The Topic Got Locked Before I Knew It Was Open!

[star1151]

Some of you seem to be confusing "Prisoner of War" with "Combatant." 

That's because you used both terms in your original post. :-)

My question is about the openly bearings arms part.  Clearly we don't do that, so how does that fit in?

[aveighter]

Some of you seem to be confusing "Prisoner of War" with "Combatant." 

That's because you used both terms in your original post. :-)

My question is about the openly bearings arms part.  Clearly we don't do that, so how does that fit in?

It means when and if one is bearing arms one bears them openly.  His examples were quite clear.  Not all military personnel (in fact rather few) bear arms often and in actual fact bear them quite rarely (refer to the previous examples).

[star1151]

It means when and if one is bearing arms one bears them openly.  His examples were quite clear.  Not all military personnel (in fact rather few) bear arms often and in actual fact bear them quite rarely (refer to the previous examples).

That's kind of what I figured, but wasn't sure.

[CASH172]

So if I'm understanding all of this correctly, does that mean an enemy soldier is legally authorized by the GC to shoot a 12 year old cadet when he's in uniform doing something that somewhat helps support some conflict the USAF is fighting. 

[mikeylikey]

So if I'm understanding all of this correctly, does that mean an enemy soldier is legally authorized by the GC to shoot a 12 year old cadet when he's in uniform doing something that somewhat helps support some conflict the USAF is fighting. 

There it gets tricky.  There are many articles in the GC.  Situation is always a factor, as is force used to stop your enemy. 

I doubt we would see many 12 year olds, but if you research WWII, the Nazi's did use kids that young (especially at the end of the war).  Many American Officers and Soldiers had a difficult time shooting kids, but most got over it when those kids were shooting at them. 

Today, the line is more blurred, as kids as young as 6 or 7 may be a suicide bomber, or the IED emplacement runner. 

This is a question that a JAG would be better versed in responding too.  I defer......

[RiverAux]

Any enemy soldier that makes it all the way into the US wearing their uniform is probably smart enough to pick a better target.  

[Eclipse]

Any enemy soldier that makes it all the way into the US wearing their uniform is probably smart enough to pick a better target. 

Maybe, however I also don't think its outside the realm of possibility that >if< we were in a position where the CONUS was actually under attack from ground forces, that CAP would have a wider role than launching rockets and silencing ELTs.

The last time this happend they had our people dropping bombs.

When things get that FUBAR, gov'mints look for anyone who can man a post, and we're a big group, already in uniform, and with (theoretically) a little more training and survival capabilities than the average Joe on the street.

And certainly if we're walking around in any kind of uniform that is close to the RealMilitary® while under a ground assault, its likely we would be mistaken for combat forces, cause frankly, in that scenario, you'd have to be an idiot to be wearing a uniform if you >weren't< a combantant. 

Staring down the barrel of an AK47 might make you rethink the whole golf shirt discussion.   

[lordmonar]

Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.


(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.


(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

So you can be in one of three (or four) categories.

Legal combatant...you are a solder and protected by the GC.
Non-combatant...you are a civilian, not aiding the combatants, or the war effort and you are protected by the GC (or a doctor/chaplain).

Illegal combatant...you are fighting but do not meet the four tests of a legal combatant and you can then be tried as a criminal and are not protected by the GC.

The final category is "undetermined" that means you fall outside the envelope and they don't know what to do with you.

But the GC in Art 4 clearly spells out that even "civilians" can be considered combatants as far as the POW rules go.

Civil Air Patrol very definitely fits the four test of a legal combatant and clearly falls into several of the different categories spelled out in Art 4.

So......don't be disillusioned....we are most definitely legal combatants.

[RiverAux]

It appears to me that from reading those texts that you can be a POW without having necessarily been a lawful combatant first.  Two different things. 

[Major Carrales]

I once posted a thread about CAP memebers caught behind enemy lines following an invasion of the US and people got too stuck on the fine details of the "hypothetical" example instead of addressing the issues at hand.

