What is the Geneva Convention status of CAP members?

[skymaster]

     I was recently speaking to a member of the State Defense Force of the state that I live in, who was trying to talk me into joining the SDF.  He knew of my long CAP service, and thought that I might be interested, because of the parallels between the two groups.  I told him (in a respectful manner) that I really only had time to be affiliated with one quasi-military group that performs SAR missions on behalf of a branch of the military.  He then "corrected" me, (in his view) that CAP "is a completely civilian CLUB", and has no more "military affiliation than the Salvation Army", but that the (volunteer, unpaid) SDF actually is "REAL miltary" under the law, and he proceeded to show me his official state-government-issued SDF ID card.  It was EXACTLY like the the current military CAC ID card (but without the chip), and even listed a Geneva Conventions Status on the back of the card.   (BTW, I have seen many CG Aux ID cards in my time, and the ones that I have seen recently also show the CG Aux Geneva Conventions status on them as well, so it is not unknown amongst military auxiliaries for that status to be shown on official ID cards).  When I had the opportunity to compare my ID, it has no such status.  That got me to thinking that 1)Do we, as members of the official civilian auxiliary of the AF, have a Geneva Conventions status, and 2) If so, why is it not shown on our official ID, and 3) How is it that the DoD has NO problem issuing a CAC format ID card to members of a State Defense Force (complete with said GC status, grade, etc.), and yet the Air Force gives CAP all kinds of grief over an ID card design of EXACTLY the same design and format that the DoD issues to SDF members?  I mean, even members of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet are issued CAC cards (including with discrectionary military grades) of the same format. I'm just wondering.

[Cecil DP]

1. DOD doesn't issue ID cards to the SDF, the state does (hence the name State Defense Force) SDF has no federal  affiliation. If they did they would be "National Guard, rather than state.(2) CG AUx has a GC status, because they routinely go out on patrols with the Coast Guard and according to some of the reports on CapTAlk can be activated to serve in almost any capacity within the CG. 3. CAP doesn't have an active duty mission, nor can we be activated to serve on Active duty as members of the USAF therefore no need for a Geneva Convention status. Though we did have that status in WWII when Sub patrols were an everyday event.

[RiverAux]

There is no legal reason that CAP couldn't be performing missions equivalent to what CG Aux members do, so I don't see that as a factor.  For example, there is no legal reason that CAP couldn't have translators that could be "activated" to go serve at  an overseas AFB and help translate, similar to what CG Aux translators do. 

But, I wouldn't worry too much about the SDF member's comments -- he obviously doesn't know what he is talking about in regards to CAP which might lead me to believe he really doesn't know what his SDF is all about either.

[Major Lord]

In the unlikely even that a CAP member was taken prisoner while acting on any mission in support of USAF, or even just because we are uniformed, its most likely that we would be considered prisoners of war under Article 4 of the GC. Lets say we went to war against the evil land of Canada, and while on a SAR mission, by happen-stance, we had to make a forced landing. Our status as volunteer forces or those accompanying volunteer forces ( contractors, etc.) would provide us some protection. I don't think we could play the "Just like the Salvation Army" card with much success, even if we had the good fortune(?) to fight a signatory to the GC. Islamic Countries would try us under Sharia law, and they would most likely kill us in unspeakable ways...Haji don't surf.

Major Lord

[Slim]

He knew of my long CAP service, and thought that I might be interested, because of the parallels between the two groups.

Sounds to me like someone looking for the SDF version of a recruiting ribbon.

He then "corrected" me, (in his view) that CAP "is a completely civilian CLUB", and has no more "military affiliation than the Salvation Army", but that the (volunteer, unpaid) SDF actually is "REAL miltary" under the law...

::scratching head::

I guess I'm missing the disconnect here.  If CAP and the SDF share some parallel lines, then how can we be a completely civilian club?  What's the parallel?  We both wear uniforms?

[lordmonar]

From my LOAC training (now three years old).....in the very, very, very, highly improbable, unlikely and only exists in the fantasies of legal theorists....event that the U.S. were invaded by say Canada or Mexico, CAP units, facilities and personnel could be lawful combatants and would be afforded the protections of the Geneva Convention.

1.Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
2.Members of militias not under the command of the armed forces, with the following traits:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3.Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

We could be considered a militia...i.e. civilians who support their government/military.
We have a chain of command.
We have fixed distinctive signs (uniforms, white vans and red,white & blue aircraft).
We carry our arms (our aircraft are considered arms) openly.
We conduct ourselves within the laws of the U.S. which conform to the LOAC.

So.....if there ever was a war in the U.S.  (ala Wolverines) then we would be lawful combatant.

Your I.D. card does not make you a legal combatant.

[Major Lord]

I personally would eat my gun before being allowing myself to be taken prisoner by Canadians.....

Major Lord

[Spaceman3750]

I personally would eat my gun before being allowing myself to be taken prisoner by Canadians.....

Major Lord

I know a couple of Canucks, we would do a super-secret squirrel black op and bust you out sir . No need for such rash actions .

[Eclipse]

Anyone with about $1500 (or less if you find it surplus) can buy a machine that can crank out ID cards that can look like anything you want.
I used to run one for my employer.

They can then print anything they want on the back.

Neither is an indicator of our status, and were anything to happen where LOAC is up for discussion in a CAP context, either our status would be changed by Congress, or we're in such deep doodoo that its a moot point anyway.

Why people entertain these discussions is beyond me (outside good-natured coffee house banter), and your SDF friend clearly has no idea what he is talking about.

[raivo]

"Civilian"

[JoeTomasone]

And if it's a pissing contest he seeketh, remind him that on AFAM, you are an instrumentality of the United States, not just one of them. 

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

And if it's a pissing contest he seeketh, remind him that on AFAM, you are an instrumentality of the United States, not just one of them. 

