Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
2pid, do lower standards mean the military is not "broken"?
About 17% of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted
under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said. Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for "moral" reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests. Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7% were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs. The Army said the waiver process recognizes that people can overcome past mistakes and become law abiding citizens. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...cruiting_x.htm (i.e. And to that last point: can people overcome past mistakes? Or should they all be banned from military service? What if William Ayers wanted to join? LoL.) *** The number of incoming soldiers with prior felony arrests or convictions has more than tripled in the past five years. This year alone, the Army accepted an estimated 8,000 recruits with rap sheets, reports CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier. Most are guilty of misdemeanors, but around 100 in the past year had felony convictions. "Burglaries and narcotics are probably our two top categories," according to Col. Sheila Hickman. In the Dallas recruiting office, Staff Sgt. Anthony Garcia says he enlists only those who are ready to leave that past behind. "DUI, drug paraphernalia charges, more than three curfew violations," Garcia says. "It could be anything minor or some stuff major." No violent crimes, but for "major stuff" like breaking and entering or arson, the military grants what's called a "moral waiver." It's an old formula judges used to pronounce: Join the Army or go to jail. But today, recruits are going from boot camp to a hot war in Iraq. Some former Pentagon officials call it a recipe for chaos. "In order for the Army to meet its quota, which is going up … they have to resort to giving, taking more and more chances on people," says Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3115199.shtml *** From 2003 to 2007, the percentage of Army recruits receiving so-called "moral conduct" waivers more than doubled, from 4.6 percent to 11.2 percent. Others, The Bee found, were able to enlist because they had no official criminal record of arrests or convictions, their records were overlooked or prosecutors suspended charges in lieu of military service — akin to a now-defunct Vietnam-era practice in which judges gave defendants a choice between prison and the military. "How in the hell can they legally possess a gun?" asked Montgomery County, Ala., Sheriff D.T. Marshall, when questioned about a soldier from his county. That soldier, Eli C. Gregory, was convicted in an attempted home invasion and of felony theft in Alabama, making him ineligible to legally possess a firearm there. Yet the military gave him a rifle and sent him to Iraq, where he was convicted by the Army of assault and battery on a fellow soldier and discharged. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/43999.html *** The Army is lowering recruitment standards to levels not seen in at least two decades, and the implications are severe—not only for the future of the Army, but also for the direction of U.S. foreign policy. The latest statistics—compiled by the Defense Department. and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the Boston-based National Priorities Project—are grim. They show that the percentage of new Army recruits with high-school diplomas has plunged from 94 percent in 2003 to 83.5 percent in 2005 to 70.7 percent in 2007. (The Pentagon's longstanding goal is 90 percent.) http://www.slate.com/id/2182752/ Shall we now 'discuss' a broken military, 2pid? You truly are an imbecile. LoL. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
2pid, do lower standards mean the military is not "broken"?
On Nov 16, 12:21 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: About 17% of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said. Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for "moral" reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests. Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7% were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs. The Army said the waiver process recognizes that people can overcome past mistakes and become law abiding citizens. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...cruiting_x.htm (i.e. And to that last point: can people overcome past mistakes? Or should they all be banned from military service? What if William Ayers wanted to join? LoL.) *** The number of incoming soldiers with prior felony arrests or convictions has more than tripled in the past five years. This year alone, the Army accepted an estimated 8,000 recruits with rap sheets, reports CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier. Most are guilty of misdemeanors, but around 100 in the past year had felony convictions. "Burglaries and narcotics are probably our two top categories," according to Col. Sheila Hickman. In the Dallas recruiting office, Staff Sgt. Anthony Garcia says he enlists only those who are ready to leave that past behind. "DUI, drug paraphernalia charges, more than three curfew violations," Garcia says. "It could be anything minor or some stuff major." No violent crimes, but for "major stuff" like breaking and entering or arson, the military grants what's called a "moral waiver." It's an old formula judges used to pronounce: Join the Army or go to jail. But today, recruits are going from boot camp to a hot war in Iraq. Some former Pentagon officials call it a recipe for chaos. "In order for the Army to meet its quota, which is going up … they have to resort to