Anthrax: Intellectual Honesty in the Ranks Sets America’s Military
Apart
From Others
Ed.: More about the courts martial of Dr. Buck and the
lingering Anthrax controversy. Source: Special to the Sun Herald, 13 June 2001.
We are compelled to respond to The Sun Herald’s
thought-provoking editorial
titled: “In the end, discipline had to win,” concerning
the conviction and sentencing of Dr. John Buck for his refusal to comply with
what he believes is an illegal anthrax vaccine immunization program. The
argument you raise about an officer’s oath of office is an important one.
In your opening comments you acknowledge that, “The court-martial
of Air Force Capt. John Buck was troublesome from the start.”
Throughout the armed forces there is widespread agreement
that the anthrax vaccine program was similarly troublesome from the start. Why? Because the vaccine comes from a
manufacturer that to this day is “not validated” by the FDA due to significant
deviations from current good manufacturing practices.
The anthrax vaccine manufacturing plant was closed prior
to the start of the mandatory vaccination program, and has continually failed
to garner FDA approval. According to some of the military’s own documents, the anthrax
vaccine is “unlicensed” and “experimental” when used to protect against biological
warfare. As a result, the Defense Department assisted the manufacturer in
preparing an application to obtain a specific FDA-approved labeling for the
anthrax vaccine, but approval was never granted.
There is a law that specifically states that service
members cannot be inoculated with experimental vaccines without their prior “informed”
consent, Title 10, Section 1107, of the U.S. Code. The U.S. military has disregarded this law and these “old”
documents since the announcement of the anthrax vaccine program.
By offering these documents as evidence, Dr. Buck was merely
reminding the
Defense Department of its own previous official position, and
was asking the
judge to allow the jury to evaluate the legality of the
immunization
program.
The U.S. Air Force judge would not allow the documentary evidence
to be presented in Dr. Buck’s court-martial to corroborate his contention that
the anthrax vaccine is experimental, making the mandatory program illegal. The relevance
of this evidence, scribed on military letterhead, goes to the core of the
debate you raise in your editorial - the oath of office. It is an inherent requirement of Dr. Buck’s
oath of office to ensure that the orders he follows and those he issues are
legal.
Your editors contend that the “Air Force did what any
branch of the American armed forces has to do to survive as an effective
military organization; it enforced its rules. How could the military court have
done otherwise?”
The simple answer is that Dr. Buck did what the military
trained him to do - to challenge illegal orders. Clearly, intellectual honesty
in our ranks, encouraged by respected commanders who do not have to resort to blind
obedience, is one of the defining characteristics of our military, setting us
apart from the militaries we’ve fought over the past century.
So we are very encouraged that your editorial poses an
essential ethical question about whether Dr. Buck’s “oath as a physician
compelled him to break his vow to faithfully and dutifully serve his nation as
an officer of the United States Air Force.”
Dr. Buck believes he was upholding his oath as an officer,
as well as his physician’s oath, and in doing so was dutifully serving both his
nation and the United States Air Force.
Dr. Buck, and the entire officer corps of the U.S.
military, swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States, which is all about laws. Dr. Buck’s dedication to his oath of office is
only compounded by the Hippocratic oath and his medical profession. These oaths
are not in conflict, but instead are complementary.
In your editorial you caution, “Woe to the branch of the
armed forces that does not hold its officers and enlisted personnel every bit
as accountable for their actions.” And the members of our military agree wholeheartedly,
for if it is the Defense Department that is breaking the law, the responsible
leaders should be held accountable for their actions and their abuse of power
and discretion, not Dr. Buck.
As our president and commander in chief recently said at
the U.S. Naval Academy commencement on May 25, “Changing the direction of our military
is like changing the course of a mighty ship ... all the more reason for more research
and development and all the more reason to get started right away.”
On May 30, Vice President Dick Cheney echoed similar
thoughts about risk-taking and courage at the U.S. Air Force Academy graduation.
Military members worldwide know this is the road
less-traveled, but one courageously taken by Dr. John Buck of Keesler Air Force
Base in Mississippi.
The issues you raise are important ones and are all about
the oaths and codes that military members pledge to our nation. Simplistic imperatives
of good order and discipline do not do justice to this complex debate, historical
precedents, nor to the oaths our military members swear to uphold.
More information about the anthrax vaccine investigation,
including the work
of Major Thomas L. Rempfer and Major Russell E. Dingle, can
be
found at:
http://www.anthraxvaccine.net/
Our Anthrax information web site: http://www.dallasnw.quik.com/cyberella/
PETITION TO OVERTURN/REPEAL FERES DOCTRINE http://www.i-charity.net/ptn/80
To visit Dr. Meryl Nass’s web site, go to: http://www.anthraxvaccine.org
Tom Colosimo’s website: http://www.tomcolosimo.com
Also visit: http://www.MajorBates.com/
and http://www.enter.net/~jfsorg/
http://www.jamesmadisonproject.org/importantlinks.html
and
Anthrax Vaccine Network
http://www.anthraxvaccine.net
Sgt. Sandra Larson’s story
http://stripes.com/servlet/News/ViewArticle?articleId=100036895
http://www.house.gov/reform/hearings/healthcare/00.10.03/accountability.doc
Contact list owner: Gretchen Whitney at: anna_nim@ix.netcom.com
ALL
INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR
GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE
KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED
AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO
VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU
ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.