File Under Irony

This isn’t exactly new news, but while the U.S. military is still under the onus of DADT, portions of that same military have lowered their standards to include felons:

Under pressure to meet combat needs, the Army and Marine Corps brought in significantly more recruits with felony convictions last year than in 2006, including some with manslaughter and sex crime convictions.

If they’ve spent enough time in jail, then they’ve probably already had man-on-man sex under combat conditions.  In fact, they may find the violence arousing

But as long as they still say they’re straight . . .

Advertisements

31 thoughts on “File Under Irony

  1. So you think Genarlow Wilson should be permanently banned from serving?

    For example, in several of the Marine sex crime cases, the offender was a teenager involved in consensual sex with another underage teen.

  2. No, I don’t, but let’s not go on a tangent immediately. That’s a separate topic. The majority were convicted of other crimes, including manslaughter, yet are still somehow “preferable” for “unit cohesion” than homosexuals. That’s the point I mean to discuss here, not the exceptions.

  3. And what were those numbers?

    According to the data released Monday, a bit more than half of the Army’s 511 convictions in 2007 were for various types of thefts, ranging from burglaries to bad checks and stolen cars. Another 130 were for drug offenses.

    The remainder, however, included two in 2007 for manslaughter, compared to one in 2006; five for sexual crimes (which can include rape, incest or sexual assaults) compared to two in 2006; and three for negligent or vehicular homicide, compared to two in 2006. Two received waivers for terrorist threats including bomb threats in 2007, compared to one in 2006.

    At least 235 of the Marine Corps’ 350 waivers were for various types of thefts in 2007, and another 63 were for assaults or robberies that may also have included use of a weapon. The remainder included one for manslaughter in 2007, compared to none in 2006; four for sex crimes, compared to one in 2006; and five for terror threats, including bomb threats, compared to two in 2006.

    And also, keep in mind that this was barely 1,000 out of 180,000 people — which, by my calculations, adds up to a little more than half a percent of total recruits.

    Given that we send juvenile and adult offenders to the equivalent of boot camp both inside AND outside incarceration to teach them discipline, self-control, and useful life skills, I thus fail to see the problem here.

  4. But prisoners who are sentenced to boot camp don’t get paid for it. No matter how much the judge tries to fudge the ‘rehabilitation’ angle, it is still primarily a form of punishment.

    The notion of rewarding manslaughter (murder-lite) with a free college education, assistance with paying a future mortgage, or opportunities for career advancement at taxpayer expense just doesn’t sit well with me. After all, we wouldn’t feel comfortable with a convicted murderer becoming a police officer. So, yeah, I think this is a definite lowering of standards.

  5. The notion of rewarding manslaughter (murder-lite) with a free college education, assistance with paying a future mortgage, or opportunities for career advancement at taxpayer expense just doesn’t sit well with me.

    Well, they’re already able to do it while sitting in prison at taxpayer expense — and claiming that doing so teaches them structure and skills, all of which supposedly REDUCE the chance of their committing another crime.

    Why not give them the opportunity after the successful completion of their enlistment?

  6. (Why not give them the opportunity after the successful completion of their enlistment?)

    Yes, but that’s part of a program to keep them busy while they’re actually in prison. That’s a little different than giving them a position of responsibility as our armed representatives to overseas allies and enemies alike. Sometimes, soldiers are sent to work in sensitive areas that involves dealing with the general public at home too.

    Like it or not, the conduct of American soldiers does reflect on us. And I’d rather we have upstanding citizens than thugs. I understand that not everyone with a felony conviction is a thug. However, this is a very slippery slope we’re walking on. And the fact that they allowed someone who actually made bomb threats against installations in this country…is baffling on many levels. We’re not talking about teenagers getting busted for smoking weed.

    Who makes these sorts of terrorist threats?

    Neo-Nazis, Militiamen, Mercenaries, Gang Members. Giving a man who threatened to blow up City Hall better weapons in order to protect me. Ummmmmm….OK. I feel much safer already!

  7. And also, keep in mind that this was barely 1,000 out of 180,000 people — which, by my calculations, adds up to a little more than half a percent of total recruits.

    Which is not relevant in any way, shape, or form. Not one single open homosexual is by policy allowed to serve. Are there instances where this is ignored? Undoubtedly. But we’re discussing policy.