giving, taking more and more chances on people," says Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3115199.shtml *** From 2003 to 2007, the percentage of Army recruits receiving so-called "moral conduct" waivers more than doubled, from 4.6 percent to 11.2 percent. Others, The Bee found, were able to enlist because they had no official criminal record of arrests or convictions, their records were overlooked or prosecutors suspended charges in lieu of military service — akin to a now-defunct Vietnam-era practice in which judges gave defendants a choice between prison and the military. "How in the hell can they legally possess a gun?" asked Montgomery County, Ala., Sheriff D.T. Marshall, when questioned about a soldier from his county. That soldier, Eli C. Gregory, was convicted in an attempted home invasion and of felony theft in Alabama, making him ineligible to legally possess a firearm there. Yet the military gave him a rifle and sent him to Iraq, where he was convicted by the Army of assault and battery on a fellow soldier and discharged. Once convicted of a felony, a crime which _could result_ in a one year prison sentence even if a misdemeanor, or a domestic violence violation of any kind, a person is Federally prohibited from owning any Title 1 firearm, which is a handgun, rifle or shotgun not covered under Title II (short barreled rifles and shotguns, fully automatic firearms and firearms with silencers). This can ONLY be waivered by Presidential (not state, even if the State was the convicting agency) pardon, by reversal of conviction, or in specifically notated cases by administrative restoration of firearm rights by the BATFE. However, law enforcement and military persons convicted of nonfelony Domestic Violence may be allowed to carry and possess firearms on duty even though as a civilian they cannot possess that same weapon off duty unless their agency has a policy requiring agents to carry at all times. That includes a secret but known considerable number of NYPD and Port Authority (NY/NJ) police officers and military policemen- including Air Force personnel subject to Personnel Reliability Program monitoring. For the retarded or liberal (but I repeat myself) that means PEOPLE GUARDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. My own grandfather did four months for beating the hell out of his uncle, who was abusing the family. He was released from jail in Maryland to join the Navy during WWII and wound up becoming a Navy Captain shortly after the end of the Korean conflict. He bought firearms and used them recreationally (hunting and trap and skeet shooting) in a legal manner all his life. Technically he was in violation of the Lautenberg law the last few years of his life, but no one bothered him about it. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
2pid, do lower standards mean the military is not "broken"?
On Nov 16, 5:20*pm, wrote:
On Nov 16, 12:21 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: About 17% of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said. Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for "moral" reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests. Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7% were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs. The Army said the waiver process recognizes that people can overcome past mistakes and become law abiding citizens. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...cruiting_x.htm (i.e. And to that last point: can people overcome past mistakes? Or should they all be banned from military service? What if William Ayers wanted to join? LoL.) *** The number of incoming soldiers with prior felony arrests or convictions has more than tripled in the past five years. This year alone, the Army accepted an estimated 8,000 recruits with rap sheets, reports CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier. Most are guilty of misdemeanors, but around 100 in the past year had felony convictions. "Burglaries and narcotics are probably our two top categories," according to Col. Sheila Hickman. In the Dallas recruiting office, Staff Sgt. Anthony Garcia says he enlists only those who are ready to leave that past behind. "DUI, drug paraphernalia charges, more than three curfew violations," Garcia says. "It could be anything minor or some stuff major." No violent crimes, but for "major stuff" like breaking and entering or arson, the military grants what's called a "moral waiver." It's an old formula judges used to pronounce: Join the Army or go to jail. But today, recruits are going from boot camp to a hot war in Iraq. Some former Pentagon officials call it a recipe for chaos. "In order for the Army to meet its quota, which is going up … they have to resort to giving, taking more and more chances on people," says Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3115199.shtml *** From 2003 to 2007, the percentage of Army recruits receiving so-called "moral conduct" waivers more than doubled, from 4.6 percent to 11.2 percent. Others, The Bee found, were able to enlist because they had no official criminal record of arrests or convictions, their records were overlooked or prosecutors suspended charges in lieu of military service — akin to a now-defunct Vietnam-era practice in which judges gave defendants a choice between prison and the military. "How in the hell can they legally possess a gun?" asked Montgomery County, Ala., Sheriff D.T. Marshall, when questioned about a soldier from his county. That soldier, Eli C. Gregory, was convicted in an attempted home invasion and of felony theft in Alabama, making him ineligible to legally possess a firearm there. Yet the military gave him a rifle and sent him to Iraq, where he was convicted