But there was a serious piece of misinformation I want to correct.
I think it was "Razor" who made the claim that without the sepecial CAP insignia, that we could be mistaken for combatant personnel.
I got a quick news flash for you. You ARE combatant personnel under the Geneva rules. You are legitimate targets in war, and (if we ever go to war with a nation that obeys the Law of Armed Conflict) entitled to POW status if captured.
I spent several years as a staff officer with the 300th MIlitary Police Command, which was then the Army's planning staff for POW operations. I actually had to read the obtuse language of the Protocols for Treatment of Prisoners of War and Other Captives.
There are only 2 categories of military guys that are NOT considered combatants, medical personnel and chaplains. Medical personnel, in order to claim the privilege of being non-combatants, must display the Red Cross (or Red Crescent, Red Star of David, or when the Shah was still alive the Red Lion and Sun).
Even if you accept the premise that CAP is a civilian force, we would qualify as combatants under either the "Civilians Accompanying an Armed Force" rule, or the "Militia, Partisans, and Irregular Forces" rule.
The Congressional action declaring CAP as authorized to carry out "Non-combat missions and programs of the Air Force" is meaningless under International Law. The fact that we are performing any missions (cadet training, search and rescue, public education) for the Air Force means that we are a force multiplier and an integral part of the Air Force. In other words, if we were not doing it, an Air Force guy would have to. The fact that we free up AF people for combat missions makes us a combat support force under the Law of Armed Conflict.
Does this mean I get a "combat wing patch" for my right shoulder after I went on my first real mission?
Interesting read, Kach, seriously.
I'm not certain about this. MIKE has shown me that fancy Geneva Convention card those CG Auxies get, and we don't have one in CAP. We are a uniformed force of sorts, but not a military one, and I'd say it is a stretch to even call us a militia. Most militias I know are armed.
Not that I've seen CG Auxies with guns, but I've never been to a CG Auxie meeting either.
Quote from: Stonewall on December 13, 2007, 02:12:26 PM
Does this mean I get a "combat wing patch" for my right shoulder after I went on my first real mission?
Interesting read, Kach, seriously.
Interesting yes, but a sticky wicket. I think perhaps you are painting the GC with a rather broad brush. First, I believe that the International Red Cross no longer allows the use of the red cross armband on medics and corpsman. Secondly, the International War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague has time and time again upheld that a combatant is one who is authorized to carry out missions for their country as a military asset, and the fine print is that a "combatant" is one who wears the uniform and flag of his country. This has become clear lately, since Blackwater operators have been declared not protected under the Geneva Conventions. I certainly will defer to your expertise in the should I be incorrect and the way in which you construe it then any insurgent who picks up an RPG and lobs it at a Blackhawk is considered under international law a combatant and therefor guaranteed protection as such under the Conventions should he be captured. I believe the detainees at Gitmo demonstrate that though many of them are considered, under your definition, to be detainee/combatants, they simply are not under the GC and therefor can rot for a very long time. They are not entitled to visits and inspections of their situations be Red Cross or Red Crescent delegations because as defined in the GC, they are not combatants, and neither are CAP members. I see where your headed and its certainly a fine legal hair to be sure, im just not sure it would fly, as it were.
Keep in mind the US on the CAP emblem (triangle and prop) identifies CAP as a quasi military organization of the United States. It was added when CAP was doing combat missions (anto sub patrol) so that if captured would not be considered civilians. CAP has retained the US on the emblem (until last NEC meeting from what i read) to indicate CAP is an official Untited States authorized organization, thus covered by the Geneva Convention.
Quote from: SARMedTech on December 13, 2007, 02:50:19 PM
and the fine print is that a "combatant" is one who wears the uniform and flag of his country. This has become clear lately, since Blackwater operators have been declared not protected under the Geneva Conventions.
There are statements about uniforms, but being a combatant is not dependent on that. For instance, village person A is a civilian and receives all the special restrictions based on that, until such time as A picks up a weapon to use against you. At that point, A is a legal combatant, regardless of how he's dressed.
Quote from: Cobra1597 on December 13, 2007, 02:37:46 PM
I'm not certain about this. MIKE has shown me that fancy Geneva Convention card those CG Auxies get, and we don't have one in CAP. We are a uniformed force of sorts, but not a military one, and I'd say it is a stretch to even call us a militia. Most militias I know are armed.
Not that I've seen CG Auxies with guns, but I've never been to a CG Auxie meeting either.
CLearly the CGAUX is totally different. They are ALWAYS a part of the CG and are not subject to aux on/aux off. We most certainly are not a militia or an irregular force. So what we have here with the different fat and fuzzies is that they may not be wearing the uniform of the USAF, but rather of Civil Air Patrol, Inc. Clearly, a civilian non-profit organization is not protected under the conventions. No rules of engagement apply to CAP members. I think it would be interesting to hear it argued out in a court of compatant jurisdiction. But as of now, I think we need not all learn to continually repeat "name,rank, service number."
Quote from: davedove on December 13, 2007, 02:58:39 PM
Quote from: SARMedTech on December 13, 2007, 02:50:19 PM
and the fine print is that a "combatant" is one who wears the uniform and flag of his country. This has become clear lately, since Blackwater operators have been declared not protected under the Geneva Conventions.
There are statements about uniforms, but being a combatant is not dependent on that. For instance, village person A is a civilian and receives all the special restrictions based on that, until such time as A picks up a weapon to use against you. At that point, A is a legal combatant, regardless of how he's dressed.
He is still not a combatant until he has been sworn to defend and protect and has been given a direct order through a chain of command to shoot you.
Under your scenario, a person who invades my home in the middle of the night and I give him a .40 souvenir of his trip, he is an enemy combatant and there wont be any need for a trial to determine self defense.
