Hmmm,,

After reading through some U-boat logs, it looks like the U-123 was all over that area during early 1942.  They were attacked several times but escaped.
I really question the July 1942 date of the supposed CAP attack.  And of course question that it was successful.  Most aerial attacks were not.
Here are samples of a U-boat which constantly escaped after being damaged.

16 Jan 1942
The U-123 the boat was surprised and attacked by an aircraft off New York. Four bombs were dropped that missed and U-123 escaped undamaged by crash-diving.   MAYBE

18 Jan 1942
The U-123 attacks the Tanker Malay with her deck gun and set the tanker on fire.  This occurred off the North Carolina Coast.  So in two days the U-Boat was far from New York...

19 Jan 1942
The MV Kosmos II tried to ram the surfaced U-123 off Oregon Inlet.  ( Off North Carolina)  The U-boat was in shallow water, without any torpedoes left and one of the diesel engines out of order. The Germans managed to get the engine running and slowly out-distanced her at full speed.

27 Mar 1942
After being torpedoed by U-123 the American Q-ship USS Atik (AK 101) surprised and attacked the boat off the US East coast. In the action one man from U-123 was fatally wounded and the Q-ship was sunk with all hands.

2 Apr 1942
During the attack on the tanker SS (might be MV)  Liebre the boat was forced to dive by a patrol vessel and attacked with a depth charge in shallow waters. U-123 only escaped undamaged because no other attacks followed.

11 Apr 1942
After sinking the ship SS Gulfamerica the U-123 was located in shallow waters near Jacksonville Florida from what I can figure. by an aircraft which directed a destroyer to the position.  Depth charges were dropped on U-123 moving over the bottom at a depth of 20 m and badly damaged her. . Most of the damage could be repaired by the crew and the boat continued the patrol.

My limited research into the subject is that our alleged "kills" are largely unsubstantiated, with attributed kills turning up in a far distant area or proving undamaged, but this could be a fog of war kind of thing. Also, as near as I can tell, we had no legal authority to act as combatants in WWII, and could have been hung as illegal combatants. No need to let the fact get in the way of perfectly good war stories however!

Major Lord

QuoteAlso, as near as I can tell, we had no legal authority to act as combatants in WWII,

Well, what fun would that have been?   Even as a retired  veteran of three branches, I still think that plodding along in a Widgeon with a couple 325 pound depth charges would be a nice way to spend an evening. 

Flying can be enjoyable, but high explosives and flying mixed together is positively heaven.....

Although.... If it was 1942 and I accidentally dropped a couple during a patrol, I would have convinced my flying partner to stick with a believable story.

Quote from: Major Lord on June 23, 2012, 04:31:14 AM
Also, as near as I can tell, we had no legal authority to act as combatants in WWII, and could have been hung as illegal combatants.

They were in uniform and acting under explicit military direction.  Whats the problem? 

Quote from: Major Lord on June 23, 2012, 04:31:14 AM
My limited research into the subject is that our alleged "kills" are largely unsubstantiated, with attributed kills turning up in a far distant area or proving undamaged, but this could be a fog of war kind of thing. Also, as near as I can tell, we had no legal authority to act as combatants in WWII, and could have been hung as illegal combatants. No need to let the fact get in the way of perfectly good war stories however!

Major Lord

     It might be a good idea to do a bit of legal/historical research beyond just the current Federal laws concerning CAP.  Under international law that the United States is a signatory to, specifically the Annex to the Hague Convention No. IV of October 18, 1907, CAP members were "legal belligerents". In fact the United States Air Force used to issue a "Department of the Air Force Certificate of Honorable Service" for wartime service that stated "Be it known that (member's grade, name, and CAPSN) served with the Armed Forces of the United States during World War II as an active member of the Civil Air Patrol, a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the U.S. Army Air Forces as a BELLIGERENT" as defined in the previously quoted section of the Hague Convention, and the said certificate was co-signed by the National Commander of Civil Air Patrol, and the Chief of Staff of the USAF.  A belligerent under international law is one who is a legal combatant who is considered legally to be a part of the sponsoring nation's military forces. This definition extends to auxiliaries of military forces, including civilian contractors and support personnel who wear a recognised uniform, and are considered to be "other forces accompanying an active military force" under both the Hague and Geneva conventions.  If you wear your a variant of your country's uniform, and are subject to a chain of command, then technically you are a "lawful combatant".  It also means that your aircraft and radios are legally considered "military arms" under the laws of war, and that you are also a legally a fair target under those same laws of war, the same as an active member of that nation's active military (as the laws of war work both ways).
   