  8. And also, keep in mind that this was barely 1,000 out of 180,000 people — which, by my calculations, adds up to a little more than half a percent of total recruits.

    So it sounds like there really wasn’t a need to recruit criminals, but they still did. So the U.S. military has no problem with recruiting ex-cons, including those who committed manslaughter, but cannot recruit honest and open homosexuals.

    Given that we send juvenile and adult offenders to the equivalent of boot camp both inside AND outside incarceration to teach them discipline, self-control, and useful life skills, I thus fail to see the problem here.

    So the military believes they are capable to teach ex-cons discipline, self-control, and useful life skills, but not open gay persons. (Shakes head)

  9. Yes, but that’s part of a program to keep them busy while they’re actually in prison. That’s a little different than giving them a position of responsibility as our armed representatives to overseas allies and enemies alike. Sometimes, soldiers are sent to work in sensitive areas that involves dealing with the general public at home too.

    First, these are not people who are in prison; they are people who have served their time in prison.

    If prison is rehabilitating people, then why would they be treated any differently?

    Next:

    And the fact that they allowed someone who actually made bomb threats against installations in this country…is baffling on many levels. We’re not talking about teenagers getting busted for smoking weed.

    Who makes these sorts of terrorist threats?

    Neo-Nazis, Militiamen, Mercenaries, Gang Members.

    First, we ARE talking about teenagers who get busted for smoking weed.

    A recruit needs a waiver if he or she has one felony or serious misdemeanor or more than three minor misdemeanors. For example, a single charge of possessing marijuana or driving under the influence requires a waiver. Minor infractions include disorderly conduct, trespassing or vandalism.
    .
    Or, more often than not, other mixed-up teenagers.

    That ties out to Pat’s statement here.

    So the U.S. military has no problem with recruiting ex-cons, including those who committed manslaughter, but cannot recruit honest and open homosexuals.

    Actually, as my recent article link points out, the US military DOES have a “problem”, given the hoops through which they have to jump.

    Carr and others said the military has granted waivers without hurting the quality of recruits. Exceptions are granted after examining recommendations from teachers, coaches and others.

    “We don’t look at them unless their community stands behind them,” Carr said.

    And, as an added kicker:

    Recruits who have come in with waivers generally perform better than peers who haven’t needed special permission to join the Army, Carr said.

    What is amusing to me is when people who were so adamantly defending Genarlow Wilson as being unfairly scarred for life by his conviction and prison sentence are now willing to throw him under the bus as unfit to serve in the military, too dangerous to have a gun, and a disgrace and embarrassment who shouldn’t be allowed to represent the United States in any fashion — when it serves the purpose of anti-DADT propaganda.

  10. Look, I don’t necessarily have a problem with using the military as a tool for molding less-than-ideal citizens into more responsible adults. It’s actually an effective method. (Although I do have severe qualms about allowing bomb-makers to serve. That’s pretty far out there.)

    What I’m saying is that by denying people who are merely being honest about themselves the same chance to serve their country as people who have proven themselves to be of at least questionable legal judgement is wrong.

    And you will remember that I did not throw Genarlow Wilson under any bus.

  11. What is amusing to me is when people who were so adamantly defending Genarlow Wilson as being unfairly scarred for life by his conviction and prison sentence are now willing to throw him under the bus as unfit to serve in the military, too dangerous to have a gun, and a disgrace and embarrassment who shouldn’t be allowed to represent the United States in any fashion — when it serves the purpose of anti-DADT propaganda.

    NDT, if I’m included in the poor logic that led to your conclusion, it’s like this. First, as Georgia finally correctly found that Wilson was unfairly convicted of a felony. He was not an adult who committed a sex crime against a child several years his junior. In any case, I never advocated a blanket statement saying the military should ban ALL convicted felons. However, we still have the military with a blanket statement that ALL open homosexuals may not serve in the military. So my issue is that open homosexuals are behind the line of convicted felons when it comes to military service.

    Also, I’m not aware if the U.S. military has a policy of not allowing personnel, who when 17 had sex with a 15 year old. If they did, I imagine about anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 of the military would have to be discharged dishonorably.

  12. (Although I do have severe qualms about allowing bomb-makers to serve. That’s pretty far out there.)

    Well, if one looks at the detail on the Marine Corps one, for example, it’s rather explainable.