Lets see if it can flow here without that sort of nonsense.

[SAR-EMT1]

Then again, after reading the GC's Ive come to the conclusion that anyone having both a CGAux card AND a CAP (AFAux) card, can upon capture be shot as a spy: two IDs ~ probable spy.

As for the Activities thing: If the US is in a war at home (World in Conflict anyone) I think that CAP is definately going to be doing more. (One big reason to take SOS folks)
We would take over for the 71-L or the SrA at the base Inn.
--- Dropping bombs, no, but we probably will have Stingers on our 182's.  IM SERIOUS

[mikeylikey]

Then again, after reading the GC's Ive come to the conclusion that anyone having both a CGAux card AND a CAP (AFAux) card, can upon capture be shot as a spy: two IDs ~ probable spy.

As for the Activities thing: If the US is in a war at home (World in Conflict anyone) I think that CAP is definitely going to be doing more. (One big reason to take SOS folks)
We would take over for the 71-L or the SrA at the base Inn.
--- Dropping bombs, no, but we probably will have Stingers on our 182's.  IM SERIOUS

More than likely, those of us fit for service would be first in line at your local draft board.  OR, we would be required to fill in on bases and posts in FRG functions, assist the Red Cross, setup those old cold war radio nets etc. 

Lets hope it never happens, but the way the world is going these days, that prediction has a better chance today than say 10 years ago.

[wingnut]

Good thread

1.  I think when one is on an AFAM you are considered under command of the Sec AF.

2. Mexico considers CAP missions on the Border as US Military operations.

3. If the US Government considers CAP as a Military Asset, the bad guys will too.

4. I we are considered to be part of the US Military, the Geneva Convention has some guidelines for uniforms etc. I may be wrong but I believe that Rescue personnel flying aircraft are to wear the "Blue" style flight suit, while combat and support wear the standard uniforms. You may notice that NASA follows the Geneva convention on rules of the color of Flight suits, the Blue is for non -combat air crews.

5. I also believe that some new rules about Picture IDs had been established so that Active duty and Civilian contractors are clearly identified along with a specific uniformity of the ID card. I was surprised to see the cheesy ID card that National decided to go with because it is not really a legal DOD type of ID card for what we do. I mean technically CAP provides 'Contract" work to the USAF.

SO what do you thinK? :angel:

[lordmonar]

4. I we are considered to be part of the US Military, the Geneva Convention has some guidelines for uniforms etc. I may be wrong but I believe that Rescue personnel flying aircraft are to wear the "Blue" style flight suit, while combat and support wear the standard uniforms. You may notice that NASA follows the Geneva convention on rules of the color of Flight suits, the Blue is for non -combat air crews.

Did you buy the bridge that came with that story?  The GC has no rules on color of flight suits!  NASA wears blue because blue is a cool color.

5. I also believe that some new rules about Picture IDs had been established so that Active duty and Civilian contractors are clearly identified along with a specific uniformity of the ID card. I was surprised to see the cheesy ID card that National decided to go with because it is not really a legal DOD type of ID card for what we do. I mean technically CAP provides 'Contract" work to the USAF.

USAF had something to say about CAP ID as they did not want them to be too close to DOD issued IDs.

[SARMedTech]

Then again, after reading the GC's Ive come to the conclusion that anyone having both a CGAux card AND a CAP (AFAux) card, can upon capture be shot as a spy: two IDs ~ probable spy.

As for the Activities thing: If the US is in a war at home (World in Conflict anyone) I think that CAP is definitely going to be doing more. (One big reason to take SOS folks)
We would take over for the 71-L or the SrA at the base Inn.
--- Dropping bombs, no, but we probably will have Stingers on our 182's.  IM SERIOUS

More than likely, those of us fit for service would be first in line at your local draft board.  OR, we would be required to fill in on bases and posts in FRG functions, assist the Red Cross, setup those old cold war radio nets etc. 

