[NVIC] Criminalizing Vaccine Refusal

[Guest guest]

E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER

Vienna, Virginia http://www.nvic.org

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

UNITED WAY/COMBINED FEDERAL CAMPAIGN

#8122

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

" Protecting the health and informed consent rights of children since 1982. "

============================================================================

==============

BL Fisher Note:

Today it is anthrax vaccine in the military. Tomorrow it will be hepatitis B

vaccine in kindergarten. The U.S. vaccine police in military and civilian

settings are determined to exercise the power they have sought and

politicians have given to them to force citizens to risk their lives and the

lives of their children for vaccines carrying an inherent risk of injury and

death. The genetic and other biological factors which place some

individuals at greater risk than other individuals makes forced vaccination

a de facto selection of the genetically vulnerable for sacrifice. The right

to informed consent to any medical intervention which can harm or kill is a

human right. The right to individual autonomy and self determination, the

right to obey the dictates of your conscience and your faith is a human

right. Only totalitarian governments with no respect for individual human

life and dignity would walk down this road.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-99502sy0oct08,0,2718701.story?page=1 & coll=

dp-widget-news

Newport News Daily Press

October 8, 2005

Is refusing a shot a crime?

by Bob

bevans@... 247-4758

Newport News Daily Press

Marine Cpl. Ocean Rose refused an anthrax vaccination in 2001, after

military doctors told him that EKGs after his first two shots indicated

he was having heart attacks at age 20 for no apparent reason.

Lt. k Enz, a Marine helicopter pilot and combat veteran of the 1991

Persian Gulf War, says he refused his shot in 2002, after hours of

prayer, soul-searching and study about the vaccine convinced him that

as a Christian, God didn't want him vaccinated with that drug.

The same year, Sgt. Muhammad - a Muslim and a Marine at Camp

Lejune, N.C. - says he prayed and studied the Quran and medical

reports, finally deciding that taking the anthrax vaccine would violate

Allah's command to keep harmful substances out of his body.

Their refusal to obey orders to take the vaccine was the only blot on

their military records. Otherwise, they were gung-ho, exemplary Marines

with careers on the rise, records show.

Are these the people you'd want to keep tabs on as suspects for a

violent or serious crime - or force to give up their right to privacy

over their DNA? The government says yes and has ordered Enz, Rose,

Muhammad and others who refused anthrax shots to submit blood samples

for inclusion in the FBI's DNA database of criminal offenders. Refusal

could mean further punishment - up to five years in prison, letters

sent by military courts last month told them.

A change in federal law and a decision by Secretary of Defense

Rumsfeld also add to the DNA database those people court-martialed for

various offenses not found in the civilian world. They include

fraternization, faking an illness to get out of work, showing

disrespect to a superior officer or making a false statement when

enlisting - even if it meant altering a birth certificate or other

document so you could serve your country.

" It's completely preposterous, " says Eugene Fidell, president of the

National Institute of Military Justice. That's a group of lawyers and

legal scholars dedicated to the study of military justice issues and

educating the public about how the system works. " I can't think of a

more asinine application of a federal law. "

The same law greatly expands the number and type of offenses that can

trigger required donation of DNA from civilians, too. It pushes the

boundary of the constitutional right of privacy that courts acknowledge

regarding government demands for body fluids.

This week, congressional, military, FBI and other government officials

couldn't say how much these changes would cost taxpayers.

The safety and effectiveness of the anthrax vaccination has been a hot

topic in the military since the shots became mandatory in 1998.

Hundreds of troops say the shots have brought them health problems, an

allegation that the Pentagon adamantly denies. A federal judged ruled

last year that the mandatory shots must stop because the vaccine was

never licensed for its use in the military, allowing only voluntary

inoculations.

If Rose, Enz and the others refused to take the shots after his Oct.

27, 2004, ruling, they would not have been punished. The military has

appealed the decision and wants to reinstate the mandatory shot program

- along with punishments for refusal.

J. Michels is a former military lawyer who represents troops in

that case. He says the military won't say how many have been

court-martialed for refusing the vaccine since the program started, but

he estimates that 100 to 150 were court-martialed and 400 to 500 more

received other punishments. Some who refused weren't punished at all.

That created a double standard that's now being compounded, he says.

Taking DNA from someone isn't a minor matter, he says. Under the law,

it's an invasion of privacy and can't be required without a clear

government or public interest.

