PA Rep to introduce legislation on CAP border & homeland security missions

[JohnKachenmeister]

The missions may, or may not, be "The same."

If we were to be assigned (by Congress) under DHS, we could end up doing either regulatory enforcement or law enforcement work.

Just like the Coast Guard can give you a ticket for not having enough life jackets, we could write up a FBO for leaving the keys to the rental airplanes open and available to the public.  Or allowing an unlocked gate to the flight line to remain unattended.

[DNall]

You guys have a nice two pages there w/o me? 

Reading the bill, it doesn't DO anything. It instructs DHS to pursue an MOU w/ AF, it doesn't require one be reached, or that in being reach that it ever once be utilized. It specifically does not free CAP from PCA under the current rules.

If DHS doesn't want to do this, they can ask AF to sign an MOU that violates PCA (which is what this bill instructs them to do), AF will say no, and they can report to congress that it wasn't possible under federal law & cannot be w/o repealing PCA (which is overstating the case, but that's how things are done).

What's more likely is DHS will sign an MOU that stay within the bounds of PCA. They will report that to Congress, CAP will hail it as a victory, Congress will mark it down as political capital spent for CAP.... yet because the limitations are still in place really nothing will have changed. It's a waste of time. Don't get me wrong, it's nice, especially enhancing our role in the national response plan (which we've been part of for 50 years), and there may even be a handful of missions for a handful of crews... however, we've flown 1AF missions requested by DHS before, and based on PCA restrictions there is very little more we can do for them in which we are the best tool in the aresenal. If there was some way for us to be of more use to them then they would have signed an MOU a long time ago to streamline the paperwork, which is all it does.

[JohnKachenmeister]

You are right, Dennis.  The present proposed law does nothing, really.  Everything it "Authorizes" was already authorized.  It may streamline procedures a little.  In an earlier post, I described it as "Eyewash."

"Eyewash" is an old Army term to mean making things look good, even if they are not functional.  Like cleaning up vehicles for inspection that have to be pushed into their parking stall because they can't start.

[RiverAux]

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;

As has been mentioned this includes the sort of activities that in the past we have been told we cannot do because it would violate PCA. 

I was thinking last night that while DNALL is right that this bill does not explicitly mention PCA or exclude CAP from it in any way, it may in fact be in accordance with PCA. 

Should this bill become law you would have one section of the US Code that explicitly talks about  CAP and what it may be used for and another section that talks about the use of any part of the Army or Air Force.

Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
      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.

One could argue that the proposed CAP bill expressely authorizes CAP to take part in some law enforcement activities so that even if CAP is considered part of the Air Force (which is debatable), then the provisions of PCA are actually met by the proposed bill since Congress would be expressely authorizing CAP to do it. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

The problem is, Congress created the PCA monster back after the Civil War.  Only the President can order military forces to participate in LE activity, and then only when certain conditions are met.  Congress can't make subsequent findings unless the statute is specifically modified.

[RiverAux]

I qouted you the PCA statute and none of those conditions that you state are part of it. 

[DNall]

John is right on that one as I understand it. You might as well have put the thing is the constitution, which is n't a bad idea honestly. As a southerner w/ history degree, you'll find I appreciate the reasons for PCA & fear the slippery slope.

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;

As has been mentioned this includes the sort of activities that in the past we have been told we cannot do because it would violate PCA. 

I was thinking last night that while DNALL is right that this bill does not explicitly mention PCA or exclude CAP from it in any way, it may in fact be in accordance with PCA. 

Should this bill become law you would have one section of the US Code that explicitly talks about  CAP and what it may be used for and another section that talks about the use of any part of the Army or Air Force.

Sec. 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatus
      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.

One could argue that the proposed CAP bill expressely authorizes CAP to take part in some law enforcement activities so that even if CAP is considered part of the Air Force (which is debatable), then the provisions of PCA are actually met by the proposed bill since Congress would be expressely authorizing CAP to do it. 

Key point... this bill doesn't say CAP is allowed to do those things. It says the sec of DHS may consider, or he may choose not to consider, or he may consider & see that it violates PCA so cannot be done. In other words, it's meaningless PR dribble. They know they can pass this to look good to CAP & strong on immigration/security, but not actually have done anything & no money needs to be spent. That's politics, don't get sucked in by it.

[RiverAux]

The proposed bill would authorize the use of CAP in several law enforcement missions.  The "may" language is exactly the same as the language under which the AF uses for SAR/DR.  The difference is that the AF isn't told that they "will" use CAP for mission x -- it is their choice on how they do it. 

[RiverAux]

FYI, still no action on this bill in Congress. 

[mikeylikey]

I had no doubt nothing would come of it. 

[wingnut]

 
It sure got us off for awhile