If the pilot of a CAP plane is flying the Governor of his wings state to a destination and wearing his CAP uniform, and when they land, a screaming mad man waving an AK at you pulls the trigger....well then its all good, because as you are defining it, he is flying a CAP mission, wearing a CAP uniform with (whether or not you like it is irrelevant ) has an American Flag on his shoulder. If I deploy with IMERT to a provide medical rehab services to NG troops keeping the peace during a hurricane, am I then an enemy combatant? As I say,I think the GC is intended to be construed very narrowly.
Quote from: SARMedTech on December 13, 2007, 03:02:30 PM
Quote from: davedove on December 13, 2007, 02:58:39 PM
Quote from: SARMedTech on December 13, 2007, 02:50:19 PM
and the fine print is that a "combatant" is one who wears the uniform and flag of his country. This has become clear lately, since Blackwater operators have been declared not protected under the Geneva Conventions.
There are statements about uniforms, but being a combatant is not dependent on that. For instance, village person A is a civilian and receives all the special restrictions based on that, until such time as A picks up a weapon to use against you. At that point, A is a legal combatant, regardless of how he's dressed.
He is still not a combatant until he has been sworn to defend and protect and has been given a direct order through a chain of command to shoot you.
I was mainly looking at it from how I learned it, as a member of the Army. At that point, it was whether or not we could direct fire at the individual without being brought up on charges. From that point of view, if the individual is attacking you, you can fight back, and thus he is a legal combatant.
Trust me.....if anyone in CAP found themselves in the hands of an enemy force, you want the protection of the Geneva conventions. If not, the enemy has every right to shoot you on sight, and claim later "spies, saboteurs, gorilla fighters, or anything but CIVILIAN".
Not that it is a possibility......or is it?
It's all good... I have my other ID card. ;D For the rest of you... Sorry about your luck.
And in the current War on Terror, I can see the Laws of War are at the front of the enemies conduct!
Quote from: Flying Pig on December 13, 2007, 04:43:27 PM
And in the current War on Terror, I can see the Laws of War are at the front of the enemies conduct!
No....but we are still obligated to uphold them. Because when the time comes and we go to war with China or Russia, we want them to uphold the rules and not say "well you violated them 10 years ago, so they are null and void".
I KNOW this is confusing. Let me see if I can get it to the clarity level of Mississippi mud.
CAP does military missions. Period. As long as we have the capability of perform in a military mission, which then eliminates the need for a member of the regular armed forces to perform that task, we are a combat asset of the United States.
Some of you seem to be confusing "Prisoner of War" with "Combatant."
A lawful combatant, entitled to status as a prisoner of war is a member of the military, wearing a uniform. He must be subject to centralized command authority, and carry out his duties in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict. If he has a weapon, he must bear arms openly. The definition of "Lawful Combatant" includes civilians accompanying an armed force.
There are two exceptions to the requirement to wear uniforms:
1. Members of a partisan, guerilla, or other irregular force do not need to wear a uniform, but must wear a distinctive badge or device that identifies them as a member of such force. They must still be subject to central control, bear arms openly, and act in accordance with the Law of War.
2. Citizens of a village or town that, upon approach of an enemy force, spontaneously take up arms in defense. They do NOT have to be subject to central command and control, and need no uniform or badge.
Any other combatant is considered a "Detained Person" if captured, and has none of the rights of a POW. They are still, however, combatants.
Just for a moment, consider:
PV2 Snuffy joins the Army, and qualifies as a 71-L (clerk-typist). His assignment is to process transfer orders from Camp Swampy, Arkansas. As a garrison asset, he is not even issued a weapon. Is PV-2 Snuffy a combatant within the meaning of International Law?
Capt. Strongjaw volunteers as a civilian-qualified pilot to fly on Air Force orders. Most recently, he was assigned to take several Air Force cadets on an "Orientation Flight" to introduce them to the principles of flight and techniques for controlling aircraft. Is Capt. Strongjaw a combatant within the meaning of International Law?
SrA Susie Sweathog joined the Air Force, and is currently assigned as a reception clerk at a base lodging office. She qualified with a rifle in basic training, but has not even seen one since. Her duty is to check transient aircrew members and other persons on temporary duty in and out of quarters at an Air Force base. Is SrA Sweathog a combatant within the meaning of International Law?
All three... YES.
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 13, 2007, 04:47:11 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on December 13, 2007, 04:43:27 PM
And in the current War on Terror, I can see the Laws of War are at the front of the enemies conduct!
No....but we are still obligated to uphold them. Because when the time comes and we go to war with China or Russia, we want them to uphold the rules and not say "well you violated them 10 years ago, so they are null and void".
Too bad we aren't doing a good job with that now.
Quote from: Cobra1597 on December 13, 2007, 06:33:35 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 13, 2007, 04:47:11 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on December 13, 2007, 04:43:27 PM
And in the current War on Terror, I can see the Laws of War are at the front of the enemies conduct!
No....but we are still obligated to uphold them. Because when the time comes and we go to war with China or Russia, we want them to uphold the rules and not say "well you violated them 10 years ago, so they are null and void".
Too bad we aren't doing a good job with that now.
I would say compared to other wars in our history, our forces have controlled themselves well. Granted there are a few blemishes in our current war(s), but those involved are dealt with correctly under the Law.
Last time I checked, we don't chop the enemies head off while they are still alive, we don't blow up women and children waiting to go to the market, we don't gas Innocent children while they sleep. Oh, we don't blow up hospitals (on purpose), schools, churches, raid museums, drag the enemy through the streets. And my favorite, we don't employ Suicide Bombers.
I'd say that no matter the legal status CAP would be a legitimate, though very low value target.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 13, 2007, 10:31:42 PM
I'd say that no matter the legal status CAP would be a legitimate, though very low value target.
Unless the enemy knew we were ferrying around important people. Or acting as a courier service. I think they would say "lets practice by shooting down those little planes.
They'd have to shoot down an awful lot of CAPflights before they actually hit one performing a mission that might have posed some threat to them....
Quote from: Cobra1597 on December 13, 2007, 02:37:46 PM
I'm not certain about this. MIKE has shown me that fancy Geneva Convention card those CG Auxies get, and we don't have one in CAP. We are a uniformed force of sorts, but not a military one, and I'd say it is a stretch to even call us a militia. Most militias I know are armed.
