CAP Talk

General Discussion => The Lobby => Topic started by: RiverAux on March 06, 2009, 05:02:36 PM

Title: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on March 06, 2009, 05:02:36 PM
The bill requiring that a study be done by the Comptroller General of the US on how CAP can be utilized for homeland security work was reintroduced in this session of Congress as HR 1178 on Feb. 25. There are 9 co-sponsors. 

Like last time it has been sent to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in the Aviation subcommittee and the House Homeland Security Committee subcommittee on emergency communications, preparedness, and response. 
Quote
A BILL
To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study on the use of Civil Air Patrol personnel and resources to support homeland security missions, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CIVIL AIR PATROL STUDY.

(a) Study- The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study of the functions and capabilities of the Civil Air Patrol to support the homeland security missions of State, local, and tribal governments and the Department of Homeland Security. In conducting the study, the Comptroller General shall review the process by which the Civil Air Patrol may provide assistance to the Secretary of Homeland Security, other Federal agencies, and States to support homeland security missions by--

(1) providing aerial reconnaissance or communications capabilities for border security;

(2) providing capabilities for collective response to an act of terrorism, natural disaster, or other man-made event, by assisting in damage assessment and situational awareness, conducting search and rescue operations, assisting in evacuations, transporting time-sensitive medical or other materials;

(3) providing assistance in the exercise and training of departmental resources responsible for the intercept of aviation threats to designated restricted areas; or

(4) such other activities as may be determined appropriate by the Comptroller General in the conduct of this review.

(b) Report- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General shall submit to the Committees on Homeland Security and Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report containing the findings of the review conducted under subsection (a). The report shall include--

(1) an assessment of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of using Civil Air Patrol assets for the purposes described in subsection (a); and

(2) an assessment as to whether the current mechanisms for Federal agencies and States to request support from the Civil Air Patrol are sufficient or whether new agreements between relevant Federal agencies and the Civil Air Patrol are necessary.

(c) Report to Congress- Not later than 90 days after completing the study under this section, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall review and analyze the study and submit to the Committees on Homeland Security and Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on such review and analysis, which shall include any recommendations of the Secretary for further action that could affect the organization and administration of the Department of Homeland Security.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Gunner C on March 06, 2009, 05:38:53 PM
Holding breath . . . turning purple.  ;D

This would be good if the info retrieved in the study were acted upon - but there's nothing that I saw that required Sec HLS to act on it.  If there's nothing in it for the congress critters behind it, then nothing will happen.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: heliodoc on March 06, 2009, 06:02:55 PM
IF it did get acted upon, there would be a whole"lotta" expectations to be expected than just our advertised missions.

CAP woul need to comply with more than just what they are tasked with, expectations to attend a myriad of emergency management drills, which are done already, but with an expectation(s) of REAL AAR's, reports, real established syllabi for training

EXPECT new requirements.. if you folks did not like the IS 100, 200, 300, 400, 700, 800 series of expectations..... you may not like the future expectations of us (CAP) and how it relates to MORE than  SAREX's, ARCHER, and other current missions

I am not holding my breath either.... if this does pick up traction...expect MORE  training issues, documentation, etc

Just because we advertise what we can do....  there are others in the US Govt that may require more than what we currently deliver and that may even require more attention to money and grants that CAP NHQ may need to be on top of.  That would also require more just AF audits, it could open more Federal fiscal audits

Get ready, like I said, if folks did not like the DHS reqs.....they may not like future requirements and that could happen after a study.

If Wings and NHQ are not up on their respective MOU's and MOA's and are not current.... that in itself could pose issues....there is a WHOLE "LOTTA" that CAP needs to be on top of already before they even start playing or assuming bigger roles

Just some food for thought...................
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Gunner C on March 06, 2009, 06:12:23 PM
100% correct!  There's way too many in CAP who can't/won't cut the mustard when it comes to REAL training/REAL standards.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on March 06, 2009, 09:07:25 PM
Obviously the program is useless since as it is we only save a 75-100 people a year.  May as well shut it down. 

Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Flying Pig on March 06, 2009, 09:35:50 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on March 06, 2009, 09:07:25 PM
Obviously the program is useless since as it is we only save a 75-100 people a year.  May as well shut it down. 



Really? SAVE 75-100 people per year?  Lets not use the word SAVE like the media uses the word HERO.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on March 06, 2009, 09:42:26 PM
Well, the Air Force gives us the credit for saves.  You don't like it, go talk to them. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: heliodoc on March 06, 2009, 09:48:02 PM
Nobody here said shut the program down

If Comptroller General and or GAO is going to do a study, then CAP is going to have to demonstrate a little more prowess than online tests and chirping about 39-1 standards, which this organization, STILL has problems with.

I know I am rusty on some  of the GT standards and building my way back to 'em, and I do know that there are NUMEROUS training disconnnects in CAP that if we were to be anywhere near FIRST RESPONDER standards, then we have to have a BETTER training system.  If that requires Natuional PAYING somone or a contact team to TEACH and not JUST SET online mentality....then hopefully that requirement gets established and is put upon the NHQ leadership.

Granted there are National lurkers here on this site... but calling for REAL training standardsis what its going to be all about.  We are fine with our own support missions to other agencies, but we are not going to be the driver or the lead on major disaters, unless CAP is TRAINED for that specific requirement and hopefully CG and or GAO put the question to the Natl leadership and asks them squarely in the eye and see the response for future leadership in disaster mangement
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Flying Pig on March 06, 2009, 10:07:02 PM
Being someone who is professionally involved in SAR on an almost daily basis, in this side of the world, "professionally" denotes paid, not suggesting CAP isn't professional.  How many of those saves actually involved SAVING someone?  I would venture to guess very few.  I mean, REALLY saved someone.  I asking us to be honest as an organization.  Not  "Well the Air Force said we did."

I have located people after 2-3 days of intense searching only locate them, and tell them they were lost and to have them inform us  "No Im not, Im right here" pointing to a map.  I dont call that a save.  On the other side, we have located people and actually pulled them from the river, face down in the water.  Id call that a save.  Again, I think the word is abused, and depending on who you talk to it can give the impression you are padding your stats.  CAP provides a valuable service, otherwise I wouldnt have stuck around since 1986, Im just saying if we are going to start talking about raising the bar, be careful what you ask for. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on March 06, 2009, 11:14:32 PM
QuoteI asking us to be honest as an organization.  Not  "Well the Air Force said we did."
No, it is entirely a call of the AFRCC.  CAP has nothing to do with it.  Refer to 60-3.  You may be right about the nature of these saves, but again, its not our call.  Complain to the AF if you think they're not strict enough as CAP doesn't have anything to do with them.

Since my sarcasm evidently went over Flying Pig and helio's head, what I was saying that despite all the defects in our training that they claim, we do get our job done.  If there is a national volunteer organization that does SAR better than us, I'd like to know what it is.  And don't go saying NASAR since they don't actually do missions as NASAR -- they're made up of individuals that belong to many local groups and are not equivalent.

CAP's ground team standards are equivalent to about 95% of what is in the NASAR standards, which is really the only alternative out there.  We leave out the rope work, because we don't do it.  Other than that, our training is just as good if done properly.  You're not going to get me to say that it is always done properly because I know its not, but the standards are just fine except for a few minor things that need tweaking.   

Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Flying Pig on March 06, 2009, 11:21:20 PM
You know, Ill have to agree with you.  Our standards are great, as long as we train to them.  Maybe thats why I get tense about people wanting to increase, increase, increase.  I sometimes find myself wondering how any of you think youll have the time to have jobs and a family!  And not to mention, how long do you think your motivation will last when countless months can span the time between calls. Like River says, If you can REALLY master and maintain the skill sets already in place, I agree, your actually going to be a pretty solid responder.

I guess I can equate it to the old saying of "We don't need more laws, we just need to enforce the ones we have!"  Would you agree?
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Gunner C on March 07, 2009, 09:09:33 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 06, 2009, 11:21:20 PM
Our standards are great, as long as we train to them. 
And that's what I was referring to: in my old wing, if you insisted that members actually train to the actual standard, you'd get shouted down.  There's nothing wrong with our standards, there's something wrong with our organizational culture.  It's the culture that keeps us from achieving our potential as an organization.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: ColonelJack on March 07, 2009, 06:52:47 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on March 06, 2009, 09:07:25 PM
Obviously the program is useless since as it is we only save a 75-100 people a year.  May as well shut it down. 

I'm aware you were being facetious/sarcastic, but for those who might mean such a sentiment literally ... it wouldn't be useless if you were one of the 75 - 100 people saved.

