Quite literally should not be possible outside of a major administrative error. Everyone had to do it to maintain deployable status.
You are wrong. Same as everyone having to take pictures and upload photos of their tattoos. I didn't do that dumb shit either.
Tattoos have never been an enforced thing as long as they're in allowed areas. Vaccination records are checked regularly and required Force wide. You can't just not do it. If your unit allowed that, then they better hope that shit doesn't get caught on an audit. That's wildly unsat.
We have service wide orders backing up that this was in fact a requirement with a doc attached it. If you really didn't sign one then that's on your admin/medical for fucking up.
BTW, everyone trying to argue this point should recognize that, "requirement" was recinded.
Its not exactly relevant tho. We're talking about the point of time when it was active.
Did you read my comments from the federal judge? The exemption was PART of the case.
Ye. I read it then reviewed the case. It was a 2 part case. One for religious exemptions and one for not issuing a presidential consent waiver (improper process of enforcement).
I am not arguing the REINSTATEMENT resulted from the Executive Order. It may have sounded that way due to my wording:
"Just stop right there. Hawkins vs The United States and the reversal of over 8000 service members wrongfully discharged for refusing the shot show how clearly incorrect you are."
I would used the word "because of" or "due to" if I was trying to argue a cause and effect relationship.
I got you. It read differently then you intended. Thanks for clarifying.
Regardless, i was responding to a post adressing 2 things, that it the covid shot was a legal order, and that service members sign a document when they join requiring any vaccines the DOD mandates. Reference post #417 for clarity.
My point originally was they are NOT allowed to inject me with experimental shots not authorized by the FDA without informed consent. I referenced the multitude of times soldiers and citizens have been experimented later.
I believe I understand what you're getting at. I do not agree that it accurately reflects the situation.
Absolutely, you need to provide consent to recieve a vaccine and it must meet FDA standards. Documentation of this was dispersed but presidential consent waivers were not. That was a clear error. However, mandating the Vaccine is still a lawful order. But like with many orders and laws, exceptions exist. The fault lines in those exceptions.
I believe the precedence has been set on numerous occassions by previous presidents on the issue of troops deployment on US soil.
I would argue the nature of this situation varies enough to warrant a review if it's recent use. It's toeing the line at a minimum.
For further evidence on the covid controversy I submit:
A 2025 memo from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness further acknowledged that the 2021 mandate was “unlawful as implemented” due to non-compliance with 10 U.S. Code § 1107a, which protects the right to refuse EUA products absent a presidential waiver
Link above.
Yeah, like I said above, the order is legal. The implementation is what caused all the issues. I dont disagree with that. I think its a small distinction that causes a lot of confusion and issues. I think the current situation with deploying troops will run into similar issues