Not that I've seen CG Auxies with guns, but I've never been to a CG Auxie meeting either.
Your plane and your radio are "arms" as far as the Geneva Convention is concerned. We are sometimes the USAF Auxiliary and this makes us a legitimate target as far as the GC is concerned. The GC does not make any distinction between regular, reserve or militia organizations just combatants and non-combatants.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 13, 2007, 04:58:09 PM
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?
Quote from: star1151 on December 14, 2007, 12:23:51 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 13, 2007, 04:58:09 PM
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).
Quote from: aveighter on December 14, 2007, 12:53:10 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: CASH172 on December 14, 2007, 02:51:21 AM
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......
Any enemy soldier that makes it all the way into the US wearing their uniform is probably smart enough to pick a better target.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 14, 2007, 03:02:10 AM
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. ;D
Quote from: Law of Armed ConflictLawful 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.
Quote from: Geneva ConventionArt 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.
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.
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. >:D
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
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on December 14, 2007, 06:57:39 AM
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.
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:
Quote from: wingnut on December 14, 2007, 07:17:11 AM
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.
Quote5. 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.
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 14, 2007, 07:09:41 AM
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on December 14, 2007, 06:57:39 AM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: SARMedTech on December 14, 2007, 02:46:40 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: CASH172 on December 14, 2007, 02:51:21 AM
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.
Yes.
Under the GC, ANY combatant is a legitimate target.
Quote from: SARMedTech on December 14, 2007, 02:21:12 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 14, 2007, 07:09:41 AM
Quote from: SAR-EMT1 on December 14, 2007, 06:57:39 AM
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.
The question is not whether CAP is likely to engage in combat, nor is the question addressing whether or not CAP, given its rather dysfunctional management profile, would be successful in combat. I recognize that the US Congress has assigned CAP to carry out "Non-combat missions and programs for the Air Force".
The question is, however, does the GC recognize auxiliary military forces, however organized and assigned, as "Combatants?" The answer is "Yes," unless individual members of that organization fall into the exceptions, such as medical troops or chaplains.
I don't see CAP, even in the MOST extreme situations, actually launching ordnance from their planes. I DO see CAP involved in moving priority cargo and key personnel, however. If we have stingers on our planes, they will probably be in the box.
At the present time, congress is considering re-instating the draft and it could be done within a very short time period.
Quote from: capchiro on December 14, 2007, 03:38:42 PM
At the present time, congress is considering re-instating the draft and it could be done within a very short time period.
Really? I watch C-Span and have yet to hear of this. The closest I read was an an Army Times Poll "should there be a draft?"
Linky to draft related info please?
BTW......As an Officer, I would prefer there not be a National Draft. When you force Americans to do something they DO NOT WANT TO DO, they usually end up doing half-assed jobs, being pissy about having to do it, and eventually hate the person making them do it.
I do believe in National Service though. I would not mind a law stating something like "before you are considered a Citizen, you must serve our country for 2 years after graduating High School. Whether that service is military, or civilian, you MUST SERVE".
Congress isn't considering it. One or two congressmen have been half-heartedly pushing for it as a political ploy. Came up for a vote a year or two ago and not even the bill sponsors voted for it.
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 14, 2007, 04:23:29 PMI do believe in National Service though. I would not mind a law stating something like "before you are considered a Citizen, you must serve our country for 2 years after graduating High School. Whether that service is military, or civilian, you MUST SERVE".
Sounds alot like that Starship Troopers movie a few years back, minus the civilian part, but personally, I like the idea.
This thread has alot of interesting information, I'm certainly glad there are people more knowledgeable on the subject than me willing to educate us about it.
Quote from: timmed1577 on December 14, 2007, 05:56:57 PM
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 14, 2007, 04:23:29 PMI do believe in National Service though. I would not mind a law stating something like "before you are considered a Citizen, you must serve our country for 2 years after graduating High School. Whether that service is military, or civilian, you MUST SERVE".
Sounds alot like that Starship Troopers movie a few years back, minus the civilian part, but personally, I like the idea.
This thread has alot of interesting information, I'm certainly glad there are people more knowledgeable on the subject than me willing to educate us about it.
That was a good movie. Anyway, we are all here to educate each other! Or at least that is what they keep telling us.
An interesting read on the transition from a post-Vietnam conscripted Army to the so-called "VOLAR" (Volunteer Army) in the 1970s is a book called "The Battles of Peace (http://www.amazon.com/Battles-Peace-Michael-Lee-Lanning/dp/0804106096)" by Michael Lee Lanning. Its worth the read for some of the hard leadership lessons it presents.
Read most of it and you'll understand why professional soldiers do not welcome a conscripted Army.
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 14, 2007, 04:23:29 PM
[I do believe in National Service though. I would not mind a law stating something like "before you are considered a Citizen, you must serve our country for 2 years after graduating High School. Whether that service is military, or civilian, you MUST SERVE".
Read Robert A. Heinlien's book "Starship Trooper" for more on this requirement. The movie barely touched on this subject.
Conscripts make poor troops - especially today in our high-tech military.
Quote from: mikeylikey link=topic=3764.msg72523#msg72523
I do believe in National Service though. I would not mind a law stating something like "before you are considered a Citizen, you must serve our country for 2 years after graduating High School. Whether that service is military, or civilian, you MUST SERVE".
Kind of limits the officer pool, does it not? NROTC denied me for a medical reason, but if that reason didn't exist, I'd hate to be forced to enlist instead of doing ROTC or OCS after college. Like you said, when people are forced to do something they don't want to do, they generally do a poor job. I think that extends past the draft (which I'm not subject) and into mandatory national service.
Getting back to the GC/LOLWF questions, I read somewhere that the reason that CAP was originally put in uniform was to give the members GC status in case they were picked up by German U-Boats. It would have been a VERY long voyage back, but they would have been treated as PWs instead of spies, etc.