by the Army of assault and battery on a fellow soldier and discharged. *Once convicted of a felony, a crime which _could result_ in a one year prison sentence even if a misdemeanor, or a domestic violence violation of any kind, a person is Federally prohibited from owning any Title 1 firearm, which is a handgun, rifle or shotgun not covered under Title II (short barreled rifles and shotguns, fully automatic firearms and firearms with silencers). This can ONLY be waivered by Presidential (not state, even if the State was the convicting agency) pardon, by reversal of conviction, or in specifically notated cases by administrative restoration of firearm rights by the BATFE. *However, law enforcement and military persons convicted of nonfelony Domestic Violence *may be allowed to carry and possess firearms on duty even though as a civilian they cannot possess that same weapon off duty unless their agency has a policy requiring agents to carry at all times. That includes a secret but known considerable number of NYPD and Port Authority (NY/NJ) police officers and military policemen- including Air Force personnel subject to Personnel Reliability Program monitoring. For the retarded or liberal (but I repeat myself) that means PEOPLE GUARDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. I am not aware of a military exception to Lautenberg: https://www.marines.usmc.mil/RS/CRSC...tenberg.ppt#18 *My own grandfather did four months for beating the hell out of his uncle, who was abusing the family. He was released from jail in Maryland to join the Navy during WWII and wound up becoming a Navy Captain shortly after the end of the Korean conflict. He bought firearms and used them recreationally (hunting and trap and skeet shooting) *in a legal manner all his life. Technically he was in violation of the Lautenberg law the last few years of his life, but no one bothered him about it. I recall having to annually sign a Lutenberg statement when I was in the millitary. I found this: E. Command Responsibilities. Commanders requesting guidance concerning the Lautenberg Amendment should contact their Trial Counsel or the Administrative Law Division at 239-2717. DOD and Army policy requires the following to implement and enforce the Lautenberg Amendment: 1. Notify soldiers that it is unlawful to possess firearms and ammunition if they have qualifying domestic violence convictions; 2. Check local unit files to determine whether soldiers have qualifying convic*tions and report soldiers known to have such convictions through command channels to HQDA; 3. Detail soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions to duties not requiring the bearing of weapons or ammunition; 4. Prohibit soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions from deploy*ments for missions requiring possession of firearms or ammunition; 5. Prohibit soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions from attending military schools where instruction in weapons or ammunition is part of the curriculum; 6. Prohibit soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions from receiving OCONUS assignments; 7. Transfer – where possible – soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions from TOE to TDA units and organizations; and 8. Prohibit soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions from re-enlisting. http://www.riley.army.mil/view/artic...-08-09-41021-5 |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
2pid, do lower standards mean the military is not "broken"?
On Nov 16, 6:30 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Nov 16, 5:20 pm, wrote: On Nov 16, 12:21 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: About 17% of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said. Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for "moral" reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests. Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7% were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs. The Army said the waiver process recognizes that people can overcome past mistakes and become law abiding citizens. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...cruiting_x.htm (i.e. And to that last point: can people overcome past mistakes? Or should they all be banned from military service? What if William Ayers wanted to join? LoL.) *** The number of incoming soldiers with prior felony arrests or convictions has more than tripled in the past five years. This year alone, the Army accepted an estimated 8,000 recruits with rap sheets, reports CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier. Most are guilty of misdemeanors, but around 100 in the past year had felony convictions. "Burglaries and narcotics are probably our two top categories," according to Col. Sheila Hickman. In the Dallas recruiting office, Staff Sgt. Anthony Garcia says he enlists only those who are ready to leave that past behind. "DUI, drug paraphernalia charges, more than three curfew violations," Garcia says. "It could be anything minor or some stuff major." No violent crimes, but for "major stuff" like breaking and entering or arson, the military grants what's called a "moral waiver." It's an old formula judges used to pronounce: Join the Army or go to jail. But today, recruits are going from boot camp to a hot war in Iraq. Some former Pentagon officials call it a recipe for chaos. "In order for the Army to meet its quota, which is going up … they have to resort to giving, taking more and more chances on people," says Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3115199.shtml *** From 2003 to 2007, the percentage of Army recruits receiving so-called "moral conduct" waivers more than doubled, from 4.6 percent to 11.2 percent. Others, The Bee