Posted on 10/27/2004 3:35:42 PM PDT by SmithL
WASHINGTON -- For the second time in a year, a federal judge ordered the military Wednesday to stop requiring anthrax vaccines for U.S. military personnel.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said the Food and Drug Administration violated its own procedures when it gave final approval to the vaccine last year because it failed to give the public an adequate opportunity to comment.
"The men and women of our armed forces deserve the assurance that the vaccines our government compels them to take into their bodies have been tested by the greatest scrutiny of all -- public scrutiny," Sullivan said.
Justice Department spokesman Charles Miller said the government was reviewing the anthrax decision and has made no decision yet whether to appeal. There was no immediate comment from the Defense Department.
Six unidentified service members had sued the Defense Department, arguing that the vaccine is experimental and that it was being improperly used for inhalation anthrax as well as exposure of the bacteria through the skin.
"We're ecstatic," said Mark Zaid, their attorney. "It validates our position of six years that the program was illegal and ill-conceived from day one."
The federal government says the vaccine is safe and is not experimental.
Sullivan first ordered a halt to the mandatory vaccinations on Dec. 22, saying that vaccine was being used for an unapproved purpose. Eight days later, the FDA issued an order intended to give the vaccine final approval for use to prevent inhaled anthrax.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
New book on the anthrax vaccine just out last week:
http://www.vaccine-a.com/index.html
I thought Clinton ordered the Anthrax vaccine for all forces operating in the Gulf around 1996. Personnel who refused the shot were Court Martialed and discharged.
I don't remember hearing about it during the first Gulf war like the author states. I wasn't infantry though.
Anecdotal evidence here: that vaccination Fs you up....
So, a federal judge has once again put the nose of the Judiciary into the actions of the military with no perception of how the military works, and with consequences that can only be described as dangerous.
Soldiers, on a battlefield, who are subjected to a lethal dose of anthrax need to have a defense against it, and if that vaccine will save lives than it's worth having.
All vaccines are dangerous to some degree, and are sometimes fatal. The idea, in military terms, is to save the majority of soldiers - it's that simple. The fact that some soldiers will not survive is the price the military pays to win wars.
For any judge to think that a vaccine can't be used unless everyone taking it survives is both irresponsible, and ignorant. This is another reason for the Judiciary to stay out of military matters.
Emmett Sullivan was Ronald Reagan's biggest mistake in a judicial appointment. And he made several.
What kind of idiot is this guy. He puts more stock in the overwhelming wisdom of the led-by-the-media-nose sheeple than he does hard science (and not the fake global-warming kind, but the kind that has been proven since the '60s).
The Military is NOT subject to the authority of the U.S. Judicial system. The Military is subject only to the President of the United States, and the Judge Advocate General. The only authority the Civillian courts have is in the case of an appeal of a court martial verdict, and that only applies to the Federal Court of Appeals in the appropriate district, and/or SCOTUS.
They can easily tell the courts (even SCOTUS) to p!$$ off, and there is nothing they can do about it. Kind of hard to enforce a ruling against somebody who has LOTS MORE GUNS than you do.
The standard practice is however, to accept civillian court rulings unless there is a compelling reason not to do so. i'd say the immunisation of soldiers agains bio weapons is a compelling reason.
And this is where the problem is.
Give the Judiciary branch of government an inch and they'll take a mile.
Recently released terrorists from our base in Cuba have been found back on the battlefield because the judiciary found that our base was, in their minds, American territory. The military went along with the judges thinking, but they now regret that decision.
Judges don't think the same as the military does, and in matters of security they're way out of their game. The problems arise when the military goes along with the Judiciary. That sets a precedent that nobody benefits from.
The Military is NOT subject to the authority of the U.S. Judicial system.
I agree with your statement, but I'd add one thing to it:
The Military is NOT subject to the authority of the U.S. Judicial system UNLESS THE MILITARY LETS IT HAPPEN.
President Bush got the vaccination...why would he take it if he thought it was dangerous?
Bad, bad decision. Only the 9th Circuit would be activist enough to uphold it.
We've been through this before.
However, once engaged these are indisputably under the command of the President/Cdr in Chief.
It is then an issue of executive privilege and the judge is in violation of separation of powers.
The President can tell the judge to go suck eggs.
I feel compelled to point out a few things here.
I am not going to speak about activist judges. I don't like legislation from the bench either. But I think some of you folks missed the point.
What bothers me is how little most of you seem to know about the Anthrax vaccine that has been administered in the military for the past decade.
I was in the Marines 92-96 and one reason I decided not to re-up (aside from who was president at the time) was the determination of that administration to get this vaccine into all of us. There were a number of distinguished officers and pilots who resigned rather than take the shots. A number of folks who regularly faced danger as part of their job preferred a court-martial to getting the anthrax shots.
This became an issue because quite a few servicemen got very sick and a significant number DIED after receiving this vaccine, at a time when we were becoming aware of how bad and widespread Gulf-War-Syndrome was.
The major claim of the government meant to assuage our fears was that the drug was "FDA-approved." Well, it turns out it wasn't, at first - the FDA-approved vaccine used by ranchers and vetrinarians is NOT the same as the version used by the military. Later, when they did try to get it approved, there were some irregularities in how that process was handled, as this judge rightly pointed out.
The point is, there are some very legitimate concerns about this vaccine among the people who have taken it or may have to take it in the future (myself included, I am currently in the Air Force Reserve). We've had plenty of other painful shots with no complaints - this is a very different situation.
I'm not familiar with all the legal intricacies of this issue, but FDA approval has been the primary means the military has used to justify use of this vaccine, and the FDA IS under the jurisdiction of a federal judge. The military may still be able to use the vaccine, but they can't claim it is FDA-approved.
Personally, if given the order, I'll take the shots (several in a series over several months), not because I like it but because I don't have the legal proof to justify disobeying an order on the grounds that the order is unlawful. But whether this court decision is the appropriate venue or not, I think the current use of the Anthrax vaccine has to be seriously re-considered.
This is NOT a judicial activism issue. This is an example of what happens when you have universal health care. This is bad policy born in the Clinton administration that has become entrenched. This is a BIG quality of life issue for those in the military. This is also a significant national defense issue when you consider the possibility that use of the anthrax vaccine may do more harm than good in preparing members of the U.S. military for biowarfare.
The U.S. military is the best in the world and I'm proud to be part of it. Please ignore this judge for a moment and consider where the people who brought the suit forward are coming from.
Thanks
Well, judging by the replies, I'm not the only one feeling bent out of shape over that judge's order. Some things, I guess, should be left to the Commander-in-Chief.
Yes indeed.
I can't figure out why all these conservatives who ostensibly do not want government dictating to them are so in favor of having the military decide that they must take shots "for their own good". It's another "for the good of the children" thing for the paranoid.
In the Gulf War the nations that did not shoot up their kids didn't and aren't losing them to all manner of bizzare sickness. But then, we are enlightened and one of the major profiters from some of those vaccines was an Admiral who owned a major piece of a vaccine producing outfit.
I agree. I retired two years ago and I'm one of the lucky few who never had to take the shot. I've seen too many people get medically discharged because of strange illnesses that started after they started the series of shots. The whole thing was one big mess. One year they stopped giving the shots because the supply ran out after people had already received one or two of the six series of shots. I had a buddy who worked in the immunization clinic and he told me to avoid getting the shot at all costs. Luckily I did.
Soldiers and Sailors don't get to choose which orders to obey.
Even if they don't like the orders.
Even if the orders put them in danger - even unneccesarily.
Even if the orders are a gigantic blunder.
Even if you think I don't understand the real situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.