    (B): Applicant constructed explosive device from gunpowder and a soda bottle and blew up a mailbox. Offense was 2 years prior to waiver submission.

    And if you look at the entire footnote series regardless to sex crimes, you can see that SLDN, Waxman, and liberal gays are screaming that, by allowing a 13-year-old who touched another 13-year-old on the chest and buttocks while both were fully clothed, the armed forces are admitting “rapists”.

    Moreover, Pat, both Waxman and SLDN are insisting that teens who, like Wilson, claim they had “consensual” sex with underage minors are “rapists”.

  13. How is that explainable? I don’t get what you mean by that remark. He made a bomb. It contained gunpowder. What your point is, other than to confirm that he made a dangerous bomb, I just don’t get.

    Aside from that quandry, my point remains the same. The military is advocating two disparate policies at the same time: allowing convicted felons while disallowing people for merely being honest. There is no reason of merit for these two disparate policies. You can bring Waxman et al into the conversation all you want, because it’s entirely irrelevant to the argument I’m making. Get over the “liberal gays” argument. It has no place here.

    If a fellow soldier is talking about his girlfriend and makes his own conscious decision to ask me about mine, I see no need to have to lie simply to avoid offending someone else’s beliefs. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anyone has the right to “not be offended.”

  14. Simple point, Jamie; a mad bomber, the person is not.

    The military is advocating two disparate policies at the same time: allowing convicted felons while disallowing people for merely being honest.

    Oh, if only it were that easy.

    You see, Jamie, the military follows a good policy; namely, it states that people who may be sexually attracted to each other, especially in situations of tight living quarters with very limited privacy, should be housed and kept separately except under extreme conditions. The reason why is simple; in such quarters, it is difficult to avoid other people, and any friction, especially sexual tension, will cause problems in an organization in which people must literally react within split seconds as a matter of life and death.

    In short, you might as well be arguing that the armed forces should ignore gender and house women and men together at all times.

    The vast majority of convicted felons don’t have this problem. Furthermore, there is nothing that says your conviction for a felony makes you permanently dishonest.

  15. Yes, because the Israeli military is simply falling apart with all those women and gays serving in close-quarters. Not to mention combat duty.

    I agree with Congressman Joe Sestek (Vice Admiral, USN, Ret.) in his comments to SLDN. He’s knows what he’s talking about.

    Every CO knows who the gays under their command are. They also know who the homophobes under their command are too. This isn’t some abstract tension. It’s an issue officers had to deal with anyway.

    And since Congress and the White House prefers to stick their collective heads in the ground and pretend there’s no homosexual tension in their armed forces, we don’t really have a working policy that reflects reality. As if homophobes aren’t going to spread rumors, make bigoted remarks, or physically assault gays because of DADT. As if gay soldiers are never, ever going to have sex or behave in some “suspicious” way because of DADT.

    So, we have a written regulation that nobody follows. Then we have an unwritten understanding that anti-gay officers will discharge known homosexuals… and tolerant ones don’t give a rat’s behind about gay sex. The Conressman / Admiral thinks that lack of clear standards is unacceptable. And he’s absolutely correct.

  16. You see, Jamie, the military follows a good policy; namely, it states that people who may be sexually attracted to each other, especially in situations of tight living quarters with very limited privacy, should be housed and kept separately except under extreme conditions. The reason why is simple; in such quarters, it is difficult to avoid other people, and any friction, especially sexual tension, will cause problems in an organization in which people must literally react within split seconds as a matter of life and death.

    So the military can deal with having an ex-con in close living quarters, but not a gay man. The possibility of sexual tension trumps all. Yikes!

  17. And many of those ex-cons have had gay experiences. Having dealt with ex-cons, I can tell you that that is a fact, not an opinion. So the point is rendered moot anyway, except for the whole “honesty” aspect. Which is what’s really being shunned.

  18. Yes, because the Israeli military is simply falling apart with all those women and gays serving in close-quarters. Not to mention combat duty.

    Israel is a small country with compulsory military service that is essentially on a constant-combat footing. That means two things; one, they need numbers more than they need quality, and two, the people that they do get are well aware of the fact that, if they don’t do their job, they will get killed.

    Fortunately, we have an all-volunteer army, and we can pick and choose who we want to get into it.