Quote from: Gunner C on December 15, 2007, 02:29:36 AM
Getting back to the GC/LOLWF questions, I read somewhere that the reason that CAP was originally put in uniform was to give the members GC status in case they were picked up by German U-Boats. It would have been a VERY long voyage back, but they would have been treated as PWs instead of spies, etc.
That's true, Gunner. In mid-1942, when Arnold had reached the decision to arm CAP planes, but had not yet devised the exact method, he asked Gill Robb Wilson if CAP members would carry bombs in civilian clothing and without any military affiliation. Wilson assured Arnold that CAP members would, even though everyone knew that the Germans did not have a reputation for kindness toward partisans.
Arnold thought the idea through, and decided to make CAP an "Auxiliary" of the Army Air Corps, and put them in a modified Air Corps uniform.
And the rest, is history.
I thought we had settled this. CAP members were wearing uniforms about a year before the organization was transferred to the Army. They were wearing the Army uniform well before actually being in the Army.
Quote from: SARMedTech on December 14, 2007, 02:21:12 PMFirst 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.
The theoretical supposition here is that someone big and bad was attacking us on American Soil...like maybe Mexico or Canada allied against us...how else could CAP be involved.
So...the selective service does count and Congress could pass that bill quickly....only took 2 days for us to come in during WWII.
Quote from: SARMedTech on December 14, 2007, 02:21:12 PM
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.
As far as the law of armed conflict goes and international law....the fact that we internally have a command structure...even if it has no "legal" power, constitutes a command structure in for the LOAC.
Quote from: SARMedTech on December 14, 2007, 02:21:12 PM
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.
By definition or aircraft counts as a "weapons system" and counts as bearing arms. Our communications network counts as a command and control asset. All of these make us legal targets.
Quote from: SARMedTech on December 14, 2007, 02:21:12 PMThose who think CAP pilots would be up there touching off stingers...well...the flaw in that needs no analysis.
I don't know....it did not take the old boys in '42 to talk the government out of some bombs when they needed them.....it would not be too far fetched to see some armed applications of CAP aerial platforms.....not against the Russians....but since this is all hypothetical let's enjoy ourselves.
Quote from: SARMedTech on December 14, 2007, 02:21:12 PMI 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.
Uniforms can be as simple as a handkerchief tied around the sleeve. The enemy does have a copy of AFI 36-2903......oh don't shoot that one....he's not wearing the right color name tapes!
Quote from: SARMedTech on December 14, 2007, 02:21:12 PMWhat 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.
No.....he would be defending his country...and even civilians can do that! The GC specifically protects "volunteer" organizations and affords them the same protection as the regular forces of a combatant country. For example Hitler Youth units in WWII were armed and sent to the front. They were legal combatants and afforded POW status. In this hypothetical we could arm Boy Scouts and they would be legal combatants.
Quote from: SARMedTech on December 14, 2007, 02:21:12 PM
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.
Well you are right that this situation would probably never happen...so it is totally hypothtical....but you are wrong about the legal issues. If Mexico was going to attack us. They could certainly bomb your CAP hanger and the house that has your CAP HF radio and it would be totally legal as far as the GC is concerned. It makes no difference if "our" rules don't allow us to use those assets in a conflict....the fact that they "could" be used with a simple executive order by POTUS or an Act of Congress makes them legal targets.
Quote from: SARMedTech on December 14, 2007, 02:21:12 PMCAP cant even do something so simple as field a legally functioning medical asset. Come on guys.
Now you are mixing liability law with international law. We could field them....we just don't want to pay the insurance premiums to cover it. Has nothing to do with any law forbidding or preventing us from doing it. It is the CAP lawyers who suggested against it and CAP leaders agreeing.
Amidst all the add-ins, pork spending, and excitement of the budget process, it has now come out that a tiny clause was slipped into the Pentagon's fiscal year 2007 budget legislation. The one sentence section (number 552 of a total 3510 sections) states that "Paragraph (10) of section 802(a) of title 10, United States Code (article 2(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended by striking `war' and inserting `declared war or a contingency operation'." The measure passed without much notice or any debate. And then, as they might sing on School House Rock, that bill became a law (P.L.109-364).
The addition of five little words to a massive US legal code that fills entire shelves at law libraries wouldn't normally matter for much. But with this change, contractors' 'get out of jail free' card may have been torn to shreds. Previously, contractors would only fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, better known as the court martial system, if Congress declared war. This is something that has not happened in over 65 years and out of sorts with the most likely operations in the 21st century.
Simply put under new rules a defense contractor civilian employee can now be charged under the UCMJ without a declared war.
CAP is issued Contracts by USAF to perform missions, in a "contengency operation" can CAP members be considered "volunteer contractors"?
any JAGs out there?
Does the current CAP ID card meet DOD standards, while on an AFAM we are considered civilian employees
From DODD Policy Manual
B. Geneva Conventions Identification Card
Under both the Hague and Geneva Conventions, Department of Defense employees are entitled to be protected as prisoners of war if captured. These protections are accorded to civilians who accompany the armed forces provided they have received authorization from the armed forces. The DD Form 489 is the Geneva Conventions Identification Card. There is a US DoD/Uniformed Services Civilian, Geneva Conventions Identification Card, DD Form 2764, April 1998, which is also available to document the Geneva Convention Category and the Blood Type.
You ask; Whats my point? a contract janitor cleaning the bathrooms on base is "required" to have a "Standard" DOD ID card, go to the DOD id card web page.
//https://www.cac.mil/CardInfoPrivelege.do
I think it makes more sense to have the correct ID cards in use now rather than a rush to give to us in a crisis.
Authority to Deploy
DoDD 1404.10 provides for "...the involuntary assignment of civilian employees to Emergency Essential (E-E) positions as may be necessary to meet the exigencies of the circumstances and when unforeseen contingencies prevent prior identification of those positions as being E-E".
