So we listened to Riley's interview linked in another thread. Afterward, we went for a walk and the conversation naturally lent itself to what we had just heard. My husband is a God fearing patriot who served two tours in Iraq. He is military through and through.
My position: If the military didn't remove bodily autonomy by compelling members of the armed forces to put things into their bodies that they didn't want, people like Riley would still be in the military.
His position: Members of the armed services lose the right to bodily autonomy when they join. If one is ordered to take a given series of vaccines or meds, then one should have faith in the higher-ups who've deemed it necessary and follow those orders. If members of the military are allowed to pick and choose what they put in their bodies, then the chain of command breaks down and weakens the military as a whole. He went on to say that he was given all kinds of things when he served and he never questioned it. "It's the military way."
My counter position: But the c-19 vaccine was experimental and was only authorized for emergency use, which is why the FDA rushed the approval in order to give a legal leg to stand on with regard to the mandate. I contend that if members of the military have the right to refuse to put something in their bodies, then at least they are protected from anyone at the top who is involved in nefarious actions.
His contention: the military can't categorize orders (medical, combat etc) and function properly. An order is an order. Those who can't or won't follow them have the opportunity to leave the military.
We rarely talk about this kind of thing and today I was reminded of why...I can't help but wonder based on the Riley interview and papers if the CCP wasn't fully aware of this military mindset and this was part of their plan to weaken our military all along...with the help of JB of course...
Hope I don't get too long winded here, and I apologize in advance if I get too far into the weeds in my input.
I do have personal experience with this, for what it's worth.
I started my career as enlisted in 1996. Went in to become an NCO (E7) and eventually went Warrant. I am still serving as a Warrant Officer.
I received all the previous stuff including several anthrax shots, smallpox etc in 2003 before deploying to Iraq.
As a Soldier, I NEVER thought in terms of "bodily autonomy" it was always about trusting my leadership, my fellow Soldiers and the Constitution and the great citizens of this country. My main focus was always about the mission and viewed my own personal safety as always secondary to the mission.
As an NCO, I was constantly pouring through regs and applicable laws in dealing with pretty much every issue that arose especially when it was related to one of my Soldiers. I always approached this task looking to best take care of my troop. Sometimes that wasn't possible, but my troops were my life.
In the military, there are virtually no possible issues that aren't covered by some, if not layers of regulations or laws already in existence.
This COVID mandate was NO different. It wasn't a new situation. In fact, immediately after hearing of a possibility of a mandate I began digging for applicable regs. I found them. I don't have them handy, but can provide the references if anyone wants it.
The situation with this mandate boiled down to the EUA status of the ACTUAL vaccines being administered vs. the theoretical "approved" Comirnaty that didn't exist. US Code requires the President and SECDEF to do certain things if they wish to require experimental medical treatment for Soldiers. THEY CAN require experimental vaccines, but need to follow the law. In this case, they did not do those things so their mandate was int legal (in my opinion).
I objected to the mandate on three grounds in my objection memo. First on religious, then medical and finally on the legal argument mentioned above. My religious and medical objections were both denied. I appealed the medical and was again denied. The legal argument I raised was never considered.
I received a GOMOR with threat of involuntary separation, submitted a rebuttal and was given some relief as my GOMOR was locally filed instead of my permanent personnel record.
So, I pretty much fought this fight as far as it could go. The military is very procedural and not a lot is open to interpretation by individuals.
I still believe that the mandate was not handled in a legal manner, because tptb we're trying to substitute the EUA version for the nonexistent "approved" version. It (in my opinion) was a grand slight of hand and at it's core, unlawful. I believe that is what Rep. Massey was talking about when he called it a "crime in progress"
Back to the bodily autonomy thing, I would argue that there is no such thing in the military. As I said, there are regs upon regs that govern everything but the bottom line for me was that while the military CAN require experimental vaccines etc. They must follow the law when implementing it which they did not (again, my opinion).
So, not sure who is correct in your argument, but hopefully that helps.
Excellent response. Thank you. Like you, I believe the mandate was not handled in a legal manner. I have so much respect for my husband's role in serving our country. My frustration comes when I feel like have verified information about a given topic (like this one) and he can't wrap his head around it so we argue. The cognitive dissonance is real...for all of us. When I found Great Awakening and learned more about Q, naturally I shared with him. I sought his take on things from a military perspective...especially as it relates to Devolution and CoG. He would very patiently explain to me why these things were hard for him to believe (and, according to him, likely not a thing.) And only recently did he stop giving me the eye roll when I mentioned anything related to Q. And this only stopped when he found out his close friend, now retired from the FBI, has a dog named Q.
You're right, though. It's a silly argument and I shouldn't have allowed it to lose my cool.
I hope you get reinstated if that's what you want or hope you have the full benefits you deserve. My son, Captain in Army, did concede and take the J&J as its 1 and done and not mRNA. I understand why he conceded and am relieved the J&J did not harm him. I'm a nurse and I agree, there was NOTHING right about mandating an EAU vax for a condition with 99% survival rate.
I'm curious as to what those "certain things" are that would allow them to require experimental medical "treatment" for soldiers. Can you elaborate?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/1107?_gl=11dpqa8p_ga*UXV2NzR4aEl4Q0xIbkFWcVRLSHZoNzNnc3Fkd2UyTllLbVYwM0U5dkwwQ3JfYzRjSjMzcGFGR2FCSVcyd0hfLQ..
That is a link to the relevant section. I don't want to spam the board by copy/pasting the whole thing. But basically, the president must authorize it and SECDEF must follow notification requirements listed.
Thank you for that link to the code (as I would not have a clue as to where to start looking for it).
(d). CONTENT OF NOTICE. especially (3) relating to disclosure of potential side-effects and (f). LIMITATION AND WAIVER. (1) the required written authorization by the President sound like the two primary deficiencies if I understood your original comment. They seem like pretty important requirements for those jabs to be administered.
Edit: That second deficiency also ties into info from the anon u/Jesseroonie legal article link referencing UDHR Code 5-7.
Absolutely. The craziest thing for me was that it seemed like everyone all the way up my chain suddenly stopped caring about regs or laws. I never experienced that phenomenon in my 26 years.
I was practically shouting from the rooftops the reg and my legal argument but nobody wanted any part of it. EVERYONE I knew in the Army just complied, no questions asked.
It was definitely a long, stressful last couple years on alone on my island. As of now, it looks like I will be allowed to retire (coincidentally another obscure reg I had to bring to the JAG's attention.)