Lets hope it never happens, but the way the world is going these days, that prediction has a better chance today than say 10 years ago.

First off, there is no American draft board, nor is there currently any provision under American law that would provide for the emergency establishment of a draft board in a time of war. And no, since the draft was abolished selective services doesnt count. The only thing that would bring on a draft is an act of Congress and we know how long that would take.

Secondly, CAP commanders, as has been recognized time and time again, have no authority under American or International Law, CAPs "constitution" and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, have any lawful authority to issue an order that must be obeyed nor would it hold up in any court in the land if one of us refused an order given by a USAF officer. We salute them as a courtesy, we obey them as a courtesy. Sure we can get 2B'd for disobeying an order, but in the scheme of international and military law...big F'in deal.

CAP is a private non-profit corporation, even when operating as a so-called "force multiplier" to the USAF. Its a non-profit kids. A 501.

We are not authorized under any conditions to bear arms. ANY CONDITION.

Those who think CAP pilots would be up there touching off stingers...well...the flaw in that needs no analysis.

I think this whole thing needs a good going over by a lawyer versed in military and international law. Even when in uniform, we do not wear USAF uniforms, we were USAF TYPE UNIFORMS.

What the USCGAUX does or doesnt do has no bearing on CAP because the organizations are so different that its like comparing apples to pumpkins. Any CAP member (remember the grade is a bling and has no meaning) who decided to "bear arms" whether it be an M-16, a radio, a plane or a sidewinder  would be in violation of so many international laws it would make their heads spin. Come time that there is a true act of war against the US (and terrorism is not an act of war) the USAF would be scrambling in so many directions carrying out so many procedures that they wouldnt even remember CAP existed and if they did, a CAP pilot under the current organizational structure is sure as heck not going to be carrying out military functions in a time of declared war. This isnt WWII folks. Its fun to think about and all, but its not gonna happen. Its not that I dont think it should or that it might be a good idea, its that the current law and structure of CAP itself do not allow for it. 

CAP cant even do something so simple as field a legally functioning medical asset. Come on guys.

[RiverAux]

Selective Service IS the draft.  And yes, there are currently people serving on local draft boards right now -- of course they're not drafting anybody, but they've got people in the slots.  Heck, they've even got National Guard and Reserve members who fulfill their time committments by helping out with this system. 

[SARMedTech]

So if the United States were attacked tomorrow, men over 18 could be drafted?  Nope. Also, how many thousand women are there in CAP? Under American law, women cannot fill combatant roles, but rather roles in support of combat. Its a grey area and its exactly this kind of grey area the keeps CAP out of the fray. Since the draft is abolished Selective Services is little more than a mailing list for US military recruiters.

[RiverAux]

Actually, they could be drafted immediately by the Governor of their states.  Everyone forgets about that little clause found in the laws of every state in the Union.  And, technically, once drafted into state service, the President could "federalize" them. 

Now, that isn't the Selective Service system, but it is there. 

[Grumpy]

So if the United States were attacked tomorrow, men over 18 could be drafted?  Nope. Also, how many thousand women are there in CAP? Under American law, women cannot fill combatant roles, but rather roles in support of combat. Its a grey area and its exactly this kind of grey area the keeps CAP out of the fray. Since the draft is abolished Selective Services is little more than a mailing list for US military recruiters.

If women can not fill combat roles under American law, how do you explain the female  A-10 and and F16 drivers out there?  Is the AF in violation of American law?

[RiverAux]

Just to clarify a bit... in your state military statutes it will somewhere define the various classes of miltia.  These are usually split into the organized militia (the Army and Air National Guard, and State Defense Force/Naval Militia) and the unorganized militia.  The unorganized militia is usually defined as all males 18-50 (it varies by state, and some do include women).  Elsewhere in the code it will describe the Governor's authority for calling out the unorganized militia. 

Once the unorganized militia is called up it could be federalized using the President's authority in the Constitution.  That was how it was done in the old days prior to the current National Guard system.