I had that happen around the time I first joined CAP.

An SDF recruiter was promising me everything on a silver platter, garnished with Warrant Officer bars.

When I told him I was joining CAP, he went ballistic:

"They're not military, we are"..."they don't have real rank, we do"..."all they do is play Air Force."

But of course not all SDF'ers are like that, though the majority of the ones I've met seem to be field grade officers...

[O-Rex]

It's all in title 10, and title 14 for the CGAUX.

CAP members don't deploy or augment (and don't anybody start touting the VSAF-thing: any job you're doing wearing dockers isn't going to put you in vicinity of a hostile force, and historically it's been a while since the bad-guys have conducted POW round-ups at Wright-Pat or Lackland.....)

IMO, your SDF Pal is nothing more than an off-brand wannabee doing the my-quasi-military-organization-is-better-than-yours routine.  His "SDF Boss" is probably some 500 lb self-appointed six-star general who's "commission" was printed on the same equipt you friends ID card came from.

The proof in the pudding is when he gets hurt doing his SDF-thing on "official business," who foots the doctor-bill??  Betcha he and his ins. company does.

Like someone previously posted: with a good computer, printer and a little imagination, you can rule the world or wreak havoc.

[RRLE]

.(2) CG AUx has a GC status

Just about everyone has a GC status.  What is written on the Aux ID isn't much.

The statements all appear on the back of the card.

At the very bottm right Is: "Geneva Conventions Identification Card - Form 2650A". All that means is the card contains the minimum information required by the GC.

A box in the middle of the card states: "Geneva Convention Category IV".  That is simply your pay advance as a POW under article 60 of the Third GC.  Category 4 from article 60: "Category IV : Majors, lieutenant-colonels, colonels or prisoners of equivalent rank: sixty Swiss francs."

There are two things written on the same side of the card that go directly to what the SDFer said.

The ink used on the back of the card is black. Written vertically, sideways and bolded (get the idea it is supposed to be distinctive) on the right back edge is: "NON-MILITARY ID".

There is some text above the 'form notice' mentioned above. It is written in standard black font. It reads:

COAST GUARD AUXILIARY performs essential duties for the Federal Government in support roles to the UNITED STATES COAST GUARD in non-law enforcement and non-combat roles as search and rescue missions, boating education, vessel safety checks, environmental portection missions and aids to navigation.

Aside from the double mention of not being military, it is all pretty meaningless. Any civilian organization could put a similar statement on their ID card - assuming the 'essential duties' clause is correct, which it would be for CAP. I don't think our current enemies give any whit about the GC.

[vmstan]

I can't wait until we invade Canada!

[JohnKachenmeister]

Yes, this is all theory.

It is theory for two reasons:

1.  We are not at war with Canada, nor are we likely to be.  War with Mexico is a slightly less remote possibility, but still highly unlikely.

2.  In the entire history of the Law of Armed Conflict, the United States has NEVER fought an enemy that has respected the provisions of the Conventions.  Germany came close, but still had a very flawed record of compliance.  Our current enemies in the war that the current Administration refuses to acknowledge, have continued this tradition of brutal prisoner abuse.

But the status of both SDF's and CAP is clear.  SDF's should be treated as prisoners of war under the clause that establishes conditions for recognition of organized militias.  CAP, since we act (or would act in war) under the command of the USAF, would fall under the provisions of "Regular Armed Forces," and also therefore be entitled to POW status.

We would be entitled to GC status indicators on our card, but since enemy contact is highly unlikely, I think I can live without it.

We, and the SDF's, are "Combatants" unless assigned exclusively to medical or religious duty.  That is the only non-combatant status recognized under the GC.

[Major Lord]

We currently have Mexican Military on parts of the U.S./Mexico International border, and weapons have been pointed by both sides, although no shots fired yet ( Except one 15 Y/O dope smuggler who made the mistake of being unfamiliar with the US Border Patrol's use of force policy) If for instance a CAP aircraft landed or strayed into Mexican airspace, I suspect that the CAP crew on board would get a warmer welcome from Al Queda.

Major Lord
Nuke Canada!

[N Harmon]

I personally would eat my gun before being allowing myself to be taken prisoner by Canadians.....

LOL. Captalk is fun!

[BillB]

It might not be to bad to be taken prisoner by Canada. Have you ever heard of any Americans POW abused by Canada?  The most vilent Canadians have been with Americans has been in the Stanley Cup and a few baseball games (very few)

[lordmonar]

It might not be to bad to be taken prisoner by Canada. Have you ever heard of any Americans POW abused by Canada?  The most vilent Canadians have been with Americans has been in the Stanley Cup and a few baseball games (very few)

They abuse them.....but they appologise as they do it! 

"where are the Donuts!?" <Whack> "Sorry about that, eh." "Where are the Donuts!?" <Whack>

[skymaster]