Jack
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Flying Pig on March 07, 2009, 09:11:34 PM
Quote from: Gunner C on March 07, 2009, 09:09:33 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 06, 2009, 11:21:20 PM
Our standards are great, as long as we train to them. 
And that's what I was referring to: in my old wing, if you insisted that members actually train to the actual standard, you'd get shouted down.  There's nothing wrong with our standards, there's something wrong with our organizational culture.  It's the culture that keeps us from achieving our potential as an organization.

Wow.....I think Im going to frame that and put it up at work!
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: JayT on March 07, 2009, 09:12:19 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on March 06, 2009, 09:07:25 PM
Obviously the program is useless since as it is we only save a 75-100 people a year.  May as well shut it down.

You seem to have a lot of issues with CAP.

By the way, telling people that you're wicked wit and sarcasm 'went over your head' isn't the best way to play in the sandbox either.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: es_g0d on March 07, 2009, 09:14:44 PM
Gunner --
What do we need to do to promote the right culture?  What IS the right culture?
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Flying Pig on March 07, 2009, 09:29:52 PM
I think it just comes down to the individual units making the decision ultimately.  The Group and Wing Commanders place a lot of faith in the units that things are being done right.  Being volunteers ( meaning people have day jobs) Commanders, unlike the military or other agencies cant continually travel to units to see what is going on.  The most we do for that is a Sq. inspection every 4 years.
Yes, CAP is nationwide, but every Squadron definitely has its own personality and interests.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on March 07, 2009, 09:56:22 PM
Folks, I thnk we're straying way beyond topic (and I apologize for contributing). 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Smithsonia on March 07, 2009, 10:11:17 PM
We save people everyday. We save people who are forgotten... murder victims. Have you ever looked for bones from a 20 year old homicide... good ground training. Try it. The police appreciate the help.

We save cadets. How many would be taken in by the darkside of teenage angst?

We save the dead. How many memorials and funerals have you attended in uniform to give a final salute.

We save survivors. Ever done a commemoration of a natural disaster or plane wreck. I have, you should too.

Ever saved an old man's mind? I have as we talked over the war, amongst planes he flew, while touring an air museum. I don't need a medal for that. I got paid plenty as he struggled to come up with the name of the warbird -- then when it hit him -- he remembered it all. Yeah, I got my medal for that one and it is shinier than any medal on my jacket. Because this one is in my bones.

If you're waiting for next call out from the Air Force, good for you. In the meantime go save someone. A cadet? A former member? A family? For this work the taxpayers have paid nothing.

I've never saved a real live human. BUT, I've saved plenty of people, memories, and much respect. You should too. We save tax payers and we save ourselves. For in the company of one another we find purpose and duty.

I don't know what a save is... I just know that I do it. I don't need anything more than to do it.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: tarheel gumby on March 07, 2009, 10:18:49 PM
Quote from: Smithsonia on March 07, 2009, 10:11:17 PM
We save people everyday. We save people who are forgotten... murder victims. Have you ever looked for bones from a 20 year old homicide... good ground training. Try it. The police appreciate the help.

We save cadets. How many would be taken in by the darkside of teenage angst?

We save the dead. How many memorials and funerals have you attended in uniform to give a final salute.

We save survivors. Ever done a commemoration of a natural disaster or plane wreck. I have, you should too.

Ever saved an old man's mind? I have as we talked over the war, amongst planes he flew, while touring an air museum. I don't need a medal for that. I got paid plenty as he struggled to come up with the name of the warbird -- then when it hit him -- he remembered it all. Yeah, I got my medal for that one and it is shinier than any medal on my jacket. Because this one is in my bones.

If you're waiting for next call out from the Air Force, good for you. In the meantime go save someone. A cadet? A former member? A family? For this work the taxpayers have paid nothing.

I've never saved a real live human. BUT, I've saved plenty of people, memories, and much respect. You should too.

I don't know what a save is... I just know that I do it. I don't need anything more than to do it.

+ 1
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RogueLeader on March 08, 2009, 12:51:22 AM
CAP has saved me too many times to count.  I'm grateful, and I can only do what I can do.  I serve, and that saves me even more. . .
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Flying Pig on March 08, 2009, 01:05:17 AM
wow..its getting deep in here.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: JayT on March 08, 2009, 08:03:45 AM
It's getting deep, but the Government is also not to fund us to provide psychological first aid to wayward cadets or the families of plane crash victems.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Smithsonia on March 08, 2009, 03:10:51 PM
JThemann;
You are missing the point. Those items are FREE!!!! No one pays for them now. So your sophistry is clear. The main mission of CAP is now SAR. The main mission of CAP was NOT always SAR. Before it was SAR it was things like guarding civilian airports, running buses for military pilots to get to town, filling in at the typing pool and the swimming pool as typists and life-guards. When CAP started the Army/AF weren't sure what to do with us. In Dec. '42 we did our first acclaimed SAR mission... one year after the birth of CAP. In April '43 we got the SAR portfolio (or official sanction for this duty). 16 months after our birth.

What was CAP in the beginning? Planes and Pilots who wanted to help the county. That's the idea the Gill Robb Wilson took forward. That's the thing that Fiorella LaGuardia picked up and took to John Curry. John Curry figured out plenty to do with us and John Curry figured out the SAR portfolio too. BUT not a CAPs First Commander but as AF 2nd Air Force Technical and Training Commander from Denver.

"We are planes and pilots and what can we do for our country?" Only by embracing this simple little phrase will we have a future. By the way, I have to write this down fairly often as you guys seem to think we are only SAR and can make our way in this world only in the SAR realm. WRONG!


Find the next job the country needs and that they'll pay and train us to do... preferably in a plane. We'll be fine.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RADIOMAN015 on March 08, 2009, 03:34:33 PM
I just don't see CAP getting that much work in the Homeland Security missions area. In my opinion, there are very strong civilian government employees unions, that see volunteer unpaid service, as basically taking away their opportunities for more paid positions, and/or overtime.  >:( CAP is best to stay under the AF umbrella for providing disaster support, in simple roles as photo recon & typical air defense exercises. (or yea, possibly being the local "muscle" for filling sandbags & helping with shelter management)  I think anything else is 'fantasy" thinking among members.

Furthermore (if by chance we do get "some" DHS missions), I also don't believe long term recuring DHS missions (e.g. border patrol) should be done for "free" labor by CAP members.  Disaster Medical Assistance Teams (who are also volunteers), most get paid at the GS9 level or above when activated to support FEMA.   We should be realistic in expecting better reimbursement for our training & volunteer efforts.
RM
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on March 08, 2009, 03:40:42 PM
Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about this making any significant difference. The original bill was much stronger, got watered down to what we have now and even then couldn't get passsed.  So, this one probably won't go anyplace either. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Smithsonia on March 08, 2009, 03:48:30 PM
We are qualified to the level that we are trustworthy, organized, equipped, self sufficient, and have already shown a proclivity to learn. The professionals lead... always have... but we've got their 6. Or perhaps better said... we're there to help.

That said, we have pilots that can beat the Air Force flying. Two guys in my squadron won Gunsmoke '81 as National Guard Pilots in A-7s up against F-15s. Great story!

I can beat the Air Force all day in what I do. I know guys that know more about what they do than anyone in the Military will ever know. I teach the military. They pay a lot for my services. They take notes. They look confused and befuddled. Considering I charge the armed services for my services but give it away to CAP -- CAP looks like a good deal to me. I'll bet you it'll look like a good deal to others. How about you. You got something to give the country they'd otherwise have to pay for?
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: flyguy06 on March 08, 2009, 04:19:58 PM
Quote from: Gunner C on March 07, 2009, 09:09:33 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on March 06, 2009, 11:21:20 PM
Our standards are great, as long as we train to them. 
And that's what I was referring to: in my old wing, if you insisted that members actually train to the actual standard, you'd get shouted down.  There's nothing wrong with our standards, there's something wrong with our organizational culture.  It's the culture that keeps us from achieving our potential as an organization.


I agree with Gunner C and Flying Pig,


We have to take an honest look at ourselves and ourlimitations. The other day I was talking to an influential person at Region levelabout flying the G-8 Gippsland. he told me there are specific requirements to get checked out in that plane.Youhave to be a Mission Pilot and be available to go out on "special" missions for days at a time. Now, Most of u have jobs and families and have to pay bills. The only people that can volunteer to make themselves available for an unknown amount of days are retired folks or business owners or independentaly wealthy people. SO, that severely limits people.

We are a SAR organization. But we do have limits. So we need to be careful we dont take on more than we can chew.

