Quote from: FW on June 24, 2008, 01:33:06 AM
As I understand the state of things, we will operate these missions under a new SOW and CA as the USAF Auxiliary.  The only difference would be the tasking agencies "paying" for our status as an "instrumentality" of the govt. as well as mission expenses.

I don't see it that way.

If we perform services for a federal agency now, we perform it as an asset of the USAF, specifically as the Auxiliary.

This bill will mandate a study to determine if it would be better to have CAP work directly for DHS, and NOT as the Aux of the AF.

We would remain the Aux. of the USAF when performing AF missions.  DHS support would no longer be an AF mission.

Honestly, I can see both interpretations that you all are making.   Congress definitely wrote it.  Guess we need to poll for a lobbyist in the crowd, make a trip to DC and ask GAO what THEY think they are doing.

It's amazing how far we can jump the gun on these sort of things.

It is a bill the authorises monies to be spent on a study to see if CAP can be used to help DHS.

That is all.

Once the study is done.....we might......MIGHT.....see some changes.  Anything other than that is just speculation or wishful thinking.

^ I wouldn't call this wishful thinking.  Speculation may be appropriate however, opinions on where we may go with the results of the study is what makes this thread so entertaining.  I see nothing wrong with good clean discussion on the possible ways the GAO report may take CAP.

Definitely NOT wishful thinking.  Call me an old timer, but I tend to be resistive to changes.

Plus, taking us out from under the USAF umbrella takes us down a road into an unfamiliar forest, and we don't know who owns that gingerbread house.

But you are right, it IS speculation.  I never contended it wasn't. 

Kach, I don't think we're being pulled out from under USAF umbrella....I think down the rode this all may lead to certain missions being authorized under Title 32 rather than Title 10, to gain the PCA exemption....then I could foresee surveillance type air missions, maybe some GA security oversight.

As for armed CAP members, while possible, I feel this is extremely unlikely.

If it should come to pass, it will probably be for a very limited group with clear mission-related needs, probably limited to those already qualified/or formerly qualified with weapons in the military or law enforcement (this would be the selection criterion -- further and current  qualification under federal standards would still be necessary).

Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 24, 2008, 06:00:03 PM
As for armed CAP members, while possible, I feel this is extremely unlikely.

You better believe that if I perform any HLS missions along the southern border, I will absolutely bring my personal sidearm.  Drug runners would be more than willing to kill the occupants of planes that may go down while tracking them.  It may mean a violation of CAP regs, but the CAP reg won't protect any one of us from the murdering pieces of crap from Mexico bringing human or drug cargo into the United States.

I also believe the original intention of the legislation was killed long ago, and this study from the GAO will be nothing more than "ya, use CAP if you want".  I was in the loop when the legislation was first being pitched.  What has resulted is far from what was originally discussed.   

Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 24, 2008, 06:00:03 PM
Kach, I don't think we're being pulled out from under USAF umbrella....I think down the rode this all may lead to certain missions being authorized under Title 32 rather than Title 10, to gain the PCA exemption....then I could foresee surveillance type air missions, maybe some GA security oversight.

As for armed CAP members, while possible, I feel this is extremely unlikely.

If it should come to pass, it will probably be for a very limited group with clear mission-related needs, probably limited to those already qualified/or formerly qualified with weapons in the military or law enforcement (this would be the selection criterion -- further and current  qualification under federal standards would still be necessary).

Anytime I hear that politicians are involved, I tend to think of worst-case scenarios.  "Unintended consequences" is usually the norm.

The fact remains that DHS wants CAP to perform missions with zero Air Force connection, so that considerations about violations of the Posse Comitatus Act never have to enter their planning.  IF such a plan comes to fruition, it could be the first step down a dark road, or it could be the best way for CAP to be a real player in the War on Terror.  While we have to consider all possible outcomes, what will happen is anybody's guess.  My only warning is to be careful what you wish for.

Quote from: mikeylikey on June 24, 2008, 06:31:19 PM

Quote from: ZigZag911 on June 24, 2008, 06:00:03 PM
As for armed CAP members, while possible, I feel this is extremely unlikely.

You better believe that if I perform any HLS missions along the southern border, I will absolutely bring my personal sidearm.  Drug runners would be more than willing to kill the occupants of planes that may go down while tracking them.  It may mean a violation of CAP regs, but the CAP reg won't protect any one of us from the murdering pieces of crap from Mexico bringing human or drug cargo into the United States.

I also believe the original intention of the legislation was killed long ago, and this study from the GAO will be nothing more than "ya, use CAP if you want".  I was in the loop when the legislation was first being pitched.  What has resulted is far from what was originally discussed.   