  Well, back during my active AF days, I actually asked a lawyer friend in the USAF Judge Advocate office about the legal status of CAP members, and his answer was "interesting" to say the least. (And keep in mind that this was many years ago, so the answer might be answered very differently now).  He said that, while CAP members are considered "generally civilian", that, under certain conditions (such as when on an AFAM), that a CAP member may be considered military for certain purposes, in the same sense that a contractor, or member of ROTC or JROTC ((even if not sworn in/enlisted/commissioned), but are still subject to AF control in any way) can also legally considered military for certain purposes.  That, apparently, is why certain CAP Federal agency missions had to be blessed by AF JA first, to make sure that Posse Comitatus Act was not being violated (which only applies to the military).  (As an aside, recent Federal law changes already designate certain civilian contractors as military members (including MANDATORY UCMJ status, irregardless of not being "sworn in/enlisted/commissioned", etc.) based on the fact that they are covered by Federal Government insurance/FTCA while performing such duties, and the bills for said duties being paid for by a branch of military service). That lawyer also said, that while CAP members are considered civilian under most circumstances, that CAP members were not "completely civilian" in the eyes of the AF (whatever that might mean), and even when not on an AFAM, CAP members might still be considered military as members of a (legal) organized militia under Federal law.  Again, this was a long time ago, and things may have changed.
     How this relates to the discussion of the GC status of CAP members vs. SDF members is this:  I did a bit of checking of the actual law vs. what Mister SDF said to determine how much might be true and how much might be, shall we say, "less than true", or "subject to interpretation".  On the SDF ID card question, I checked with the Adjutant General's office (not in my status us a CAP member, but in my "other" status as a government contractor), and yes, apparently, that ID card he showed me was a valid, real card (issued by their office, in fact) and was a valid STATE military ID card.  As far as state law goes, the SDF is considered military (both in its status as a state-level auxiliary of the Army National Guard, and as a state-level legally organized militia under Federal and state law), so he wasn't lying  there.  They are apparently covered by state insurance and Worker's Comp when on duty.  During the conversation with the AG office, they did comment that the SDF was basically "an Army version of the Air Force's Civil Air Patrol program (but only State, not primarily Federal)".  From the tone of the conversation with the AG office, I got the distinct impression that they seemed to have a higher opinion of CAP than their SDF, for whatever that might be worth.

[Spaceman3750]

If for instance a CAP aircraft landed or strayed into Mexican airspace, I suspect that the CAP crew on board would get a warmer welcome from Al Queda.

Just food for thought, that just because we may or may not be covered under GC doesn't mean the Mexican government is going to lock us away forever if we stray into their airspace. We're still American citizens operating (in most cases) as an instrumentality of the US government. I would assume the State Department would have our backs.

Mexico is still a friendly nation, at least last time I checked. Now, if a Hawaii Wing aircraft somehow managed to have enough fuel on board to stray into North Korean airspace, we would have a problem.

[Fly Boy]

Yay for living in Florida! Last to be invaded by Canadians, But with enough warning to defend ourselves from Mexicans.
But if the Cubans joined forces with the Mexicans... 

[vmstan]

Na, here in Kansas we have it best. Equal warning and protection from all sides of the border. Plus who would want to occupy grass land?

[SarDragon]

Good olde Kansas - miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles.

[davidsinn]

Good olde Kansas - miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles.

And wheat. Don't forget the wheat.

[Gunner C]

If for instance a CAP aircraft landed or strayed into Mexican airspace, I suspect that the CAP crew on board would get a warmer welcome from Al Queda.

Just food for thought, that just because we may or may not be covered under GC doesn't mean the Mexican government is going to lock us away forever if we stray into their airspace. We're still American citizens operating (in most cases) as an instrumentality of the US government. I would assume the State Department would have our backs.

Mexico is still a friendly nation, at least last time I checked. Now, if a Hawaii Wing aircraft somehow managed to have enough fuel on board to stray into North Korean airspace, we would have a problem.

Any border missions we fly is dangerous.  The Mexican government is only nominally friendly to Americans.  While the Mex Federal Government smiles at the US, it is fractured and corrupt.  If you are shot down by Mex military forces for straying too close to the border, you are going to be in for several days, if not weeks, of incredibly bad experiences.  If you are caught within the border by state forces or police, it will even  be longer.  The border area is tense and is getting tenser.  Mex forces have made incursions into the US and have killed people.

Mexico does not like the US.  That is a fact that must not be ignored.  We are their friends only as far as we can facilitate money being directed into Mex politicians' pockets.  If there is money to be made by holding a couple of Norte Americanos in their jail, then they'll do it.

Now, if you're captured by Los Zetas or any of the drug cartels, you'll be tortured then killed.  Your body will be found somewhere.

How would GC status help you?  It puts pressure on the holding country.  No status, no pressure.  Could it happen?  Yes.  I personally know of two instances where folks were held by a "friendly nation".  One ended well, but the first went really badly.  Personally, I'd rather be in a bad predicament in a real uniform with a GC Status Card than with a CAP membership card and wearing my little golf shirt.

And if you think the State Department has your back, HA!  Doesn't work that way.  Letters of concern between governments aren't going to keep you from getting the crap kicked out of you every hour just because it's fun.

[lordmonar]

Na, here in Kansas we have it best. Equal warning and protection from all sides of the border. Plus who would want to occupy grass land?

Who would want to invade Kansas? 

[Майор Хаткевич]

Na, here in Kansas we have it best. Equal warning and protection from all sides of the border. Plus who would want to occupy grass land?

Who would want to invade Kansas? 

These guys

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

First of all, no way would there be a war with Canada.  I live near enough that I can be in Canada in around an hour, depending on customs (easier going in than coming back; Canadian Customs are usually quite friendly and US Customs can be a pain in the...).  They are far too nice.  I remember saluting one of their officers once and after he returned my salute he stopped, shook hands with me and started chatting.  Plus, it's cool how they say "lef-tenant" instead of "loo-tenant."  Even the Generals and Admirals commanding them look like they'd be good to down a cold Molson's with, eh.

http://www.cds-cemd.forces.gc.ca/bio/index-eng.asp

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/v2/page-eng.asp?id=28

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms/3/3-a_eng.asp?id=741

Beauty, eh?

Kansas...I have relatives there.  No invasion.  If the prairie rattlesnakes don't get you, the tornadoes will.  I wonder what it's like to fly SAR over terrain that is flat, flat, flat...

That was interesting what the AF JAG officer said about CAP's status.  I wonder if the "Aux On/Aux Off" stuff came out of that.

Another SDF/CAP comparison I heard from an ANG SMSgt about 10 years ago...some of the SDF's have Air units (Texas, South Carolina) and I asked him about how they would backfill if the ANG were activated.  His reply was interesting to say the least:

"No, I thought that was what CAP was for."