found, were able to enlist because they had no official criminal record of arrests or convictions, their records were overlooked or prosecutors suspended charges in lieu of military service — akin to a now-defunct Vietnam-era practice in which judges gave defendants a choice between prison and the military. "How in the hell can they legally possess a gun?" asked Montgomery County, Ala., Sheriff D.T. Marshall, when questioned about a soldier from his county. That soldier, Eli C. Gregory, was convicted in an attempted home invasion and of felony theft in Alabama, making him ineligible to legally possess a firearm there. Yet the military gave him a rifle and sent him to Iraq, where he was convicted by the Army of assault and battery on a fellow soldier and discharged. Once convicted of a felony, a crime which _could result_ in a one year prison sentence even if a misdemeanor, or a domestic violence violation of any kind, a person is Federally prohibited from owning any Title 1 firearm, which is a handgun, rifle or shotgun not covered under Title II (short barreled rifles and shotguns, fully automatic firearms and firearms with silencers). This can ONLY be waivered by Presidential (not state, even if the State was the convicting agency) pardon, by reversal of conviction, or in specifically notated cases by administrative restoration of firearm rights by the BATFE. However, law enforcement and military persons convicted of nonfelony Domestic Violence may be allowed to carry and possess firearms on duty even though as a civilian they cannot possess that same weapon off duty unless their agency has a policy requiring agents to carry at all times. That includes a secret but known considerable number of NYPD and Port Authority (NY/NJ) police officers and military policemen- including Air Force personnel subject to Personnel Reliability Program monitoring. For the retarded or liberal (but I repeat myself) that means PEOPLE GUARDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. I am not aware of a military exception to Lautenberg: https://www.marines.usmc.mil/RS/CRSC...%20Point%20Pre... My own grandfather did four months for beating the hell out of his uncle, who was abusing the family. He was released from jail in Maryland to join the Navy during WWII and wound up becoming a Navy Captain shortly after the end of the Korean conflict. He bought firearms and used them recreationally (hunting and trap and skeet shooting) in a legal manner all his life. Technically he was in violation of the Lautenberg law the last few years of his life, but no one bothered him about it. I recall having to annually sign a Lutenberg statement when I was in the millitary. I found this: E. Command Responsibilities. Commanders requesting guidance concerning the Lautenberg Amendment should contact their Trial Counsel or the Administrative Law Division at 239-2717. DOD and Army policy requires the following to implement and enforce the Lautenberg Amendment: 1. Notify soldiers that it is unlawful to possess firearms and ammunition if they have qualifying domestic violence convictions; 2. Check local unit files to determine whether soldiers have qualifying convic*tions and report soldiers known to have such convictions through command channels to HQDA; 3. Detail soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions to duties not requiring the bearing of weapons or ammunition; 4. Prohibit soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions from deploy*ments for missions requiring possession of firearms or ammunition; 5. Prohibit soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions from attending military schools where instruction in weapons or ammunition is part of the curriculum; 6. Prohibit soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions from receiving OCONUS assignments; 7. Transfer – where possible – soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions from TOE to TDA units and organizations; and 8. Prohibit soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions from re-enlisting. http://www.riley.army.mil/view/artic...27-2002-08-09-.... If "Anti-Semitism" (i.e., a general opposition to or prejudice against Jews, as the term is commonly used) ever does spring up again in the United States, (Bret does not count, because I have secret evidence he was born in Canada) one will certainly have to admit that the enthusiasm of Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and many other Jewish legislators for gun control has played some part. My grandfather left the Navy in the early 1960s after twenty years with full retirement. He was therefore long retired before Lautenberg. His hunting companions were mostly old retired military and LE people and they knew full well he was in technical violation, as did he, and no one bothered him. That said, it is possible he could have argued that the conviction did not meet the standard for "domestic violence" under Lautenberg, although courts given similar cases have ruled similar charges did. If every technical violator of Lautenberg were prosecuted, the FCIs dealing with geriatrics would be overrun and everyone knows it. Under Bush II there has been an unofficial policy of sort of looking the other way with people whose convictions date from the 1950s or earlier. It's de rigeur on the left and the right alike to regard Bush II with the utmost contempt. While I agree he's one of the lesser persons to occupy the Oval Office, you have to give credit where it's due. We haven't had a Waco, a Ruby Ridge, or an Oklahoma City under his tenure. We''ll see if that continues under the new Presidency. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
2pid, do lower standards mean the military is not
Lautenberg is a cocksucker.
-- Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/ More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
2pid, do lower standards mean the military is not "broken"?
On 16 Noi, 19:30, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Nov 16, 5:20*pm, wrote: On Nov 16, 12:21 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: About 17% of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said. Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for "moral" reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests. Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7% were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs. The Army said the waiver process recognizes that people can overcome past mistakes and become law abiding citizens. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...cruiting_x.htm (i.e. And to that last point: can people overcome past mistakes? Or should they all be banned from military service? What if William Ayers wanted to join? LoL.) *** The number of incoming soldiers with prior felony arrests or convictions has more than tripled in the past five years. This year alone, the Army accepted an estimated 8,000 recruits with rap sheets, reports CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier. Most are guilty of misdemeanors, but around 100 in the past year had felony convictions. "Burglaries and narcotics are probably our two top categories," according to Col. Sheila Hickman. In the Dallas recruiting office, Staff Sgt. Anthony Garcia says he enlists only those who are ready to leave that past behind. "DUI, drug paraphernalia charges, more than three curfew violations," Garcia says. "It could be anything minor or some stuff major." No violent crimes, but for "major stuff" like breaking and entering or arson, the military grants what's called a "moral waiver." It's an old formula judges used to pronounce: Join the Army or go to jail. But today, recruits are going from boot camp to a hot war in Iraq. Some former Pentagon officials call it a recipe for chaos. "In order for the Army to meet its quota, which is going up … they have to resort to giving, taking more and more chances on people," says Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3115199.shtml *** From 2003 to 2007, the percentage of Army recruits receiving so-called "moral conduct" waivers more than doubled, from 4.6 percent to 11.2 percent. Others, The Bee found, were able to enlist because they had no official criminal record of arrests or convictions, their records were overlooked or prosecutors suspended charges in lieu of military service — akin to a now-defunct Vietnam-era practice in which judges gave defendants a choice between prison and the military. "How in the hell can they legally possess a gun?" asked Montgomery County, Ala., Sheriff D.T. Marshall, when questioned about a soldier from his county. That soldier, Eli C. Gregory, was convicted in an attempted home invasion and of felony theft in Alabama, making him ineligible to legally possess a firearm there. Yet the military gave him a rifle and sent him to Iraq, where he was convicted by the Army of assault and battery on a fellow soldier and discharged. *Once convicted of a felony, a crime which _could result_ in a one year prison sentence even if a misdemeanor, or a domestic violence violation of any kind, a person is Federally prohibited from owning any Title 1 firearm, which is a handgun, rifle or shotgun not covered under Title II (short barreled rifles and shotguns, fully automatic firearms and firearms with silencers). This can ONLY be waivered by Presidential (not state, even if the State was the convicting agency) pardon, by reversal of conviction, or in specifically notated cases by administrative restoration of firearm rights by the BATFE. *However, law enforcement and military persons convicted of nonfelony Domestic Violence *may be allowed to carry and possess firearms on duty even though as a civilian they cannot possess that same weapon off duty unless their agency has a policy requiring agents to carry at all times. That includes a secret but known considerable number of NYPD and Port Authority (NY/NJ) police officers and military policemen- including Air Force personnel subject to Personnel Reliability Program monitoring. For the retarded or liberal (but I repeat myself) that means PEOPLE GUARDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. I am not aware of a military exception to Lautenberg: https://www.marines.usmc.mil/RS/CRSC...%20Point%20Pre... *My own grandfather did four months for beating the hell out of his uncle, who was abusing the family. He was released from jail in Maryland to join the Navy during WWII and wound up becoming a Navy Captain shortly after the end of the Korean conflict. He bought firearms and used them recreationally (hunting and trap and skeet shooting) *in a legal manner all his life. Technically he was in violation of the Lautenberg law the last few years of his life, but no one bothered him about it. I recall having to annually sign a Lutenberg statement when I was in the millitary. I found this: E. Command Responsibilities. Commanders requesting guidance concerning the Lautenberg Amendment should contact their Trial Counsel or the Administrative Law Division at 239-2717. DOD and Army policy requires the following to implement and enforce the Lautenberg Amendment: 