And I also agree that the culture of our organization needs to change. I was discussing this at a TLC sesion yesterday.People are always saying that we are very differnt in terms of culture from the SDF. My question is why? Why is the SDF, who are also volunteers more disciplined, more military, and more structured than we are?
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on March 08, 2009, 05:10:38 PM
CAP as a general rule is already more involved in homeland security issues than most, if not all, SDFs.  Frankly, most of them don't have near the capabilities of CAP in terms of funding, manpower, or equipment so the fact that they are actual military organizations is sort of irrelevant. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Major Carrales on March 08, 2009, 07:11:18 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on March 08, 2009, 04:19:58 PMWhy is the SDF, who are also volunteers more disciplined, more military, and more structured than we are?

What does that mean?  More disciplined...military?  You mean standing in formation and polishing boots?  The fact that they swear more? Their uniforms look more like "real ones?"  I would like to read some specifics on this and what that means and how CAP will be improved by that?

Seems like we have a good structure..especially now with NIMS and ICS.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: wingnut55 on March 08, 2009, 07:24:00 PM
"I just don't see CAP getting that much work in the Homeland Security missions area"

Absolutely an uninformed statement!

CAP is flying missions daily for federal and State. many we do not here about on the Blog or NHQ. I have flown many.

We have a serious problem with the amateur status of our security clearances (they fit nowhere in the Federal Security Clearance guidelines)  We need to deal with that.

Archer was designed for HLS, but it has severe  technical deficiencies never corrected, so the HLS agencies use equipment from other contractors. The Archer sits unused, hundreds trained to use it, but only a few dozen are willing to fly.

there are several high priority items that NHQ can do.

1. Create a  reconnaissance and information gathering specialty SQTR. This will include Photo, Video, GPS Tagging, GIS presentation, Real time imaging system. Wing staff level Operation. 100% implementation in 24 months.

2. Security Clearances for operational air crews compliant with DOD contracting specs (CAP is an Official Contractor Corporation). Members can sign a 5 year pay pack clause ( if leaving CAP)

3. Require proficiency evaluations yearly of all aircrew members, Pilot, MO, Scanners. people willing to volunteer to do the time (On call, etc.) free proficiency flights and training.

3. Cut the FAT, we neither use nor need 350 aircraft nation wide. Sell 5 archers to get the other 10 upgraded and working correctly.

5. Eliminate the redundant  or specialties not used, cut the bureaucracy for squadron commanders.

6. Allow the AF reserve officers to fly missions with CAP (if fully qualified to CAP SQTR).

the list goes on.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on March 08, 2009, 07:27:48 PM
Please provide some examples of homeland security flight profiles that CAP is unable to fly because of a lack of security clearances?  I'm not being snarky -- I really don't see there being a whole lot of stuff that we could be doing that we're not in this area.   
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on March 08, 2009, 07:39:17 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2009, 07:27:48 PM
Please provide some examples of homeland security flight profiles that CAP is unable to fly because of a lack of security clearances?  I'm not being snarky -- I really don't see there being a whole lot of stuff that we could be doing that we're not in this area.   

SEW, there are special clearances and not all of us have been cleared.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on March 08, 2009, 08:20:50 PM
Having also been a member of the CG Aux when there was a major malfunction based on an mistaken relating to security determinations for a lot of members who actually had no need (causing many members to leave the organization), I'm more than a little skeptical of a need for the sort of general need for them expressed by wingnut.  I'm going to see a demonstrated need for them before I'll support them as a general rule of thumb. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: wingnut55 on March 08, 2009, 09:17:59 PM
Why do you people insist the CAP as it exists has no need for a security clearance?

we have one it is called CD qualified or cleared.

This Blog is not a forum to discuss any special activities that we do .


I get really PO ed when members imply CAP is not involved in a number of important tasks that are of HLS, or LE significance, but maybe your just constantly egging people on, stirring the crap.

I have always been aware that within CAP we have several organizations.

1. Those who are general members.
2. Those who can get a Clearance above the general membership.
3. those that actually get involved in missions.
4. those who do Nothing, except pay dues.
5. Those that do only correspondence courses, and pay dues.
6. Those who want to be an Admiral because they only made it to corporal, or the highest rank they made was boy scout third class.

actually some of you are stuck on this blog, it is turning out to be a colossal waste of time .

Thank you, but I hereby resign from the CAP blog. I think i will take one of those CAP correspondence courses to be a CAP admiral.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on March 08, 2009, 09:48:28 PM
Quote from: wingnut55 on March 08, 2009, 09:17:59 PM
Why do you people insist the CAP as it exists has no need for a security clearance?

we have one it is called CD qualified or cleared.
Gee, all I asked for was some examples of why the Air Force or CAP would want to spend the large amount of money it would take to do this.  And by the way, the security check we do to perform CD work is not a real security clearance. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: flyguync on March 09, 2009, 12:11:41 AM
Quote from: wingnut55 on March 08, 2009, 09:17:59 PM
6. Those who want to be an Admiral because they only made it to corporal, or the highest rank they made was boy scout third class.

Maybe they should of stayed in scouts a little longer and they would have known there is no 3rd class scout.
Scout, Tenderfoot, 2nd Class, 1st Class, Star, Life, & Eagle
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: flyguync on March 09, 2009, 12:27:24 AM
Some questions that would need to be answered are whos purvue would we fall under for the clearences; DOJ, DOD, DHS, OPM, etc. A SECRET at DOD dosent get you to much over at DOJ.

Waiting time -  It takes about 2 weeks to do an "average" SSBI but it takes 6+ months more like a year before te review panel can decide on whether or not to grant the clearence.

Cost - @ $4000 for the clearence

How often would it be used vs cost

What true benefit seeing CAP is prohibited from being an intelligence resource.

As a side note with the economy being what it is Im sure people that had decent credit  before probably have a spot or two on there now. Credit kills most applicants for S & T/S.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on March 09, 2009, 01:02:16 AM
I think the bigger problem with using CAP more for homeland security purposes are the law enforcement-related restrictions placed upon us.  One possible benefit if this bill were to pass and were the study to be conducted might be some recommendations relating to posse comitatus. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: flyguy06 on March 09, 2009, 03:23:24 AM
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 08, 2009, 07:11:18 PM
Quote from: flyguy06 on March 08, 2009, 04:19:58 PMWhy is the SDF, who are also volunteers more disciplined, more military, and more structured than we are?

What does that mean?  More disciplined...military?  You mean standing in formation and polishing boots?  The fact that they swear more? Their uniforms look more like "real ones?"  I would like to read some specifics on this and what that means and how CAP will be improved by that?

Seems like we have a good structure..especially now with NIMS and ICS.

I wasnt referring to ICS or homeland security. Thats not what the SDF is all about.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on March 24, 2009, 03:06:18 AM
Well, it looks like Rep. Dent got fed up with his study bill (HR1178) and on 3/19  reintroduced his original legislation from last year that basically tells DHS to make an agreement with CAP and to start using us. 

This is HR 1627
QuoteCivil Air Patrol Homeland Security Support Act of 2009 (Introduced in House)

HR 1627 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1627
To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Secretary to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of the Air Force to use Civil Air Patrol personnel and resources to support homeland security missions.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 19, 2009
Mr. DENT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Secretary to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of the Air Force to use Civil Air Patrol personnel and resources to support homeland security missions.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Civil Air Patrol Homeland Security Support Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. CIVIL AIR PATROL SUPPORT OF HOMELAND SECURITY MISSIONS.

(a) In General- Subtitle H of title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`SEC. 890A. CIVIL AIR PATROL SUPPORT OF HOMELAND SECURITY MISSIONS.

`(a) In General- The Secretary shall seek to enter into memoranda of understanding or other agreements with the Secretary of Defense to use Civil Air Patrol personnel and resources to support homeland security missions in accordance with this section.

`(b) Use of Assets- Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding or other agreement entered into under subsection (a), the Secretary may consider the use of Civil Air Patrol personnel and resources for--

`(1) providing aerial reconnaissance or communications capabilities to the Border Patrol to protect against illegal entry and trafficking in goods, currency, people, and other substances;

`(2) providing capabilities to respond to an act of terrorism, natural disaster, or other man-made event, by assisting in damage assessment and situational awareness, conducting search and rescue operations, assisting in evacuations, transporting time-sensitive medical or other materials; or

`(3) such other activities as the Secretary may determine in coordination with the Secretary of Defense.

`(c) Inclusion in National Planning Activities- Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding or other agreement entered into under subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the Civil Air Patrol as an available resource for purposes of national preparedness and response planning activities, including the National Response Plan.