[vmstan]

Another SDF/CAP comparison I heard from an ANG SMSgt about 10 years ago...some of the SDF's have Air units (Texas, South Carolina) and I asked him about how they would backfill if the ANG were activated.  His reply was interesting to say the least:

"No, I thought that was what CAP was for."

Yeah! Can I ride shotgun on the next AC-130?

Who would want to invade Kansas? 

OPSEC

[Major Lord]

I thought that the "State Department having our back" thing was funny! Just like America supported the two Border Agents who shot the dope smuggler/dealer and have been imprisoned in the politically correct prison for several years, with little hope of getting out? We are not at war with Mexico, but Mexico is at war with us.
Their Narco Government is not a signatory to the GC. I suggest having a cyanide self-destruct capsule if there is a chance you will fall into their hands.

At least a war with Canada would be neat and polite.....

Major Lord

[AirDX]

the two Border Agents who shot the dope smuggler/dealer and have been imprisoned in the politically correct prison for several years, with little hope of getting out?

If you mean Agents Ramos and Compean, they were released from prison in February, 2009 after President Bush commuted their sentences.

[RRLE]

Their Narco Government is not a signatory to the GC.

Mexico signed the GC in 1949 and ratified it in 1952. Once a country ratifies the GC, the ratification is good until revoked. Mexico has never revoked its ratification.

[Major Lord]

The "official" govt is a signatory. The drug cartels that actually run Mexico are not.

Major Lord

[Майор Хаткевич]

The "official" govt is a signatory. The drug cartels that actually run Mexico are not.

Major Lord

Neither are the gangs here within the US. What's your point?

[JeffDG]

I can't wait until we invade Canada!

Hope it works out better than the last time, with the President fleeing the White House and it being set on fire.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I can't wait until we invade Canada!

Hope it works out better than the last time, with the President fleeing the White House and it being set on fire.

Back then it was the red brick executive mansion.

[Major Lord]

The "official" govt is a signatory. The drug cartels that actually run Mexico are not.

Major Lord

Neither are the gangs here within the US. What's your point?

Are you suggesting that gangs control the USA?

Major Lord

[PHall]

The "official" govt is a signatory. The drug cartels that actually run Mexico are not.

Major Lord

Neither are the gangs here within the US. What's your point?

Are you suggesting that gangs control the USA?

Major Lord

In many metropolitan areas, yes!

[Майор Хаткевич]

The "official" govt is a signatory. The drug cartels that actually run Mexico are not.

Major Lord

Neither are the gangs here within the US. What's your point?

Are you suggesting that gangs control the USA?

Major Lord

In a very similar fashion as in Mexico, definitely not the way you describe it though. Neither here nor there.

[BTCS1*]

I personally would eat my gun before being allowing myself to be taken prisoner by Canadians.....

Major Lord

+1

[Майор Хаткевич]

I personally would eat my gun before being allowing myself to be taken prisoner by Canadians.....

Major Lord

+1

And your great warrior thinking is...?

[Major Lord]

I could not face the horrors of having to eat their horrible foods ( Back-bacon, "flap-Jacks" etc.) and tremble at the tortures only the evil Canadians could devise! Hey, did you know the word "gullible" is not even in the dictionary?

Major Lord

[JoeTomasone]

If this base gets overrun by insurgents, the last thing I will be thinking about is my Geneva Convention Status; mostly because it will be the last thing that they will be thinking of as well.

[scooter]

We were issued a GCID card when in Vietnam. We figured it must have been for the GC cafeteria if we were ever captured. However, this proved false based on my classmates experiences in the H Hilton. It was just extra weight we carried around, useless.

[lordmonar]

The only thing the GCID card ever gave you was the basic information that all PWs must provide their captors....and that is all.

You get GC protection based on the LOAC...not on whether you have a card or not.

A country will or will not follow the GC based on their own motivations and circumstances.  Even the U.S. does not have a very good record with regard to the GC even to this day.

Take that for what it is worth.

Beyond a philosophical discussion......this is all just pipe dreams anyway.  Is it something that leaders should know?  Sure...is it something anyone should worry about?  NO....even when I was on AD we only discussed LOAC and our GC rights and responsibilities once a year...and it was always a topic for the beer drinking sessions.

[JohnKachenmeister]

What I said was true, no enemy of the US has ever observed the GC with respect to American prisoners, but...

I would not be so quick to judge Mexico's military vis-a-vis an inadvertent encounter by a CAP aircrew on the south side of the Rio Grande.

I visited Acapulco a few years ago, and there is a Mexican Air Force base just north of the city.  Since I speak pretty good Spanish, I started chatting up a couple of Tenientes over a beer.  They knew a lot about the Civil Air Patrol, and definitely more than American air force lieutenants generally know.  They also exhibited a high level of professional respect towards me, (I was a captain then, and in Spanish adding "Mi" to the rank when addressing a superior officer is a mark of respect... i.e., "Mi capitan.") and told me that their search-and-rescue training was out of a CAP manual translated into  Spanish.  They also had stories of tracking ELT's of crashed Gringos in the deserts and mountains. 

I don't know how we would rate with El Ejercito, but the Fuerza Aerea de Mexico seems to like us.

[RiverAux]

It's all in title 10, and title 14 for the CGAUX.

CAP members don't deploy or augment (and don't anybody start touting the VSAF-thing: any job you're doing wearing dockers isn't going to put you in vicinity of a hostile force, and historically it's been a while since the bad-guys have conducted POW round-ups at Wright-Pat or Lackland.....)

IMO, your SDF Pal is nothing more than an off-brand wannabee doing the my-quasi-military-organization-is-better-than-yours routine.  His "SDF Boss" is probably some 500 lb self-appointed six-star general who's "commission" was printed on the same equipt you friends ID card came from.

