Dishonorable discharges for refusing vaccine?

Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote this? Originally Posted by pfunkdenver

No, I caught your avatar out of the corner of my eye.

A service member is required to follow LAWFUL orders, following an UNLAWFUL order is a dereliction of duty and the oath to uphold and defend the constitution. There is 100% precedent, established in 2004, that a mandate such as this is against federal law. There’s good reason for this. Civilian controllers, and even military brass themselves, of the military have a long, horrendous track record of using soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines as guinea pigs for the fucked up experiments.

The FDA has not, and could not have, given the short time it’s been available, been able to study long term effects of the Covid vaccine, making it a nearly identical case to the anthrax clusterfuck. Even years later, when the studies were completed, refusal of the vaccine could end in separation, but as General UHC or Medical. This threatening of DD is nothing more than the biden administration being vindictive to an organization who considers him detestable. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Would you please post, for our record, the previous precedent? A video? Link? PDF file of the case?

I would argue that this pandemic is unprecedented. But if you would show us where the world, or the U S military, has gone through this before, then we would know. Thanks.

" . . . and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me . . . "

There is no "except when they hurt my feelings" or "'cause my mommy says it's ok!"

The End Originally Posted by dumars

Lawful orders numbnuts.

When I was levied for Vietnam, they shot me full of every vaccine known to man.

I don’t remember it being voluntary.

When I was levied for Vietnam, they shot me full of every vaccine known to man.

I don’t remember it being voluntary. Originally Posted by Jackie S

G. I.

We spent three days in boot camp going over the UCMJ and the concept of lawful orders. This was less than 10 years after My Lai. They wanted to make sure something like that didn't happen again.

It is a misnomer to say that GI stands for government issue. Or that government issue means that you are owned by the military. They covered that pretty well as well. You have a responsibility to carry out lawful orders but not unlawful orders. This is not Germany or the Soviet Union. You have the right to refuse an unlawful order but heaven help you if you're wrong.
Merriam Webster has a few definitions for GI and none of them say you are owned by the government. The closest thing is government issued or issued by a supply depot. People are not issued, boots are issued, bayonets are issued, and tanks are issued.

I’ve already done that. Now run along. Try another forum, just like Lucas, you proven yourself as a liar. Originally Posted by bambino

Gonna help you out a little here. I know you’re slow so I’ll make it simple.

Just
Because
You
Don’t
Know
What
You’re
Talking
About
Doesn’t
Make
Me
A
Liar

It
Simply
Means
You
Don’t
Know
What
You’re
Talking
About

Which
Is
All
The
Time

Gonna help you out a little here. I know you’re slow so I’ll make it simple.

Just
Because
You
Don’t
Know
What
You’re
Talking
About
Doesn’t
Make
Me
A
Liar

It
Simply
Means
You
Don’t
Know
What
You’re
Talking
About

Which
Is
All
The
Time Originally Posted by 1blackman1

What a waste of time.

DPST

Lies!


waste of bandwidth - 1b1
DPST foolish substitutes for rational debate is
boundless
endless
continuing,

and ridiculous!

What a waste of time. Originally Posted by bambino

Yes. You are.

So sad - DPST minions who think first grade rhetoric is intellectual debate.



'I know what I am - but what are You"!!


So , So SAD!


1b1 - since Conservatives are a waste of DPST minions' time - why torment yourself with exposure to Truth, reality, and Facts???
Why not just enjoy your marxist propaganda brainwashing by Xinn, MSNBC, NYCrimes, WaPO - and other marxist revolutionary Lying outlets so beloved of teh DPST party - and used to corrupt minds to teh greatest Evil of mankind - Marxist totalitarianism


for example - a pic to enjoy and be deluded by - of your beloved Che; - filthy mass murderer and totalitarian criminal of Cuba and south America!

We spent three days in boot camp going over the UCMJ and the concept of lawful orders. This was less than 10 years after My Lai. They wanted to make sure something like that didn't happen again.

