I clearly disagree with you. Creating a new thread on the same topic would be rude. If you're here for a popularity contest that is your right. I'm not. My questions ask the same questions without bias. strives towards this. The questions as originally written are rude and condescending. Correcting them was important to discuss the topic and not the biases of the OP. And I've hi-jacked nothing. I answered the questions.

You don't have to agree with my post, NT, but I believe that I made the point clearly. There are many reasons that convicted criminals should be allowed to serve in the military, and frankly few reasons why not. Tying this thread to homosexual service in my opinion is comparing apples to oranges.



You're absolutely right. Alcoholism and ruined marriages are rampant in the military, for a number of reasons including but not exclusive to stress. However, in journalism- just as in my civilian career, you don't live/shower/sleep within arms reach. You aren't required to train in the field and sleep in a tent with your peers, and you will never be expected to fight arm in arm with a fellow co-worker. The military IS NOT a job, it's a lifestyle. Enlisted Soldiers often don't go home to an empty apartment where they can live their lives at will. They nearly always live on base/post and their jobs essentially are far more than 8-5. I suppose there are drug dealers in the Armed Forces, but nearly none. There are nearly no soldiers caught stealing cars, and almost no if any arsons on military installations by soldiers. Ok- so if criminals are allowed into the military, there could be a really easy inference made. Homosexuals can't join the Army or Marines and stop being gay (well- maybe, but no one really can say 100% positively one way or the other). Criminals can stop doing crimes, but if you fancy strong athletic men that probably won't change at the recruiting station.

My son served for over a year in Kuwait, lending support to the war effort in Iraq, and he drove supply trucks into Iraq.

I was just shocked to hear that felons were allowed to serve in the military; hence my scare quotes regarding the best and brightest. I actually thought that a person had to have a pretty clean record in order to serve.

No, I am decidedly not anti-military. But I am against the exercise of prejudices that can prove hurtful to the very organizations they are supposed to be protecting. The prejudice against gays prevents them from contributing in myriad ways to the war effort, and for that reason I feel the military is shooting itself in the foot by excluding them. One high profile story was about the military dismissing an English to Arabic translator because he is gay. It's not like there are a lot of Americans who can translate from English to Arabic and vice versa.

I think it is wrong to make the assumption that a homosexual cannot exhibit the same high degree of self discipline that a heterosexual does after receiving military training. Are you sure that the argument you're making against homosexuals in the army is not a religious one?

Or are you suggesting that the level of training in integrity and self discipline in the military is not all it's cracked up to be?


If I'm saying you're really old, then I'm saying I'm really old, nighttimer. And I'm not saying that... I'm just saying you've been around the block before.

I have not now, nor have I ever said that homosexuals shouldn't be in the military. In fact, I claim that they are and it isn't really an issue. Further I have no religion. Me and God are cool - he doesn't need me to show up anywhere on Sunday.

Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster?

You're right. I just neglected to include this quote by Aevans176 before arguing in favor of including gays in the military:


To which I replied:


I am glad to know, BA, that you are not prejudiced against gays serving in the military.

To answer the question briefly... people are people. Sexuality is a basic need for most human beings. Are you saying that if you had to live and shower with men that it would be comfortable? If you were deployed 5000 miles from home in a remote location, working 24/7 with a man/woman that you found attractive, would you find it easy to not have feelings for him?

Seriously. We're assuming that homosexuals are inhuman and infallable, incapable of acting in a "human" fashion.

The sincere issue is that the policy couldn't be made on a "Hey- Jim is a cool gay guy and controls himself/acts appropriately, and the people in the company/platoon like him". It has to be 100% inclusive of all people and considerate of all involved. Who's rights would we be violating if homosexuals were to be allowed to be part of regular units?

Pretty damn easily. I run into attractive people all day and yet manage not to fall for them or, more importantly, am able to restrain myself from making a pass at them or cuddling with them.

There already are gays in the military, and how do they keep their sodomite urges in check, I ask you? The same way any human being keeps themselves in check.

You ask if it is reasonable to ask people not to develop feelings for people, I answer absolutely it is, the rest of the heterosexual planet manages. But EVEN IF your assertion had any weight, we are not talking about people developing feelings, we are talking about people being UNABLE to stop themselves acting upon these hypothetical feelings, with people who do not share their sexual orientation. Is that so impossible? Why?



