Suspect Soldiers Q & A
Category: News
Expert: Russell CarolloBee writer Russell Carollo answers questions about the series and about recruiting military personnel with questionable backgrounds.
• Submit a question
Most Recently Answered Questions
Questions 1 - 12 of 38 (Page 1 of 4)Q: RUSSELL,
Concerning your article:
Criminal pasts often foreshadow soldiers' misconduct
http://www.startribune.com/world/24794794.html?location_refer=Style%20+%20People
I entered the names of the 3 gentleman Randal Ruby, Delano Holmes, Shane Carl Gonyon into Criminal Searches, NO RECORDS FOUND. http://www.criminalsearches.com/
Have you ever researched if in addition to Felony Waivers, Felons are having their Felony Criminal records wiped clean as well as part of the deal?
Retirado
A: We obtained the records on Ruby from Tacoma police, El Paso County (Colo) law enforcement authorities, from police in Maine and from fedeal court.
The records on Holmes came from civlian authorities in Indiana, and, as you can see from the story, military authorities were aware of the records. We also obtained information on him from the militay.
Records on Gonyon came from federal and local authorities and courts in Wyoming, much of which was verfied in his military records. In letters written by Gonyon in his criminal files and in transcripts in his military records, he acknowledged much of what was in the records.
Not sure if felons can have their records expunged in exchange for military service; however, people charged but not yet convicted have had charges stayed in lieu of military service.
Q: Yon did not answer my original question. Did you ever serve on active duty in the US Armed Forces?
Also, do you think "allegations", which can be made by anyone for any reason, should affect a persons future? Only convictions, or guilty pleas, are indications of wrongdoing. The fact that law enforcement agencies consider such allegations in hiring is meaningless, since they are the source of many unsubstantionated allegations.
A: You mentioned "allegations ...made by anyone for any reason." That's not what we based our stories on. We used official police records, most involving arrests, and official court records of charges and/or convictions. Very few of the records we used were only allegations, and the people linked to those records had more than a single allegation against them. Many had combinations of arrests and additional allegations.
In many cases, those allegations -- which, again, made up only a small part of our research -- were verified as accurate during interviews with the subjects of those allegations.
The standards used to screen police applicants are based of decades of research and experience by law enforcement agencies.
Q: Dear Russell,
I read your article in the local paper here and have had it on my desk for a couple of days. I think you just tapped on the tip of the iceberg. I personally could tell you 30 years worth of stories to fill volumes about military recruitment and how the military doesn't follow the rules unless it is "to take care of their own" - which is in fact not the truth when it comes to women being assaulted and raped and left to deal with it on their own. If there is a complaint most receive an "apology" and if they complain more or report incidents they are quite often "discharged due to inability to adapt" - if you'd like to talk more I have dozens of people who would most likely talk with you about this however your story should open up to more then what is happening overseas - its right in our backyard and always has been.
A: Thank you.
Feel free to contact me.
Q: My husband and I are upset by your report and feel you built a pointless story pinpointing individuals. What was your point in writing this series of indvidual profiles? I would like to know some statistical information: facts regarding the actual number of 'suspectg soldiers' verses the total number of enlisted soldiers. And, how does that compare to the general population? What do you mean when you talk about 'a few bad apples'?
As a Blue Star Mother of a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I know firsthand the difficulties and dangers my son faces every day. I know the challenges that erode his morale. Did you forget that we are at war, whether we like it or not? Your article is a good example of not supporting our troops during wartime even if one does not agree with the war.
My son, a scout in the Army, is in harm's way every day, suffering temperatures of 120-130 degrees while carrying 20-30 pounds of equipment. Have you written anything to support the young men and women who are upstanding citizens doing their job with honor? How do you think they feel reading your denegrating article filled with allegations and questionable research? Your series was given too much space and time. It was sensationalistic and shaming. The profiles, including pictures and side bars, were very detailed and demeaning. This is the kind of reporting that causes me to question my subscription to the Sac Bee.
A: We quote statistics from the military's own studies, and we also examined all applicants from Midland, Texas, since 2003. Those numbers are all in the stories.
As far as comparing to the general population, a better comparison would be to law enforcement officers in the United States, since they, too, are allowed to carry firearms. Military members are not a reflection of the general populations, since they are selected by age, education and test scores and are screened for medical and criminal histories. The general popuation also is not authorized to use lethal force in a country where they are exempt fromt he civil and criminal laws of that country.