I was not in the room when this was discussed.  I try to stay as far away from politicians as possible.  I recall that this was all started back when The Nameless One was the National Commander, and I firmly believe that he intended CAP to emerge as a stand-alone branch of uniform service under DHS.  Now that he has been cast out and his name is never to be spoken in our lodges, I don't know what the final result of this study will end up being.

But as to the first paragraph of your post, I agree with you wholeheartedly.  The CAPR's will not protect you against Banditos or rattlesnakes.  An M-1911A1 will do a fine job on both, however.  And the latter can be a very tasty snack!

John, you are reading WAY too much into the language of the bill to be saying that they're studying bypassing the AF.  The statements you quote are nowhere near that.  The language is quite vague and certainly doesn't rule out what you're saying, but that doesn't mean you can read something as specific as you have into it.  You could just as easily say that they're studying putting CAP under the control of Stargate Command for these missions. 

No, the more likely thing is that they're going to study whether or not an MOU is necessary in order to accomplish these missions in the first place. 

But, its no skin off my nose if you want to interpret the language incorrectly.  We'll just have to wait and see (if the Senate even approves the bill in the first place).  So, I'll leave it lie. 

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2008/080624security.html?WT.svl=FlashHP2

AOPA took notice.... This was on their home page..

I would agree with John...that it is possible that the report could.....I say again....could...recommend pulling us from under USAF oversight and placing us under the DHS.

I don't think this will happen...but let's look at the process.

The bill authorised money to be spend on a report.

The report is done...recommendations are made......but there is nothing mandating that any of these recommendations to take place.

Any changes would have to go back to congress to change the laws that govern us...It would take someone actually lobbying for the changes to be made to get any action.

Like I said before......we are still a long way away from any real changes.  We may loose our "USAF AUX" status.....but we may gain a new AUX status that is better for us in the long run.  Either way....we as CAP will have a big say in what happens as will the USAF and DHS.

I think some of you are missing something -- Assuming that it was DHS that had enough clout to turn this from a "you will sign an MOU with CAP" to "GAO will study..." bill, then it seems very unlikely that DHS would be looking to assume any sort of responsibility for CAP.  As of right now, if CAP does something for them, it is as an AFAM and the AF has all the responsibility if anything goes wrong -- even if DHS is paying the direct costs.  Thats a pretty good deal for them.  Why assume greater potential costs by taking on any additional responsibility for CAP?  Its not to their advantage at all.

Now, one good thing that might come out of this study is some independent analysis of the CAP-posse comitatus issue.  Perhaps GAO might say it is ok for CAP to do aerial recon LE missions for DHS, but only if they are done as corporate missions. 

Now, even if GAO said this was ok (or if they recommended federal law changes that ended up being made so that we could do them), DHS still has a very compelling interest in not using CAP for border patrol missions of that type --- their own intent in continuing to build up their paid staff associated with their homeland security air wings.   

Quotewe are still a long way away from any real changes

And something else is being left out. In the best of all possible worlds, ie CAP 'wins' the study, Congress changes laws etc - then nothing happens unless Congress also funds CAP. And that is an entirely separate process then getting authorization laws passed.

Quote from: RiverAux on June 27, 2008, 02:17:39 AM
I think some of you are missing something -- Assuming that it was DHS that had enough clout to turn this from a "you will sign an MOU with CAP" to "GAO will study..." bill, then it seems very unlikely that DHS would be looking to assume any sort of responsibility for CAP.  As of right now, if CAP does something for them, it is as an AFAM and the AF has all the responsibility if anything goes wrong -- even if DHS is paying the direct costs.  Thats a pretty good deal for them.  Why assume greater potential costs by taking on any additional responsibility for CAP?  Its not to their advantage at all.

Now, one good thing that might come out of this study is some independent analysis of the CAP-posse comitatus issue.  Perhaps GAO might say it is ok for CAP to do aerial recon LE missions for DHS, but only if they are done as corporate missions. 

Now, even if GAO said this was ok (or if they recommended federal law changes that ended up being made so that we could do them), DHS still has a very compelling interest in not using CAP for border patrol missions of that type --- their own intent in continuing to build up their paid staff associated with their homeland security air wings.   

River:

Without realizing it, you have backed into the exact position that I have taken.

Right now, we CANNOT do a mission for DHS as a "Corporate" mission.  By law any support to the federal govt. is as an AFAM.  The purpose of the study is to determine the cost-benefit of changing the law to permit exactly what you recommend.  To allow us to perform a mission in our corporate status for DHS.  This would take us out of the AF for that mission, and therefore we would not be subject to the Posse Comitatus Act.