`(d) Reimbursement- A memorandum of understanding or other agreement entered into under subsection (a) shall include a provision addressing the manner in which the Department of Defense is to be reimbursed for costs associated with the use of Civil Air Patrol personnel or resources for homeland security purposes.'.

(b) Report- Not later than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a report on the status of any memorandum of understanding or other agreement authorized under section 890A of the Homeland Security Act, as added by subsection (a).

(c) Clerical Amendment- The table of contents in section 1(b) of such Act is amended by adding at the end of the items relating to such subtitle the following:

`Sec. 890A. Civil Air Patrol support of homeland security missions.'.

I'm not sure if he is using this as a sort of stick to convince DHS to support the lesser of two evils and to get them to support the study bill or if he just decided taht study bill alone was stupid, or maybe DHS came back and said, sure we'll do an MOU so drop the study bill. 

No co-sponsors on this one.  Has been referred to the House Homeland Security and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. 

Basically, though it doesn't say it outright, this bill would negate any applicability  of the posse comitatus law as it regards CAP and border security operations, even those involving other criminal activity.  So, it might actually generate some new work for us.  The other stuff regarding disasters is already possible without an MOU, so isn't any big deal.   
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on March 27, 2009, 07:43:14 PM
Sen. Harkin of Iowa has introduced a bill (S. 704) in the Senate on the 25th which apparently will match the House bill directing GAO to do a study. 
Cosponsored by Sen. Burr of NC. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: heliodoc on March 27, 2009, 08:22:00 PM
Not holdin my breath

We May argue all the HS missions we are doing but until a study is done, standards established, uniform arguments out of the way and quite possibly our 501 (C) 3 status .... some folks could be shying away from CAP's wares


Stay tuned, stand by to standby, and get ready for more of the same...... HAsn't working for the US Government taught anything to CAP and expecting anything right away???

AFRCC, some LE agencies, State EM's will continue to be our friend for missions, in the meantime, wait for GAO report.  Some GAO reports have been scathing to the natural resource agencies and why should CAP be exempt from the same process??  In all reality, I would welcome GAO's look into us and see why and how more volunteers need to be assigned any more missions and may be even have the  535 on the Hill see how the AF sees us for future restructuring if we take on these DHS roles.  I say bring on the GAO study >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on March 27, 2009, 08:24:13 PM
Congress is not required to have the GAO study something before they pass a law telling agencies to do something.  Heck, I'd say that mostly they do not do so. 


Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: heliodoc on March 27, 2009, 08:33:49 PM
Noted

But I could seeing DHS using us on a limited basis  BUT I sure do not see Congress passing a law "forcing" us on DHS

Again I would not hold my breath on ANY of it UNTIL it's law, current, and in print for everyone to see...

Something that CAP continues to be re ICL's 39-1 etc... If I was Congress I'd have a real hard look at NHQ and the system we operate minus the AF and see if we could stand by ourselves to be included in the system of DHS and all its operational agencies

I know the argument, CAP can do it cheaper, BUT we can not always do it faster and be on station when required
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: heliodoc on March 27, 2009, 10:40:12 PM
On an aside

Before CAP gets excited about "more missions"

I suggest the members here read from GAO.gov
 
NSIAD-00-136 dated Jun 2000 about some of the "Corporations" issues with the USAF

So before we go lloking for Federal missions, we'd best be looking at how we treat the hand that feeds us

Even CAP agreed with the report...

Again, BEFORE we get excited about DHS missions we HAD BETTER get a better accountability of ourselves and that means MORE THAN 39-1 isssues

Read the report  I did and opened my eyes
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on March 28, 2009, 12:05:11 AM
That stuff is ancient history. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: heliodoc on March 28, 2009, 12:33:14 AM
^^^^^

Could be........ But some of those folks have a long memory just like CAP'ers and its ancient history

Our CAP ancient history is what alot of folks remember us by

AND the DHS'ers may maybe lurking here also, checking US out

So call it what you want.  Ancient history or not, CAP's foibles may be SOME reason we may not always get what we want!!! >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 09, 2009, 09:21:33 PM
Okay, HR 1178 (the bill ordering a study) has moved foward in one of the two committees where it was sent in the House.  The Aviation subcommittee of the Transportation Committee approved it on the 2nd.  Still no action in the House Homeland Security Committee.  This has picked up a bunch of co-sponsors and now has 26. 

No movement on S. 704 (the Senate version of the study bill).  Still only 1 co-sponsor (not a good sign).

HR 1627 (which orders that the agreement be made) has no movement. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Gunner C on April 12, 2009, 03:40:19 AM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 09, 2009, 09:21:33 PM
Okay, HR 1178 (the bill ordering a study) has moved foward in one of the two committees where it was sent in the House.  The Aviation subcommittee of the Transportation Committee approved it on the 2nd.  Still no action in the House Homeland Security Committee.  This has picked up a bunch of co-sponsors and now has 26. 

No movement on S. 704 (the Senate version of the study bill).  Still only 1 co-sponsor (not a good sign).

HR 1627 (which orders that the agreement be made) has no movement. 
Any idea who the senate co-sponsor is?
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 12, 2009, 11:48:04 AM
IIRC it was somebody from North Carolina. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: flyguync on April 12, 2009, 03:23:45 PM
Richard Burr who is a 1st term Senator from NC. He's a pretty good guy but a relative nobody in the pecking order in DC.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Flying Pig on April 12, 2009, 04:10:21 PM
Im curious,  what are the Homeland Security missions CAP is getting so excited about? And who is doing those missions now?
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 12, 2009, 05:59:56 PM
Hard to say, but then again thats what they're probably going to be studying...what needs are out there, what CAP can clearly do now, what CAP could do that might cause posse comitatus problems (for those who believe that this law actually applies to CAP members and resources), and what legal changes, if any, might be necessary to let us do what needs to be done. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Flying Pig on April 12, 2009, 06:04:26 PM
I could see if we fall under DHS, our Posse Commitatus issues would arise. I still think its interesting that no CAP members have been called to court regarding CD issues.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 12, 2009, 06:15:59 PM
QuoteI could see if we fall under DHS, our Posse Commitatus issues would arise.
Don't matter what federal agency has requested our services, legally, we're doing it as the Air Force auxiliary (USC Title 10 Sect. 9442).  We work for DHS all the time through FEMA.  The issue is the type of work, not who we're working for. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Flying Pig on April 12, 2009, 06:30:31 PM
What needs do we anticipate?  Anything come up yet?  What I would be curious to see is who is doing the jobs now that CAP may be tasked with taking over?  The battle that will be ugly is if/when funding is taken from local agencies, if that were to occur.  Sheriff's, State Police, etc. 

I went back and modified while River posted....I hope it didnt throw off your response.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 12, 2009, 06:39:56 PM
I don't see that as much of an issue.  You could do an awful lot of CAP flying before you come anywhere close to costing enough money to really impact grants or other support currently going to other agencies.  Personally, I thought that this was a weird bill for CAP to push (even in the original format which skipped the study and ordered that an MOU with CAP be drawn up).  No law is necessary for that to happen. 

Now, if they want a law to specifically exclude CAP from posse comittatus concerns related to homeland security missions for the federal government, that would be helpful to at least get that "issue" out of the way. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on April 12, 2009, 08:42:04 PM
Posse Comitatus is the issue that the proposed law, or study of law, is designed to address.

You, and others, are right in that CAP is an auxiliary of the USAF whenever it is called into the service of any federal agency under existing law.  If, on the other hand, CAP were to be able to be called up as an agency of DHS independent of the AF, then the PossComm Act would have no effect.  CAP would not be an element of the USAF.

This, of course, would require a new law.

But be careful what you wish for.  This could mean that we would have to take a more active role in DHS missions, and could mean that we would actually engage threat forces.  That will get the anti-military pacifist CAP members' panties in a HUGE wad!
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 12, 2009, 08:47:45 PM
Or they could study the issue and agree with me that PC never applies to CAP since we are not members of the military at any time no matter who is paying for our gas or bought our airplanes.  Or, they could put an exemption in for CAP to do LE-type missions for DHS just like they did to allow the military to do counterdrug missions. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Cecil DP on April 12, 2009, 11:36:45 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 12, 2009, 08:47:45 PM
Or they could study the issue and agree with me that PC never applies to CAP since we are not members of the military at any time no matter who is paying for our gas or bought our airplanes.  Or, they could put an exemption in for CAP to do LE-type missions for DHS just like they did to allow the military to do counterdrug missions. 