No, we are saying that heterosexuals SOMEHOW manage to keep their raging urges in check in day to day life, and even more, manage to restrain themselves from taking physical action on these urges on unwilling co-workers. So please explain how the same assumption cannot be made of homosexuals. That is the ENTIRE basis of the argument as I see it: heterosexuals can control themselves, but Homosexuals cannot.



Absolutely nobody's. Nobody at all, not a living soul. Not rights whatsoever violated, not one.

If you disagree, please list the right actually being violated, and explain (please be specific) how it is being violated.


Oh, and by the way, there already is a gays in the military thread. This was supposed to be a felons in the military thread.

As to that, I don't see the problem frankly. Throughout history there have been several notable, in fact elite military units formed almost entirely of criminals: the French Foreign legion for example. Assuming the felony is not something that would logically prevent you from military service (Like a person who instantly kills their nearest friend when they hear loud noises) and the person is not actually in jail, then I don't really see the problem.

I fully agree with this sentiment. Further I would not like to be friends with this person - forget about serving on the front line with him!

1. Should convicted felons be allowed to serve with the reputed "best and brightest" of America in situations of peril and chaos overseas?

It depends on the crime. For non-violent felonies, I certainly see no reason why someone cannot be genuinely rehabilitated. After a felon has served her sentence, she should have her rights restored in full; this would include the right to be considered for military service. (Not everyone will be accepted, of course. Someone with a history of violence will find it hard to be allowed into the military, just as she will find it hard to be accepted into any form of employment.)

As a practical consideration, it seems better for society at large to have a felon in the military, where she will be under nearly constant supervision, than to have her elsewhere.

2. If those in charge of setting the guidelines for recruitment do not think that having convicted felons within the ranks will cause morale problems or peril among those ranks, how can they continue to justify refusing to have known gays with clean records serve in the military, even in non-combat capacities?

This is apples and oranges. The two situations have nothing to do with each other. For the record, let me state that I do not think that sexual orientation should be a factor at all when considering someone for military service.

3. Is allowing convicted felons to enlist and serve in the military to meet quotas preferable to reinstating the draft?

Yes, as long as persons with a history of violence are kept out of the military. There are many reasons to oppose a military draft, and the fact that some people in the military might have criminal records does not change my opposition to it.

I'd like to add two more data points for y'alls consideration.

First, the military does not "actively recruit felons." I'm sure if military recruiters were going into prisons, we'd hear about it. Aside from visits to schools, pretty much all military recruiting is of the "you come to us" variety. And, by gosh, sometimes felons walk through the doors of the recruiting office. (Other times, felons disguised as "peace activists" throw brick through the door, but that's a whole nudder matter.)

Second, the ridiculous proliferation of felonies in our society has, in one sense, cheapened the meaning and exploded the ranks of felons.

BD, think you missed this:

Felonious Recruits

It is an opinion piece that does reference actual news reports about more questionable characters getting into the military. You're not hearing about it because it's a hot topic in the liberal blogosphere, not the mainstream press so much, although there is some presence (Baltimore Sun).

The observations that the author makes, a guy involved in epidemiology (study of the various parts that go to make up disease) at Columbia U., point to common themes between gangs and military. Gangs work in cooperative groups; gangs use weapons; gang members are intimidating. Looks like some gangs are using the military to get trained for future turf wars.

I'll allow that much of the article is one guy's interpretation of a few facts, so doesn't carry a great deal of weight. It did make me think about the Hells Angels, a group that got its start after a war.

The thing about the Aryan Nation encouraging its member to sign up for Iraq was funny. Wonder how many actually did? It's a little different than running around the woods playing soldier. Those other guys want to kill you!

You have a good point about felonies not meaning what they used to. I can see the military doing waivers for felonies that really should be misdemeanors, if anything. Convicted felon carries too much shock factor. Convicted arsonist makes me not want to share a barracks with the guy. He might like to see it burn, with me in it.

I agree with you second point, your first point is way off.