I think we will always have some affiliation with the Air Force as long as the USAF retains its Congressionally-assigned mission of inland SAR.  We are the lead agency in the AF for inland SAR and that will change only if Congress assigns SAR to another federal agency or military branch.

IF HR1333 passes, and IF the study shows CAP would be cost effective, DHS, read that FEMA, would be fundings many CAP activities. (maybe) But at the same time, FEMA would require additional training of CAP mambers to take part in disaster or other activities. The few ICS courses that CAP members are supposed to complete currently will probably not meet FEMAs requirements.
Then comes up the CAP Corporate structure versus DHS requirements and needs being at cross purposes. Insurance for example. CAP has provided regulations to protect the Corporation from damages, or accidents involving corporate property. DHS/FEMA may have different regulations concerning injuries, damages operating polices that may conflict with CAP regulations.

Kach, the only thing we're agreeing on so far is that fed law is clear on the circumstances in which CAP can work with other federal agencies.  We're apparently very far apart on what we think might come from this study. 

I am quite confident that no matter what GAO recommends or what sort of MOU might come out of it that there will be no change in the status of CAP in regards to the AF.  There are MOUs with several federal agencies in regards to use of CAP and none of them have caused any change in CAP that I'm aware of. 

By the way, the other possible outcome of a GAO review of posse comitatus is that it doesn't apply to us under any circumstances because we remain civilians at all times and PCA language talks about members of the military.  Remember, that was the conclusion of what I recall was an opinion by a DoD office (as quoted in the minutes of the NEC, BoG, or NB - I forget which one).  If they came to that conclusion, then we could do border security type missions as AFAMs. 

You are correct, Bill.  And IF the GAO study established that, they may determine that it is not cost effective to have CAP operate directly for DHS, or they may propose legislative changes to place CAP under "Two masters,"
the AF and DHS, both federal agencies.

"Nobody's life, liberty, or property is safe when the legislature is in session."

Quote from: RiverAux on June 27, 2008, 01:12:05 PM
Kach, the only thing we're agreeing on so far is that fed law is clear on the circumstances in which CAP can work with other federal agencies.  We're apparently very far apart on what we think might come from this study. 

I am quite confident that no matter what GAO recommends or what sort of MOU might come out of it that there will be no change in the status of CAP in regards to the AF.  There are MOUs with several federal agencies in regards to use of CAP and none of them have caused any change in CAP that I'm aware of. 

By the way, the other possible outcome of a GAO review of posse comitatus is that it doesn't apply to us under any circumstances because we remain civilians at all times and PCA language talks about members of the military.  Remember, that was the conclusion of what I recall was an opinion by a DoD office (as quoted in the minutes of the NEC, BoG, or NB - I forget which one).  If they came to that conclusion, then we could do border security type missions as AFAMs. 

There are actually two opinions.  The CAP General Counsel issued an opinion that CAP, since we are a "Civilian" auxiliary of the AF, is not covered under PCA.  There is also an Attorney General's memorandum that "Military auxiliaries" are covered under the PCA as elements of the military.  There is no definitive court decision on this.

Basically, what I am saying is not that I think certain results will follow this study, but that I do NOT know what will follow this study, and I am brainstorming several "Worst case" scenarios to try to decide if the changes envisioned by the study are good or bad for CAP.  I see three possible outcomes:

1.  NO CHANGE:  Maybe a modification of the MOU between the AF and the DHS with respect to CAP to allow for more direct notification/callup of assets, but that CAP, when called to assist any federal agency, will remain an Aux of the AF.

2.  USCG MODEL:  CAP will transfer from the Air Force to DHS, and serve like the USCG does under the Secy. of HS for most missions.  Just as the Navy can call up USCG assets, however, the USAF will retain the right to task CAP assets for AF missions.

3.  TWO MASTERS:  CAP remains the Aux of the Air Force, but that DHS has the right to directly task CAP assets, with CAP acting as an "Instrumentality of Government" regardless of whether called up by the AF or DHS.

Personally, I think plan #3 is the most likely.  #2 would suck, but cannot be ruled out at this time.

Nah, #1 is the most likely. 

#3 - I don't see any situation where DHS would directly "task" CAP.  We could end up in a situation where they could direclty "request" CAP help just like any state or local agency can request CAP help through the NOC.  But thats basically what they do now anyway.

#2 has no chance -- as I said before, if DHS doesn't want to be forced to sign an MOU with CAP, they're going to fight tooth and nail against having CAP being forced onto them, especially since they already have a civilian service auxiliary with light air capacity available to them.