Basic definitions associated with this program:
Key Employee: Incumbent of a CONUS position that cannot be vacated during war or national emergency without seriously impairing the mission; such employees have unique or scarce managerial or technical skills required by the wartime mission.
Emergency-Essential (E-E) Employee: Incumbent of an overseas position or who would be sent overseas during a crisis situation; position ensures success of combat operations or supports essential combat systems after a mobilization, evacuation order, or other military crisis.
Cadre Employee: A nucleus of trained personnel capable of setting up new operations and training others.
Alternate Employee: A direct hire U.S. citizen employee who is paid from appropriated funds, assigned to a non-E-E position but performing the duties of another E-E civilian position during a crisis situation
*** ask for volunteers first, if none they can assign a civilian employee to a combat area or situation . . .
Better Yet from the same policy DOD Policy Manual
Clothing and Equipment:
Standard issue of BDUs and associated clothing/ equipment; additional clothing/equipment required by theater commander.
Authorized insignia - olive drab insignia with letters "US" above left breast pocket.
Name tape above right breast pocket.
Unit patches as authorized by the MACOM or theater commander.
Issue same defensive personal protective gear as military.
Issue black baseball cap to be worn in lieu of BDU cap; may be worn at all times except when commander directs wear of Kevlar helmet.
Civilians authorized to wear this clothing/ equipment are expected to adhere to use and wear instructions contained in AR 670-1. No other dress/grooming standards exist for civilians other than for health/safety concerns.
Weapons:
Privately owned weapons/ammunition are not authorized under any circumstances.
Government Issued weapon and ammunition (sidearm only) for personal protection.
When approved by theater commander.
Acceptance (weapon Issue) is voluntary for all civilian personnel.
Must be trained in proper use and care prior to issue.
*** Interesting Yes?? the UCMJ does now cover civilian employees (See previous post) in a combat or "other special "undeclared wars.
I think maybe an option would be to have a core group of CAP members who have skills and former military training, these members could volunteer to be placed on an "emergency availability list", that way the CAP members who opt out can do so.
What one is failing to take into account is that, during a national emergency that actaully threatens the US mainland in a serious manner...many of the rules in place now and plans laid outside fo those defense conditions...may fall infavor of laws passes during the emergency that are "necessary and proper."
That could range from Martial Law to emergency legilsation the type of which we cannot anticipate.
In those uncertain times CAP could be absorbed into the USAF or even disbanned, there is no way to know until the enemy is at the gates.
What we are dealing with here is two things.
1. What the international community considers CAP to be.
2. What the U.S. Law and the we consider ourselves to be.
So....yes by U.S. law, USAF and CAP regulations we are no combatants....but under international law we are.
We could be legal targets and if captured we are afforded POW rights we were ever to have a war on U.S. Soil.
Uniforms do not a combatant make. Police officers, court officers, rescue personnel, emts & paramedics, firefighters, boy scouts, heck... even catholic school students all wear uniforms. Some resemble our military ones, some resemble foreign military ones, some resemble nothing at all... NONE of them are combatants by definition.
The main rule to distinguish a combatant from a non-combatant is simple... is that person acting in combat or not. If a member of CAP was to participate in combat, they would be a combatant. By law, we are not allowed to do so. By law, the USAF isn't allowed to have us do so. We can perform any of their non-combat missions.
So... Geneva conventions don't apply to us since we shall not be involved in combat as members of CAP.
Someone brought up Id cards earlier. When CAP is called to perform an AF assigned mission, in all legality those members are considered an instrument of the Federal Government. We are afforded all the rights and benefits of being a tool of the AF, but we lack one thing. That would be a Uniformed Service Identification Card. Joe blow Janitor who smokes crack every night gets a DOD Card to get on base, but CAP members who (in my opinion) have more of a need don't? How jacked up is that? I think the AF is afraid members may (heaven forbid) shop at the PX/BX with it. At least that is reasoning I heard a few years back when CAP-USAF was asked about getting gov ID cards. An interesting note, DOD Civilians are not permitted to shop at Military exchanges or Commissaries, so why couldn't the same rules just be passed down to CAP.
I have a CAC card, and remember the old ones that listed what benefits the holder were entitled too. I still have my "Cadet" ID card, the old Green one. Why couldn't CAP get that one. It would be HUGELY DIFFERENT FROM AD CAC Cards! It could then list; "NO Commissary or exchange without an MSA".
The whole ID Card issue is just one more way AF is keeping CAP off the AF team.
Face it, CAP received many more benefits between 1947 and 1980. What the heck happened?
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 15, 2007, 09:18:16 PM
Someone brought up Id cards earlier. When CAP is called to perform an AF assigned mission, in all legality those members are considered an instrument of the Federal Government. We are afforded all the rights and benefits of being a tool of the AF, but we lack one thing. That would be a Uniformed Service Identification Card. Joe blow Janitor who smokes crack every night gets a DOD Card to get on base, but CAP members who (in my opinion) have more of a need don't? How jacked up is that? I think the AF is afraid members may (heaven forbid) shop at the PX/BX with it. At least that is reasoning I heard a few years back when CAP-USAF was asked about getting gov ID cards. An interesting note, DOD Civilians are not permitted to shop at Military exchanges or Commissaries, so why couldn't the same rules just be passed down to CAP.
I have a CAC card, and remember the old ones that listed what benefits the holder were entitled too. I still have my "Cadet" ID card, the old Green one. Why couldn't CAP get that one. It would be HUGELY DIFFERENT FROM AD CAC Cards! It could then list; "NO Commissary or exchange without an MSA".
The whole ID Card issue is just one more way AF is keeping CAP off the AF team.
Face it, CAP received many more benefits between 1947 and 1980. What the heck happened?
Do you think maybe we lost a few bases and cut back on some personnel a few times?
John, you need to read the ROE concerning LOAC. In order to be considered a combatant in any war you must first possess some type of weapon in order to be considered a combatant. As I stated before CAP cannot wear the exact type uniform the USAF wears for that reason. CAP cannot carry firearms and will never be called up to perform combat missions. CAP can only perform those non combat roles as stated in the Constitution & By Laws and as stated by congress and the Air Force.