The proof in the pudding is when he gets hurt doing his SDF-thing on "official business," who foots the doctor-bill??  Betcha he and his ins. company does.

While the SDF members comments as represented by the initial post leave a lot to be desired, you do realize that you're doing the same exact thing, right?  That is making extremely negative comments about an organization that you apparently don't know much about. 

[HGjunkie]

I could not face the horrors of having to eat their horrible foods ( Back-bacon, "flap-Jacks" etc.) and tremble at the tortures only the evil Canadians could devise! Hey, did you know the word "gullible" is not even in the dictionary?

Major Lord

Very funny Major. Very funny.

[skymaster]

Well, I would hope that we might still have at least SOME military status legally, or else certain situations in relation to CAP could come back to haunt the organization.  For example, under state law, the ONLY persons allowed to wear military uniforms (or clothing articles of a current military uniform) and perform drill movements and marching in a military manner in public, with any type firearm (to include ANY facsimile or deactivated firearm, including anything that resembles a firearm, such as the honor guard rifles that we use), are 1) members of the armed forces of the state or of the United States,  2) members of the organized militia and 3) persons in a secondary school or college taking part in an accredited course wherein such items are being used for educational purposes as a part of a state approved curriculum.  Otherwise, they are restricted to from wearing military uniforms or articles of such, and are only allowed to drill in public with swords. (Violation of such is a misdemeanor that can land a person in prison for just less than one year and result in a stiff fine for the first offense).  Worse, if the person providing such "firearm" provides such to a minor, that is a FELONY that can result in a 3 to 5 year jail term.  So, where does CAP fit legally currently is my question?   

[davidsinn]

Well, I would hope that we might still have at least SOME military status legally, or else certain situations in relation to CAP could come back to haunt the organization.  For example, under state law, the ONLY persons allowed to wear military uniforms (or clothing articles of a current military uniform) and perform drill movements and marching in a military manner in public, with any type firearm (to include ANY facsimile or deactivated firearm, including anything that resembles a firearm, such as the honor guard rifles that we use), are 1) members of the armed forces of the state or of the United States,  2) members of the organized militia and 3) persons in a secondary school or college taking part in an accredited course wherein such items are being used for educational purposes as a part of a state approved curriculum.  Otherwise, they are restricted to from wearing military uniforms or articles of such, and are only allowed to drill in public with swords. (Violation of such is a misdemeanor that can land a person in prison for just less than one year and result in a stiff fine for the first offense).  Worse, if the person providing such "firearm" provides such to a minor, that is a FELONY that can result in a 3 to 5 year jail term.  So, where does CAP fit legally currently is my question?

We fall under the US Code as an Aux of the AF.

[PHall]

Well, I would hope that we might still have at least SOME military status legally, or else certain situations in relation to CAP could come back to haunt the organization.  For example, under state law, the ONLY persons allowed to wear military uniforms (or clothing articles of a current military uniform) and perform drill movements and marching in a military manner in public, with any type firearm (to include ANY facsimile or deactivated firearm, including anything that resembles a firearm, such as the honor guard rifles that we use), are 1) members of the armed forces of the state or of the United States,  2) members of the organized militia and 3) persons in a secondary school or college taking part in an accredited course wherein such items are being used for educational purposes as a part of a state approved curriculum.  Otherwise, they are restricted to from wearing military uniforms or articles of such, and are only allowed to drill in public with swords. (Violation of such is a misdemeanor that can land a person in prison for just less than one year and result in a stiff fine for the first offense).  Worse, if the person providing such "firearm" provides such to a minor, that is a FELONY that can result in a 3 to 5 year jail term.  So, where does CAP fit legally currently is my question?

You're mixing apples and oranges here. The Geneva Accords are not a State Law. They just state how personnel should be treated if captured.

My opinion on this question, and I've sat through more then a couple Law of Armed Conflict classes, is that CAP members would not be POW's since we are not armed.
We would be "civilian" detainees.

[Old Timer]

Skymaster,

What is the Geneva Convention status of CAP members?  Sorry, none. 

You belong to a private membership organization, a corporation with a Congressional Charter and Air Force links, so move off this track.

CAP is the Civil Air Patrol -- the premier civilian air search and rescue organization in the world, take pride in that, and move on. 

While its organization and leadership as a whole leaves much to be desired, its SAR training and execution protocols is a world standard for tactical SAR. When coupled with the USAF and USCG Addendums to the International Aeronautical and Maritime Search and Rescue (IAMSAR) Manual, it is the format used by most search agencies around the world.

Since you will not be doing anything on or over "hostile territory" (and according with IAMSAR, SAR flights over international boundaries are permissible, as long as the RCC (USAF for CONUS and USCG for off-shore operations – like the Bahamas - are advised and approve), don't worry about your "Geneva Convention status." 

Worry more about your level of personal training competence, and what you are doing to improve it.

Enjoy that, and "go do good work".

[Ned]

Skymaster,

What is the Geneva Convention status of CAP members?  Sorry, none. 

You belong to a private membership organization, a corporation with a Congressional Charter and Air Force links, so move off this track.

Non concur, on a couple of different levels.

First, everyone has a Geneve Convention "status" - even civilians.  (hint: "civilian" is a classification under the Third GC, first adopted in 1929 and subsequently updated.)

Second, under any "reasonable scenario"  (which is to say any sort of scenario in which the US is engaged in an armed conflict and a CAP member could conceivably fall into enemy hands), CAP members would almost certainly fall under Article 4 and be entitled to POW status as either civilians performing non-combat support missions, a militia, or a "volunteer corps."  All of which get POW status.