The military takes felons as they need them... At the end of every month, the middle for the army I believe, there is a day called "mission day" This is the day when quota's must be met. These days are the days when many recruiters throw up what they got ands see if it sticks. They may have knew the recruit was a felon, but if there best chance to get him are on these desparate days. So recruiter are actively recruiting... period, whether that be a felon, a Grandfather, or a fat body. At the same time the Recruiter have to play a game with the Command.

The Airforce, doesn't really have days like these so your point that recruiter just sit in their chairs does apply to them. I think they have their mission quota three months out... the rest are out there in the streets making calls, going to local wal-marts, going to local malls, recruiting!! Look I'll be honest and say from what I've seen the military WANTS qualified people. They haven't dropped their standards, but if push comes to shove they open the flood gates, let loose then close the gates back up after the mission day.

Yes, people ARE people. Was it any better for morale when Charles Graner and Lynndie England had an affair while serving at Abu Ghraib and Lynndie ended up with a bun in the oven? At least with gay affairs, there is no baby in 9 months to complicate things further.

"We" are assuming, apparently, that the foibles of gays are somehow worse than the foibles of straights, that they are somehow going to bring down the wrath of Heaven while the sexual misdeeds of heteros can more easily be excused and chalked up to normalcy. And that, my friend, smacks of a prejudice born of religious dogma. Tell me honestly, to what degree should religious dogma be adhered to in a secular military?

Whose rights would be violated if gays were allowed to be part of regular units? No one's. I think you are confusing rights with personal comfort zones for prejudiced people.

It wasn't too long ago, historically speaking, when females were not allowed to serve in the military except as nurses and clerical help. It wasn't too long ago that members of the armed services, above their objections that their units would be tainted, were ordered to accept and fight alongside the descendants of former slaves. Guess what? African Americans served honorably and, if you will allow me some facetiousness, their color didn't "rub off" on the white guys with whom they served. Women are now an accepted part of the military, although from time to time it has to be re-emphasized that superiors are not allowed to exert their authority over them for sexual favors.

Now, in the case of felons, are they being recruited or, as some posters here have argued, walking into a recruitment office and accepted mainly because the military is interested in helping them salvage their lives, or is it because of the increasing difficulty in filling their quotas?

The admitted arsonist may have had a motive (jealousy and anger regarding a man he thought was seeing his wife on the side) that heterosexual men can empathize with, but it is clear that the man showed a serious lack of good judgment in torching the other man's car, whether the other man was actually the "other man" or not. Do we really want people in the military who cannot exercise good judgment to the point of ending up in prison in civilian life? I think such a person is typically called a "loose cannon".

In addition, if an ex-con is officially accepted into the military with the admonition that "we'll be watching you," why can't the same be done for the "dangerous" homosexual man or woman who wants to serve his/her country?

So do these guys:
and these guys
Don't know about you, but she looks mighty intimidated in the midst of these gang members cooperating while using weapons.
And let's not overlook these very dangerous Pengwyns:


Actually, I've been hearing about it for several years already. And the increase in gang presence in the military is something of which I've been aware. It creates a something of a problem for the military, given that some of the gangs are apparently having "clean" members enlist. I'll assume that you agree somewhat with the esteemed epidemiologist, but what would your solution be? Have a gang tatoo, no enlisting? That's viewpoint discrimination. Belong to a "gang", barred from enlistment? Guilt by association, not to mention the problems with defining the gangs. As my photo links clearly demonstrate, the three characteristics of gangs that you identified can easily be applied to less dangerous entities.

Why would it make you think of the Hell's Angels, and that connection? Sure, they got their start after a war, so did the Grand Army of the Republic (1866), the American Legion (1919), and the New York City Ballet (1948). Take a guess as to which two of the four owe their establishment to war?

From the article you linked

Apparently, the recruiting push has worked. Barfield reported that he and other investigators have identified a network of neo-Nazi active-duty Army and Marine personnel spread across five military installations in five states. "They're communicating with each other about weapons, about recruiting, about keeping their identities secret, about organizing within the military," he said.

So I guess the answer to your question is "enough that maybe you should set aside the snark and start worrying."

