Civilian Homeland Security Force

[cnitas]

-It would get 10x as many people out there looking for bad guys on the street. 

-It would generate more 'leads' for law enforcement.

-Would help prevent domestic terrorism.

-It would give the 'army' of volunteers a clear expectation and method to report suspected activity directly to those who can 'connect the dots'.

-This would be a great way to give DHS some real teeth.

-This is also the method used to control populations ala dictatorial regimes.

Lets hope this was just a random thought along the campaign trail and Obama has since reconsidered.

[Flying Pig]

Thats just it.....we dont need it.  Id would be all for expanding CAPs equipment, and training, and maybe even offering CAP members some type of..((cough)) pay.  Imagine flying the border with a FLIR equipped Airvan with a pilot, Observer and FLIR operator in the back.  Yea howdy!

[JohnKachenmeister]

It is all campaign rhetoric.  Right up there with cutting taxes for 95 percent of the people, and only raising taxes on people and businesses making over $250,000 per year.  Or $150,000 per year, or maybe $120,000 per year, nobody knows.  

All we really know about Obama is that he is far-left is his political views, and will try to move the country as far left as he can get away with.  Far left means anti-military, regardless of what he says.

[Flying Pig]

What we do know on a Homeland Security level is that our new President Elect just got his first crash course in foreign policy yesterday from the Russian President and the Russian Prime Minister.

[davidsinn]

-It would get 10x as many people out there looking for bad guys on the street. 

Or Joe sixpack down the street that does something they don't like

-It would generate more 'leads' for law enforcement.

Or false leads to get back at a neighbor that annoys them

-Would help prevent domestic terrorism.

Nope. It'll happen as long as there is evil in this world.

-It would give the 'army' of volunteers a clear expectation and method to report suspected activity directly to those who can 'connect the dots'.

Or turn them into "party informants."

-This would be a great way to give DHS some real teeth.

That's what I'm afraid of. See below.

-This is also the method used to control populations ala dictatorial regimes.

Bingo. We have a winner.

Lets hope this was just a random thought along the campaign trail and Obama has since reconsidered.

For everyone's sake let's hope so. Don't forget that after voting our duty is now to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions.

[Cecil DP]

Will the new 'Homeland Security Force" be wearing Black shirts or brown??

[MIKE]

^ Godwin!

[davidsinn]

^ Godwin!

Although Godwin's law does not make exceptions for valid comparisons I do believe that this comparison is a valid one and something we should be leery of.

[davedove]

Will the new 'Homeland Security Force" be wearing Black shirts or brown??

Bringing it a typical CAP Talk discussion, will I be able to wear my CAP ribbons on the shirt?

[notaNCO forever]

 All CAP ribbons will be authorized.

[Trouble]

I heard a news clip yesterday that Obama wants to create a Civilian Homeland Security Force that is "just as well funded as the military."

Not sure how he would do that, or who would run it, but it would be interesting to hear the input from others on how something like that would work, if it would work, or if it would be just another big government turd in the punch bowl that creates another hole in the budget.

Sounds like a National Paramilitary Police Force, something along the lines of France's "Gendarmerie Nationale".    http://www.defense.gouv.fr/gendarmerie


There are advantages to having such a Force but there are also some very big disadvantages also . . .   

[Smithsonia]

There is nothing on the planet from fire to ice, from medicine to love that does NOT have a perverse misuse. Stating the obvious is not adding to the conversation or wrestling with our future.

The Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and CAP ARE paramilitary units. (meaning to have elements inside of and perform customs that are taken from the military) In our way we are military light, so to speak. We decide to what extent we become a tyrant's tool or a service group to fellow citizens. Drug Dealers will always think us snitches for "da man" or capitalist's tool, and cop loving squares (obsolete terms that I haven't heard recently but you get the idea)

To worry about contentious words, is useless. Right now we're thought Air Force wannabees and baby-blue AF, so what? To think over to what extent we can help our fellow citizens in times of need is good. To ask the new administration how we can be of service and how they see us fit with their plans... is neither wrong nor bad. For my way of thinking our biggest problem is not from without but within. We argue, disrespect, and often dislike one another for the silliest of reasons

Chances are, there aren't many people inside the new Obama Administration who either know of us or have plans for us. We should simply introduce ourselves and ask -- How can we be of "Service To America." We should do this with each new administration. After all, the military does exactly the same with each executive succession. There will be General's who will come and go and units that will rise and fall on these same plans.

