Defense Secretary Austin expected to make Covid-19 vaccine mandatory for active duty troops

[Resnic]

I approve. Next on to the reservists.

Defense Secretary Austin expected to make Covid-19 vaccine mandatory for active duty troops

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is expected to seek authorization to make Covid-19 vaccines mandatory for all active duty troops as soon as this week, following President Joe Biden's directive that the military examine how and when it could make that happen.

www.cnn.com

I disapprove because it is illegal to force military to take experimental vaccines and drugs. Actually illegal. And covid vaccines are experimental.

Yes when I was in the army I lined up for my shots like everyone else for the verified, non experimental vaccines and I was ok with that. This I would not be.

Besides, unless you're in there, it's none of your business. Get the shot if you, don't if you don't, keep your opinions to yourself and don't worry about what strangers do. Their lives are not yours and you have no say on their lives.

 

[RodISHI]

Nurses we are acquainted with confirmed this creative accounting for covid vaccinated case counts.

Of Course, CDC Is Changing The Rules —The Falsity Of It All

CDC Caught Cooking the Books on COVID Vaccines Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola  Fact Checked STORY AT-A-GLANCE  COVID-19 has been a pandemic of false positive tests; the thing that kept the fraud …

peckford42.wordpress.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The people who called Trump a dictator for four years.

Nonsense.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

What’s also nonsense is that this is an ‘issue’ at all, that far too many in the military have bought into the right’s lies about vaccines that are perfectly safe and effective.

 

[Couchpotato]

A lot of people damaged by it too. It took them years to get help for all that too.

My question is why is the very basic infrastructure being compromised by these deadly vaccines being mandated?

No wonder Obababble got rid of as many chaplains as possible. Immunization Exemption Guidance

Vaccine Exemptions in the Military - The Law Office of Matthew Barry

Vaccine exemptions in the military can be given to Servicemembers. Attorney Barry, an experienced military lawyer, explains the exemptions here.

mattbarrylaw.com

Look I lived it. Got 7 shots of that crap. Good luck getting that exemption

 

[RodISHI]

Look I lived it. Got 7 shots of that crap. Good luck getting that exemption

I don't have to worry about it. I do care about our troops and to use them for experimental purposes is appalling.

 

[Crepitus]

And covid vaccines are experimental.

No, they aren't. They've been given to hundreds of millions of people at this point. They'll have full FDA approval within a couple of months at the mist.

 

[Dana7360]

The people who called Trump a dictator for four years.

This is the military. They go through a battery of immunizations when they join and throughout their career in the military. All are mandatory.

Did you call the bush boy a dictator when he required all our military to get all those extra immunizations for the Iraq war? Everyone who was sent there had to get a battery of immunizations before they went.

Immunizations are required of all those in the military. Why don't you have a problem with that?

I guess you don't know that when a person signs the military contract they forfeit some of their constitutional rights.

A person in the military can't protest or speak out against the president while in uniform. Everyone else can.

Finally, the Supreme Court ruled in 1905 that the government can mandate vaccinations. That time it was the mandate for the small pox vaccination.

You're being overly dramatic and blowing this way out of proportion.

 

[Couchpotato]

No, they aren't. They've been given to hundreds of millions of people at this point. They'll have full FDA approval within a couple of months at the mist.

Giving them to a bunch of subjects doesn't make them not experimental. You know that right? And if you don't think the full FDA approval is at least a little political you aren't paying attention. If everyone were lining up to get their shot this Admin wouldnt be pushing the FDA to approve it so fast and the FDA wouldnt on it's own. Don't you wonder why the FDA banned the off label usage of Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin? Drugs that have been around for the better part of a century, and are proven to be safe for use by just about anyone and that showed promise against COVID? (and for the record Hydro doesnt do anything against COVID per se it just opens up the zinc and vit d receptors in cells which is what helps Im not sure what properties of Ivermectin make it effective against COVID). Hydroxychloroquine is an over the counter drug in most countries. The only reason it isn't here is we don't have a big problem with malaria so there's no sense in going through that process. It's because you cant get an EUA if there are other approved treatments.

The idea that these vaccines arent 100% experimental is ridiculous on it's face. Where are the long term effects studies? Where is the mid term effects data? What there is none? How is that possible for a drug that's not experimental?

 

[Couchpotato]

This is the military. They go through a battery of immunizations when they join and throughout their career in the military. All are mandatory.

Did you call the bush boy a dictator when he required all our military to get all those extra immunizations for the Iraq war? Everyone who was sent there had to get a battery of immunizations before they went.

Immunizations are required of all those in the military. Why don't you have a problem with that?

I guess you don't know that when a person signs the military contract they forfeit some of their constitutional rights.

A person in the military can't protest or speak out against the president while in uniform. Everyone else can.

Finally, the Supreme Court ruled in 1905 that the government can mandate vaccinations. That time it was the mandate for the small pox vaccination.

You're being overly dramatic and blowing this way out of proportion.

You do not forfeit any of your Constitutional rights by enlisting or accepting a commission in the military. You're talking out your ass.

 

[Dana7360]

You do not forfeit any of your Constitutional rights by enlisting or accepting a commission in the military. You're talking out your ass.

The fact that you typed and posted this tells me you were never in the military.

