The Topic Got Locked Before I Knew It Was Open!

[afgeo4]

Uniforms do not a combatant make. Police officers, court officers, rescue personnel, emts & paramedics, firefighters, boy scouts, heck... even catholic school students all wear uniforms. Some resemble our military ones, some resemble foreign military ones, some resemble nothing at all... NONE of them are combatants by definition.

The main rule to distinguish a combatant from a non-combatant is simple... is that person acting in combat or not. If a member of CAP was to participate in combat, they would be a combatant. By law, we are not allowed to do so. By law, the USAF isn't allowed to have us do so. We can perform any of their non-combat missions.

So... Geneva conventions don't apply to us since we shall not be involved in combat as members of CAP.

[mikeylikey]

Someone brought up Id cards earlier.  When CAP is called to perform an AF assigned mission, in all legality those members are considered an instrument of the Federal Government.  We are afforded all the rights and benefits of being a tool of the AF, but we lack one thing.  That would be a Uniformed Service Identification Card.  Joe blow Janitor who smokes crack every night  gets a DOD Card to get on base, but CAP members who (in my opinion) have more of a need don't?  How jacked up is that?  I think the AF is afraid members may (heaven forbid) shop at the PX/BX with it.  At least that is reasoning I heard a few years back when CAP-USAF was asked about getting gov ID cards.  An interesting note, DOD Civilians are not permitted to shop at Military exchanges or Commissaries, so why couldn't the same rules just be passed down to CAP.

I have a CAC card, and remember the old ones that listed what benefits the holder were entitled too.  I still have my "Cadet" ID card, the old Green one.  Why couldn't CAP get that one.  It would be HUGELY DIFFERENT FROM AD CAC Cards!  It could then list; "NO Commissary or exchange without an MSA". 

The whole ID Card issue is just one more way AF is keeping CAP off the AF team. 
Face it, CAP received many more benefits between 1947 and 1980.  What the heck happened?

[Grumpy]

Someone brought up Id cards earlier.  When CAP is called to perform an AF assigned mission, in all legality those members are considered an instrument of the Federal Government.  We are afforded all the rights and benefits of being a tool of the AF, but we lack one thing.  That would be a Uniformed Service Identification Card.  Joe blow Janitor who smokes crack every night  gets a DOD Card to get on base, but CAP members who (in my opinion) have more of a need don't?  How jacked up is that?  I think the AF is afraid members may (heaven forbid) shop at the PX/BX with it.  At least that is reasoning I heard a few years back when CAP-USAF was asked about getting gov ID cards.  An interesting note, DOD Civilians are not permitted to shop at Military exchanges or Commissaries, so why couldn't the same rules just be passed down to CAP.

I have a CAC card, and remember the old ones that listed what benefits the holder were entitled too.  I still have my "Cadet" ID card, the old Green one.  Why couldn't CAP get that one.  It would be HUGELY DIFFERENT FROM AD CAC Cards!  It could then list; "NO Commissary or exchange without an MSA". 

The whole ID Card issue is just one more way AF is keeping CAP off the AF team. 
Face it, CAP received many more benefits between 1947 and 1980.  What the heck happened?

Do you think maybe we lost a few bases and cut back on some personnel a few times?

[RAZOR]

John, you need to read the ROE concerning LOAC. In order to be considered a combatant in any war you must first possess some type of weapon in order to be considered a combatant. As I stated before CAP cannot wear the exact type uniform the USAF wears for that reason. CAP cannot carry firearms and will never be called up to perform combat missions. CAP can only perform those non combat roles as stated in the Constitution & By Laws and as stated by congress and the Air Force.

[RiverAux]

Never say never.  All we're talking about is laws, and laws can be easily and quickly changed if need be. 

[Gunner C]

Uniforms do not a combatant make. Police officers, court officers, rescue personnel, emts & paramedics, firefighters, boy scouts, heck... even catholic school students all wear uniforms. Some resemble our military ones, some resemble foreign military ones, some resemble nothing at all... NONE of them are combatants by definition.

The main rule to distinguish a combatant from a non-combatant is simple... is that person acting in combat or not. If a member of CAP was to participate in combat, they would be a combatant. By law, we are not allowed to do so. By law, the USAF isn't allowed to have us do so. We can perform any of their non-combat missions.

So... Geneva conventions don't apply to us since we shall not be involved in combat as members of CAP.

IIRC police, fire, etc are considered paramilitary forces.  I was actually handed a firefighter to hang onto until he could be moved to the PW cage. (That poor guy was on his third change of underwear by the time we passed him on.)

[lordmonar]

John, you need to read the ROE concerning LOAC. In order to be considered a combatant in any war you must first possess some type of weapon in order to be considered a combatant. As I stated before CAP cannot wear the exact type uniform the USAF wears for that reason. CAP cannot carry firearms and will never be called up to perform combat missions. CAP can only perform those non combat roles as stated in the Constitution & By Laws and as stated by congress and the Air Force.

Our airplanes are considered weapons.  A weapon does not have to shoot anything, heck it does not even have to have any offensive capability at all.  A C-130 is a weapon according to LOAC.

Also you don't have to always be armed to considered legal combatants.  That is if you are a maintenance guy working on a plane....you are still a legal combatant even if you are not currently carrying a weapon...even if there is no weapon for you on the base (which is actually true for 90% of USAF stateside bases....there rest are all stored in centralized depots).


