U.S. Army Makes Exceptions To Anthrax Shots Rule
By THOMAS D. WILLIAMS, Courant Staff Writer
The U.S. Army has sent to Iraq at least four soldiers who have refused to be vaccinated against anthrax, despite the Pentagon's long-held insistence that the vaccine is mandatory for all service members assigned to areas of combat or probable terrorism.
The deployments by base commanders in Indiana, Kentucky, New York and Wisconsin has led Pentagon critics to question the seriousness of the anthrax threat and the fairness of penalties meted out by the armed services earlier for scores of service members nationwide who refused the vaccine.
"This is the first hint that a few courageous operational commanders are beginning to exercise judgment, and are acknowledging what Pentagon leaders will not - that the anthrax threat was simply political hype that is no longer worth losing good soldiers over," John Richardson said.
Richardson is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and Gulf War veteran who has been a leaders nationwide in seeking an end to the anthrax program.
"The questions raised are, number one, is the vaccine really necessary; and, number two, whether the harsh penalties against the dissenters was really fair," said state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who conceded the military has broad discretion in decisions over whether to punish service members. Several years ago, Blumenthal called for a suspension of the vaccine program.
The program to vaccinate all 2.4 million service members, which started in 1998, has been embroiled in controversy since former Defense Secretary William Cohen ordered it.
The vaccine was initially licensed in 1970 for human skin contact with infected animals, not for use against manufactured anthrax spores fired or sprayed to disable and kill when breathed. The vaccine's reported adverse reaction rate has jumped from 0.2 percent to 5 to 35 percent since its wider use by the military.
"Unfortunately, other commanders are still willing to court-martial and dishonorably discharge [those who refuse the vaccine] rather than risk their next [command] promotion," Richardson said. He and others challenging the vaccine argue it has been proven unsafe and illegal.
Three of the four soldiers were charged between December and January with disobeying a direct order to take the vaccine, but the Army dropped its prosecution in favor of deploying them. The fourth was charged over a year ago before he was sent to Iraq. Decisions to drop the prosecution in favor of deploying them were made by the soldiers' unit commanders in conjuction with higher command headquarters.
One of the four deployed soldiers, an Ohio National Guardsman, had been court martialed for refusing the order to take the vaccine, but his 40 days in the stockade, drop in rank and dishonorable discharge have been put on hold while he serves in Iraq as a public affairs specialist.
Spec. Kurt Hickman got a reprieve earlier this year after a federal judge in Washington, D.C., temporarily barred the military from continuing any anthrax vaccinations. Hickman's penalty was put on hold and he was reassigned to Camp Atterbury in Indiana, where he once again was ordered to take the vaccine. He refused, and again was charged with a refusal to obey a direct order. But, said Ohio National Guard spokesman James Sims, the Camp Atterbury commander, Lt. Col. Kenneth D. Newlin intervened and the charge was dropped.
Newlin allowed Hickman, a videographer, to be sent to Iraq with the 196th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment, part of the First Army.
Maj. Michael Brady, a spokesman for Camp Atterbury, said commanders now "are looking at this [anthrax vaccination situation] on a case by case basis."
Three other servicemen, one assigned to Fort Drum in New York, another to the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, and the third to another First Army unit at Fort McCoy in Wisconsin were also charged with insubordination for refusing the vaccine. In each case, the charge was deferred indefinitely and the soldier was ordered to Iraq.
One of those, Sgt. Richard Norris, an eight-year Army veteran with the 101st, has already returned from a year's service in Iraq.
"I was refusing because of all the research I've done that it [the vaccine] wasn't safe and it wasn't legal," Norris said. "I told them I didn't want to avoid service overseas. They said, OK, you can be deployed. ... Now I'm pretty frustrated with it, because since I refused the shot, I've been pending punishment, and I haven't been able to go up in rank."
It could not be determined how many other service members who have refused the vaccine have also been ordered to Iraq.
James Turner, a Pentagon spokesman, said the defense department collects data only on those service members who refuse to take the vaccine and are either disciplined and removed from the service, or resign to avoid the drug. Those figures, say service members challenging the vaccine, have been minimized by officials bent on hiding the problem
Asked why these particular service members were not prosecuted or punished and scores of others were, Turner replied: "Military discipline is a matter for the appropriate command. It would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on these matters. I recommend that you address your questions to the appropriate military departments."
