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...
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.)
Best of luck with your upcoming retirement goals. And thank you for your service, for your honorable efforts to protect our other servicemen and women even in the face of threats to your career.
It's been an increasingly bizarre world we've been living in for many years now, bearing up against assault after assault on our freedom, our finances and even our lives. I periodically hear of justice being served and righteous individuals being compensated for their struggles. I hope you're one of those. God bless.