Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's not the question I asked, you're attempting a diversion.
You implied that an order to get vaccinated would be an unlawful order.
Explain to me how a court-martial would find that an unlawful order.
In 1998 US Congress forbade DoD to require troops to take non approved drugs without their consent. Only the POTUS can waive that consent.
And let's say Biden waives that consent and some troops still refuse to take the vaccine, they still aren't going to get court martialed for an administrative task.
I didn't get a choice with the swine flu vaccine, nor with the anthrax vaccine.
When it comes to "choice" the message of the military is that you lost your last free choice when you signed up. Everything after that is a matter of the choices they allow you.
Hell, if we had "choice" we'd vote not to deploy.
Anthrax and swine flu have existed long before we have. They were not unknown diseases.
In 1998 US Congress forbade DoD to require troops to take non approved drugs without their consent. Only the POTUS can waive that consent.
The POTUS can also--and subsequently did--order the FDA to develop protocols to allow the DoD to administer "Investigative New Drugs" to service members without their consent.
Quote:
And let's say Biden waives that consent and some troops still refuse to take the vaccine, they still aren't going to get court martialed for an administrative task.
That would not be a matter of the order having been "unlawful." If so, they would have to prosecute the officer who gave the order.
Yes, you're right that they would be unlikely to court-martial a soldier over failure to perform an administrative task because court-martials are too expensive when they can more quickly and easily just administratively discharge him.
But that has nothing to do with it being an "unlawful" order, as you insinuated.
Maybe so but currently is about 30% unvaccinated. Shouldnt a worst case scenario be planned for? I would like to see your stats that show it will only be 1% that refuse.
If they do not get vaccinated, then you're going to have a lot of people in the barracks getting sick at the same time. Not exactly a good thing for operations...
If they do not get vaccinated, then you're going to have a lot of people in the barracks getting sick at the same time. Not exactly a good thing for operations...
Not at all. Most people do not have any symptoms, do not even know they have it, those that have symptoms, mild at the most, especially the cohort that makes up most of the military.
In 1998 US Congress forbade DoD to require troops to take non approved drugs without their consent. Only the POTUS can waive that consent.
And let's say Biden waives that consent and some troops still refuse to take the vaccine, they still aren't going to get court martialed for an administrative task.
Biden has waived the consent the only option is they can separate from the military if someone is looking forward to a retirement not really an option. Have to admit Anthrax vaccine was way worse then covid vaccine. FDA is going to give full approve the Pfizer vaccine in the next few weeks anyway .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