He might, but then again, maybe he burned down X accidentally, i.e. the ol' flaming bag of dog doo doo got outta hand. Maybe he burned down X for the insurance money as a one time thing. Not all arsonists are serial arsonists. One of those I would hope would be barred, but every arsonist? heck, I've lit small things on fire just for the fun of it, and I'd wager that everybody on this board has done so. A similar consideration comes into play with "assault and battery." We have Congresscritters who can be charged with it, so inflated has the charge become. Rape, murder, serial arson, wholesale drug dealing and kidnapping are the only felonies that I would set an incredibly high waiver standard for. Yes, a waiver would be possible, theoretically. If we needed a serial arsonist, and it was a 99% non-survivable mission, yeah, he can have a waiver.

Now, regarding part of the article you linked:

For a scientist to deliberately mix categories in this fashion : In June, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that, under pressure to fill the ranks, the Army had been allowing into its ranks increasing numbers of "recruits convicted of misdemeanor crimes, according to experts and military records." In fact, as the military's own data indicated, "the percentage of recruits entering the Army with waivers for misdemeanors and medical problems has more than doubled since 2001." is inexcusable, unless he is writing with an agenda. Now, there can be two defenses to what he's said. The first defense is "he didn't write it, he only quoted it." True, true, but he quoted it in order to support his argument, (US recruiting misfits), and in that paragraph, his argument is the "recruits with misdemeanors." Okay, fine, then tell us how much of an increase in "misdemeaning recruits" there've been, rather than lumping them in with the sick and lame misfits. The second defense is "hey, its an opinion piece." Well, as a scientist, he should be committed to the idea that facts matter, and truthiness swirls before disappearin. AM, you are, in identifying him as " a guy involved in epidemiology (study of the various parts that go to make up disease)", apparently attempting to invoke his authority in identifying linkages between various phenomena (note how charitable I'm being), which is a risky thing to do when he squanders his authority with truthiness.

The Army has even looked behind prison bars for fill-in recruits -- in one reported case, they went to a "youth prison" in Ogden, Utah. Although Steven Price had asked to see a recruiter while still incarcerated,

I feel that this particular snippet needs to be directly addressed, as I said that the military isn't "actively recruiting in prisons." I'm sure that you've had Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormon missionaries come knocking at your door? To my mind, that's "active recruitment." Somebody shows up uninvited on your doorstep and tries to sell you something. If they've been invited, then its a different ball of wax. Recruiters do go into schools "uninvited" (sortof), witness the recent brouhaha in San Francisco over this very matter. Such is not the case with this prison visit. So I guess I'll have to amend this statement:

to this:


Of course, the kid can't be counted as a "felon" in the Armed Services, you know, that whole juvie record thing and all. blasted technicalities

You've got to be kidding me? Are you suggesting that we make the LGBTQ individuals wear pink rank insignia so we can "keep an eye on them?" Perhaps we should install monitoring cameras in the quarters? Frankly, I can't think of any means of "we'll be watching you" that would pass muster with you, or that you wouldn't stomp on the suggestion of it by somebody else with both feet. Therefore, for you to suggest it is dishonest argumentation in the extreme.

What??? You don't think black soldiers weren't closely watched when the armed forces were integrated? Or female soldiers? Get real. You know that someone who disapproved of either group being in the service was just waiting for one of them to screw up.

You're the one bringing up cameras and such. I merely suggested that a sort of probationary status be instituted to see if morale actually suffered that much with gays, or if they were as dangerous as, say, a felon who was permitted to join the ranks of America's defenders. What could be instituted is a unit comprised of heterosexual volunteers joined by other enlistees who were known to be gay.

Why do you persist in trying to show another's point of view in the most ridiculous way possible? Are you not able to debate a subject on its merits, without ridiculing the other person who deigns to disagree with you?

You may find my argumentation dishonest; I have found yours flippant, obnoxious and dismissive.

Again, I think gays deserve a chance to prove themselves. Not every gay man is limp-wristed, a drag queen, or constantly "on the make" any more than every heterosexual man is pot-bellied, bellicose and misogynistic.

Are you afraid that without "pink rank insignia" that gay, lesbian, bisexuals or transgendered individuals might be recognized as patriotic individuals who have something worthwhile to give to their country, that they might actually "pass" as good soldiers?


If you wagered that, you would lose. I've never engaged in that kind of behavior. You are making assumptions.

There's no solution. This is just an observation of what happens, that's all. War attracts those who want to get physically stronger and emotionally toughened to pull off gang-type behavior. Then, if these types make it through without being killed or crushed emotionally, they tend to become problems for law enforcement.