The point is that CAP acts as an instrumentality (Agent) of the United States Air Force. So when CAP is used for Law Enforcement in any case, we may be civilians, but are acting for the Air Force and may be violating the Posse commitatus laws. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 12, 2009, 11:43:54 PM
QuoteThe point is that CAP acts as an instrumentality (Agent) of the United States Air Force.
Actually no.  We act as an instrumentality of the federal government.  Title 10 Sect. 9441 and Sect. 9442. 

And we are civilians, not members of the military, which is who PC applies. 

By the way, I'm just agreeing with an official legal opinion presented to one of the CAP higher level committees a few years ago by a non-CAP source (Either DoD or AF lawyers). 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on April 12, 2009, 11:48:08 PM
Quote from: Cecil DP on April 12, 2009, 11:36:45 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 12, 2009, 08:47:45 PM
Or they could study the issue and agree with me that PC never applies to CAP since we are not members of the military at any time no matter who is paying for our gas or bought our airplanes.  Or, they could put an exemption in for CAP to do LE-type missions for DHS just like they did to allow the military to do counterdrug missions. 

The point is that CAP acts as an instrumentality (Agent) of the United States Air Force. So when CAP is used for Law Enforcement in any case, we may be civilians, but are acting for the Air Force and may be violating the Posse commitatus laws. 

Cecil, you are correct.  When we are acting as an auxiliary of the AF, we are, for purposes pf PossComm, an integral part of the AF and under AF command.  The PossComm specifically INcludes military auxiliaries.

However, River is correct in that there are more ways around the PossComm than simply placing CAP under DHS for missions.  One is to specifically EXclude CAP from PossComm.  Or, place CAP under the Air Guard as a state asset, but that would not work for Federal missions without the same level of financial trickery that allowed NG troops to guard civilian airports right after 9-11.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 12, 2009, 11:51:35 PM
My mistake it was a US Attorney opinion.  Obviously not binding, but pretty serious firepower nevertheless.  From the March 2006 National Board minutes:

QuoteCOL PALERMO/NLO reported that in the last few weeks he was given a copy of a U. S. Attorney opinion dealing with the Posse Comitatus applicability to DoD civilians. It was a very significant opinion. It didn't come from the DoD, but from a U. S. Attorney's office, which makes it very persuasive. The Attorney General's office opined that Posse Comitatus did not apply to DoD civilians, and generally believed that this opinion would extend to Civil Air Patrol and perhaps even as auxiliarists since CAP members are civilians. Importantly, it might allow CAP to perform missions that had previously been restricted as "A" missions—not "C" missions. CAP would have to be concerned about the insurer. He added that there are still many issues that need to be ferreted out but the attorney general's opinion should be seen as a welcome and a positive step forward
on this issue. He further added that they would continue to work with them, the
restrictions of AFI 10-2701, specifically Sections 2.2.3 on support to law enforcement agencies and Section 2.8 on the other restrictions of Civil Air Patrol flying. He added the following: "Col Karton and his committee have been working on what the parameters would look like as corporate missions. Hopefully, he can give it a broader scope on how we can fit in the new framework of possibly allowing this as an "A" mission and having some sensible rules of engagement so that we don't damage any aircraft or hurt personnel in the process. That is our plan ahead and we will continue to update you."
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 12, 2009, 11:52:35 PM
QuoteThe PossComm specifically INcludes military auxiliaries.
It absolutely does not specifically mention military auxiliaries and if you can find a citation in federal law to that effect I'll eat my hat. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on April 12, 2009, 11:52:53 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 12, 2009, 11:43:54 PM
QuoteThe point is that CAP acts as an instrumentality (Agent) of the United States Air Force.
Actually no.  We act as an instrumentality of the federal government.  Title 10 Sect. 9441 and Sect. 9442. 

And we are civilians, not members of the military, which is who PC applies. 

By the way, I'm just agreeing with an official legal opinion presented to one of the CAP higher level committees a few years ago by a non-CAP source (Either DoD or AF lawyers). 

You read the opinion wrong, and it was an opinion written by Alberto Gonzales, then Attorney General.  Gonzales opinion was that UNLESS CAP is activated in its Federal role, the law specifically stated that CAP did NOT act as an aux. of the AF.  Gonzales ruled that use of CAP would be legal under the PossComm if CAP were called into service by state authorities, even if those states were later reimbursed by the Federal govt.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 12, 2009, 11:57:45 PM
To my knowledge this opinion has not been circulated beyond what was mentioned in the NB notes.  Can you either post a copy or provide a link? 

You quoted my statement about CAP being an instrumentality of the federal government, not the AF in your reply.  That had nothing to do with that other legal opinion.  It is a statement of clear fact. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: es_g0d on April 13, 2009, 01:34:37 AM
There is still need of clarification.  Exactly when, and in what roles, we act as a local, state, or Federal entity needs to be clearly spelled out not just for ourselves, but for our customers.

I can't tell you the number of times CAP has not been called in my previous wings due to us being a "Federal Resource."
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 13, 2009, 01:48:29 AM
QuoteThere is still need of clarification.  Exactly when, and in what roles, we act as a local, state, or Federal entity needs to be clearly spelled out not just for ourselves, but for our customers.
I'm with you there.  Keep in mind that in some states CAP members can get covered for medical costs and perhaps other things while working for the state. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RRLE on April 13, 2009, 10:35:01 AM
QuoteThis could mean that we would have to take a more active role in DHS missions, and could mean that we would actually engage threat forces.

Rest easy - that will never happen. Under DHS is the USCG. The USCG has the USCG Auxiliary, which does flying and boating for the USCG and therefore DHS. And the USCG Auxiliary is barred from military and direct law enforcement activity by federal law not just USCG regulation. So if the already serving Auxiliary is barred from such things, it is improbable that CAP would be allowed to do them.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 13, 2009, 04:50:02 PM
I'm not so sure about that.  I think that the CG Aux Air rules have a little more latitude towards some LE issues than CAP's rules do. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Tubacap on April 13, 2009, 08:30:20 PM
In regards to the fact that Posse Comitatus Act 18 USC 1385, generally abbreviated PCA, does not apply to us, I offer you this.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001385----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001385----000-.html)

The reference links to this, which is all PCA says:

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

Any part of the Air Force would definitely pertain to us as the official auxiliary of the USAF as outlined in 10 USC 9442: Status as volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=civil%20air%20patrol&url=/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00009442----000-.html[/url]

The two laws combined leave little leeway for us operating in support of a federal agency to be exempt from PCA.  Our internal regulations require us to abide by the same rules when not requested by a federal agency so that we don't get in the habit.

I would contest that anything that the USAF wants us to do, or for that matter anything that another federal agency wants us to do can be done legally, it just needs to be vetted.  There are restrictions on the use of military personnel (see above to include us) on our own population, and those restrictions have been put in place to protect our civil liberties, lessons learned from past kings etc. etc.

True the equipment that we have could be very useful, and if requested correctly can be used for most intelligence gathering things with the exception of Law Enforcement.  When we talk about LE work, I guess it comes down to whether or not you are willing to put yourself and your crews at risk due to the nature of the work as to whether you would want an exemption made for CAP.  I for one am not.

PCA also has a counterpart, the Insurrection Act.  This act is designed so that in egregious emergencies, the military can be used as necessary at the direction of the President.  This law has gone through some changes over the course of the last decade, but has returned to it's original form from the late 1800's.

The Insurrection Act is 10 USC 331-335

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/ch15.html (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/ch15.html)

Please note also, that anything in Title 10 USC is under the Armed Forces.  The USCG and it's auxiliary fall under Title 14 which is a whole different set of rules.

Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 13, 2009, 08:35:14 PM
Ah, I was waiting for someone to make the claim that CAP was legally part of the Air Force. 

So, in regards to posse comitatus you think that we are considered part of the Air Force, but find me anything anywhere in federal law that says CAP members are part of the Air Force.  Find me anything that says that CAP is part of the Armed Forces.  You won't.  If you do, let me know so that I can start getting my military pay.

But, I can give you a legal citation which very clearly separates the military from its auxliliaries.  If the auxiliaries were considered part of the military there would not be any reason to mention them at all in this law. 

QuoteTITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 33 > § 702
§ 702. Uniform of armed forces and Public Health Service
Whoever, in any place within the jurisdiction of the United States or in the Canal Zone, without authority, wears the uniform or a distinctive part thereof or anything similar to a distinctive part of the uniform of any of the armed forces of the United States, Public Health Service or any auxiliary of such, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

We are auxiliary to, not part of, the Air Force.  Broadly speaking we are part of the Air Force family, but thats as far as it goes. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Smithsonia on April 13, 2009, 08:38:04 PM
RiverAux;
I'm in the CAP and occasionally experience Party Comatose -- due to my advanced age. Does that count?
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Pingree1492 on April 13, 2009, 08:44:57 PM
Actually- according to reliable sources, this is one of the reasons for the name change from "USAF Aux" to "Civil Air Patrol" on the tails of our aircraft with a new paint job, especially for our work in the CD- and HLS-type environments.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Tubacap on April 13, 2009, 09:14:59 PM
*Disclaimer: Not a lawyer, but have done a fair amount of research on this topic*

If you wanted to get down to it, the individual member is not necessarily a member of the Air Force, but the organization is a part of the Air Force.  That site is 10 USC 9442.  That is very clearly spelled out.  10 USC is all Armed Forces, as the Title of the code implies.  The fact that 10 USC 9442 includes the words volunteer and civilian denotes that you don't get paid, nor fall under UCMJ, but civil law... incidentally PCA is a civil law.

The other code cite that you provided is 18 USC, which comes from the Crimes and Criminal Procedure section of Federal Law.  The fact that it is includes the auxiliaries can probably be attributed to the fact that sometimes they are there, and sometimes they are not, depending upon the service.  I believe the Army had an auxiliary at one point in time, as did several of the other services.  This particular citation would not negate the fact that we are considered to be included in "any part of the Army or Air Force"

In regards to the tail name change, I think that is probably a comfort level for the USAF from a PR perspective in regards to this law.  Those missions are still routed through the USAF on a daily basis, and there is provisions in both Title 10 and Title 32 for military support of civil authorities for counterdrug support.  HLS type support comes from the DSCA provisions which are part of the National Response Framework (Ha!  I knew those darn ICS classes would come in handy!!!)
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 13, 2009, 10:02:14 PM
Being the Air Force Auxiliary does not mean that we're part of the Air Force.  Keep in mind that we are not bound to follow the orders of anyone in the Air Force.  Their only control over us is financial in one form or another.  If we were "part" of the Air Force, that wouldn't be the case. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on April 14, 2009, 03:57:57 AM
The fact is that since there has never, in my recollection, been a single prosecution under the PCA, we are faced with the fact that there is simply NO case law on this issue that can be cited.  We have a lot of legal opinions, and we ALL KNOW what opinions are compared to, since everyone has one.

"Everyone" in this case being "Every lawyer."

I DO recall finding the terms:  "...including reserves and auxiliaries" under Title 10's definitions when I looked into this before, but I dozed off trying to find it again last night.  Then, even if I had found it, we are left with the question as to whether Title 10's definitions of "The Army and the Air Force" fit the intended definitions of the PCA, since the PCA is under Title 18.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Cecil DP on April 14, 2009, 04:22:06 AM
If I were, as a member of the Civil Air Patrol,  told or asked to participate in a "Law enforcement" mission that involved Posse Commitatus issues I would refuse. CAP is not and should not be involved in law enforcement. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on April 15, 2009, 01:40:14 AM
Quote from: Cecil DP on April 14, 2009, 04:22:06 AM
If I were, as a member of the Civil Air Patrol,  told or asked to participate in a "Law enforcement" mission that involved Posse Commitatus issues I would refuse. CAP is not and should not be involved in law enforcement. 

That's kind of a broad statement, Cecil.

First, exactly what conduct violates the PCA?  If we transport a deputy in the air, is the deputy "Using a portion of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus?"  If all the CAP is doing is providing an aerial platform for a LE officer to observe and direct action, does that violate the PCA?

Second, lets assume you have an 8 year old girl missing from a remote campsite.  The county sheriff requests CAP assistance to scout the area from the sky.  AFRCC provides the funding. While the planes are looking for the girl, a detective develops information that she was taken away from the campsite by a white male driving a red van.

So, do you:  1.  Land and go home.  Missing girl or not, this is now a law enforcement mission.  2.  Continue searching for the girl.  The information may be bogus, or you just may see a red van somewhere nearby, either way, there is still a helpless little girl in trouble.  If the AFRCC won't fund it, see if the sheriff's dept. will.  or, 3.  Whine loudly that we are not "Real" officers and not in the "Real" military and therefore cannot be expected to make "Real" decisions, after all, we're only volunteers. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Rotorhead on April 15, 2009, 01:49:55 AM
Man, the people on this board do spend an inordinate amount of time discussing (or, more bluntly put, dreaming about) how CAP could/would/should/might do missions other than the stated ES/AE/Cadet Programs.

Edited to clarify
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 15, 2009, 02:01:30 AM
Quote from: Rotorhead on April 15, 2009, 01:49:55 AM
Man, the people on this board do spend an inordinate amount of time discussing (or, more bluntly put, dreaming about) how CAP could/would/should/might do missions other than the stated SAR/AE/Cadet Programs.
Considering that SAR isn't a stated purpose of CAP in the law that created us, it isn't dreaming.  Among the stated purposes are to meet local and national emergencies and to help the Dept. of the AF in its noncombat programs and missions,and to contibute to the public welfare.  That leaves a whole lot of potential missions that would be just as legitimate as SAR. 
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: heliodoc on April 15, 2009, 04:48:45 AM
Potential missions legitimate as SAR.....granted

If SAR wasn't our intended purpose then law enforcement or riding on law enforcements coat tails and discussing all that PCA stuff isn't either..

BITD, CAP was under NO involvement in LE and now we got folks thinking we are saddling up for the Mexican border, strapping on our Kombat Air Patrol ASEK knives and dreamin' of strapping on a M4 or an HK fast roping out of a UH60 "assisting" CBP in our Missions for America.

Look, if we can not meet the sheer basics of what is requested of us in as far as getting the ICS I courses by FEMA done in time......  and I sure know CAPers who thought that was a joke, too.

If we are dreamin of all those DHS missions other than ARCHER and support missions to EMA's, then we had beef up CAP's ability to function out of its 501(c) 3 environment and get signed on immediately to the DHS

Again with what is happenin' with the Homeland Security bill, until it gets SERIOUS traction and when it does maybe CAP had beeter look out....we have been touting so LONG of ALLLLL those things we can do....there will be a day when CAP either bit off more than it could chew and then there won't be 'nuf CAPers around to fill ALLL the volunteer billets...

For you CAP types that want to play LE and get involved with PCA... maybe joining the Sheriffs Dept or SWAT team is what the Dr ordered

Let's see where this HS security bill goes.....we may not even be a blip on the radar screen with all the risk averse stuff at NHQ.  If we can not be entrusted getting our C182's out of a hangar without  a safety training video...how are we going to be entrusted with anything bigger than ARCHER missions and whatnot which are commendable missions.  But CAP is't going to be the decision  makers when it comes to disasters, we will remain a support function until the day the rules from Congress says we are more than we are.

PCA or not ....CAP is still a support function and not first responders in the true sense of the word......until someone signs off and says we are.

Let's see if the HS bill really puts CAP where it would desire to be and IF it all comes true, then be expecting some changes and COMMITMENT other than the CAP big three.  Expect new and measurable training standards.  The online stuff CAP currently has may or may not meeet muster AND those physical standards.......Wanna act like Border Patrol?   Try a 2 mile run EVERY day to keep up.......The word volunteer will have a whole new meaning for the folks who think we can handle ALL

Hope we get what we want.  Do not get your hopes up >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Rotorhead on April 15, 2009, 05:00:37 AM
Quote from: heliodoc on April 15, 2009, 04:48:45 AM
Look, if we can not meet the sheer basics of what is requested of us in as far as getting the ICS I courses by FEMA done in time......  and I sure know CAPers who thought that was a joke, too.

Exactly. Everyone who has heard other SAR groups (LE, or whatever) complain that CAP isn't qualified for and doesn't have the training for, SAR missions, raise your hand.

I know I have.

So, along comes FEMA and says, "Let's get you guys qualified for some of this stuff," (like the other SAR organizations)...and instead of saying, "Great, let's do it,"  all we hear is, "I don't have time to do these tests and these classes," etc., etc.

Yet on this board, we read dozens of posts about how CAP should also do this or that (or, God forbid, be involved in combat situations), when members won't even bother to learn the ICS system, which applies to what we do now.

How in the world can you believe these same members would submit to the kind of training these missions would require?
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 15, 2009, 12:26:47 PM
QuoteExactly. Everyone who has heard other SAR groups (LE, or whatever) complain that CAP isn't qualified for and doesn't have the training for, SAR missions, raise your hand.
Anyone that has seen an inadequately equipped and untrained firefighter or law enforcement officer attempt to do ground SAR raise your hand....

Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: heliodoc on April 15, 2009, 12:44:36 PM
^^^^^^^

Maybe CAP instructors could "help" in that "training"  I have seen some CAP ers help instruct Sheriffs Depts and they have some success in getting points across

This the reason for the other thread provided by sardak....

