USCGA cadets given 24 hours to vacate.

As it goes with all other cadets and midshipmen who repeatedly disobey lawful orders. Make choices, face the outcomes of those choices. Tough spot to be in for all. Since they made it this far, I’m sure they can succeed in their future endeavors.
 
I am not sure about the "sources", but these cadets are not the only ones who faced similar problems. When you enter the military you swear an oath " to follow the orders of those appointed above you". These members decided to disregard those orders, for the right or wrong they did what they felt they had to and now they are dealing with the problems those choices caused. I am confused as to all these "students" at either a University in ROTC or at an academy fighting these "orders" when most of them have already received vaccines similarly derived??

I wish them luck, and hope they obtain success in life.
 
It is my understanding that the military has some authority to require some fully approved vaccines. Unfortunately for the military leadership, there is also a process to review/approve waivers. Currently, the waiver process seems to be that all waiver requests are automatically disapproved when submitted regardless of content. A USAFA cadet (cancer survivor) faced expulsion despite both civilian and military doctors recommending against the vaccine due to the unique medical circumstances. He faced a serious choice regarding an emergency use authorized (EUA) vaccine that wasn't designed for current COVID variants. Additionally, the vaccine being pushed on cadets and midshipmen is the EUA vaccine which the military cannot legally require military members to accept. The fully approved version is only approved/available outside of the USA since it is not available in correctly marked containers within the USA. A recent whistleblower submission to Congress brought to light several illegal aspects of the military's push to require vaccines like it was a loyalty test. One of the issues in the report was the appearance of re-marking containers as the approved vaccine despite their origin. I have no information as to who did the re-marking (or when). I don't know how that can be legally done. If my memory is correct, the whistleblower report to Congress is dated Aug 15th, 2022.
 
Last edited:
Falcon74 said:
It is my understanding that the military has some authority to require some fully approved vaccines. Unfortunately for the military leadership, there is also a process to review/approve waivers, Currently, the waiver process seems to be that all waiver requests are automatically disapproved when submitted regardless of content. A USAFA cadet (cancer survivor) faced expulsion despite both civilian and military doctors recommending against the vaccine due to the uniqAdditionally, the vaccine being pushed on cadets and midshipmen is the emergency use authorized vaccine which the military cannot leggaly require military members to accept. The fully approved version is only approved outside of the USA.
Click to expand...
It’s approved inside the US, but the drug companies won’t distribute it because they would no longer be exempt from liability for injuries and damages.
 
Excellent news, honestly this vaccine situation is the really terrible gift that just keeps on giving. How many doses have been administered around the globe by now, probably into the billions. It's crazy that this bunch of snowflakes, who clearly think that the rules everyone else in the military abides to don't apply to them and who are apparently too scared to roll up their sleeves to get a vaccine that most of us have now had three or four times over, get so much airtime. Chuck them out, let everyone else get on with it. I am sure they will lead successful and productive lives in other fields.
 
Korab said:
It’s approved inside the US, but the drug companies won’t distribute it because they would no longer be exempt from liability for injuries and damages.
Click to expand...
False.

Both Comirnaty and Spikevax are available in the U.S. Granted, not in the same amounts as the EUA version, but available nonetheless.

Go to https://www.vaccines.gov

Search for the EUA version, you will get one set of locations.

Search for the fully authorized version, you will get a different set of locations

I called 3 different locations in different geographic areas to inquire about the availability of Comirnaty. 2 of the locations confirmed they had the commercially labeled version available. The third location stated they were out of stock as of 2 days ago, but expected a shipment shortly.
 
FutureAdademyDad? said:
False.

Both Comirnaty and Spikevax are available in the U.S. Granted, not in the same amounts as the EUA version, but available nonetheless.

Go to https://www.vaccines.gov

Search for the EUA version, you will get one set of locations.

Search for the fully authorized version, you will get a different set of locations

I called 3 different locations in different geographic areas to inquire about the availability of Comirnaty. 2 of the locations confirmed they had the commercially labeled version available. The third location stated they were out of stock as of 2 days ago, but expected a shipment shortly.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the recent whistleblower report commented about vaccine containers marked Comirnaty which had a lot number corresponding to the EUA vaccine. Something seems fishy. Do you have a link for the Aug 15th whistleblower report to Congress?
 
I would REALLY like to someone to post the link to either Title 10 USC or the UCMJ where it states that "only fully approved vaccines may be ordered for members of the United States military"?? For those of us old enough, the Anthrax vaccine was ordered to be administered and it was a EUA vaccine when given, but if a service member refused, they were deemed unfit for deployment or world wide service and their careers were effectively short circuited, IF the member was not discharged under a "General" discharge. Sort of like what is happening now with all these individuals fighting in court the vaccine's efficacy or need. They are still in the service but I would venture a guess that two or three years from now their careers hit a dead end and they leave the services. Just a guess, but usually not following a lawful order has consequences, and the order for vaccines seems legal in terms of Title 10 or the UCMJ unless someone can show us otherwise. An individual court order seems to only benefit the attorney's that file the cases, the members seemingly are not benefiting (reference the CO of the ship being transferred and the Seals being not eligible for deployment).

IMHO, if someone has a TRUE religious objection, then they should have refused the other similarly developed vaccines. Did they? I do not know that answer, but I am guessing that they did not refuse or they would not be in the military. This whole COVID vaccine thing is getting more and more political as it goes. I am pretty sure there were a ton of military members who did not want the vaccine but took it because it was an order, yet now people are coming out and suing the military and not following orders. A volunteer service everyone, if you can't follow orders maybe you should find another career...JMHO:)
 
FutureAdademyDad? said:
False.

