Can Soldiers create a petition on White House website? Or is it punishable?

2014-04-03T18:07:18-04:00

Ok, I was just informed that signing one the petitions can be considered under the UCMJ as an act of sedition and punishable under the UCMJ. So if this is true what will happen to the 6000+ Soldiers who have signed the petition?<div><br></div><div>This concerns the new AR 670-1 and I know nothing will happen to them. </div><div>I would hope that NCO's and officer know there is an official form to request changes to regulations and such.</div>

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2014 4:07 PM

2014-04-11T16:07:25-04:00

<p>When looking at the UCMJ there are several things to consider when rendering an accusation of a crime. First you need to determine what Article the alleged crime would fall under. In this case it would be Article 94 - Mutiny and Sedition. Given that knowledge there are then three areas that need to be consulted before an actual accusation can be turned into a charge. The first is the the general text of the Article. In this case the text of Article 94 - Sedition would be located under Section (a) Part (2) and reads " (a) "Any person subject to this chapter who-- (2) with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, in concert with any other person, revolt, violence, or other disturbance against that authority is guilty of sedition". Now you need to evaluate the second area which callled the elements. An allegation MUST meet every annotated element listed for it to be considered an accurate charge. In this case Sedition must meet the elements of "(a) That the accused created revolt, violence, or disturbance against lawful civil authority; (b) That the accused acted in concert with another person or persons; and (c) That the accused did so with the intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of that authority". Finally, an evaluation of the explanation needs to be reviewed. Under Article 94, Sedition is explained as "(2) Sedition. Sedition requires a concert of action in resistance to civil authority. This differs from mutiny by creating violence or disturbance." </p><p> </p><p>All of this information needs to be reviewed prior to making a charge of Sedition. Given this, a petition filed by the members of the United States Military does not quantify a charge of Sedition because of one small factor - the term "civil authority". There are three forms of authority in the United States; Civil Authority, Military Authority and Religious Authority. Civil Authority is defined as "Civial Authority (also known as civil government) is that apparatus of the state other than its military units that enforces law and order".As this regulation is a military regulation, it is actually protected under Military Authority not Civil Authority, therefore, Sedition, in this case, would not apply. Members of the miltiary are able to file petitions against regulations as they see fit, however, you are correct that the more appropriate avenue does remain the DA 2028.</p><p> </p><p>Even so, should a filed petition against AR 670-1 ever be quantified as sedition in the miltiary, the maximum punishment includes death or such punishment as a court-martial may allow. Given that death is an option, violation of Article 94 can be considered a very serious crime. I can guarantee no one would ever be sentenced to death for filing and/or signing a petition that disallows for fanciful hair, despite any of our opinions to the contrary. </p><p> </p><p> </p>

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2014 6:32 PM

2014-04-11T18:32:51-04:00

That website is a joke anymore, has been since they had enough signatures to request construction of the death star.

To begin with the forum had no value: if something as serious as any of the allegations were brought up the proper channels, they would be addressed in a timely fashion, some of the "results" of the petitions were already in motion: so it can easily be said that it brings to light no new issues. Even if the amount of signatures required is reached, it does not mean it will be addressed as requested merely that a response from higher SHOULD be available.

As far as such activity by Service Members being deemed illegal? sounds like an uphill battle by that legal team. Perhaps something a local Commander put in their "online activity" policy? it would pass the common sense test that if such a venue were available to the public and endorsed by the Commander in Chief; that it would not be "jumping the chain of command" so to speak. The DA 2028 itself might be available, but as the authority that restricted the activity in question was not an actual level of the military but above it, it would fall on deaf ears. Therefor the ONLY conceivable authority to remove the restriction would be to utilize the forum of which your legal team has deemed illegal?

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Apr 11 at 2014 6:38 PM

2014-04-11T18:38:39-04:00

If peaceably assembling to petition my government for a redress of grievances is sedition, I probably won't be a SFC for much longer.<br>

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Apr 11 at 2014 11:20 PM

2014-04-11T23:20:42-04:00

I did some research on this. The answer on petitions is in DoD Directive 1344.10. Specifically: <div><br></div><div>4.1.1. A member of the Armed Forces on active duty may: <div><p class="p1"><br></p></div><div>4.1.1.5. Sign a petition for a specific legislative action or a petition to place a candidate’s name on an official election ballot, if the signing does not obligate the member to engage in partisan political activity and is done as a private citizen and not as a representative of the Armed Forces.<div><div><div><p class="p1"><br></p><p class="p1"><br></p></div></div></div></div></div>

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Apr 11 at 2014 11:26 PM

2014-04-11T23:26:12-04:00

Is that why we have highly paid lobbyist for?

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Apr 30 at 2014 1:00 PM

2014-04-30T13:00:13-04:00

There's no need. Every Army Regulation has a section in it's beginning on the submission of DA Form 2028's to recommend changes to publications and regulations.

For example, here are the instructions located in AR 670-1:

"Suggested improvements. Users are invited to send comments and suggested improvements on DA Form 2028 (Recommended Changes to Publications and Blank Forms) directly to Deputy Chief of Staff, G–1 (DAPE–HRI), 300 Army Pentagon, Washington, DC 22310-0300."

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Apr 30 at 2014 1:21 PM

2014-04-30T13:21:37-04:00

SSG Hasbun mentioned the DA 2028; this is a form of petition.

Participative leadership has been a recognized approach for as long as I can remember. There is nothing wrong with seeking or considering the counsel of subordinates.

I comply with orders that are lawful, but I will challenge and propose alternate courses for any that are wasteful, inefficient, or otherwise detrimental to readiness.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 30 at 2014 1:48 PM

2014-04-30T13:48:00-04:00

It's a soldier's duty to make appropriate suggestions which, benefit all services. Since deregulation of Social Media the JCS are constantly under fire from civil organizations, and the Administration.

Unfortunately, it's been a "popularity contest" since the first Active Duty service member published personal opinion in public domain.

Q. Who has more "power" than a General?

A. Twenty-two year old "Public Affairs Officers".

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Sep 2 at 2014 1:51 AM

2014-09-02T01:51:48-04:00

Depends on what the petition is for...

Response by CW2 Jonathan Kantor made Sep 2 at 2014 3:42 AM

2014-09-02T03:42:08-04:00

I sign petitions on Whitehouse.gov all the time. Just don't represent yourself as a Soldier or suggest in any way that your views are those of the military and it isn't an issue. You can't really do that anyways... you just sign your name for the most part.

I suppose signing one about impeaching the president might be a violation of UCMJ, but it seems silly to petition the Whitehouse to impeach its own executive so I don't think that would be on there.