Restrictions on government DNA collection is illustrated by laws

governing the Pentagon's DNA database intended for use in identifying

casualties. Everyone in the military for the past 10 years is included,

but " civilian law enforcement has no access to casualty identification

samples, " says Maj. Shavers, a Pentagon spokesman.

As for the FBI database, he says Rumsfeld had no choice because

Congress mandated that he include anyone convicted of an offense that

is - at least in theory - punishable by a year or more in jail or

prison. Refusing an order can bring a five-year sentence.

When Congress enacted the Justice for All Act of 2004, it added dozens

of additional civilian offenses to the list of crimes where DNA samples

are taken. The changes expanded on the database's existing 2.7

million-sample collection of people convicted of murders, rapes, a

variety of sex crimes, arson and other serious violent offenses. It

added such crimes as " malicious mischief " on federal property, attempts

to interfere with tax laws, violations of Pacific salmon and halibut

fishing laws, and harming an animal used in law enforcement, among

others.

At the same time, Congress told the secretary of defense to consult the

U.S. attorney general and develop a list of offenses " comparable " to

the civilian crimes, the law says.

Several lawyers who have looked into the issue say their reading of the

law did give Rumsfeld a choice, but he didn't take it.

" It's pretty consistent with the mind-set that 'people who disobey

orders will do anything, so get them all,' " says Michels, a former Air

Force prosecutor who taught in the military's school for lawyers.

The FBI and other police agencies use the DNA database to solve crimes

and exonerate innocent people, often taking a simple drop of blood or

sweat, or skin, and using it to solve a puzzling murder. DNA is basic

genetic material and can be used to identify people to high degrees of

certainty, though some scientists question whether the assumptions made

in court cases are accurate and whether mistakes are being made that

could convict innocent people.

Putting people into the database who've refused the anthrax vaccine

doesn't make sense, especially in light of the federal court ruling

striking down the military's mandatory anthrax vaccine program and the

pending appeals of those who refused, says U.S. Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind.

" These men are not hardened criminals, they are soldiers who stood up

for their rights in the face of a questionable order, " Burton wrote in

a letter to Rumsfeld on Monday.

" It would be a travesty of justice - especially before all appeals in

this matter have been exhausted - to require these men to submit their

DNA. "

He asked Rumsfeld to reconsider the policy until the legal status of

the vaccine, and appeals of courts-martial by troops such as Rose,

Muhammad and Enz, are settled.

Spokesmen for the co-sponsors of the Justice for All Act - Rep.

Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and

Rep. Delahunt, D-Mass. - said they didn't know whether their

bosses knew about this ramification of the law or whether they agreed

with the Pentagon that the military had to include troops who'd refused

the shot.

The DNA orders illustrate two big differences between civilian and

military courts, Michels says.

First, there's a long list of behavioral offenses that carry prison

terms of one or more years in the military with no equivalent for

civilians.

Second, though the top concern of civilian courts is justice, the

military system has two objectives: maintaining discipline and ensuring

justice. And they have equal weight.

Michels says he taught his military law students to appreciate this.

While a military prosecutor, he says, he often found cases weak in the

law or of questionable fairness taken to trial, anyway, because

commanders ordered it.

" Sometimes, they look around and say, 'We have to send a message to the

troops' " by charging or punishing someone, he says.

Enz led Bible study groups in the Marines and was described by

co-workers as a devout Christian during court-martial proceedings. He

says that " it made me feel sick to my stomach " when the order to submit

a DNA sample came in the mail last week. " They basically threw me in

the lot with some pretty bad criminals. "

Zachary , a Navy aviation technician who refused to take the

shot and was court-martialed, says he had a similar reaction.

He says he fears that his DNA sample will end up in the FBI laboratory

where a technician committed more than 100 errors in processing samples

in criminal cases - mistakes that could lead to him or some other

innocent person being charged with a crime like rape or murder.

Given the strength of DNA evidence before juries and judges, he says,

he could go to prison for life for no reason - other than refusing the

anthrax shot.

" Everybody says they don't make mistakes, " he says, " but they seem to,

quite frequently. "

Daily Press researcher Sorensen contributed to this report.

=============================================

News@... is a free service of the National Vaccine Information

Center and is supported through membership donations. Learn more about

vaccines, diseases and how to protect your informed consent rights

http://www.nvic.org

Become a member and support NVIC's work

https://www.nvic.org/making%20cash%20donations.htm

To sign up for a free e-mail subscription http://www.nvic.org/emaillist.htm