Yes, its true. And under International law we ( as private citizens) would be lawful combatants as members of the Militia, but my questions about our legality as belligerents stems from not being authorized to take the war to the enemy as an organization, by an act of Congress, the only Authority with the power to authorize us to wage war. As near as I can tell , a General just decided to give us bombs one day, and that is how we became whale-killers....I have no objection to this in fact. In fact, I think Congress should issue CAP letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make it nice and legal! There is no question in my mind that we are a volunteer force supporting the regular military, which makes us subject to the Geneva Convention, and could offer us some protection if we are ever lucky enough to go to war with someone who gives a rodential sphincter about "International Law".

Major Lord

Why would Congress need to have specifically authorized CAP to do such things?  They didn't do separate declarations of war for the Army, Navy, Marines, etc.  Congress said go to war.  From that point on its the executive branch's job to decide what to do -- including creating CAP and then authorizing it to take part in anti-sub patrols.

So in your opinion, then, the Boy Scouts could be armed and activated? Congress is the sole authority for the creation of the State of War ( notwithstanding most modern President's use of the Constitution as a mere guideline, to be ignored and overridden by tyrannical decree) The POTUS is the CIC, but only over organizations that are duly federally and lawfully constituted. POTUS for instance, has no Constitutional Authority over the irregular militia, until such time as the become regular militia.

Major Lord

Quote from: Major Lord on June 23, 2012, 07:36:43 PM
So in your opinion, then, the Boy Scouts could be armed and activated? Congress is the sole authority for the creation of the State of War ( notwithstanding most modern President's use of the Constitution as a mere guideline, to be ignored and overridden by tyrannical decree) The POTUS is the CIC, but only over organizations that are duly federally and lawfully constituted. POTUS for instance, has no Constitutional Authority over the irregular militia, until such time as the become regular militia.

Major Lord

Is there some alternate universe where our status as combatants in WWII makes a difference? To quote John Wayne, "Out here, due process is a bullet." Unlike today's society where we have to split three dozen legal hairs every time we flush the toilet, I imagine things were a little more simple back then. Americans good. Germans bad. You want to go shoot at Germans? Here take these bombs, go forth, and kill Germans. That may be oversimplifying it but they didn't have 30 lawyers for every shooter back then either. Rules of Engagement. Don't shoot anybody that's us or with us.

Just as a sidenote, when I get done with a post, I tend to hit enter and expect to see it posted. I think I am spending too much time on FB.

I think you are missing the point. The original post noted a number of incidents. The totality of circumstances, and the preponderance of evidence  leads me to believe that not only did WWII era CAP never sink, let alone actually engage the enemy, but that furthermore, we had no actual authority ( other than arguably trying to make a citizens arrest!) to drop bombs on anybody, which in general, is not allowed and considered impolite.  In other words, our historical claims may indeed be a cart load of the night soil of a herd of male bovine. John Wayne's ( May he live forever in the Halls of Valhalla) paraphrase (ironically) of Chairman Mao's little Red Book is irrelevant to the conversation at hand. ( I would walk a mile to smoke a camel....or the rider, and think that killing bad guys is a remarkably effective way of disenfranchising their power base. ) The larger question in my mind, and how it is relevant today, is whether we broke the law first, and lied second, or the other way around. Maybe we had the guy from "Red Dawn" doing our body, i.e, submarine count.... ( "The enemy takes their sunken subs with them to keep us from finding them!")

As to the issue of a private organization waging war on an enemy, it use to be pretty normal; The Duke of someplaceorother would raise a regiment and go forth and slay the enemy. Sounds awesome to me. Since we don't have any "enemies" anymore ( having essentially abandoned the Constitution, and having re-designated terrorists as misunderstood lad's not having the benefit of American Public Schools to make them good citizens and democratic voters) You might find that having your Church Group stop off at Big 5 for shotguns and ammo and going to lend a hand ( presumably on our side) in West Dirkadirkistan by wacking Haji's may not be considered as a valid or lawful way to support our "War", even if Generalisimo Pineda, Hap Arnold, Or Fiorella Laguardia told you to.

Major Lord