Soldier Guilty for Refusing Anthrax Shot

Washington Post ^ | 05/28/03 | WILLIAM KATES

[AbsoluteJustice]

FORT DRUM, N.Y. - A military panel on Wednesday found an Army reservist guilty of disobeying an order for refusing to take the anthrax vaccine.

The panel of eight officers took only 40 minutes before returning a guilty verdict against Pvt. Kamila Iwanowska.

Iwanowska, 26, admitted in a court "stipulation of fact" that she refused to follow the verbal and written orders of her commanding officers. Army prosecutors read a statement to the panel and rested their case without calling any witnesses.

"Good order and discipline and following orders is essential in the United States Army," Capt. Wesley Rowley said in a brief opening statement.

Rowley said Iwanowska's signed statement was all the proof the panel needed for a conviction.

[AbsoluteJustice]

If ya join the big green machine you are signing to do things outside the norm. Fully knowing this then you are stipulated to do what you are told to do by superiors within the confines of the UCMJ. Be gone with her.

[D. Brian Carter]

Yep. Though I dread getting the battery of innoculations that are SOP, when my enlistment begins in October, I am fully aware of what I'm getting into. That being said, I don't know what my reaction would be if assigned to a UN force, especially under foreign command.

[AbsoluteJustice]

You are sooooo correct my friend....I thankfully while in the Marines never had to serve under that banner and would have faced court martial if told to wear it because I would have actively refused.

[D. Brian Carter]

Speaking of which, I haven't heard anything about any resolution in the Michael New case... you got any info on that? Is it still a fiasco?

[WellsFargo94]

...disobeying an order to get the anthrax vaccine after reporting for pre-deployment processing with her unit in January.

...told her superiors that she considered the shot medically dangerous to children she might have in the future...

Why did she join? College benefits without having to deploy?

[AbsoluteJustice]

BINGO!!! key word "MIGHT HAVE"

[TSgt]

Why did she join? College benefits without having to deploy?

Sad but true. We had a few of these types in our unit who refused. They were quietly discharged. I've had the entire battery of Anthrax shots and I've had no side effects. As a matter of fact I rarely get sick, much of which I contribute to the plethora of shots the military has given me over the years.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Believe it or not I get sick once every 5 years. Strange.

[BlueLancer]

"As a matter of fact I rarely get sick..."

I haven't been sick a day since I retired from the Army. My only trouble while being in was keeping my weight down and, as a result of what I believe was doing everything possible to keep below my "legal" weight, I caught every cold, flu, ear and throat "strep" that came down the pike. Since I retired and gained 15 pounds, I feel great! And I never had any problem with the shots that I was given over 22 years.

[philetus]

The current placement of U.S. troops under U.N. command has put U.S. service personnel who object to serving the U.N. and wearing a U.N. uniform in a very difficult position. They want to continue to serve their country but do not want to violate their oath, the law or the Constitution by serving the U.N. They consider an order to serve the U.N. to be illegal and unconstitutional.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Interesting. I wonder if there has ever been a study to show prior military and doctor visits. I think the numbers would show that prior military rarely visit the doctor as opposed to our civilian counterparts. My Grandfather (WW2 former Marine) would not see a doctor. He refused.

[AbsoluteJustice]

I consider the same and would further this by stating I joined and gave my oath to defend the constitution of the U.S. against enemies foreign and domestic NOT NOT NOT NOT under a U.N. flag!!!!!

[MineralMan]

"The current placement of U.S. troops under U.N. command has put U.S. service personnel who object to serving the U.N. and wearing a U.N. uniform in a very difficult position. They want to continue to serve their country but do not want to violate their oath, the law or the Constitution by serving the U.N. They consider an order to serve the U.N. to be illegal and unconstitutional.
"

Apparently, it is not illegal or unconsitutional, since US forces are still doing it. Surely there have been court cases involving this question, and the courts have ruled that it is OK. Right?

[philetus]

The United States of America has been making a big mistake for decades now by not withdrawing membership in the United Nations. Not only is our membership in the UN unConstitutional, but our founding fathers warned against the US government going into any long term treatise with Any foreign government. They warned against and forbade Any relationship with a foreign government that suspended, or all together took away Any part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights. The US relationship with the UN, if it continues, will do exactly what our founding father's feared most. Deny the US people their rights as stated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and, their goals are documented.
http://www.eclecticism.bravepages.com/USorUN.html


President Clinton's secret Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 25 forced U.S. soldiers to wear U.N. uniforms and report to foreign U.N. commanders. This policy resulted in the court-martial and discharge of Michael New, who refused to follow this illegal and unconstitutional order. The outrage that greeted this case prompted Bush to make his promise that he would "never" place U.S. troops under U.N. command.

Clinton's PDD 25 claimed that U.S. soldiers transformed into U.N. soldiers were still under U.S. command and that they were only "under the operational control of a foreign commander."
http://www.usasurvival.org/ck111702.shtml


The U.S. troops take orders in the mission from a foreign commander named Major-General Kazi Ashfaq Ahmed of Bangladesh.
http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/kincaid/20021030.htm

[Aloysius]

when my enlistment begins in October, I am fully aware of what I'm getting into.

