When a Republic Party incumbent makes a statement which on its face seems completely ridiculous it becomes easy to notch that up as just another member of the Republic Party doing what they can to obstruct any legislative process which might be beneficial to the nation. When a member of the Democratic Party makes a blanket statement which provides no facts and tables a very vital amendment it can be considered no longer a surprise. Democratic Party members are Corruptists too.
I'm convinced that the Democratic incumbents are sectioned off into two groups. Corruptists and Progressives. Corruptists tend to be part of the Republic Party system in which they squeeze every dollar out of everyone who actually works in this country, and abuses their power to the fullest extent ensuring the Republic Party agenda gets passed easily and without unnecessary stipulations.
The Democratic Senator from Hawaii, Daniel Inouye, at this junction in time is no different. I've been trying to track down a response from his office for the past week regarding a statement he made in debate while he asked for the tabling of a Senator Boxer amendment, I personally see as vital for the continued success of the US Military.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D) from California, recently proposed an amendment to the appropriations bill which would have restricted the spending of funds on training a specific class of recruits, we'll call superb-soldiers.
The Senator along with most military personnel I've spoken too either publically or privately agree that suberb-soldiers need to be stopped. There is a great long term damage that could be caused by allowing such training to take effect. Yet, when I learned that a Democratic Senator, who has received medals in WWII, was responsible for doing the Republic Party's dirty work regarding "Superb-Soldiers" I was completely astonished.
The amendment text that Senator Boxer wanted to add is as follows:
At the end of title VIII, add the following:
Sec. 8107. No amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to provide a waiver for enlistment in the Armed Forces of an individual convicted under Federal or State law of any felony offense, during the five-year period ending on the date of the proposed enlistment of such individual in the Armed Forces, as follows:
(1) Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
(2) Arson.
(3) Hate Crime.
(4) Sexual misconduct.
(5) Terrorist threatening.
(As printed in the Congressional Record for the Senate on Oct 2, 2007.)
As you can see, Senator Boxer, wanted to restrict training "Superb-Soldiers" who have been convicted of violent crimes or more directly crimes which are under the normal observer can be dubbed, "extreme". The United States military used to be the best and the brightest however, since Republic Party control under the helm of Pretzlenit George W. Bush, the military has been massively downgraded from the high standards it once had and politicized beyond immediate repair.
I never would have imagined in the 90's, either under George Bush Sr. or William Clinton that the US Military would have allowed an individual to join the service after committing an arson. I remember when I enlisted, I had to have a moral waiver for running away and stealing my dad's car when I was 16. I personally, didn't think they were going to allow me to enlist. The panel of Officers I spoke to even had dissent about whether to allow me to enlist or not. I brought zero violent offenses to the table, and zero felonies. The process took 3 months of my 11month DEP, Delayed Enlistment.
Yet, when I read the congressional record for the debate on Thomas I realized that a Democratic Party Senator was acting quite like a shill for the Republic Party Senators instead of standing up for what this country has meant for many years. He seems to want to trust Republic Party Senators instead of seeing hard evidence to contrary ideas. Especially when there is so much obstructionist Legislation going on at this point, there is no excuse for that and his constituents should let him know of this.
Mr. INOUYE: Mr. President, I find it, firstly, very difficult to speak in opposition to this amendment. But I do so after consulting with the senior members, the chairman and the vice chairman, of the Armed Services Committee, the Senator from Michigan, and the Senator from Arizona.
I have been assured that after due consideration and investigation, they have been convinced that the process of waivers does work. In fact, the investigation has suggested that those who have served after receiving such waivers have done much better in serving our Nation than those who came without any crime.
We should keep in mind that when we speak of certain crimes, there is no standard rule throughout the United States. In different States, certain activities are considered criminal, in other States it is not even mentioned.
We should keep in mind that when we speak of certain crimes, there is no standard rule throughout the United States. In different States, certain activities are considered criminal, in other States it is not even mentioned.
I challenge someone to find me a state where any crime listed with the exception of maybe a "hate crime" is legal.