I can raise my hand, too.  But my current "paid" job requires that I work with both LE , wildland fire, and the general uneducated community about many thing folks are not familiar with

What are you doing RiverAux, to increase the awareness and training to those untrained folks?  People form the LE and other first response groups, maybe reading this, and may want your professional guidance

Or was that attempt at sarcasm??
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 15, 2009, 12:58:39 PM
Here are two examples of PCA issues that could potentially keep us from being as helpful as we might in homeland security issues on AFAMs.

1.  Patrolling the border.  If a CAP plane were patrolling the border and spotted a group of people climbing over the border fence, we would be well within current regulations to call in that location and even take some photos.  However, we most likely would not be able to continue to circle the area, follow their movements after crossing the fence, and guide law enforcement to their location. 

2.  Surveillance.  Say there is a suspected terrorist and the government would like to use a CAP plane to track their movements while they're driving to a meeting with other potential terrorists.  We probably couldn't do it as that would be more of a surveillance than a reconnaissance mission. 



Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on April 15, 2009, 01:05:55 PM
Some people just do not appear to be real deep thinkers here.

Every time DHS missions are discussed some posters feel a need to entertain us with sarcasm about combat-equipped Skyhawks and other nonsense that does not add to the discussion.

Now that you have vented your silliness, lets focus in on one comment that one poster made... something to the effect that we won't be doing LE missions until "Someone signs off on it."

In case you were not paying attention, the proposed bills in Congress may accomplish EXACTLY that sign off that the poster ridicules.

RiverAux nailed one point, that we already can support the DHS as an Aux of the AF, so the question then becomes... WHY is it necessary to create a new law to allow the DHS to directly task missions to CAP, by-passing the DoD and the Air Force?

The answer, and the only one that makes sense, is that by by-passing the Air Force and directly tasking CAP to perform DHS missions, then the problem of the PCA can be side-stepped.

You can argue that we never came under PCA in the first place (and you may be right), but since there is no case law, any positions on the PCA are based on opinions.

So... if the PCA does not or will not apply to CAP, then what missions can we expect from DHS?  Or, looking at it from another perspective, how will DHS view the new asset under its control?  What will DHS do with 500+ airplanes prepositioned around the country and 50,000+ volunteers with widely-varying levels of training? 

I realize that serious discussions require serious thought, and it is easier and way more fun to ridicule members who believe that new missions of some sort might be on the horizon and who want to plan for these potential missions.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: heliodoc on April 15, 2009, 01:31:11 PM
Who needs to be a "deep thinker" here, John??

There are MORE things than CAP that DHS has to work and worry about

We may be so far down on a radar screen.

There seems to be alot of ridiculing here on CAPtalk.  But since I have work ed in the EM field, I do know how CAP is viewed in some arenas.  I ridiculed ASEK carrying knife carrying CAP C182 pilots (who may require it, more often a pocket knife). 

HOW or WHAT will DHS do with all those people or "big iron" we have when they have assets already under USCG, CBP, and others?? 

This does require ALOT of thought and maybe CAP is just a blip.  CAP probably could not stand on its own without 1AF, 501(C)3 status or any other type of help. 

Thanks for informing me about venting silliness, John, maybe Congress will approve what you think and what would happen if Congress says..."well CAP, looks like you re not what we are looking for"

Silliness??  Someone has to sign off on anything LE related and it sure isn't the general 50,000 plus membership that is going to get us in the first responder club.

Some here think they have the pulse on it all.  I could be accused of being pessimistic....but CAP may need an overhaul on its general training program   calll me silly
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on April 15, 2009, 03:39:46 PM
Quote from: heliodoc on April 15, 2009, 01:31:11 PM
Who needs to be a "deep thinker" here, John??

There are MORE things than CAP that DHS has to work and worry about

We may be so far down on a radar screen.

There seems to be alot of ridiculing here on CAPtalk.  But since I have work ed in the EM field, I do know how CAP is viewed in some arenas.  I ridiculed ASEK carrying knife carrying CAP C182 pilots (who may require it, more often a pocket knife). 

HOW or WHAT will DHS do with all those people or "big iron" we have when they have assets already under USCG, CBP, and others?? 

This does require ALOT of thought and maybe CAP is just a blip.  CAP probably could not stand on its own without 1AF, 501(C)3 status or any other type of help. 

Thanks for informing me about venting silliness, John, maybe Congress will approve what you think and what would happen if Congress says..."well CAP, looks like you re not what we are looking for"

Silliness??  Someone has to sign off on anything LE related and it sure isn't the general 50,000 plus membership that is going to get us in the first responder club.

Some here think they have the pulse on it all.  I could be accused of being pessimistic....but CAP may need an overhaul on its general training program   calll me silly

I'm so sorry.  I had no idea that you "Worked in the EM field."

Now I feel bad, because all I have done is command a Guard battalion.  And work as a cop for 25 years.  And serve as a staff officer at various command levels.

So if you don't believe any thinking or planning, or discussion need take place, I yield to your superior judgement.  Because of your superior training and expertise I will now assume that CAP has no role under DHS that cannot be done by existing assets, and therefore I know that, even if the proposed legislation passes, we are collectively too incompetent to serve and therefore will never be called upon.

I'm sorry to have troubled you.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: cap235629 on April 15, 2009, 05:29:02 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 15, 2009, 12:58:39 PM
Here are two examples of PCA issues that could potentially keep us from being as helpful as we might in homeland security issues on AFAMs.

1.  Patrolling the border.  If a CAP plane were patrolling the border and spotted a group of people climbing over the border fence, we would be well within current regulations to call in that location and even take some photos.  However, we most likely would not be able to continue to circle the area, follow their movements after crossing the fence, and guide law enforcement to their location. 

2.  Surveillance.  Say there is a suspected terrorist and the government would like to use a CAP plane to track their movements while they're driving to a meeting with other potential terrorists.  We probably couldn't do it as that would be more of a surveillance than a reconnaissance mission. 

HUH,

Did I miss something?
Why would this be a violation?

We are not doing anything more than observe and report......
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on April 15, 2009, 08:31:02 PM
Quote from: cap235629 on April 15, 2009, 05:29:02 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on April 15, 2009, 12:58:39 PM
Here are two examples of PCA issues that could potentially keep us from being as helpful as we might in homeland security issues on AFAMs.

1.  Patrolling the border.  If a CAP plane were patrolling the border and spotted a group of people climbing over the border fence, we would be well within current regulations to call in that location and even take some photos.  However, we most likely would not be able to continue to circle the area, follow their movements after crossing the fence, and guide law enforcement to their location. 

2.  Surveillance.  Say there is a suspected terrorist and the government would like to use a CAP plane to track their movements while they're driving to a meeting with other potential terrorists.  We probably couldn't do it as that would be more of a surveillance than a reconnaissance mission. 

HUH,

Did I miss something?
Why would this be a violation?

We are not doing anything more than observe and report......

The regulations are confusing, and the law is not clear.  The PCA was passed in the 1870's, and issues such as aerial observation could not be considered, since aerial flight had not yet occured, except for balloons.

In the first example, I actually kind of liked HWSRN's approach... To report their location and movements was not a Law Enforcement mission, it was a Rescue mission.  He just thought the Border Patrol should check them out to make sure they had enough water and stuff! ::)
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: heliodoc on April 15, 2009, 08:39:47 PM
No trouble here, John

No superior anything , either

Never said planning or discussion need to take place, either

Never torched you about your service, sir .  Lighten your attitude towrds mine

CAPtalkers do NOT know it all

I sure don't .  But I have said enough for awhile

Let let thwe chips fall where thety may....our volunteer status MAY eliminate us from some services   We will see.  In the meantime, I will not hold my breath for CAP's glory days or daze in the up and coming DHS missions


DHS MAY say enough is enough, and send us on our merry way and leave us with 1AF

We Can not duplicate any first responder services, we can only support it and UNTIL Congress clears us and it is written....................
CAP talkers can speculate ALLLLLL they want about this subject >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: RiverAux on April 15, 2009, 10:27:27 PM
QuoteHUH,

Did I miss something?
Why would this be a violation?

We are not doing anything more than observe and report......
If you're in the counterdrug program you might want to review the online training program....
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: wuzafuzz on April 15, 2009, 11:47:33 PM
DHS probably doesn't want us anyway.  Secretary Napolitano apparently thinks many of us are right wing extremists and potential threats. Then again, if they keep us close they can keep an eye on all our veterans and gun owners.   >:D

Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: JohnKachenmeister on April 16, 2009, 05:52:54 AM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on April 15, 2009, 11:47:33 PM
DHS probably doesn't want us anyway.  Secretary Napolitano apparently thinks many of us are right wing extremists and potential threats. Then again, if they keep us close they can keep an eye on all our veterans and gun owners.   >:D

Yeah... I get it on two points.  I'm a combat veteran AND a firearm rights advocate.  Actually, I find it kinda cool to be officially declared a Threat to National Security. 