What would you do if they tried to force an AIDs vaccine on you which was manufactured from stem cells from homosexuals and drug addicts who had died of AIDs.

[D. Brian Carter]

Well, they can't force me to do anything. But, since that isn't one of the vaccines on the list right now, as I said before, I am fully aware of what I'm getting into. I know I have to get the Anthrax shot, whether I like it or not, if I am to serve in the Army. I certainly wouldn't allow anyone to inject HIV into my blood.

[archy]

We had a few of these types in our unit who refused. They were quietly discharged. I've had the entire battery of Anthrax shots and I've had no side effects.

Good thing, though, that you're not a rated pilot, particularly a reservist who hopes to keep his civilian-side airline job.

[archy]

I certainly wouldn't allow anyone to inject HIV into my blood.

You'll do what you're told, soldier. And you'll be told it's a *vaccine* that'll protect you.

-archy-/-

[MineralMan]

"I certainly wouldn't allow anyone to inject HIV into my blood.

You'll do what you're told, soldier. And you'll be told it's a *vaccine* that'll protect you.

"

Well, since the military is not going to inject soldiers with HIV, it's kind of a silly argument. I received vaccinated against Cholera, Anthrax, Bubonic Plague, Typhoid, Typhus, and Smallpox while serving in the USAF in the late 60's. The Plague shot make most of us pretty sick for a day.

Bottom line is this: Civilian rules don't apply to the military. Since we currently have an all-volunteer military, the contract you make when you join up means that you're going to follow military orders. It's that simple.

Any non-veterans on the thread can pound sand, as far as I'm concerned, on this issue.

[Poohbah]

The current placement of U.S. troops under U.N. command has put U.S. service personnel who object to serving the U.N. and wearing a U.N. uniform in a very difficult position.

I guess it does. Since the overwhelmingly vast majority (100%) of personnel in the armed forces enlisted or were commissioned after the Senate of the United States ratified the United Nations Treaty, they should have considered this prior to sticking their paw in the air and swearing the oath of enlistment or commissioning.

They want to continue to serve their country but do not want to violate their oath, the law or the Constitution by serving the U.N.

One of the first things I learned in the USMC is that one might be tasked with doing things that one does not like, but one's dislike does not make the task illegal or unconstitutional.

They consider an order to serve the U.N. to be illegal and unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, that opinion is 100% incorrect.

[MineralMan]

"They consider an order to serve the U.N. to be illegal and unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, that opinion is 100% incorrect."

You're right. Whether a person likes it or not, constitutionality is not based on personal opinion. Clearly, this type of service has been tested now, and no constitutional issues have been raised.

Anyone who doesn't want to serve in the military under present conditions may simply not join. If they join, however, they are subject to the regulations currently in force. It's that simple.

[Born Conservative]

What would you do if they tried to force an AIDs vaccine on you which was manufactured from stem cells from homosexuals and drug addicts who had died of AIDs.

I do not know how the AIDS vaccine is manufactured (it's not even at the human trial stage yet), but I doubt that it is derived from stem cells (although I could be wrong). Generally speaking, vaccines are derived from dead disease organisms called antigens (either whole or partial cells) that, when injected into the body, cause the immune system to produce antibodies against it (antibodies=protection). Stem cells, on the other hand, are live cells that have the ability to become a specialized cell. Comparing AIDS vaccine and stem cells appears to be like comparing apples and oranges.

[bruinbirdman]

" she considered the shot medically dangerous to children she might have in the future..."

Getting the shot medically dangerous? How about getting shot.

I remember taking an oath that I would charge a machine gun nest if ordered. (Not in those exact words.)

yitbos

[joesnuffy]

well....I actually did charge a machine gun implacement...alongside my bros...
we did many things dangerous and beyond the norm imo
And as a corpsman...I would not take the anthrax shot..period...
Nor would I administer it to others....who I was also sworn to protect...
Yet I would still charge that bunker today...

[bruinbirdman]

Corpman = non combatant. Hmmm

[Michael81Dus]

You´ll do what you are told, soldier

I´m glad I live in Germany... here, members of the armed forces not only have the right but the duty to refuse following orders which mean committing a crime.

And you can refuse to follow orders: which violate the humans dignity (such as sucking the boots of your platoon commander); which do not support the aims of the armed forces; which to fulfill is impossible; which can not be expected to follow (like buying a car for your chief).

These shots can be ordered, too.

[NMFXSTC]

There are 632 of those Navy FMF corpsman inscribed on "The Wall"...Never Forget!

SF!

[lawdude]

" What would you do if they tried to force an AIDs vaccine on you which was manufactured from stem cells from homosexuals and drug addicts who had died of AIDs."

And you know for a fact that the military is doing such?

When all logical arguments fail, resort to pure bunkum! You are a fool to raise a rediculous hypothesis!

How would you react to your boss stuffing a live grenade up your ass? Same concept.

[Aloysius]

How would you react to your boss stuffing a live grenade up your ass?

My reaction would depend on whether he pulled the pin or not. You should keep your homo-erotic imagination in check - this is a public forum.