I was an assistant prosecutor a long time ago. I find that in certain States certain activities are considered conservatively and other areas very liberally. For example, in recent days, we have been hearing much about the demonstration in Louisiana on the Jenna 6. Would that be a crime in other States? In other communities? I do not think we have the answer because we know that, depending on jurisdictions, certain activities may be criminal and in others of no concern.
I'm glad to know that racial threatening or intimidation isn't illegal everywhere. Perhaps that's another problem Senator.
Whatever it is, on behalf of the Defense Appropriations Committee, I am calling on the leadership of the Armed Services Committee to conduct a thorough further investigation on this matter. If it does work, and if it is necessary to provide waivers to get certain skills into our military, then we should be told why.
But as of this moment, I cannot ignore the advice that I have received from my colleagues who are leaders of the authorizing committee. So, accordingly, at the appropriate time, I will make a motion to table this amendment.
So the Senator from Hawaii thinks that after consulting Senator McCain and Senator Levins the new recruits which have violent crimes in their background, or more specifically the crimes listed above, they make "better" soldiers, "Superb-Soldiers" if you will.
That's an interesting statement to be made though by Senator Inouye and Senator McCain. Both have served their country in valorous ways. I agree with the Senator from Hawaii, if the investigation has proved that these criminal waivers make better soldiers, we should see this evidence. However, I would like to say to Senator Inouye, don't just listen to what the Republic Party tells you, demand to see the evidence proving their statements.
I've contacted the staff of Senator Inouye, Senator Levins, Senator McCain and Senator Boxer. Senator Boxer's staff said there was nothing they could help me with didn't actually seem that interested in assisting the research into the amendment she wrote which was tabled. I consider this to be a must-have byline added to all funding given to the Pretzlenit. If he can't have his Iraq Occupation without calling upon "Superb-Soldiers" who have already proven their disdain for human life, why would we allow them to take the training dollars from a soldier who holds himself to a much higher moral standard.
Why would Senator Levins and Senator McCain make such a bold statement if they did to Inouye? My only guess is they don't want oversight, and don't expect us to actually pay attention to the words they use. I am forced to guess also because I have been hounding their offices for clarification, every party involved, and no one seems to want to say, 'yes felons make better soldiers and this <insert report name> proves why". Instead they say, "Ask Senator Inouye..." How do you like that Senator Inouye, looks like you got suckered.
When I spoke to a military journalist on this issue, they said:
That was surprising especially considering Senator Inouye's service record. Most people who served in the military would not really enjoy specific violent criminals. When you allow that specific type of behavior from recruits you allow the level of commitment and honor to be degraded.
[ on a side note, I wish I could quote these journalists I know by name to put their opines into perspective. All have requested so far not to be mentioned by name. But yes, they are beltway-journalists inside Washington DC that I know on a professional/personal basis. Just don't tell them I switched teams, and am looking into blogs more than stories ;) they might not like that. ]
I implore everyone to call the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levins, Senator Inouye, and Senator McCain asking for clarification and public debate regarding this issue. After all, According to Senator Inouye, in some states these crimes listed might not be crimes.
Before I do, if I may be very personal about this, I have been a victim of hate and hate crimes, so I do know something about hate crimes. If you can imagine my returning from World War II in my full regalia, uniform with four rows of ribbons, with a hook in my right hand, and going to a barber shop, and they looked at me and said: Are you a Jap?
When I told them, no, I am an American: But your parents, are they Japs?
And I have to say: Yes, they are Japanese.
Well, we do not cut Jap hair.
Well, in some jurisdictions, that was appropriate and proper. Today we do have jurisdictions where we do have segregation, maybe not legally but understandably we do.
So as I have indicated, at the appropriate time, I will make a motion to table the Boxer amendment. It is not a happy deed. But I believe at this moment, under the circumstances, I am compelled to do so.
I yield the floor.
In closing, Senator Inouye, being denied a hair-cut based upon your race is far from a hate crime. If you want to know more about hate crimes, perhaps you should use the google a little more.