Never say never. All we're talking about is laws, and laws can be easily and quickly changed if need be.
Quote from: afgeo4 on December 15, 2007, 08:26:42 PM
Uniforms do not a combatant make. Police officers, court officers, rescue personnel, emts & paramedics, firefighters, boy scouts, heck... even catholic school students all wear uniforms. Some resemble our military ones, some resemble foreign military ones, some resemble nothing at all... NONE of them are combatants by definition.
The main rule to distinguish a combatant from a non-combatant is simple... is that person acting in combat or not. If a member of CAP was to participate in combat, they would be a combatant. By law, we are not allowed to do so. By law, the USAF isn't allowed to have us do so. We can perform any of their non-combat missions.
So... Geneva conventions don't apply to us since we shall not be involved in combat as members of CAP.
IIRC police, fire, etc are considered paramilitary forces. I was actually handed a firefighter to hang onto until he could be moved to the PW cage. (That poor guy was on his third change of underwear by the time we passed him on.)
Quote from: RAZOR on December 16, 2007, 02:16:48 AM
John, you need to read the ROE concerning LOAC. In order to be considered a combatant in any war you must first possess some type of weapon in order to be considered a combatant. As I stated before CAP cannot wear the exact type uniform the USAF wears for that reason. CAP cannot carry firearms and will never be called up to perform combat missions. CAP can only perform those non combat roles as stated in the Constitution & By Laws and as stated by congress and the Air Force.
Our airplanes are considered weapons. A weapon does not have to shoot anything, heck it does not even have to have any offensive capability at all. A C-130 is a weapon according to LOAC.
Also you don't have to always be armed to considered legal combatants. That is if you are a maintenance guy working on a plane....you are still a legal combatant even if you are not currently carrying a weapon...even if there is no weapon for you on the base (which is actually true for 90% of USAF stateside bases....there rest are all stored in centralized depots).
Having recognizable uniforms is just one point that makes the difference between a "Legal combatant"...who is afforded POW status and an "Illegal combatant" who is not.
Policemen, boy scouts, firemen, CAP and the guys manning the barricade with red white and blue handkerchief tided to their sleeves count as uniforms and if the meet the other three criteria then they are considered legal combatants.
As far as CAP never ever being called on to conduct combat operations....historically that is not true....we already have conducted combat operations, ergo it is possible (with a few changes of the laws and CAP regulations) for us to do them again in the future.
Quote from: afgeo4 on December 15, 2007, 08:26:42 PM
Uniforms do not a combatant make. Police officers, court officers, rescue personnel, emts & paramedics, firefighters, boy scouts, heck... even catholic school students all wear uniforms. Some resemble our military ones, some resemble foreign military ones, some resemble nothing at all... NONE of them are combatants by definition.
The main rule to distinguish a combatant from a non-combatant is simple... is that person acting in combat or not. If a member of CAP was to participate in combat, they would be a combatant. By law, we are not allowed to do so. By law, the USAF isn't allowed to have us do so. We can perform any of their non-combat missions.
So... Geneva conventions don't apply to us since we shall not be involved in combat as members of CAP.
Police officers, firefighters, and probably court officers would also be considered combatants under the GC and are legitimate targets. Boy Scouts and Catholic school children are not combatants.
I dont believe this topic has gone on for four pages. You folks actually believe that CAP is a combatabt force? LOL
According to the Geneva Convention CAP meets the test
1. Uniform
2. Direct Control under Military (We are a Militia Force
Let's see Have we ever been used as a Combat Unit???? >:D
The bottom line is that members be treated as POWs in a time of war, thats what we are talking about. The issue is moot if you fly CAP missions along the Border, since the Mexican Government considers us as US military Aircraft.
Whats the deal, as a veteran I really don't give a crap, I just resent being used as an Military asset in a disaster, and in between disasters ???
A guy can't get no respect ;D
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 16, 2007, 05:38:34 PM
I dont believe this topic has gone on for four pages. You folks actually believe that CAP is a combatabt force? LOL
In the 1940's it was. I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand about that.
The discussion started with someone posting on another thread that CAP was a "Noncombatant" organization under International Law. I pointed out that such was not the case. We do not fall into any of the "Noncombatant" categories, and therefore are combatant under the Geneva Convention. As such, we are a "legitimate target" in that if we are attacked by an enemy force, that enemy is committing a legitimate act of war. If we are captured by an enemy force that recognizes and follows the Geneva Convention, we will be treated as POW's.
The United States has assigned us non-combat duties, specifically support to the non-combat missions of the USAF. That assignment has no relation to the definition of "Noncombatant" under the GC.
You know what, the Air Force barely knows we're around. Do you think some middle east country or maybe N. korea would know about us?
We're the best kept secret the Air Force has.
Quote from: star1151 on December 16, 2007, 08:10:40 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 16, 2007, 05:38:34 PM
I dont believe this topic has gone on for four pages. You folks actually believe that CAP is a combatabt force? LOL
In the 1940's it was. I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand about that.
Thats my point. Its NOT the 1940's. So, who cares? Why is this even a discussion? As a CAP member you will NEVER see combat. You will NEVER get captured by an enemy.
Quote
That was a good movie.
No, it wasn't. It wasn't even remotely like the book. The
book was an absolute classic; the movie was bilge. Read
Starship Troopers and see.
Two thumbs down ...
Jack
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 16, 2007, 08:12:05 PM
The discussion started with someone posting on another thread that CAP was a "Noncombatant" organization under International Law. I pointed out that such was not the case. We do not fall into any of the "Noncombatant" categories, and therefore are combatant under the Geneva Convention. As such, we are a "legitimate target" in that if we are attacked by an enemy force, that enemy is committing a legitimate act of war. If we are captured by an enemy force that recognizes and follows the Geneva Convention, we will be treated as POW's.