Both Comirnaty and Spikevax are available in the U.S. Granted, not in the same amounts as the EUA version, but available nonetheless.

Go to https://www.vaccines.gov

Search for the EUA version, you will get one set of locations.

Search for the fully authorized version, you will get a different set of locations

I called 3 different locations in different geographic areas to inquire about the availability of Comirnaty. 2 of the locations confirmed they had the commercially labeled version available. The third location stated they were out of stock as of 2 days ago, but expected a shipment shortly.
Click to expand...
Yes, the government says so, so it must be true.
 
Impulsive said:
I would REALLY like to someone to post the link to either Title 10 USC or the UCMJ where it states that "only fully approved vaccines may be ordered for members of the United States military"?? For those of us old enough, the Anthrax vaccine was ordered to be administered and it was a EUA vaccine when given, but if a service member refused, they were deemed unfit for deployment or world wide service and their careers were effectively short circuited, IF the member was not discharged under a "General" discharge. Sort of like what is happening now with all these individuals fighting in court the vaccine's efficacy or need. They are still in the service but I would venture a guess that two or three years from now their careers hit a dead end and they leave the services. Just a guess, but usually not following a lawful order has consequences, and the order for vaccines seems legal in terms of Title 10 or the UCMJ unless someone can show us otherwise. An individual court order seems to only benefit the attorney's that file the cases, the members seemingly are not benefiting (reference the CO of the ship being transferred and the Seals being not eligible for deployment).

IMHO, if someone has a TRUE religious objection, then they should have refused the other similarly developed vaccines. Did they? I do not know that answer, but I am guessing that they did not refuse or they would not be in the military. This whole COVID vaccine thing is getting more and more political as it goes. I am pretty sure there were a ton of military members who did not want the vaccine but took it because it was an order, yet now people are coming out and suing the military and not following orders. A volunteer service everyone, if you can't follow orders maybe you should find another career...JMHO:)
Click to expand...
Per your request:

Quoting from the whistleblower report (paragraphs 3-5) (See link in a prior post):

Quote:
3. Americans never lose the right to legally refuse an EUA product. EUA law 21 USC § 360bbb imposes significant responsibilities upon the government to inform Americans of their rights. The only exception to the government’s duty to inform citizens of their rights is in a narrowly defined presidential waiver process for the military per 10 USC §1107a. This exception only waives the required condition that service members be informed of their right to refuse an EUA product. The 105th Congress passed 10 USC § 1107 into law as part of the Fiscal Year 1998 National Defense Authorization Act as a result of the injuries sustained by Gulf War veterans due to forced administration of investigational new drugs. This was quickly followed by the passage of 10 USC § 1107a, which specifically addressed use of EUA products. Similar to the Constitutional violation of failing to provide a suspect their Miranda Rights, not informing a potential recipient of their right to accept or decline an EUA product, either by presidential waiver or by omission, does not remove the underlying rights protected by statute and the Constitution.

4. Prior to the administration of an EUA product, the recipient is required to be informed inter alia of the option to accept or refuse administration of the EUA product, as codified in 21 USC § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(II)(iii). This right is a required condition that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) shall include for the authorization of any unapproved product covered by an emergency declaration. This means that by law, no one can mandate EUA products and the Government must inform recipients of their right to refuse. Service members are not being informed of the option to refuse administration of EUA products, nor are they provided with any other required information such as the risks associated with the product. Instead, military leadership is coercing service members into accepting administration of EUA products through unlawful threats against their careers and livelihoods. The failure of numerous appeals to leadership, Equal Opportunity complaints, Article 138 requests for redress, Inspector General complaints, and Congressional inquiries filed by the undersigned and those similarly situated, indicate that the military has no intention of following the law or their own regulations. Accordingly, Congress must act swiftly to end this unlawfulness and preserve the rights, readiness, and character of the military.

5. The law justly enshrines the principle that where there is risk, there must be legally effective informed consent. There must be full disclosure of relevant information and it must be absent coercion and undue influence. For risky medical products, like EUA pandemic products, Congress provides complete liability protection against any claim of loss for all persons and entities who are involved in the manufacture, distribution, planning, or administration of those products. 42 USC § 247d-6d(a)2(A) defines loss very broadly, listing everything from death to fear of emotional injury to property loss from business interruptions. For clarity, persons and entities covered by liability protections include product developers, manufacturers, and administrators (health care personnel), as well as all related governmental personnel at the local, state, and federal levels, including members of Congress and the DoD. Accepting administration of an emergency use product means the individual accepts all the health, legal, financial, and medical risks arising from that product. End quote.
 
Last edited:
I’d have to reread the paperwork, but I’m almost certain that I signed agreeing that I had the right to refuse.
 
Looks to me like the cadets are still in the service, but no longer allowed on campus and told to find alternate lodging. Not an uncommon occurrence in the DOD over the last couple of years.

Not intelligent with USCG policy, but HDP-ROM should apply here. They would just have to request it. There's a Navy Lodge across the way they can hang out in at the government rate while they await separation processing. Is that ideal or convenient? No, but convenience is not the concern of the government.

The article makes it sound like the government dumped them on the street. Probably not the case, and we're leaving out some significant context here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top