As a practical matter, pretty much anyone who falls into enemy hands wearing a military-style uniform is going to be interned (or worse).  And I have some sympathy for any enemy tribunal trying to figure out how to classify all of the SDF members, Red Cross Workers, AAFES employees, unofficial militias, sheriff SWAT teams, DoD civilians, and God knows what else they may come across.  And Article 5 requires capturing powers to treat everyone as a POW until a competent tribunal assigns them some other status.

But as others have pointed out, it is pretty much an academic question since not a single enemy of the US has ever fully honored the GC in this regard.

But hey, I like academic discussions as much as the next guy.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[JohnKachenmeister]

Well, I would hope that we might still have at least SOME military status legally, or else certain situations in relation to CAP could come back to haunt the organization.  For example, under state law, the ONLY persons allowed to wear military uniforms (or clothing articles of a current military uniform) and perform drill movements and marching in a military manner in public, with any type firearm (to include ANY facsimile or deactivated firearm, including anything that resembles a firearm, such as the honor guard rifles that we use), are 1) members of the armed forces of the state or of the United States,  2) members of the organized militia and 3) persons in a secondary school or college taking part in an accredited course wherein such items are being used for educational purposes as a part of a state approved curriculum.  Otherwise, they are restricted to from wearing military uniforms or articles of such, and are only allowed to drill in public with swords. (Violation of such is a misdemeanor that can land a person in prison for just less than one year and result in a stiff fine for the first offense).  Worse, if the person providing such "firearm" provides such to a minor, that is a FELONY that can result in a 3 to 5 year jail term.  So, where does CAP fit legally currently is my question?

You're mixing apples and oranges here. The Geneva Accords are not a State Law. They just state how personnel should be treated if captured.

My opinion on this question, and I've sat through more then a couple Law of Armed Conflict classes, is that CAP members would not be POW's since we are not armed.
We would be "civilian" detainees.

You are wrong.  Have you ever read the Protocols on Prisoners?

Civilians accompanying an armed force are POW's.

Civilian internees are civilian sympathizers with the enemy or civilians residing in an enemy country occupied by beligerent forces detained for security or humanitarian reasons.

[Short Field]

Civilians accompanying an armed force are POW's.

A lot of them were named after General Hooker during the Civil War.  I don't believe they were treated as POWs nor would be today.

[JoeTomasone]

For example, under state law, the ONLY persons allowed to wear military uniforms (or clothing articles of a current military uniform) ......

  So, where does CAP fit legally currently is my question?

Our authorization to wear the uniform is codified in Federal law, which trumps State law.

[a2capt]

Our authorization to wear the uniform is codified in Federal law, which trumps State law.

Except as it would seem, when it has to do with certain sought after botanical items.. ;-)
But thats another thread to search for.

[ZigZag911]

How on earth are CAP personnel going to get captured by enemy forces?

For that matter, why?

Assuming an invasion, wouldn't the enemy have done its intelligence homework, particularly regarding "Order of Battle" type info?

I would hope, nay, even pray, that an invading force had a lot more on their plate to worry about from US Armed Forces (known on CT as "RM") to bother running about the countryside rounding up CAP members.

Of course, so many of us are lt col and above, the other side might be deluded (as some of us are, occasionally!) into believing we're important!

Say, do you think letting CAP have generals, colonels and lt colonels in such numbers is a master deception plan on the part of Ma Blue?!?

[Smithsonia]

In the Order of Battle CAP is just ahead of the Daughters of the American Revolution. If we ARE invaded by a foreign power, it is more likely to be Martian Women looking for Male Earthlings as Breeding Stock, than it is a to be a Geneva Convention Signatory. By the way, this is the good news.

[Major Lord]

That is a beautiful piece of reasoning, and a wonderfully astute bit of threat assessment staff work: Most of us completely overlooked the Martian Husbandry aspects of a possible invasion. It also has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention Status of CAP members. Invasion was just one of several considerations in exploring CAP's level of protections as it relates to the GC.

Major Lord

[Smithsonia]

^^^^^ Maj. Lord;
I was quite serious about the Martian Women. Apparently it was quite a problem in the 50s. Lots of film on the subject, mostly black and white. But, I missed it due to immaturity.

We are not belligerents now, except on Captalk. We are civilians. If that status changes as it did during WW2 (and I am sure we would be notified), then we would are under the Geneva Convention as enemy combatants. Surfs up! Who's for some Waterboarding?

[JohnKachenmeister]

Civilians accompanying an armed force are POW's.

A lot of them were named after General Hooker during the Civil War.  I don't believe they were treated as POWs nor would be today.

OK, then after 6 years as an Army staff officer working on POW issues I don't know what I'm talking about.

[Major Lord]

John,

Like the Arizona Immigration law, it appears that most of our members have not taken the time to read the GC, or to familiarize themselves with the laws of armed conflict. Why should they? They don't think that there is any jeopardy associated with putting on the uniform and acting as a volunteer force in support of the armed services. With any luck, the evil Canadians won't try to swarm across the border, rounding up CAP Officers for happy camps....One nice thing about having a defined GC status is that it allows the Hague to hang the Cannucks if they waterboard us, or shoot us out of hand. ( At least after the fact...too bad for us!) 

Even terrorists have a GC status, although not one likely to encourage kindly treatment ( except by certain like minded people in the U.S.)

Like Ned suggested, this is for the most part a hypothetical discussion, but even so I think that this is a subject that should be at least touched upon in a new CAP members training. The Soviets sent the secret police to execute a bunch of 13 year old cadets in the forest of Katyn, I wonder if those kids ever understood the danger of just wearing a uniform? As a guy who has worn a variety of uniforms, I have never found one that made me the safer for doing so.