1. Notify soldiers that it is unlawful to possess firearms and ammunition if they have qualifying domestic violence convictions; 2. Check local unit files to determine whether soldiers have qualifying convic*tions and report soldiers known to have such convictions through command channels to HQDA; 3. Detail soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions to duties not requiring the bearing of weapons or ammunition; 4. Prohibit soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions from deploy*ments for missions requiring possession of firearms or ammunition; 5. Prohibit soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions from attending military schools where instruction in weapons or ammunition is part of the curriculum; 6. Prohibit soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions from receiving OCONUS assignments; 7. Transfer – where possible – soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions from TOE to TDA units and organizations; and 8. Prohibit soldiers having or believed to have qualifying convictions from re-enlisting. http://www.riley.army.mil/view/artic...02-08-09-....- Looks like beating up your wife is the soldiers' new version of shooting yourself in the foot. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
2pid, do lower standards mean the military is not "broken"?
On Nov 16, 12:21*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: About 17% of the first-time recruits, or about 13,600, were accepted under waivers for various medical, moral or criminal problems, including misdemeanor arrests or drunk driving. That is a slight increase from last year, the Army said. Of those accepted under waivers, more than half were for "moral" reasons, mostly misdemeanor arrests. Thirty-eight percent were for medical reasons and 7% were drug and alcohol problems, including those who may have failed a drug test or acknowledged they had used drugs. The Army said the waiver process recognizes that people can overcome past mistakes and become law abiding citizens. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...cruiting_x.htm (i.e. And to that last point: can people overcome past mistakes? Or should they all be banned from military service? What if William Ayers wanted to join? LoL.) *** The number of incoming soldiers with prior felony arrests or convictions has more than tripled in the past five years. This year alone, the Army accepted an estimated 8,000 recruits with rap sheets, reports CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier. Most are guilty of misdemeanors, but around 100 in the past year had felony convictions. "Burglaries and narcotics are probably our two top categories," according to Col. Sheila Hickman. In the Dallas recruiting office, Staff Sgt. Anthony Garcia says he enlists only those who are ready to leave that past behind. "DUI, drug paraphernalia charges, more than three curfew violations," Garcia says. "It could be anything minor or some stuff major." No violent crimes, but for "major stuff" like breaking and entering or arson, the military grants what's called a "moral waiver." It's an old formula judges used to pronounce: Join the Army or go to jail. But today, recruits are going from boot camp to a hot war in Iraq. Some former Pentagon officials call it a recipe for chaos. "In order for the Army to meet its quota, which is going up … they have to resort to giving, taking more and more chances on people," says Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3115199.shtml *** From 2003 to 2007, the percentage of Army recruits receiving so-called "moral conduct" waivers more than doubled, from 4.6 percent to 11.2 percent. Others, The Bee found, were able to enlist because they had no official criminal record of arrests or convictions, their records were overlooked or prosecutors suspended charges in lieu of military service — akin to a now-defunct Vietnam-era practice in which judges gave defendants a choice between prison and the military. "How in the hell can they legally possess a gun?" asked Montgomery County, Ala., Sheriff D.T. Marshall, when questioned about a soldier from his county. That soldier, Eli C. Gregory, was convicted in an attempted home invasion and of felony theft in Alabama, making him ineligible to legally possess a firearm there. Yet the military gave him a rifle and sent him to Iraq, where he was convicted by the Army of assault and battery on a fellow soldier and discharged. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/43999.html *** The Army is lowering recruitment standards to levels not seen in at least two decades, and the implications are severe—not only for the future of the Army, but also for the direction of U.S. foreign policy. The latest statistics—compiled by the Defense Department. and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the Boston-based National Priorities Project—are grim. They show that the percentage of new Army recruits with high-school diplomas has plunged from 94 percent in 2003 to 83.5 percent in 2005 to 70.7 percent in 2007. (The Pentagon's longstanding goal is 90 percent.) http://www.slate.com/id/2182752/ Shall we now 'discuss' a broken military, 2pid? You truly are an imbecile. LoL. No comment from our resident military 'genius'? |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
2pid, do lower standards mean the military is not "broken"?