Q: RUSSELL,
Concerning your article:
Criminal pasts often foreshadow soldiers' misconduct
http://www.startribune.com/world/24794794.html?location_refer=Style%20+%20People
I entered the names of the 3 gentleman Randal Ruby, Delano Holmes, Shane Carl Gonyon into Criminal Searches, NO RECORDS FOUND. http://www.criminalsearches.com/
Have you ever researched if in addition to Felony Waivers, Felons are having their Felony Criminal records wiped clean as well as part of the deal?
Retirado
A: All the online criminal searches I've used have only a small percent of criminal records. I did find Gonyon federal charges using an online search, but for the other charges, I had to travel to Wyoming and search the court there. I don't recall any of the charges against Ruby or Holmes showing up in online searches. I had to call police for those records.
I don't think authorities can expunge existing records in exchange for military service, but they have delayed prosection on charges or not prosecuted charges that were pending.
Q: Good article, thank you. I have a few questions. You mentioned in the article that some soldiers were discharged due to a "personality disorder". What is that? Could a soldier or Marine reenlist in another branch of service if they were discharged for that? Would they need a waiver? What type of actions would qualify as an personality disorder in the military? Thank you again, great article, you all have done a public service by publishing the article.
A: I think you're referring to one case we mentioned.
I understand that to be a general term used for a variety of problems that could lead to the discharge of a soldier or Marine.
Q: "The first casualty of war is the truth". This quote has been attributed as being uttered by Aescyhlus, ancient Greek writer, Sun Tsu, ancient Chinese general, and Hiram Johnson, US Senator from California. Your article is informative and sheds another type of light on the tragedy of this Iraqi war. Many victims and many criminals throughout the whole ordeal of this illegal war. The outrage felt by your readers who believe our country and, therefore, our military and it's personnel, is understandable. Unfortunately, they and the truth are both among the first casualties of this war. Did you expect to get the reactions you have been getting from your readers, ie, outraged, hostile, and suspicious of your "motives"?
A: I'm not surprised by the reaction. I've written about the military for more than 20 years now, and every time I've written an article that paints the military in a negative light, the reaction has been the same. The military, too, rarely acknowledges fault and always defends its practices, even in cases in which Congress demanded change.
Q: Have you ever served in the US Army, or any other US armed service? Your Friday "Suspect Soldiers" would indicate that you have not. You stated serving as opposing forces in military training and evaluation exercises, "Pretending to be enemy soldiers" is a demotion and demeaning. It most decidely is not. Such forces (in my time we were called "aggressors") are mostly elite units, like the F-4 and F-5 pilots who flew against trainees in "top gun" exercises, because they must represent much larger forces than they actually are. Such "enemy" units provide critical training, help evaluate new weapons and tactics concepts (as at CDEC), and test security of vital defense facilities.
You also seem to think that accusations and arrests are proof of wrongdoing. Do you really believe that? What about "innocent until proven guilty"? Such accusations, arrests, and even charges are indication of no wrongdoing unless followed by a conviction, or guilty plea, in a court of law. It is unreasonable for a media outlet to even mention them unless charges are still pending.
A: I interviewed a number of people in the Ranger unit we wrote about, including the senior NCO, and I can assure you that for a Ranger to be assigned to a non-deployable, non-active unit is not the same thing as being a fighter pilot assigned to the type of units you're referring to.
Concerning the charges, in some cases the charges were not prosecuted, but many times not because there was not sufficient evidence. In addition, some of the people we wrote about had a string of allegations on their records. Police agencies frequently exclude applicants with such records.
Q: What particular facts make you beleive that Romano deserves to be investigated criminally for murder? Because he was involved in a car wreck and was a civil defendant? Oh, it must because he was kicked out of the Rangers for going to Mexico on leave (violating a standing order...) Certainly, he's the first service man to ever do that. It must be that he cooperated with authorities over an investigation involving a shotgun. That must make him suspect. Maybe it's because he allegedly smoked pot and may have even sold some or worse...had even stood trial for the offense before the Army prosecutor struck a deal and discharged Romano in lieu of a continued prosecutor. By the way..what sort of discharge is that? General under honorable conditions? Now in the instant case, I understood that the Army did in fact conduct an (16-6) investigation but you just don't like the results. Didn't both of the soldiers who fired and others claim that the suspect vehicle was bearing down on them at a high rate of speed while they were conducting a raid on a house in an area that was very violent? Isn't there ample evidence that in fact that's what occured and these solidiers performed as expected? Of course there is and this series, poorly researched and analyzed as it is wouldn't survive reasonable scrutiny or even an article 32 inquiry. Do better work before you inflict this sort of hollow agenda in the guise of real journalism on your readers.