    So, we have a written regulation that nobody follows. Then we have an unwritten understanding that anti-gay officers will discharge known homosexuals… and tolerant ones don’t give a rat’s behind about gay sex. The Conressman / Admiral thinks that lack of clear standards is unacceptable. And he’s absolutely correct.

    Except that the Congressman/Admiral is being duplicitous.

    There IS a clear standard; don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue, and discharge those who cannot obey all of the above. The problem is that he doesn’t want to follow it. Spreading homophobic rumors is grounds for discipline and/or discharge; it’s not anyone’s fault but his own that he cannot carry out orders.

    Perhaps the Admiral could explain why he believes soldiers should be allowed to disobey any order they find personally inconvenient — and why he was so incompetent when it came to enforcing rules in his own command.

    So the military can deal with having an ex-con in close living quarters, but not a gay man. The possibility of sexual tension trumps all. Yikes!

    Pat, state publicly that it is more important to integrate the armed forces than to acknowledge the possibility of sexual tension — and therefore, women and men should share living quarters at all times.

    If you can’t or won’t do that, your attempt to downplay sexual tension is quite a contradiction.

    And many of those ex-cons have had gay experiences.

    And here we thought the gay community’s argument was that gays were born, not made.

    Seems that Jamie’s now admitting that gay behavior is learned and not something innate, since he’s insisting that gay experiences make you gay.

    Or is it that men who are born gay are more likely to commit crimes and be sent to prison?

  19. Homophobia is rampant in the military. I don’t think this is some sort of shocking state secret or revelation.

    The Admiral’s saying DADT prevented him from taking a more aggressive stance against it because that would’ve only lead to more trouble for gay sailors. By maintaining the aura of secrecy, the political leadership severely limited the extent to which he could’ve pursued the root causes of the problem.

    And you keep on saying discharge both the homophobes and homosexuals (as if that were a viable option). If he did that, he would have a severely weakened and shorthanded fleet. You act as if manpower is an infinite resource. Many of these soliders have been in the military for years. They have skills that are essential to keeping the force strong and effective.

  20. Seems that Jamie’s now admitting that gay behavior is learned and not something innate, since he’s insisting that gay experiences make you gay.

    Or is it that men who are born gay are more likely to commit crimes and be sent to prison?

    Quit being a complete tool. I was “insisting” nothing, merely making the observation that men in prison do have sex with each other. When they leave they often go back to women because women are once again available. Their orientation never changed, just the available outlet. If you can’t discern the difference between overt actions and innate orientation then I can’t help you.

    But if you locked me in a women’s prison I guarantee you I’d be going it solo the whole time.

  21. The Admiral’s saying DADT prevented him from taking a more aggressive stance against it because that would’ve only lead to more trouble for gay sailors.

    One wonders if he’s against increased police presence and law enforcement because doing so, by that logic, would only lead to more trouble for law-abiding citizens.

    By maintaining the aura of secrecy, the political leadership severely limited the extent to which he could’ve pursued the root causes of the problem.

    “Root causes” are not the issue. The simple fact of the matter is that he was allowing behavior — spreading homophobic rumors — that is against military policy and against his orders to allow, and he is making excuses for why he allowed it to continue.

    People are not supposed to spread those sort of rumors. I don’t care why they’re doing it; they know they aren’t supposed to do it, and if they’re doing it anyway, they need to be gone. Period.

    And you keep on saying discharge both the homophobes and homosexuals (as if that were a viable option). If he did that, he would have a severely weakened and shorthanded fleet.

    And here I thought SLDN and the other gay leftist organizations were claiming that the vast majority of people in the military weren’t homophobic.

    Their orientation never changed, just the available outlet.

    So they’re not really gay, then. Got it.

  22. So they’re not really gay, then. Got it.

    Good. So then you can see that they would be just as tempted as true homosexuals when placed, once again, in an all-male barracks environment. And that believing felons can handle their urges better than gays is not based on any fact at all.

  23. Pat, state publicly that it is more important to integrate the armed forces than to acknowledge the possibility of sexual tension — and therefore, women and men should share living quarters at all times.

    If you can’t or won’t do that, your attempt to downplay sexual tension is quite a contradiction.

    Not even close to a contradiction. In civil society, we have separate public bathrooms and showers. We don’t separate straight people from gay people here. A military base can handle separate accommodations for men and women, and it’s simply an extension of how things are done outside the military. Maybe it’s me, but I’d like to think that controlling the possibility of sexual tension should be small potatoes given the many difficult tasks that military personnel are trained to do.