It is a misnomer to say that GI stands for government issue. Or that government issue means that you are owned by the military. They covered that pretty well as well. You have a responsibility to carry out lawful orders but not unlawful orders. This is not Germany or the Soviet Union. You have the right to refuse an unlawful order but heaven help you if you're wrong.
Merriam Webster has a few definitions for GI and none of them say you are owned by the government. The closest thing is government issued or issued by a supply depot. People are not issued, boots are issued, bayonets are issued, and tanks are issued. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Just adding context. Take special note of Oliver North and obeying and unlawful order. The light Colonel should have known better.

North was not a legal expert. North understands the officers concept of GIVING orders and not the idea of receiving orders that we as enlisted men had to square with what we have been taught. I'm sure that nearly any order an officer gives he (or she) feels is necessary and lawful. The person carrying out that order has to sometimes make an evaluation; is this order correct, is it right, it is necessary, is it lawful?
A small example; we were sailing in the Arctic Circle back in 1981 with the NATO fleet. We were operating parallel courses for a photo op. Each ship was about 50 yards away from each of the other ships (six ships total) which is pretty close. The officer of the deck (a lieutenant) gave the order to make a 30 degree port turn. Pretty serious turn but would look pretty cool as all the ships turned together. Problem was...the photo op called for a starboard turn. Think of the result if that happened. Collusion of two ships in the Arctic Circle where the water temp is below freezing. A second class boatswain mate caught this. That's an E5. He loudly countermanded the lieutenant's order and gave the correct order. The third class petty officer on the wheel listened to the second class and made a starboard turn avoiding a catastrophe. The captain overhead this as his at sea cabin is right behind the bridge. He came onto the bridge and assessed the situation. He relieved the OOD on the spot. Later, he called the second class petty officer into his stateroom. He thanked him for saving lives and the ship, then he chewed his ass out for countermanding a "lawful" order given by a senior officer in public. Like I wrote somewhere, you can be 100% correct but still get in a world of shit. That petty office is alive and well, living in Florida, and occasionally producing a Youtube video about navy life.

North was not a legal expert. North understands the officers concept of GIVING orders and not the idea of receiving orders that we as enlisted men had to square with what we have been taught. I'm sure that nearly any order an officer gives he (or she) feels is necessary and lawful. The person carrying out that order has to sometimes make an evaluation; is this order correct, is it right, it is necessary, is it lawful?
A small example; we were sailing in the Arctic Circle back in 1981 with the NATO fleet. We were operating parallel courses for a photo op. Each ship was about 50 yards away from each of the other ships (six ships total) which is pretty close. The officer of the deck (a lieutenant) gave the order to make a 30 degree port turn. Pretty serious turn but would look pretty cool as all the ships turned together. Problem was...the photo op called for a starboard turn. Think of the result if that happened. Collusion of two ships in the Arctic Circle where the water temp is below freezing. A second class boatswain mate caught this. That's an E5. He loudly countermanded the lieutenant's order and gave the correct order. The third class petty officer on the wheel listened to the second class and made a starboard turn avoiding a catastrophe. The captain overhead this as his at sea cabin is right behind the bridge. He came onto the bridge and assessed the situation. He relieved the OOD on the spot. Later, he called the second class petty officer into his stateroom. He thanked him for saving lives and the ship, then he chewed his ass out for countermanding a "lawful" order given by a senior officer in public. Like I wrote somewhere, you can be 100% correct but still get in a world of shit. That petty office is alive and well, living in Florida, and occasionally producing a Youtube video about navy life. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

I'll have to decipher this after the game. (Your Chiefs still down at home?)

I read the first few sentences, and have an issue there. He should have known he was following an unlawful order. But his boss didn't care. And he testified he does not question orders. That statement made an impression on me as a youth.

It sounded so fuckin' blunt. To Congressional hearing.

Anyway, I love the response.










Over.

See what I mean about a great thread?

Ben needs a dishonorable discharge