A: Our story never suggested that Mr. Romero "deserves to be investigated criminally for murder." We only pointed out that there was no criminal investigation and that the officer who conducted the adminstrative inquiry 1)Had no experience as a homicide investigator with a law enforcement agency 2)Did not know Mr. Romero was under criminal investigation for selling cocaine at the time of the shooting and did not know other facts about Mr. Romero's history 3)Did not have access to critical evidence 4)Never saw the complete autopsy report.
Q: Good Morning Sir,
I cannot remember reading wether or not the people being enlisted had less than reputable backgrounds due to the fact that the military lowered their enlistment standards. When I enlisted in the Navy, you needed a 40% passing on the ASVAB test (9 composite tests). The last I heard, the passing score on the ASVAB was lowered to below 16% (7 composite tests lowered from 9) for the ARMY (this was lowered from a passing score of 31%). It is my belief that the ARMY lowered their scores because they were unable to meet their recruitment goals after the downsizing in 1995-1996.
Do you believe that the military should raise it's hiring stardards to the original levels?
I would enjoy talking to you about this because it might be the institutions fault regarding their lowering of standards and screening.
A: We submitted a list of names to the military, and in each case, we provided some background on the person. We asked the military whether the person got a waiver, but they military wouldn't tell us.
Some of the people whose histories we examined volunteered to us that they did get waivers, so in those cases we know.
In other cases, we don't know if they got waivers.
But only a portion of our research was directly related to the waiver populaiton. We found cases in which the applicant's background was overlooked, the applicant's background didn't require a waiver or person committed offenses while in the military (so no waiver was necessary.)
We considered the test scores your referring to, but I am not sure to what extend those requirements have changed.
As for your last question: The stories identified people who were recruited or retained as these standards were lowered. Lawmakers should decide whether change is necessary.
Q: I noticed two things in your answers that I find quite disturbing:
First: a person remarks that he is one of those "suspect soldiers" you listed and he is having trouble finding work because of it. I don't know whether this person is ligit, but your flipant repsonse was troubling. You asked him how he got in the military with his record then admitted that you don't even know which one he is. Do you consider that a proper response from an investigative reporter?
Second: you said that you had access to things that the general public did not such as juvinile records and confidential information. Would that confidential information possibly have been dismissed charges that didn't make it on the record or maybe even school records? How did you gain access to such private information? Do you have an insider giving you access to things that you should not have access to?
A: To your first question, the person asking the question was identified to me by first name and location only. I found no one with that fist name at that location in my database of cases we examined, save one person still in the military. So I was hoping he'd contact the newspaper and explain.
He noted that he was having trouble finding a job, so it seemed logical to try to understand how that same background didn't prevent him from getting a job in the military.
To your other quesrtion, we got these records using a variety of methods, and, yes, occasionally someone gave them to us.
In some cases, we did find records of investigations that did not result in charges, and some -- only some -- were charges that were dismissed for various reasons, in most cases not because the evidence was lacking.
But we also found cases were people were accused of a number of different offenses in different locations.
Police agenies doing background checks on applicants look very deeply into all allegations, even ones that do not result in charges, and any applicant who has more than one allegation -- regardless of the outcome -- faces even a tougher chance of landing a job.
Q: Your series focused on the recruits, not the recruiters who encourage them to lie about their past. For those of us who have served, and the public in general, this is a major omission. Why did your series fail to take a closer look at recruiting practices and tactics?
A: You make a very good point.
We did find cases in which recruiters were accused or even diciplined for misconduct. And, yes, some recruits told us that they were encouraged by recruiters to not fully disclose.
To answer your specific question, we had only so much space, and we published only a fraction of the total amount of information we had. We simply didn't find enough to warrant taking out something else we did publish, but we could publish something about recruiters in the near future.
But, again, your point is well taken.