Major Lord

[Smithsonia]

Police, doctors, nurses, firemen, sanitation workers, bus drivers, air line pilots, judges, high school football teams, priests, bell boys, waiters, etc. All wear uniforms. Some serve the military. None are enemy combatants. All could be shot if their actions are considered hostile by the combatants. But they won't be shot because they were in uniform, except by accident or by misbehavior according to the Geneva Convention.

In every war we (America) have changed the rules. At least since the beginning of warfare the rules have been considered flexible. This is called interpretation, reinterpretation, or misinterpretation of the Geneva Convention. It depends upon who wins and who writes the history. Although before the Geneva Convention - native Atlantan's curse Sherman to this day as a war criminal, for his all out war and burning of their town. War is hell, period. However the referee is usually history and not the courts. Courts get the generalisimo and leave history and God to sort out the rest.

[lordmonar]

How on earth are CAP personnel going to get captured by enemy forces?

For that matter, why?

Assuming an invasion, wouldn't the enemy have done its intelligence homework, particularly regarding "Order of Battle" type info?

Sure they would....and right there under the paramilitary column would be the GCAUX, CAP, Boy Scouts, SDAs and a whole host of other organisations that any invader would have to deal with if they wanted to hold the U.S.

I would hope, nay, even pray, that an invading force had a lot more on their plate to worry about from US Armed Forces (known on CT as "RM") to bother running about the countryside rounding up CAP members.

Sure they would....but what if Eisenhower ignored the Hitler Youth (yes I know a Nazi reference...but it is Jermain in this instance)?  Sure they were not really that important in the bigger scale of things...but they did represent a threat that had to be dealt with.

Of course, so many of us are lt col and above, the other side might be deluded (as some of us are, occasionally!) into believing we're important!

Now that is not fair at all!  This is not a discussion trying to make ourselves more important....it is simply a theoretical discussion....that is all.

[ZigZag911]

My point is, wouldn't it make more sense to round up people with access to weapons before getting around to us, Red Cross and Kiwanis???

[lordmonar]

My point is, wouldn't it make more sense to round up people with access to weapons before getting around to us, Red Cross and Kiwanis???

They may do that too.....but Joe blow with a gun is an illegal combatant.....Joe Bag of Donuts in CAP is a legal combatant and is afforded POW status.

The point of the conversation is not what some hypothetical enemy may do....but what the law says about "civilian" organisations who are fighting the invaders.

[Short Field]

....but Joe blow with a gun is an illegal combatant.....Joe Bag of Donuts in CAP is a legal combatant and is afforded POW status.

Joe Bag of Donuts in CAP is a CIVILIAN.  If he picks up a weapon he becomes an illegal combatant unless he joins some other organization that affords him combatant status.  Sorry but the NRA is not one of those organizations.  The reason Joe Bag of Donuts in a CAP uniform is still a civilian is that our charter defines us that way. 

The Hitler Youth comparison is invalid. 
  1.  The Hitler Youth was the junior organization of the Sturmabteilung (SA) or Brownshirts.  The Brownshirts have about as much relationship to CAP as the KKK does. 
  2.  Membership in the Hitler Youth was compulsory for all German males after 1936. 
  3.  Training closely resembled military training, with weapons training, assault course circuits and basic tactics.  This was not your NRA firearms training.
  4. In 1943, the Hitler Youth changed from being an auxiliary to being a military reserve from which manpower could be drawn to replace the losses in military units.  By 1945, 12 year olds were being drafted into regular military units.  With the exception of Hitler Youth who assisted AA units, they fought as regular soldiers.
  5.  They were disbanded after the war as part of the denazification process.

[Major Lord]

How CAP defines itself internally is not relevant. If you are wearing the AF Uniform and assisting the AF, and fall into enemy hands, your status would almost certainly be that of "volunteer forces". Stupidly unarmed volunteer forces, admittedly.......I am sure that Al Queda does not consider themselves to be unlawful combatants, but their own self-description is not the issue. Its the GC that sets the rules. If the Boy Scouts or the Salvation Army decided to assist the military in carrying out their mission, they would probably be considered volunteer forces too.

Major Lord

[Short Field]

How CAP defines itself internally is not relevant.

That is how Congress defines CAP in our Congressional Charter - not how CAP defines CAP. 

[SarDragon]

Godwin.

[a2capt]

Unless you're on the other side, then it's 'Godloose' ;-)

[Major Lord]

How CAP defines itself internally is not relevant.

That is how Congress defines CAP in our Congressional Charter - not how CAP defines CAP.

Yes, I know. Congress also defined Carbon Dioxide as a "Greenhouse Gas" and Africans as subhuman. Our internal definition of CAP has no bearing on how we would be treated as POW's. CAP defines CAP ( largely, but not entirely) by the Congressional Charter.

Major Lord

[SarDragon]

Unless you're on the other side, then it's 'Godloose' ;-)

That would be the opposite of 'Godtight.' I think you meant 'Godlose.'

[skymaster]

For example, under state law, the ONLY persons allowed to wear military uniforms (or clothing articles of a current military uniform) ......

  So, where does CAP fit legally currently is my question?

Our authorization to wear the uniform is codified in Federal law, which trumps State law.

My point is, that in the past, we DID have at least some legal coverage from Ma Blue in relation to our status, and COULD theoretically have fallen legally under Sections 1) or 2) as a MILITARY auxiliary under Federal Code.  However, in the almost three decades of CAP service I have personally seen the organization go off on a tangent from the military roots of our predecessors, from a full time AF Auxiliary to an "only on an AFAM Auxiliary", which could easily jeopardize our "military auxiliary" status under Federal Law if we are not careful.  And besides, such a case would be tried in a state or local court, not a Federal court.

[Smithsonia]

This should help clarify some of this discussion.
SEE HERE:

WWII 1943 Prisoner of War Operations (When CAP had a belligerent role) these are huge files.

