Navy Reserve COVID Vaccinations by October

[Spekkio]

You’re right, I don’t have to agree with the ‘analysis’ that taking the vax has a ‘good chance of killing them’. It’s demonstrably false.

We can change the hyperbole phrase 'good chance of killing themselves' to 'unknown actual incidence of short and long term side effects' and the point still stands.

They're still threatening NJP or CM, as they have from the start. I doubt they'll follow through on it, but threatening it is wrong itself. They could easily take that off the table and communicate their true intentions, and they aren't.

Who is 'they?' The Navy isn't a monolithic organization. The fact that some [bad] leaders in the fleet are threatening NJP for refusing the jab does not mean it is the official policy of the USN to handle vaccine hold-outs in this manner. In fact, the Navy went the other way - it pulled NJP authority surrounding vax refusal up to a 3-star.

I was surprised to see the general under honorable in the NAVADMIN considering that the NDAA that passed the House only allows an honorable discharge. Either the Navy is trying to beat the bill, or something must be in the works in the Senate.

 

[Brett327]

officers sign an oath to the Constitution. Enlisted sign an oath to obey orders. Your arguments consistently blur these lines since you used two examples of an enlisted man refusing to obey orders to accomplish tasking.

Do you really think there a distinction there? I don’t.

 

[Brett327]

There are plenty of lawful orders that would violate that oath, and we have an obligation to disobey them.

Really? Then give me plenty of examples where that would be the case.

 

[Spekkio]

Do you really think there a distinction [between the oath of enlistment and officer oath of office]? I don’t.

I think this is the most surprising thing I've heard a senior officer say in my entire career.

 

[Brett327]

my point is that if an officer resigns in lieu of following an order he has a moral conflict with,

You still don’t get it. This isn’t an option.

 

[Brett327]

But in this situation, we have thousands of people who are saying "I cannot get this shot because it might kill me. I will resign instead"

I saw the data, at least for the NAE. Thus far, the number of vaccine refusers is 51, or roughly .018%, so saying that there are thousands might be slightly off.

 

[Brett327]

I think this is the most surprising thing I've heard a senior officer say in my entire career.

Coming from you, that doesn’t surprise me.

 

[nodropinufaka]

This officer refused orders he believed were wrong and was sent to CM. Good example and interesting read

Ehren Watada - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Mirage]

You’re not understanding. They are ruled out. I explained how above. If all someone does is refuse the vax, and there is no other misconduct, there is zero legal avenue for them to go to njp or cm. There is no other ‘interpretation’. Those are the legal facts. Stop trying to create something that isn’t there.

Don't think I'm the one misunderstanding, man. VCNO retains the authority for NJP/CM. That means the message made NO CHANGE to the policy regarding punitive action. It only gave guidance for administrative action... ie ADSEP guidance. VCNO retains the same authority that he had already taken from CO's, which means tomorrow he could delegate that authority to whomever he chooses or execute it himself. That is your "legal avenue for them to go to NJP or CM." And this message only covers Navy... we still have the vast majority of the armed forces that it doesn't apply to.

Do you really think there a distinction there? I don’t.

Holy shit. This is ludicrous. If there's no distinciton, then why's there a difference in the oaths? You would have failed my NROTC ethics and morals class.

Really? Then give me plenty of examples where that would be the case.

How about an order telling a sailor he cannot put a Biden bumper sticker on his car for no good reason (violates first ammendment)? Or an order banning worship on base because the base CO is atheist? See, lots of examples. You'd have a duty not to enforce any of these if you were in a position to, because while lawful, they violate the constitution, and your oath is to the constitution. Pick any constitutional right and make an order taking away that right without a military necessity, and the supreme court has ruled that that is unconstitutional. There's plenty of case law surrounding this.

You still don’t get it. This isn’t an option.

It is an option. You pointed out examples where it has happened. One just has to be ready to face the music! General Mattis is a perfect example of this. Mattis received a lawful order from Trump, and Mattis told Trump directly, "You’re going to have to get the next secretary of defense to lose to ISIS. I’m not going to do it.” How in the world you don't see this is just baffling, but I'm done repeating myself on it. Are you really telling me that there is absolutely no lawful order you could receive that you would not refuse, knowing and accepting that you are at a minimum resigning your commission?

I saw the data, at least for the NAE. Thus far, the number of vaccine refusers is 51, or roughly .018%, so saying that there are thousands might be slightly off.

Check out the numbers for the other branches: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2021/10/10/military-vaccine-mandate/

 

[UInavy]

Words demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of he military justice system.

You’re right. I’m probably the one misunderstanding.

“Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.”
-Robert Heinlein

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Guys, Brett would NEVER* violate a lawful order. If he did, one of his sailors would see it and kill him through maintenance malpractice. If one order is skirted by an officer, enlisted dudes will go completely off the reservation and good order and discipline are out the window. He already made that clear.


*unless we’re talking about Article 88. Then he will find ways to twist his obligations because orange man bad. That particular order doesn’t apply to him.

 

[UInavy]

Guys, Brett would NEVER* violate a lawful order. If he did, one of his sailors would see it and kill him through maintenance malpractice. If one order is skirted by an officer, enlisted dudes will go completely off the reservation and good order and discipline are out the window. He already made that clear.


*unless we’re talking about Article 88. Then he will find ways to twist his obligations because orange man bad. That particular order doesn’t apply to him.

Are you still a drilling reservist?

 

[Brett327]

How about an order telling a sailor he cannot put a Biden bumper sticker on his car for no good reason (violates first ammendment)? Or an order banning worship on base because the base CO is atheist?

How are any of these examples lawful orders? You appear to be struggling with exactly what that means.

Are you really telling me that there is absolutely no lawful order you could receive that you would not refuse, knowing and accepting that you are at a minimum resigning your commission?

Again, you seem confused about the point I made earlier. I can certainly conceive of a lawful order that I would refuse, but that doesn't alter my legal obligation to follow it, and failure to do so will come with an assortment of consequences. Whether that order was legal, ethical and moral will be determined at my court-martial. Likewise, I cannot simply "resign" and opt out of those consequences.

Check out the numbers for the other branches:

Those are the number of people not yet vaccinated, not the number of people who have said they'll refuse. It's bizarre that you would even post that link. Your thinking on this entire matter is in disarray.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Are you still a drilling reservist?

None of your business, friend.

However a reservist should wait until the day after drilling or orders to point out that our commander in chief is an addled demented moron who enriched himself through his crackhead son’s ongoing criminal enterprise.

Wait, is that even contempt or just uncomfortable facts?

 

[UInavy]

None of your business, friend.

However a reservist should wait until the day after drilling or orders to point out that our commander in chief is an addled demented moron who enriched himself through his crackhead son’s ongoing criminal enterprise.

Wait, is that even contempt or just uncomfortable facts?

Cool. Just wanted to see how deep you wanted to dive into your Article 88 rabbit hole.