The United States has assigned us non-combat duties, specifically support to the non-combat missions of the USAF. That assignment has no relation to the definition of "Noncombatant" under the GC.
So this thread is your fault. John dont worry, you will nto be captured as a CAP member.
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 16, 2007, 08:52:12 PM
Quote from: star1151 on December 16, 2007, 08:10:40 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 16, 2007, 05:38:34 PM
I dont believe this topic has gone on for four pages. You folks actually believe that CAP is a combatabt force? LOL
In the 1940's it was. I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand about that.
Thats my point. Its NOT the 1940's. So, who cares? Why is this even a discussion? As a CAP member you will NEVER see combat. You will NEVER get captured by an enemy.
So when CAP eventually flies border patrol missions, and one of the planes goes down in Mexico, and the drug runners hold the pilot and crew hostage, I will remember what you said here. Never is a poor choice when speaking of the future.
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 16, 2007, 09:06:43 PM
So when CAP eventually flies border patrol missions, and one of the planes goes down in Mexico, and the drug runners hold the pilot and crew hostage, I will remember what you said here. Never is a poor choice when speaking of the future.
That wouldn't be "captured by the enemy". More of a peacetime detention situation. Not even that really since it isn't a government holding them. It would really just be a hostage situation which would have nothing to do with whether or not we are "combatants".
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 16, 2007, 08:52:12 PM
Quote from: star1151 on December 16, 2007, 08:10:40 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 16, 2007, 05:38:34 PM
I dont believe this topic has gone on for four pages. You folks actually believe that CAP is a combatabt force? LOL
In the 1940's it was. I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand about that.
Thats my point. Its NOT the 1940's. So, who cares? Why is this even a discussion? As a CAP member you will NEVER see combat. You will NEVER get captured by an enemy.
<shrug> Using absolutes is generally a really good way to be proven wrong.
Quote from: mikeylikey on December 16, 2007, 09:06:43 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 16, 2007, 08:52:12 PM
Quote from: star1151 on December 16, 2007, 08:10:40 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on December 16, 2007, 05:38:34 PM
I dont believe this topic has gone on for four pages. You folks actually believe that CAP is a combatabt force? LOL
In the 1940's it was. I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand about that.
Thats my point. Its NOT the 1940's. So, who cares? Why is this even a discussion? As a CAP member you will NEVER see combat. You will NEVER get captured by an enemy.
So when CAP eventually flies border patrol missions, and one of the planes goes down in Mexico, and the drug runners hold the pilot and crew hostage, I will remember what you said here. Never is a poor choice when speaking of the future.
Do you think a bunch of crooks would pay attention to the Geneva Convention in the first place?
So much misguided information being put here on CAP being a "COMBAT" force . MODS please lock this before somebody gets their feelings hurt....
I recall a story about a CAP officer that was once detained in Cuba for having a CAP ID. Is this correct or rumor.
Or how about the IACE group detained in eastern europe (former soviet block) shortly after the wall came down
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 16, 2007, 11:19:40 PM
I recall a story about a CAP officer that was once detained in Cuba for having a CAP ID. Is this correct or rumor.
I believe it was in CAP News in late 1990s. He was awarded some kind of POW medal from the British government (why they got involved is beyond me).
Quote from: RiverAux on December 17, 2007, 12:26:53 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 16, 2007, 11:19:40 PM
I recall a story about a CAP officer that was once detained in Cuba for having a CAP ID. Is this correct or rumor.
I believe it was in CAP News in late 1990s. He was awarded some kind of POW medal from the British government (why they got involved is beyond me).
Yes, that is what I remember reading. It had to be the late 1990s. Like 1998 or 1999.
Quote from: RiverAux on December 17, 2007, 12:26:53 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on December 16, 2007, 11:19:40 PM
I recall a story about a CAP officer that was once detained in Cuba for having a CAP ID. Is this correct or rumor.
I believe it was in CAP News in late 1990s. He was awarded some kind of POW medal from the British government (why they got involved is beyond me).
Wasn't he a British subject with UK/US citizenship?
I never made any claim that combat action or capture was likely for CAP members. Only that the status of "Noncombatant" under International Law does not extend to CAP members. Saying that CAP is noncombatant because we wear blue flight suits or name badges is not true.
war or armed conflict.
Combatants
The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.
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.
(THIS RULES CAP OUT)
Noncombatants. These individuals are not authorized by Governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. In fact, they do not engage in hostilities. This category includes civilians accompanying the Armed Forces; combatants who are out of combat, such as POWs and the wounded, and certain military personnel who are members of the Armed Forces not authorized to engage in combatant activities, such as medical personnel and chaplains. Noncombatants may not be made the object of direct attack. They may, however, suffer injury or death incident to a direct attack on a military objective without such an attack violating the LOAC, if such attack is on a lawful target by lawful means.
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.
Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person's status.
Military Targets
The LOAC governs the conduct of aerial warfare. The principle of military necessity limits aerial attacks to lawful military targets. Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemy's military capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives.
(SO TELL US WHERE CAP FALLS INTO A COMBATANT STATUS, SURELY NOT LISTED HERE)
Quote from: RAZOR on December 17, 2007, 01:20:22 AM
war or armed conflict.
Combatants
The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.
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.
(THIS RULES CAP OUT)
Noncombatants. These individuals are not authorized by Governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. In fact, they do not engage in hostilities. This category includes civilians accompanying the Armed Forces; combatants who are out of combat, such as POWs and the wounded, and certain military personnel who are members of the Armed Forces not authorized to engage in combatant activities, such as medical personnel and chaplains. Noncombatants may not be made the object of direct attack. They may, however, suffer injury or death incident to a direct attack on a military objective without such an attack violating the LOAC, if such attack is on a lawful target by lawful means.
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.
Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person's status.
Military Targets
The LOAC governs the conduct of aerial warfare. The principle of military necessity limits aerial attacks to lawful military targets. Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemy's military capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives.