    There may be situations where only one barrack is available and men and women would have to share living quarters. In those cases I have confidence that our military can train personnel to handle this situation when necessary.

    Maybe my expectations and confidence in the military are too high though, so maybe you’re right. But when I see militaries such as Israel’s able to do it, I’d like to think our military could do it as well.

  24. So then you can see that they would be just as tempted as true homosexuals when placed, once again, in an all-male barracks environment.

    Not really.

    In prisons, there really is no other outlet, period, which is why some people resort to gay experiences. The military gets some nights off, leave, so on and so forth, which allow plenty of other opportunities.

    Maybe it’s me, but I’d like to think that controlling the possibility of sexual tension should be small potatoes given the many difficult tasks that military personnel are trained to do.

    Well, if it’s “small potatoes” and not relevant, why should the military go to the time and expense of separating the sexes? Why not just move everyone into one barracks? Why should that only be done “when necessary”?

    Maybe my expectations and confidence in the military are too high though, so maybe you’re right.

    Oh, I have every confidence that they could handle it. But why should we subject them to that level of stress when it’s not necessary to do so?

    What this boils down to, Pat, is whether or not it is necessary to compromise military readiness functioning for social engineering purposes. For Israel, it makes sense, because they literally cannot spare anyone; they are willing to sacrifice efficiency and functioning for numbers. For racial integration, it made sense, because racial minorities make up a sizeable chunk of the population both inside and outside the military and to continue in segregated fashion was unnecessarily redundant and counterproductive to military readiness.

    The simple fact of the matter is this; in order to comply with the military’s standard rule of avoiding putting people into situations that generate sexual tension, gay and lesbian people would have to be housed individually and separately — they couldn’t even be housed with each other. It’s simply not worth the time or expense for the infitesimal fraction of people it represents.

  25. (One wonders if he’s against increased police presence and law enforcement because doing so, by that logic, would only lead to more trouble for law-abiding citizens.)

    That analogy is flawed. Law-abiding citizens don’t lose their jobs when they report threats made against them. However, in the case of gay soldiers, what starts off as an investigation into homophobic harassment could easily become about the victim(s) themselves. Far from being helpful, such increased scrutiny might make matters worse because they’ll have to do some more lying to stay in the service.

    (he was allowing behavior — spreading homophobic rumors — that is against military policy and against his orders to allow, and he is making excuses for why he allowed it to continue)

    Well, generals Wesley Clark and John Shalikashvili have made similar statements to Sestek’s in the past (with regards to their beliefs about DADT). They all consider it systemic.

    So, he isn’t the only one being “duplicitous”, if you consider these explanations dishonest. Which begs a very interesting point:

    If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Supreme NATO Commander, and Senior Fleet Commander are all making the same excuses for why they didn’t implement so-called “good policy”… then we either have highly incompetent generals / admirals, or more likely, something is rotten in the state of America.

    (And here I thought SLDN and the other gay leftist organizations were claiming that the vast majority of people in the military weren’t homophobic.)

    That’s a dodge, and you know it. The SLDN surveys do show significant indifference and apathy among the vast majority of people in the military. However, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a problem with homophobia in the military. You’re drawing erroneous conclusions.

    Even if we assume a 10-10 scenario (commited homophobes and gays constitute around ten percent each), that’s still more than enough to cause problems. And that’s also more discharges than they can reasonably handle.

  26. However, in the case of gay soldiers, what starts off as an investigation into homophobic harassment could easily become about the victim(s) themselves.

    How?

    “Don’t ask” and “don’t pursue” mean exactly that. Simply spreading or making homophobic gossip is grounds for discharge. The military doesn’t follow libel or slander rules where you have to prove something is true; the question is whether or not you said something you were explicitly ordered not to say or talk about.

    If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Supreme NATO Commander, and Senior Fleet Commander are all making the same excuses for why they didn’t implement so-called “good policy”… then we either have highly incompetent generals / admirals, or more likely, something is rotten in the state of America.

    Versus the several dozen others of similar rank that say the policy is fine as is and have no trouble implementing it in its entirety, apparently not to the detriment of US forces in the least.

    Especially when the three in question are all much better known for their partisan political activism and willingness to put Democrat Party politics first than they are for concerns of the military or its readiness.

