Petition to the President of the United States

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,038
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Jaybird180
Home Airfield
VKX
Having previously witnessed the power of PoA, I thought I would share something that came to my attention that also happens to have affected me personally. I'm asking everyone who agrees to sign this online petition to also help spread the word. There is only 2 weeks until this petition expires.

The link to the Petition is here: http://wh.gov/Pzu

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

Correct service records for all who were punished over the DoD anthrax vaccine when the mandatory program was illegal.

The Department of Defense (DoD) anthrax vaccine was experimental and the immunization program illegal until December 19, 2005 when the FDA finally licensed the drug. Congressional Report 106-556 and the court findings referenced below upheld the illegality and the FBI confirmed the anthrax letter attack’s motive was intended to resuscitate the “failing” program. This Petition appeals to the President's sense of justice and his authority as Commander in Chief to expunge adverse personnel actions for anyone previously sanctioned for refusing to comply with the illegal anthrax vaccine mandate.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-106hrpt556/html/CRPT-106hrpt556.htm

http://anthrax.mil/documents/library/AnthraxSJtOrder_Op.pdf

http://www.justice.gov/amerithrax/docs/amx-investigative-summary.pdf
Click to expand...
 
Let me see if I've got this right.....they want to expunge the disciplinary records of those who refused to follow what was at the time a lawful order which was later ruled (after the fact) to be an unlawful order, but now is back to being a lawful order (I still get my shot every time I deploy). Am I following that correctly?
 
Close, but not quite. It was considered lawful because DoD said so. Then someone actually took them to task in court and proved that it wasn't. After it was proven unlawful, DoD did what they needed to do to make it lawful.

The petition is to cover those that refused during the period of time that it actually was unlawful.
 
9 more then it reaches the threshold for being searchable. Thanks to all all who supported, or strongly considered.

I uderstand this issue is tough to grasp, I've personally done a lot of research over nearly a decade, not as simple as the surface may appear....took FDA over 20 years to state their position, then they had to back down and take a 2nd and 3rd look.

PM me if you have any questions and want to stay off record, I'll answer best I can, but if I don't know, I can find the answers.

Thanks.
 
I'm a veteran, and like all other servicemen I took oath to obey lawful orders.

Until this popped up, I thought I knew what it meant. But now the question is raised whether "all lawful orders" means:

All orders others than those that are clearly illegal (such as conduct prohibited by the UCMJ or Geneva convention)
or
Only those orders that are legal beyond doubt.

My feeling is that it's the first. Soldiers have a duty to refuse to do things they already know are illegal. That's not the same as saying they have the right to decide what may be illegal. I believe that the benefit of the doubt in this case goes to those issuing the orders, not those receiving them.

And in that case, refusal to take a vaccine would be refusing a lawful order.

But that's my opinion, and I see where others might disagree.
 
TMetzinger said:
I'm a veteran, and like all other servicemen I took oath to obey lawful orders.

Until this popped up, I thought I knew what it meant. But now the question is raised whether "all lawful orders" means:

All orders others than those that are clearly illegal (such as conduct prohibited by the UCMJ or Geneva convention)
or
Only those orders that are legal beyond doubt.

My feeling is that it's the first. Soldiers have a duty to refuse to do things they already know are illegal. That's not the same as saying they have the right to decide what may be illegal. I believe that the benefit of the doubt in this case goes to those issuing the orders, not those receiving them.

And in that case, refusal to take a vaccine would be refusing a lawful order.

But that's my opinion, and I see where others might disagree.
Click to expand...
You're talking about presumption of lawfulness. Problem is that the military court system is a Title III court, which means that it has the appearance of a judicial proceeding, but subject to the lawful orders of the Executive. In this case AVIP wasn't legal because of Geneva and promulgating Executive orders, etc.

Military decision makers in bed with pharmaceutical companies decided to disregard law, order and justice and troops got hurt (medically and legally) in the process, exactly the thing the EO was intended to prevent.

It took a ruling from federal court to force DoD to do right, by the law but there are still troops who argued the law (and were right) on behalf of all servicemembers who paid a price. Most of them were above average men and women (some whom I've met personally) in their. Hosed fields who love their service and country and did not wish to see it corrupted by unlawfulness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top