On Nov 19, 4:34*pm, ScottW wrote:
On Nov 19, 1:42*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: The Army is lowering recruitment standards to levels not seen in at least two decades, and the implications are severe—not only for the future of the Army, but also for the direction of U.S. foreign policy.. The latest statistics—compiled by the Defense Department. and obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the Boston-based National Priorities Project—are grim. They show that the percentage of new Army recruits with high-school diplomas has plunged from 94 percent in 2003 to 83.5 percent in 2005 to 70.7 percent in 2007. (The Pentagon's longstanding goal is 90 percent.) http://www.slate.com/id/2182752/ Shall we now 'discuss' a broken military, 2pid? You truly are an imbecile. LoL. No comment from our resident military 'genius'? *Sure, Why should the Pentagon's goal be higher than what the Ca. State Board of Education can provide? We know your artillery rattled brain would like us to believe the Army is all rocket scientists and engineers but you've proven by example that isn't true. I'd say, 2pid, that you have no idea what you're talking about. If you don't think that in a combat zone you have to understand the situation, rapidly process information and orders and make the proper call, know how to operate complex equipment, know what possibilities exist 360 degrees (an infantry term. The FA would say 6400 mils), and be able to multi-task as well as have competence in basic soldier skills like first aid, radio procedures, calls for fire, and a whole host of other things, why, you'd be an imbecile. And yes, you have "proven that by example". And example. And example. And... LoL. The military needs smart people, 2pid. That's probably why you couldn't get in. Personally, I think sending all the high school dropouts to the Army might not be a bad idea. That's a really, really good way to keep it broken for a long time, 2pid. As it is it will take 10-20 years for the military to recover, Especially since Obama won't have much for them to do. Oh, they'll have plenty to do. Afghanistan for starters, and then whatever else comes along... Jenn, what do you think? Useful student motivation? 2pid, when I joined in 1984 the military was just coming out of the aftermath of Vietnam. In fact I remember soldiers had the feeling that the military had finally shed that ghost after the first Gulf War. As usual, you'd be better served keeping your mouth shut regarding military matters. |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
2pid, do lower standards mean the military is not "broken"?
Shhhh! said: Especially since Obama won't have much for them to do. Oh, they'll have plenty to do. Afghanistan for starters, and then whatever else comes along... You went by this pearl by Witless without pausing. I'm wondering how he thinks Obama will be able to pacify all our enemies to the extent we won't need to do battle with anybody. Is Obama a witch doctor with actual magic powers? I'd like Scottie to explain what he meant. |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
2pid, do lower standards mean the military is not "broken"?
On Nov 19, 6:43*pm, George M. Middius
wrote: Shhhh! said: Especially since Obama won't have much for them to do. Oh, they'll have plenty to do. Afghanistan for starters, and then whatever else comes along... You went by this pearl by Witless without pausing. I'm wondering how he thinks Obama will be able to pacify all our enemies to the extent we won't need to do battle with anybody. Is Obama a witch doctor with actual magic powers? I'd like Scottie to explain what he meant. Why, that's a totally different read from mine. I assumed that 2pid meant that we'd no longer have the military used as our first-line foreign policy. You know, shoot first and ask questions later. I'd imagine that would disappoint 2pid and the other military genii on the right. But now I see that you are right: 2pid is indeed placing great faith in our new President. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Dolby Digital "AC-3" Original Standards | Tech | |||
Dolby Digital "AC-3" Original Standards | Tech | |||
Dolby Digital "AC-3" Original Standards | Tech | |||
Military "near-peers" | Audio Opinions | |||
JAN "Military Tube Amplifier" ? | Vacuum Tubes |