Once we hear the Obama Administration's answer then we can discuss the onerous possibility and guard against it or proceed as we see fit. Any of us can quit at any time we choose. In this way we do have it better than soldiers who must wait for their hitch to end. In the meantime... this thread is turning into MEAN TIME.

[Auxpilot]

Looks like at least one member of Congress will be voting against a new security force :clap:

Georgia congressman warns of Obama dictatorship
By BEN EVANS – 13 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.

"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."

Obama's transition office did not respond immediately to Broun's remarks.

[davidsinn]

Godwin's law strikes again. And yet again it's a valid comparison. This is unnerving.

[jimmydeanno]

I'd hate to see this thread go away, but I'm concerned that it will take on too much of a political / gun control / gestapo approach as opposed to the intended "How would this type of program affect us in CAP."

While I'm not a fan of having an SS style police force roaming the streets, I would like to see the expansion of SUPPORT for civilian community based organizations like CAP who provide a real service to local communities.

These types of organizations help because the mission that we perform can be individualized to the local community and provides direct results that are shown locally.  People can see the results immediately.

However, being the type of person I am, I would prefer to see a bigger state influence in these matters than a federal one.  I also don't think that it is all that fiscally possible considering our current 10 Trillion dollar public debt. 

[davidsinn]

I'm with you Jimmy. We don't need a new force at all. We have all we need we just need better funding. CAP could get a new funding source out of this but needs to be very careful what image we present to the public.

[Auxpilot]

I too am all for increasing the civilian volunteer component of HLS. Although not the answer to all of the threats that face us today, CAP can be of some assistance, especially with border issues. We don't need a big pile of cash to do that, but it would take some increased technology in our planes to really make it effective.

Our role would be to put more eyes on the borders, not replace the professionals that do that 24/7. Kinda like WWII where volunteers patrolled the shores freeing up paid military to do bigger and better things.

That being said, creating a civilian HLS "Force" that is funded as well as the military sounds like either a play to reduce the military budget and move it to some form of pork barrel pile of cash that could be used to purchase political favors, or worse, a basic misunderstanding of how our national defense infrastructure works. This is not the boy scouts, if we mess it up, people die.

[Smithsonia]

Auxpilot;

Regarding the Congressman who was against the Obama HSD Funding and Organization, the latest lead is this:
               PLEASE READ THIS FOLLOW-UP
Democrats are calling on a Republican congressman from Georgia to apologize for referring to Barack and Michelle Obama as "uppity," but the lawmaker stood by his comments and said he meant no offense.

Speaking to reporters Thursday, Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Grantville, Ga., described the Obamas as members of an "elitist-class ... that thinks that they're uppity," according to The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper.

Asked to clarify whether he intended to use the word, he said, "Yeah, uppity."

MEANING: We shouldn't get caught up and quoting bigots, or at least people that select their words less than carefully. We shouldn't continue to spout the contentions of the political process. AND side with Republican attacks caught up in the animosity of the recent election. We should analyze this discussion from outside the fray. We should judge with a cool eye and even hand. We should ask and find out what needs to be done. How this need can be best served. How we can serve our country best. Although I have no direct quotes... I'll bet you that CAP has been compared to the Gestapo more than once and through our history. Don't take this sucker bait. CAP should stand up and volunteer. If the job sounds like it's a set up for something onerous, tyrannical, or reprehensible then we can address it at that time. At this moment, we've been asked to do nothing but wait. Speculation to the contrary is SPECULATION.

[ol'fido]

I have never been real comfortable with the term "homeland security". To me it sounds like something the bad guys would refer to their country as in old 1940's "B" movies.

We have some of the best law enforcement and security personnel in the world. Let's stick with them and not create another bureaucracy in the federal government. Let's fininsh what we started after 9/11 and reorganize our programs more efficiently, but let's not invent another outfit to run in and try to take charge of every incident. We have enough of those squabbles already.

If we do want something like this, let's put some money and effort into each states National Guard. That's what they are really for.

[Flying Pig]

Personally, I dont see any of this actually happening.