  27. (“Don’t ask” and “don’t pursue” mean exactly that.)

    That would be news to the gay soldiers who’ve been discharged despite their best attempts to not tell.

    Two cases that I’m aware of:

    – One guy got busted for sending (what he thought was private) AOL instant messages. In reality, the computer logged the entire conversation. And the military decided to pursue.

    – A group of soldiers were implicated when another person who got busted decided to “out” all the other queers in the unit to military prosecutors. Those prosecutors certainly didn’t drop the case.

    Hardly anybody references the “don’t pursue” part anymore. The policy is almost always referred to as DADT, even within the military itself. I doubt very much that’s a coincidence.

    (Especially when the three in question are all much better known for their partisan political activism and willingness to put Democrat Party politics first than they are for concerns of the military or its readiness.)

    And yet, they won their wars. Maybe those “partisan political activists” know something you don’t.

  28. Well, if it’s “small potatoes” and not relevant, why should the military go to the time and expense of separating the sexes? Why not just move everyone into one barracks? Why should that only be done “when necessary”?

    That was explained already. Besides, I want the DADT policy changed as smoothly as possibly. You seem to intentionally want to place hoops and red tape alll over the place where none are necessary.

    Oh, I have every confidence that they could handle it. But why should we subject them to that level of stress when it’s not necessary to do so?

    We are now “subjecting” law abiding military personnel to be housed with ex-cons. Since that apparently is small potatoes, so is dealing with sexual tension. Why the “social engineering” for ex-cons? As you made the point, the numbers are small, so why recruit any at all?

    With the training and discipline that military personnel undergo, I just can’t believe this obsession with sexual tension. It’s like a patient going to a doctor with a heart attack, brain seizure, and choking to death, but insists on only having his hangnail treated.

    The simple fact of the matter is this; in order to comply with the military’s standard rule of avoiding putting people into situations that generate sexual tension, gay and lesbian people would have to be housed individually and separately — they couldn’t even be housed with each other. It’s simply not worth the time or expense for the infitesimal fraction of people it represents.

    Thankfully, that opinion and excuse appears to be going the way of the dinosaurs. Just like the excuses against racial integration 60 years ago.

  29. That would be news to the gay soldiers who’ve been discharged despite their best attempts to not tell.

    Were that the case, they could file a civil lawsuit, given that DADTDP IS a Federal law.

    And yet, they won their wars.

    Well, not really.

    If you read the details, what you see is that the net effect of the attacks was to accelerate the ethnic cleansing and genocide — because the Serbians were very well aware that the political generals of the Clinton era would not risk a single casualty and would not send in ground troops. Hence, they simply started moving their military material into Kosovar villages where they knew the Americans would not bomb, which also had the serendipitous effect of driving out the Kosovar civilian population.

    Since that apparently is small potatoes, so is dealing with sexual tension.

    Well, if it’s “small potatoes” and not relevant, why, again, should the military go to the time and expense of separating the sexes? Why not just move everyone into one barracks? Why should that only be done “when necessary”?

    Why the “social engineering” for ex-cons?

    Because the prefix “ex” in front of “con” indicates a FORMER convict, not a current one. This is a person who has served their time, petitioned for entry, and gone through a stringent review process that requires testimony from their community and people like their parole officer, and also requires at least a two-star general’s approval.

  30. Well, if it’s “small potatoes” and not relevant, why, again, should the military go to the time and expense of separating the sexes? Why not just move everyone into one barracks? Why should that only be done “when necessary”?

    Because it’s not just about sexual tension. For example, having separate public restrooms isn’t just about sexual tension. And again, why all the unnecessary red tape just to change an unjust policy? I’m not asking to fundamentally change the military. In the future should the military decide there is an inequity in having separate quarters for men and women and/or see that separate quarters is unnecessarily inefficient, then I’ll be there with you to address that issue.

    Because the prefix “ex” in front of “con” indicates a FORMER convict, not a current one.

    I got that. Again, I ask why the “social engineering” of ex-cons? There is nothing illegal about being homosexual either.

    This is a person who has served their time, petitioned for entry, and gone through a stringent review process that requires testimony from their community and people like their parole officer, and also requires at least a two-star general’s approval.

    Yikes!!! To go through all that when there are more than enough recruits, and ex-cons only are a very small percentage in the military? I’ll take the possibility of sexual tension any day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s