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...
Neither of you are wrong.
Question is, should a citizen give up their rights when enlisting? Is there a way to structure the military that accommodates individual liberty?
That is incorrect. The husband is wrong, and acting like an NPC.
There is a concept called "lawful" and "unlawful" orders in UCMJ. It requires each member of the military to evaluate whether orders are lawful - or not. The purpose of this is to try and prevent the situation in WW2 where Nazi soldiers participated in atrocities, and their defense was that they were just following orders. The husband is an NPC that does not want to think for himself, and would have been one of those people "just following orders".
For the vast majority of orders, this sort of evaluation does not apply... they are straightforward, with no potential for interpretation. However, mandating that people take an experimental injection is called medical coercion, is against the Nuremberg code, and is considered to be a crime against humanity. This also came from WW2 and the Nazi medical experiments on prisoners, etc.
The injection mandate falls firmly into the category of an unlawful order. If a situation like this had come up when I was in the service, I would have refused in a heartbeat.
You are correct.
If they are not teaching our soldiers then they are complicit. We the people must hold them accountable!
When I entered the army in the early '6os we lined up during induction and got about a dozen shots all at once. They didn't tell us what was in them as far as I remember.
But those were different times and the shots weren't bioweapons intended to kill us slowly. No one refused, worried or got sick.
Now the "military" under the illegitimate Sec, Def. Austin is a just another corrupt government agency - about half of it.
The other half of it is something we're likely to have to rely on in the near future.
Unconstitutional orders from traitorous officers need to be refused.
Well said.
This ^^^
Perfect response.
Well said.
If you ask me fraud nullifies everything. No informed decisions and no lawful order can be made or given when all known information is predicated on deception. There was never any moral or legal ground for the C19 vaxx to stand on. Therefore all informed consent and orders are mute.
I'm pretty sure the military was lying about having the non-EUA version of the clot shot too.
Yup!
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/whistleblowers-coast-guard-military-pfizer-comirnaty-vaccine-fda/
Yes -- and it's worse than that.
What happens if your military -- your government -- has been taken over by the enemy?
Then the orders they give you should not be followed.
Mutiny is the only way. Insubordination.
Well arguably many historic military orders were also based on fraud. I.e. knowingly manufactured threats (Gulf of Tonkin, WMDs, etc.). But the orders themselves within the chain of command could not legally be proven as unlawful.
The Husband IS Wrong, as Soldiers, we have the Right to Refuse any Illegal Orders, this Includes putting a Possible Poison into our Bodies....
Orders being Orders is a pile of Bullshit, there are plenty of times I could have ordered my men to do something overly dangerous, and if they had simply obeyed, like Sheep, they might be dead, or worse....
Nope, ""Orders are Orders"" is bullshit that Officers, like Butterbars, walk around saying....
There are LAWFUL ORDERS, and there are UNLAWFUL ORDERS, and Soldiers need to see the Differences, otherwise we will become like the Chinese, simply doing stupid shit because it's an Order.....
As I was told Your A$$ belongs to Uncle Sam, The card issued to you said property of the US Goverment and that did not mean THE CARD
That's just silly. Every 10-year-old military brat has an ID card that says the same thing.
Being told something does not make it entirely true.
I never believed the gunny anyway but nowadays I might believe that since I know they had my birth certificate and the US is a corporation
Yes. That's what inalienable means.
The military ID card belongs to the government. 10 year old military dependents do not.
Perhaps you are using a non-standard use of the word "inalienable".