I was.

I was in the Air National Guard for my state.

I know what the UCMJ is and I know what article 88 says.

You might want to take a few minutes to look that up.

Or you could remain ignorant and keep making a fool of yourself.

 

[sear]

"I disapprove because it is illegal to force military to take experimental vaccines and drugs. Actually illegal. And covid vaccines are experimental." R #41

This logic may seem sound.
It's the premise that is false. And as anyone that understands the logic of the syllogism can attest, a false premise can lead to false conclusion.

There are numerous COVID-19 treatments, and a few approved by the FDA.
Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson vax are already approved for the age groups they're administered to in the U.S.
Recent reports indicate the Pfizer vaccine may soon be approved for children under 12.

U.S. military troops are routinely given hypodermic injections, particularly pending overseas deployment. Adding one more vaccine to the list hardly seems precedent setting.

In addition, U.S. military conscription was spit-canned by the Nixon administration. So all those on current U.S. military active service duty are volunteers. And these noble volunteers agree to the terms of their employer. Would it not be a violation of their contract to refuse to accept a vaccination that can maintain their fitness to preserve our sovereignty?

There's no more extravagant waste than a 2nd rate military. Gen. Horner

 

[daveman]

No, they aren't. They've been given to hundreds of millions of people at this point. They'll have full FDA approval within a couple of months at the mist.

What are the long-term effects?

You don't know. No one knows.

 

[Couchpotato]

The fact that you typed and posted this tells me you were never in the military.

I was.

I was in the Air National Guard for my state.

I know what the UCMJ is and I know what article 88 says.

You might want to take a few minutes to look that up.

Or you could remain ignorant and keep making a fool of yourself.

Haha. Yeah just 23 years in the Marine Corps. And my wife only served 20. So you probably know better than we do I’m sure.

https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/const-rights-mil-pers.pdf

Military Legal Rights | Your Military Rights | JAG Defense

Your military legal rights are important to us. Understand what you, as a military member, have the right to do. Call 877-222-4199 to learn more.

jagdefense.com

some light reading for you there Zoomie.

 

[Dana7360]

Haha. Yeah just 23 years in the Marine Corps. And my wife only served 20. So you probably know better than we do I’m sure.

https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/const-rights-mil-pers.pdf

Military Legal Rights | Your Military Rights | JAG Defense

Your military legal rights are important to us. Understand what you, as a military member, have the right to do. Call 877-222-4199 to learn more.

jagdefense.com

some light reading for you there Zoomie.

Then for a person who has been in the military for as long as you say you have been in the military should know about Article 88 of the UCMJ.

If you were in the military you would know about it and you wouldn't be arguing with me about it.

I don't waste my time arguing with people who resort to personal attacks and insults. When a person does that they know they've lost the debate.

If you want to keep raving go for it. I won't read or reply to it.

 

[Couchpotato]

Then for a person who has been in the military for as long as you say you have been in the military should know about Article 88 of the UCMJ.

If you were in the military you would know about it and you wouldn't be arguing with me about it.

I don't waste my time arguing with people who resort to personal attacks and insults. When a person does that they know they've lost the debate.

If you want to keep raving go for it. I won't read or reply to it.

When did I insult you?
Im well acquainted with the UCMJ. You’re just an idiot sea lawyer who thinks he knows what hes reading. You dont.

United States v. Stuckey, 10 M.J. 347 (1981), the Court of Military Appeals (now called the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Services) held that "the Bill of Rights applies with full force to men and women in the military service. …"

https://cite.case.law/mj/10/347/

Because both the First Amendment and the authority to regulate the military are found in the Constitution, a balance must be struck between First Amendment freedoms and the needs of the military. Your example, Article 88 of the UCMJ makes it a crime for a commissioned officer to use contemptuous words against the president, vice president, Congress, and other government officials. Although this probably would be a violation of First Amendment outside the military context, constitutional challenges to Article 88 have consistently failed. In United States v. Howe, 37 C.M.R. 555 (A.B.R. 1966), reconsideration denied, 37 C.M.R. 429 (C.M.A. 1967), a second lieutenant was convicted of violating Article 88 when he participated in an antiwar demonstration in which he carried a sign derogating President LYNDON B. JOHNSON. The court allowed his conviction to stand, even though he was off duty and wearing civilian clothes at the time of the demonstration. Similar limitations on the speech of enlisted personnel have been upheld, as well.

So me and my wife’s combined 43 years disagree with you. Oh and SCOTUS. But I’m sure you’re right and we are all wrong.

 

[sear]

"United States v. Stuckey, 10 M.J. 347 (1981), the Court of Military Appeals (now called the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Services) held that "the Bill of Rights applies with full force to men and women in the military service. …" Cp #55

Good example.

But that doesn't mean the military hasn't / can't march the commander into a barrack at 2:AM, call the troops to attention, and search their wall lockers, and anything else in the room. They're called "health & welfare" inspections.
If it were not government property, wouldn't they need a search warrant? And wouldn't they be denied if they asked?

B. O. R. ARTICLE #4: Ratified December 15, 1791
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A "health & welfare" US military barrack inspection is generally a fishing expedition. By 4th amendment standards, they'd never get a warrant without probable cause. Commanders don't need that.