The Army made its recruiting goal last year despite an increasingly unpopular war by turning to people convicted of serious crimes.
So the standing army can deploy felons, but if the militia does, it runs afoul of "prohibited persons" statutes?
I wonder what the liklihood is that these recipients of "moral waivers" will think of the Constitutional implications of orders.
6 comments:
Well, maybe Pokey-Poke can join the Army now ;-) .
Wow,how strange is that!I guess the Gov't can lower standards and ignore laws at whim.....
Don't feel to bad, David. While a Drill Sgt. in the early 70's, I trained two companies of convicts from Ft. Leavenworth, all felons, and returned them to duty on completion. About 500 men. When they finished their sentences in the slammer, as long as they had not committed a capital offence, they were given the option of being discharged, less than honorable, or resuming duty and making up "bad time". They also could not have been in jail more than 7 years, and had to be under the age of 35. They had to be screened for psycho's, medical, and some other things. If they completed their original service obligation, the record was wiped clean, honorable discharge given, and these men had an opportunity to start life over, fresh, with no marks on their life. If someone had been vicitimized by them, restitution was paid, and one man I knew of paid about 35,000 dollars, equal to about 100 large today. One even got promoted past me later. It was about the easiest training I ever had to do, those guys behaved like boy scouts in church. I will never forget the look on their faces when they graduated. I am always humbled by the thought of it.
David,
Remember Wayne Fincher's trial testimony, where he was hammered by the prosecutor for allowing a "felon" to join the militia? (Which is what I think you are referring to)
However, the CI never actually said that he was a convicted felon, but that he had a problem with a hot check or two and was on probation for that. Wayne also asked him directly whether he was prohibited from owning a firearm. The CI's reply was an express "No".
In short, there is one set of laws for the government, and another for us lowly peons and commoners.
I note from Sean's comment that the government believes it can rehabilitate persons (not to denigrate Sean's service and work as it wasn't his program -- he just fulfilled his duty, and well at that), but no one else has that power. This is despite the fact that the government has failed in the vast majority of its attempts to rehabilitate individuals. I think the reason the persons Sean trained did well was more due to Sean's efforts than any government program.
In any case, the fact remains that in the eyes of the government flunkies, we the people are dunces that need to be controlled for our own good.
The reality is that every last one of us, in or out of government, needs a controlling influence in our lives.
It is just a question of what that influence is going to be.
Exactly, Paul.
And I've been pretty consistent about how a felon who has paid the price should have full recognition of rights. i think I've also been consistent with "The Only Ones."
I even go further--some felons should not have to pay a price, because what they have been caught "violating" would be null and void in a Constitution-honoring society.
Because there may be some among us who are just felons who have never been caught.
A free man will be free without a vote or dispenstation from others. He may have a shortened life, but all of it will have been his and not lived for the profit of others.
Post a Comment