The U.S. Army has sent to Iraq at least four soldiers who have refused to be vaccinated against anthrax, despite the Pentagon's long-held insistence that the vaccine is mandatory for all service members assigned to areas of combat or probable terrorism.
The deployments by base commanders in Indiana, Kentucky, New York and Wisconsin has led Pentagon critics to question the seriousness of the anthrax threat and the fairness of penalties meted out by the armed services earlier for scores of service members nationwide who refused the vaccine.
"This is the first hint that a few courageous operational commanders are beginning to exercise judgment, and are acknowledging what Pentagon leaders will not - that the anthrax threat was simply political hype that is no longer worth losing good soldiers over," John Richardson said.
Richardson is a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and Gulf War veteran who has been a leaders nationwide in seeking an end to the anthrax program.
"The questions raised are, number one, is the vaccine really necessary; and, number two, whether the harsh penalties against the dissenters was really fair," said state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who conceded the military has broad discretion in decisions over whether to punish service members. Several years ago, Blumenthal called for a suspension of the vaccine program.
The program to vaccinate all 2.4 million service members, which started in 1998, has been embroiled in controversy since former Defense Secretary William Cohen ordered it.
The vaccine was initially licensed in 1970 for human skin contact with infected animals, not for use against manufactured anthrax spores fired or sprayed to disable and kill when breathed. The vaccine's reported adverse reaction rate has jumped from 0.2 percent to 5 to 35 percent since its wider use by the military.
"Unfortunately, other commanders are still willing to court-martial and dishonorably discharge [those who refuse the vaccine] rather than risk their next [command] promotion," Richardson said. He and others challenging the vaccine argue it has been proven unsafe and illegal.
Three of the four soldiers were charged between December and January with disobeying a direct order to take the vaccine, but the Army dropped its prosecution in favor of deploying them. The fourth was charged over a year ago before he was sent to Iraq. Decisions to drop the prosecution in favor of deploying them were made by the soldiers' unit commanders in conjuction with higher command headquarters.
One of the four deployed soldiers, an Ohio National Guardsman, had been court martialed for refusing the order to take the vaccine, but his 40 days in the stockade, drop in rank and dishonorable discharge have been put on hold while he serves in Iraq as a public affairs specialist.
Spec. Kurt Hickman got a reprieve earlier this year after a federal judge in Washington, D.C., temporarily barred the military from continuing any anthrax vaccinations. Hickman's penalty was put on hold and he was reassigned to Camp Atterbury in Indiana, where he once again was ordered to take the vaccine. He refused, and again was charged with a refusal to obey a direct order. But, said Ohio National Guard spokesman James Sims, the Camp Atterbury commander, Lt. Col. Kenneth D. Newlin intervened and the charge was dropped.
Newlin allowed Hickman, a videographer, to be sent to Iraq with the 196th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment, part of the First Army.
Maj. Michael Brady, a spokesman for Camp Atterbury, said commanders now "are looking at this [anthrax vaccination situation] on a case by case basis."
Three other servicemen, one assigned to Fort Drum in New York, another to the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, and the third to another First Army unit at Fort McCoy in Wisconsin were also charged with insubordination for refusing the vaccine. In each case, the charge was deferred indefinitely and the soldier was ordered to Iraq.
One of those, Sgt. Richard Norris, an eight-year Army veteran with the 101st, has already returned from a year's service in Iraq.
"I was refusing because of all the research I've done that it [the vaccine] wasn't safe and it wasn't legal," Norris said. "I told them I didn't want to avoid service overseas. They said, OK, you can be deployed. ... Now I'm pretty frustrated with it, because since I refused the shot, I've been pending punishment, and I haven't been able to go up in rank."
It could not be determined how many other service members who have refused the vaccine have also been ordered to Iraq.
James Turner, a Pentagon spokesman, said the defense department collects data only on those service members who refuse to take the vaccine and are either disciplined and removed from the service, or resign to avoid the drug. Those figures, say service members challenging the vaccine, have been minimized by officials bent on hiding the problem
Asked why these particular service members were not prosecuted or punished and scores of others were, Turner replied: "Military discipline is a matter for the appropriate command. It would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on these matters. I recommend that you address your questions to the appropriate military departments."