PART I:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33419711/WWII-1943-Prisoner-of-War-Operations-I

PART 2:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33419824/WWII-1943-Prisoner-of-War-Operations-II

Source:  Pentagon, Washington, DC

This documentation is part of the huge collection of Lt. Col. Mark Hess of the Georgia Wing.

[Short Field]

And besides, such a case would be tried in a state or local court, not a Federal court.

That should really make the prosecutor famous as he tries to convict people in state court for conduct specifically allowed by Federal law. 

[vmstan]

Let's say the US is invaded in some "Red Dawn" type scenario while I'm on my way to a CAP meeting in BDUs. Do you really think Comrade Chang is going to give a rats behind about what my legal status is? No, he's going to see me, rank, and start blasting away.

Let's say the US is attacked (again) by terrorist nut jobs, while I'm on my way to anything... wearing anything... they're going to kill me anyway.

[lordmonar]

Godwin.

I know...but in this case it was an applicable analogy.

[JohnKachenmeister]

How Congress defines CAP is not important to the discussion.  How the GC defines combatants and who is entitled to PW status IS the discussion.

The GC is vague, not at all like American law.  For example, the GC establishes that PW status is afforded to members of "Militia and Volunteer Corps" without really defining what those terms mean.  A "Militia" under American law is an armed force under state government.  Can you have a militia in a country with no states and without a federal system of government?  These questions are to be resolved by the capturing power in a "Military Tribunal" but there is no definition as to how such a tribunal is constituted.

Can the Boy Scouts be considered prisoners of war under the GC?  Yes, if they are in uniform and performing a function is support of the military.  Also, they must be under the control of a central authority.

In an earlier post, someone mentioned Joe Bag O'Donuts with a rifle.  IF Joe "Spontaneously took up arms upon approach of an armed hostile force," bore his arms openly, and conducted himself in accordance with the Law of War, then yes, he IS entitled to status as a PW.

There are several classes of captive:

Prisoner of War.  PW's retain the right to wear their uniforms, remain under the command of the senior member of their own force, are entitled to send and receive mail, must be paid for any work performed except housekeeping duties in the camp, and their capture must be reported to a Protecting Power, the International Committee of the Red Cross.  They must be fed and housed under conditions similar to the feeding and housing of the capturing power's own troops of similar rank.

Detained Persons.  No rights, except the right to humane treatment.  Reserved for war criminals, pirates, mercenaries, bandits and similar battlefield riff-raff.

Retained Persons.  Limited to medics and chaplains.  All the rights of PW's except they can only be made to work at medical and religious duties, and they need not be paid for such work.

Civilian Internees.  Civilians rounded up and held for security of the capturing power's force OR rounded up for their own safety to comply with the capturing power's duty to protect civilians.

[skymaster]

And besides, such a case would be tried in a state or local court, not a Federal court.

That should really make the prosecutor famous as he tries to convict people in state court for conduct specifically allowed by Federal law.

You must be referring to 18 U.S.C. § 702.  Such protection presupposes that as CAP members that we are acting as an auxiliary of the Air Force.  However, there have been several changes in the United States Code of late, including amendments to 10 U.S.C. 9441 that call into question our auxiliary status, and, if taken at face value, basically restrict CAP members to auxiliary status ONLY when signed in on an AFAM.  Of course, the fact that CAP is in fact restricted on an AFAM by the Posse Comitatus Act in the first place, makes a prima fascia case that, legally, we must fall under the military side of the house (though perhaps in a dual status such as National Guard and military contractor personnel).  As far as the possibility that CAP members could be considered legally as military contractors, be VERY CAREFUL what you might wish for.  Under several recent changes to Title 10 of the U.S. Code, military contractors (including "accompanying forces" such as embedded civilian journalists employed by private companies such as CNN, ABC, CBS, ABC, FOX News, etc.) are now legally subject to the UCMJ (irregardless of any prior or current sworn military status or lack thereof), and are subject to the military justice system (including punishment as minor as Article 15 punishment or as major as execution by a military tribunal, if deemed necessary).  What is the difference between a member of a private corporation such as CNN and a member of a private corporation such as CAP.  Read the current US Code sometime, and you might be suprised at the parallels.

[lordmonar]

Our title 18 authority to wear the USAF uniform has nothing to do with our USAF Aux status on or off AFAM.

Title 10 Section 772 (j) give the service secrataries the authority to designate who can wear the uniform.

SECAF could say to the BSA "wear the ABU's" and it is done.

SECAF has said to CAP "wear the USAF uniform"....so it is done.  AFAM or no AFAM.

[JohnKachenmeister]

Military contractors, defense civilian employees, Red Cross workers, and any other "Civilian accompanying the Armed Forces" have been subject to the UCMJ since it's inception.  These are NOT new interpretations, they are black-letter law.

The discussion is the status of CAP under the Law of War, not the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

If CAP officers were to serve with US forces in theater, we would be subject to the UCMJ, no doubt.  Since Congress has empowered CAP to perform "Non Combat missions and programs for the Air Force," the chance of doing so in a combat theater is a contradiction.

But such Congressional designation as "Non Combat" has no meaning under the GC... The only non-combat status recognized under the Law of War is that of medics and chaplains.

[RiverAux]

And there were arguments made at the time that CAP subchasers were subject to UCMJ, though I'm aware of no evidence that it was ever applied.  But, that is a different topic,

[PHall]

And there were arguments made at the time that CAP subchasers were subject to UCMJ, though I'm aware of no evidence that it was ever applied.  But, that is a different topic,

There wasn't a UCMJ during the Second World War. So it would be really hard for the CAP Subchasers to be subject to it.

[JohnKachenmeister]

The Subchasers were subject to the Articles of War, which preceded the UCMJ.  Back then, the Congress passed separate laws for the "Government of the Army and Navy.