(SO TELL US WHERE CAP FALLS INTO A COMBATANT STATUS, SURELY NOT LISTED HERE)
"Engage in hostilities" does not necessarily mean direct combat. Any activity in support of the military mission of the beligerent nation is "Engaging in hostilities."
By the way. I'm not making these rules up.
If we engage an enemy force that uses a uniformed military auxiliary to perform military support tasks but not in direct combat, we would consider them a legitimate target and captives from that military auxiliary would be considered POW's.
Quote from: wingnut on December 16, 2007, 07:04:11 PM
According to the Geneva Convention CAP meets the test
1. Uniform
2. Direct Control under Military (We are a Militia Force
Let's see Have we ever been used as a Combat Unit???? >:D
Four of them.
3. We carry our arms in the open (our airplanes are clearly marked and they are considered arms)
4. We conduct our operations in accordance with the LOAC and GC.
Quote from: Grumpy on December 16, 2007, 08:38:12 PM
You know what, the Air Force barely knows we're around. Do you think some middle east country or maybe N. korea would know about us?
Most certainly they do...or the intel advisers do when they are coming up with their plan on how to invade and subdue the American people.
We do the same to them.
We know all about the Young Pioneers and any number of youth and volunteer groups in any of our target counties to assess their impact on any of our operations.
Quote from: ColonelJack on December 16, 2007, 08:53:35 PM
Quote
That was a good movie.
No, it wasn't. It wasn't even remotely like the book. The book was an absolute classic; the movie was bilge. Read Starship Troopers and see.
Two thumbs down ...
Jack
I agree! The movies had nice graphics and cool battle scenes....but it was NOT the book by a long shot! The only thing they got right was that hero's name was Jonny Rico!
Quote from: RAZOR on December 16, 2007, 11:16:15 PM
So much misguided information being put here on CAP being a "COMBAT" force . MODS please lock this before somebody gets their feelings hurt....
No one is saying that we are a combat force......we are discussing international law...and what our status is in relation to what other countries think about us.
Is anyone saying that we would ever go into combat? The likelihood of that are pretty slim...but it has happened in the past and could happen again.
So in the theoretical, what if, world of a war with Mexico (over say oil rights in the Gulf), how would CAP be seen in the eyes of international law?
Could the U.S. be justified if a CAP border patrol flight got shot down for crossing the border of saying that it was not a legal target?
Probably not.
If the Mexican Army Invaded and took over your sleepily little Arizona Air Port while you were at a CAP meeting could you claim POW rights, or would they have to treat you as a civilian or worse yet an "illegal combatant" (think GITMO)?
That is all that is going on here a little thought exercise that is all.
Quote from: RAZOR on December 17, 2007, 01:20:22 AM
war or armed conflict.
Combatants
The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.
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.
(THIS RULES CAP OUT)
Quote
(SO TELL US WHERE CAP FALLS INTO A COMBATANT STATUS, SURELY NOT LISTED HERE)
1. We are the USAF Auxilary....that is definitely a member of the "regular armed forces or irregular forces".
2. We have a legitimate command structure. We have fixed distinctive emblems, uniforms, etc.
3. We "engage" in hostilities by acting as a force multiplier...by doing our job we free combat forces to do their job. Just as the cook, plumber, dorm manager, truck mechanic and fireman are there to do their jobs to enable the bomb droppers to engage in hostilities. Notice it did not say anything about "combat" just hostilities. The civilian receptionist at the billeting officer is most certainly engaged in hostilities right now.
We may look like "F" Troop to the Air Force, but we are decidedly Dangerous if need be, and according to my wife;"Legends in our own Minds" >:D
Quote from: RAZOR on December 17, 2007, 01:20:22 AM
war or armed conflict.
Combatants
The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.
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.
(THIS RULES CAP OUT)
Noncombatants. These individuals are not authorized by Governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. In fact, they do not engage in hostilities. This category includes civilians accompanying the Armed Forces; combatants who are out of combat, such as POWs and the wounded, and certain military personnel who are members of the Armed Forces not authorized to engage in combatant activities, such as medical personnel and chaplains. Noncombatants may not be made the object of direct attack. They may, however, suffer injury or death incident to a direct attack on a military objective without such an attack violating the LOAC, if such attack is on a lawful target by lawful means.
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.
Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person's status.
Military Targets
The LOAC governs the conduct of aerial warfare. The principle of military necessity limits aerial attacks to lawful military targets. Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemy's military capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives.
(SO TELL US WHERE CAP FALLS INTO A COMBATANT STATUS, SURELY NOT LISTED HERE)
Yes, it IS listed there, and don't call me Shirley.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on December 17, 2007, 10:59:44 PM
Quote from: RAZOR on December 17, 2007, 01:20:22 AM
war or armed conflict.
Combatants
The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.
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.
Yep, I gotta agree, we're pretty "irregular" alright. ;D
Quote from: CAPP 50-5 Introduction to Civil Air Patrol
While in civilian clothes and flying out over the Gulf, the two ran into strong headwinds which
caused more fuel to be used than had been expected. Realizing their fuel consumption would prevent
returning to Brownsville, they realized that they would have to land in Mexico. Immediately upon
landing in Mexico, they were immediately arrested by the Mexican authorities.
They protested loudly, but the fact that they were dressed in civilian clothes did not help to convince
the authorities that they were not spies of some sort. It was only after lengthy hand-waving
communications between themselves and the authorities, with the help of three Mexican pilots they had
encountered while flying their missions that they were permitted to refuel and leave Mexican territory –
thankfully without creating a diplomatic or military incident. Soon after this incident Mexico granted
CAP permission to land it planes in its territory in special situations.
Not sure of relevance but thought it might be helpful...
^ Freaking Mexico! We can't illegally invade their country without getting arrested, but if Mexicans invade ours we give them a drivers license, social security, free health care, a place to live, free food, a job and an American flag to burn in protest when the American People demand their deportation.
INSANE!
Well if it came down to a distinctive and identifying uniform, CAP would never in a million years be considered combatants. Well maybe those in USAF style uni's, but not everyone else. >:D