Not the first time I've been declared a Threat to National Security, though.  The last time I was so declared was by Ho Chi Minh, and the nation that I was declared a threat to was North Vietnam.

Chicks dig Threats to National Security.  The Harley and the leather helps, too.

Maybe I ought to put in on my signature line >:D
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: wuzafuzz on April 16, 2009, 11:20:14 AM
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on April 16, 2009, 05:52:54 AM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on April 15, 2009, 11:47:33 PM
DHS probably doesn't want us anyway.  Secretary Napolitano apparently thinks many of us are right wing extremists and potential threats. Then again, if they keep us close they can keep an eye on all our veterans and gun owners.   >:D

Yeah... I get it on two points.  I'm a combat veteran AND a firearm rights advocate.  Actually, I find it kinda cool to be officially declared a Threat to National Security. 

Not the first time I've been declared a Threat to National Security, though.  The last time I was so declared was by Ho Chi Minh, and the nation that I was declared a threat to was North Vietnam.

Chicks dig Threats to National Security.  The Harley and the leather helps, too.

Maybe I ought to put in on my signature line >:D

Love the signature line!  ROFLMAO.
Maybe I'll wear a "Threat to National Security" tee-shirt to work tomorrow.  I bet those would sell great right now.   ;D

At least we aren't listed as threats because of our membership in CAP.  Now we return to our regularly scheduled programming.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: MIGCAP on April 16, 2009, 04:10:09 PM
This entire area can not go anywhere good for CAP. Asking the Comptroller General and/or GAO to "look into your organization" is like begging the IRS to audit your taxes.  I can assure you that the last time the GAO and CAP met, it did not go well for CAP, and it will not this time.
The whole thing strikes me as "Nobody wants to play with us", therefore we'll go to the teacher and have her make the other kids play with us. That always led to problems on the playground.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: heliodoc on April 16, 2009, 04:54:31 PM
^^^ Is not  the same event that someone once told me here, was ancient history??
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: JayT on April 16, 2009, 06:26:09 PM
It was like, ten years ago.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Major Lord on April 16, 2009, 06:57:31 PM
Janet Napolitano did not back down from her accusation against veterans and other patriots in the last couple of days. She is sticking with the party line. I guess if standing with the people who have actually put themselves in harms way  to serve the Constitution of the United States of America makes me a threat to National Security, so be it. If your plan is to establish a socialist state on the ashes of the Constitution, you are right to be afraid of people like me.

Right now, many of my friends and my own son are serving in combat areas. To hear some bed-wetting left handed communist pinko like Napolitano denigrate them as terrorists really makes me angry. She is not fit to walk on the same ground.

Major Lord
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Rotorhead on April 16, 2009, 07:18:03 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on April 16, 2009, 06:57:31 PM
If your plan is to establish a socialist state on the ashes of the Constitution, you are right to be afraid of people like me.

Our previous president was no friend of the US Constitution.

Where was your anger then?
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: JayT on April 16, 2009, 07:31:03 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on April 16, 2009, 06:57:31 PM
Janet Napolitano did not back down from her accusation against veterans and other patriots in the last couple of days. She is sticking with the party line. I guess if standing with the people who have actually put themselves in harms way  to serve the Constitution of the United States of America makes me a threat to National Security, so be it. If your plan is to establish a socialist state on the ashes of the Constitution, you are right to be afraid of people like me.

Right now, many of my friends and my own son are serving in combat areas. To hear some bed-wetting left handed communist pinko like Napolitano denigrate them as terrorists really makes me angry. She is not fit to walk on the same ground.

Major Lord

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/16/Napolitano-apologizes-for-extremism-report/UPI-66131239896833/

I hardly think she was harping on vets and 'patriots.'

However, I don't think many would argue that veterans would be 'targeted' by members of extremist groups made up of non vets.

It's hardly a 'socalist state.' It's 'the Republican Party blew it and lost.'
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Major Lord on April 16, 2009, 08:26:15 PM
Joe,

Her non-apology said that she was sorry if veterans were offended by the report, but she will not revise or clarify it further. Read the unclassified parts of the report and you will clearly see that it intends to criminalize any political dissent. Right to life groups are considered terrorists.

I did not say we had a Socialist State; Merely that if that is anyones goal, I am their enemy, and they are right to fear me. I certainly agree with you that the Republican party is just as complicit in eroding the Constitution and our liberties as the Democrats. They truly had carnal knowledge of the canine.

Actually, I welcome this opportunity for the Democratic Party to show America what they can really do to and for America. My own family had an opportunity to see socialism first hand in my mothers native country of Nicaragua. Of course, most of them can't tell us much about , what with their being executed and all....

We are less than 100 days into the new administration and the economy is in shambles, 14 States have introduced or are about to introduce legislation to recognize the 10th Amendments right to State Soverignty,and the second largest State in the Union is flying trial balloons about succession from them Union. Crikey, in another hundred days they would have to create a plague of locusts to top this!

If Texas leaves the Union, will CAP have an overseas Squadron there?

Major Lord
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Major Lord on April 16, 2009, 08:34:40 PM
Quote from: Rotorhead on April 16, 2009, 07:18:03 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on April 16, 2009, 06:57:31 PM
If your plan is to establish a socialist state on the ashes of the Constitution, you are right to be afraid of people like me.

Our previous president was no friend of the US Constitution.

Where was your anger then?

My anger then was clearly communicated by my political activities, and my practical and financial support of pro-American, and Pro-civil rights organizations. I agree with you that George Bush was a Democrat-Lite. Another Ivy league, Country club Republican tax and spender. I voted for him, although I am a Libertarian, because the Libertarian candidate was a wack-wack! ( What is it with Physicians in the house and senate?  Howard Dean, Ron Paul,etc? )

The only thing that GB had going for him was that he was fairly responsive to facing the Islamic-terror threat, and he proved once again that tax cuts actually improve the Treasury's receipts. Otherwise, I am no fan of George Bush.

Major Lord
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: ricks on April 16, 2009, 08:41:38 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on April 16, 2009, 08:26:15 PM
Joe,

Her non-apology said that she was sorry if veterans were offended by the report, but she will not revise or clarify it further. Read the unclassified parts of the report and you will clearly see that it intends to criminalize any political dissent. Right to life groups are considered terrorists.

I did not say we had a Socialist State; Merely that if that is anyones goal, I am their enemy, and they are right to fear me. I certainly agree with you that the Republican party is just as complicit in eroding the Constitution and our liberties as the Democrats. They truly had carnal knowledge of the canine.

Actually, I welcome this opportunity for the Democratic Party to show America what they can really do to and for America. My own family had an opportunity to see socialism first hand in my mothers native country of Nicaragua. Of course, most of them can't tell us much about , what with their being executed and all....

We are less than 100 days into the new administration and the economy is in shambles, 14 States have introduced or are about to introduce legislation to recognize the 10th Amendments right to State Soverignty,and the second largest State in the Union is flying trial balloons about succession from them Union. Crikey, in another hundred days they would have to create a plague of locusts to top this!

If Texas leaves the Union, will CAP have an overseas Squadron there?

Major Lord

Texas will not leave the union. There are too many real Americans here. Those of us that believe that true democracy is not always pretty but is still always right. To believe that we are somehow falling into a socialist state is a stretch. A Dem happy village, perhaps, but we are all moderates compared to the real spectrum of political ideology. Our country has a solid history for peaceful exchange of power. Let's try to keep it that way.
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Rotorhead on April 16, 2009, 08:51:39 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on April 16, 2009, 08:26:15 PM
We are less than 100 days into the new administration and the economy is in shambles,

It was "in shambles" for far longer than 100 days before this administration.

It will some time to fix the economy, despite the fact that people expect instant results,
Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: Rotorhead on April 16, 2009, 08:53:14 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on April 16, 2009, 08:26:15 PM
I did not say we had a Socialist State; Merely that if that is anyones goal, I am their enemy, and they are right to fear me.

You do realize that socialism is an economic system, not necessarily a political one, right?

The problems in Nicaragua, for example, were not caused by socialism, but by the fact that their country was run by a dictator.

Title: Re: 2009 CAP Homeland Security study bill
Post by: isuhawkeye on April 16, 2009, 08:56:36 PM
topic?