It's just the way things work. There's no solution to it at all.

With the Aryan Nation, the stated goal is ethnic cleansing, or mass murder to be more accurate. It's a creepy thing, but I doubt that it's actually a problem. Could be wrong.

So, when pushing for war, these are situations that will develop and ought to be kept in mind. It's like any other business, there are causes and effects, unintended attractions in this case.

What made me think of the Hells Angels is how inter-club violence is a mark of the motorcycle gang, also the use of illegal drug trafficking to make money. That's how urban gangs work too, perhaps more so. There's also a parallel in how young men who have been through war need something to replace the war environment, although the urban gang members are doing it differently, looking for the training up front. I'm pretty sure that what they are looking for and what they get are two very different things. Who knows, war might straighten some out, while others might come back as basket cases unable to stand a car backfire, or end up going on a rampage within the urban gang and thereby reduce the pressure on civilian law enforcement efforts.

We've already acknowledged that felons get into the military, but this might not be a big deal due to the relative meaninglessness of the term felon. More information has to be considered. And I agree that gang presence in the military comes out after the fact of recruitment, and so can't be regulated. Guess gang behavior could be punished once in, and that might work.

So, looks like we're in agreement on this issue. Sometimes undesireables get in, just as sometimes bad employees get jobs. Demand pushes the risk higher. And people like to belong to clubs, usually.

She's got you there BD, most arsonists are men, except for that incident with Farrah Fawcette in Mississippi or something. Truly though "burning stuff" and the use of Gumout as a flame thrower propellant is truly the realm of 8-45 year old males.

Gumout? How the heck did I miss that one? I always was a styrofoam cup and gasoline to make napalm kinda guy myself

My grandfather said it best, when summing up some folks in the military he served with "Listen, a rogue can serve as bravely as a pureheart in times of war or battle. Just because he served, doesn't make him a hero or a goat- it makes him a soldier, and that is all. Some folks with bad pasts (he was an officer in an era when "off to the army" was a sentence other than jail) thrive in this structured enviroment, some folks with great records don't. Criminals that aren't sex offenders may very well help society overall just by serving, and serving well."

He defended the practise of issuing ultimatums by judges for "military service or jail, and if you drop out of the military, you will be back to see me"

I happen to agree a bit with that- as long as they are given an "either or" type choice. Serve well in the military or serve badly in prison.

I really don't have a problem with that- I served with a few of them, and a couple were some of the best human beings I have ever met. One was forced into the military during Vietnam, a doorgunner/crewchief like myself, and went on to have a distinguished career in the military, and ended up raising a beautiful family of all succesful children, and was a bit of a mentor to me in the military.

So I have to go with "I am okay" with this policy.

You've never lit any fireworks? Ever? The fascination with fire is a human universality.

That comparison doesn't work. Why not? ummm, maybe because we can tell at a glance who the black soldiers and female soldiers are, but not who are the gay soldiers. Hence the "pink insignia". Blacks and females have no choice in revealing their status, its self-evident. The only way gays can reveal their status is to do so deliberately. (The military hasn't perfected GAYdar yet. )

Given the context of the thread (i.e., is it bad official policy that allows felons into the military?), how else was I to approach your suggestion? I'm not attempting to show it in the most ridiculous way. You made a suggestion that sounded as if you desired to implement it as official policy. If it appears when reflected back at you that your suggestion is ridiculous, well, perhaps it is and you should consider that rather than taking umbrage. At best, your suggestion is clumsily worded (am I to blame for that?), at worst you would consider it to be a hitlerian idea if offered by anybody else.

Then let them form a "security consulting firm" and prove themselves. The gAy-Team. They can go around, hire themselves out to Leftist revolutionaries, protect the innocent, kick "fascist" butt, take names, and establish a reputation of being professional, dangerous, and effective. Seriously, form a brigade of homosexuals (a la the Abraham Lincoln Brigade), send them over to Darfur and protect the innocents. The gay community can easily afford the cost, and the potential benefits to them? Wow. Or they can fail miserably like Air America. Either way, the onus and burden of the social experiment is borne by those who want to make the change. What's unfair or unreasonable about that?

<