Having recognizable uniforms is just one point that makes the difference between a "Legal combatant"...who is afforded POW status and an "Illegal combatant" who is not.

Policemen, boy scouts, firemen, CAP and the guys manning the barricade with red white and blue handkerchief tided to their sleeves count as uniforms and if the meet the other three criteria then they are considered legal combatants.

As far as CAP never ever being called on to conduct combat operations....historically that is not true....we already have conducted combat operations, ergo it is possible (with a few changes of the laws and CAP regulations) for us to do them again in the future.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Uniforms do not a combatant make. Police officers, court officers, rescue personnel, emts & paramedics, firefighters, boy scouts, heck... even catholic school students all wear uniforms. Some resemble our military ones, some resemble foreign military ones, some resemble nothing at all... NONE of them are combatants by definition.

The main rule to distinguish a combatant from a non-combatant is simple... is that person acting in combat or not. If a member of CAP was to participate in combat, they would be a combatant. By law, we are not allowed to do so. By law, the USAF isn't allowed to have us do so. We can perform any of their non-combat missions.

So... Geneva conventions don't apply to us since we shall not be involved in combat as members of CAP.

Police officers, firefighters, and probably court officers would also be considered combatants under the GC and are legitimate targets. Boy Scouts and Catholic school children are not combatants.

[flyguy06]

I dont believe this topic has gone on for four pages. You folks actually believe that CAP is a combatabt force? LOL

[wingnut]

According to the Geneva Convention CAP meets the test

1. Uniform
2. Direct Control under Military (We are a Militia Force

Let's see Have we ever been used as a Combat Unit?


The bottom line is that  members be treated as POWs in a time of war, thats what we are talking about. The issue is moot if you fly CAP missions  along the Border, since the Mexican Government considers us as US military Aircraft.

Whats the deal, as a veteran I really don't give a crap, I just resent being used as an Military asset  in a disaster, and in between disasters

A guy can't get no respect

[star1151]

I dont believe this topic has gone on for four pages. You folks actually believe that CAP is a combatabt force? LOL

In the 1940's it was.  I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

[JohnKachenmeister]

The discussion started with someone posting on another thread that CAP was a "Noncombatant" organization under International Law.  I pointed out that such was not the case.  We do not fall into any of the "Noncombatant" categories, and therefore are combatant under the Geneva Convention.  As such, we are a "legitimate target" in that if we are attacked by an enemy force, that enemy is committing a legitimate act of war.  If we are captured by an enemy force that recognizes and follows the Geneva Convention, we will be treated as POW's.

The United States has assigned us non-combat duties, specifically support to the non-combat missions of the USAF.  That assignment has no relation to the definition of "Noncombatant" under the GC.

[Grumpy]

You know what, the Air Force barely knows we're around.  Do you think some middle east country or maybe N. korea would know about us?

[Grumpy]

We're the best kept secret the Air Force has.

[flyguy06]

I dont believe this topic has gone on for four pages. You folks actually believe that CAP is a combatabt force? LOL

In the 1940's it was.  I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

Thats my point. Its NOT the 1940's. So, who cares? Why is this even a discussion? As a CAP member you will NEVER see combat. You will NEVER get captured by an enemy.

[ColonelJack]

That was a good movie. 

No, it wasn't.  It wasn't even remotely like the book.  The book was an absolute classic; the movie was bilge.  Read Starship Troopers and see.

Two thumbs down ...

Jack

[flyguy06]

The discussion started with someone posting on another thread that CAP was a "Noncombatant" organization under International Law.  I pointed out that such was not the case.  We do not fall into any of the "Noncombatant" categories, and therefore are combatant under the Geneva Convention.  As such, we are a "legitimate target" in that if we are attacked by an enemy force, that enemy is committing a legitimate act of war.  If we are captured by an enemy force that recognizes and follows the Geneva Convention, we will be treated as POW's.

The United States has assigned us non-combat duties, specifically support to the non-combat missions of the USAF.  That assignment has no relation to the definition of "Noncombatant" under the GC.

So this thread is your fault. John dont worry, you will nto be captured as a CAP member.

[mikeylikey]

I dont believe this topic has gone on for four pages. You folks actually believe that CAP is a combatabt force? LOL

In the 1940's it was.  I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

Thats my point. Its NOT the 1940's. So, who cares? Why is this even a discussion? As a CAP member you will NEVER see combat. You will NEVER get captured by an enemy.

So when CAP eventually flies border patrol missions, and one of the planes goes down in Mexico, and the drug runners hold the pilot and crew hostage, I will remember what you said here.  Never is a poor choice when speaking of the future.

[shorning]

So when CAP eventually flies border patrol missions, and one of the planes goes down in Mexico, and the drug runners hold the pilot and crew hostage, I will remember what you said here.  Never is a poor choice when speaking of the future.

That wouldn't be "captured by the enemy".  More of a peacetime detention situation.  Not even that really since it isn't a government holding them.  It would really just be a hostage situation which would have nothing to do with whether or not we are "combatants".

[star1151]

I dont believe this topic has gone on for four pages. You folks actually believe that CAP is a combatabt force? LOL

In the 1940's it was.  I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

Thats my point. Its NOT the 1940's. So, who cares? Why is this even a discussion? As a CAP member you will NEVER see combat. You will NEVER get captured by an enemy.

<shrug>  Using absolutes is generally a really good way to be proven wrong.