Belligerent? What is this Certificate and why does it mention CAP?

[Major Carrales]

As that I can read its content, what is the following certificate and what is it's significance?



Here is the link from whence it comes...

http://mywarhistory.com/uploads/myWarPictures/526-Honorable-service-with-the-civil-air-pat.jpg

I am asking this for informational purposes as a "wow" factor from CAP historians that might know its origins, not other reason.

[PHall]

What does the "Annex to Hague Convention No IV of October 18, 1907"say?

[Major Carrales]

What does the "Annex to Hague Convention No IV of October 18, 1907"say?

Link...
http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/hague/hague5.html

[ZigZag911]

Wild guess, probably an anti-submarine patrol person...did we have any other combatant roles? 'Cause that's what a belligerent is, an authorized  (recognized by government) warfighter.

[Major Carrales]

Wild guess, probably an anti-submarine patrol person...did we have any other combatant roles? 'Cause that's what a belligerent is, an authorized  (recognized by government) warfighter.

I have "guessed" as much as well.  I was just looking for someone who could provide some additional historical context to it. 

For example, was this certificate issued for some purpose?  Was it common to issue these certificates?  Why was it issued by the USAF, which would mean it would have to have been made after 1947 (you know, the year ROSWELL happened )

When CAP members retire, do they get a similar certificate?  If captured by an "enemy" today, does CAP legally still have that status?

Was this unique certificate for did all CAP officers of that time get them?  Does it provide any perecedence significant for modern CAP?

[flyguync]

It was for coastal patrol's. We have one at our sqdn for George Washburn who was later NC Wing Commander.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belligerent
1: waging war ; specifically : belonging to or recognized as a state at war and protected by and subject to the laws of war

[Major Lord]

I don't think that CAP would be given status as a "Belligerent" in our current incarnation ( I don't think the Geneva Conventions use that nomenclature, but its been awhile since I read the thing) But the agreement does make provision for non-combatant citizens, contractors, "volunteer forces" etc. and my guess is that we fall into the same category as the Salvation Army.... Too bad we never fight anybody who is a signatory.......Maybe we can invade Canada?
Cool Cert though! I wish they were back in style!

Major Lord

[Spike]

The date looks like 17 May 1948??  My eyes are not that great......

This is very interesting.  I am wondering if groups petitioned for recognition of their service in the War (after the war) for some VA purpose?  So they could get medical, and veteran benefits of some type??

I know of other groups that petitioned for such recognition, for the purposes of post war employment rights, pensions, VA benefits and home loans.  I think this may be the same.

One interesting point is that the Army did not produce this certificate, even though CAP members were "Auxiliary of the Army Air Forces".

Brings me to a question....... Why is cap no longer the "Auxiliary of the United States Air Force:, but is the "United States Air Force Auxiliary"?  Many things up to about 1980 are written in the first manner, then it changes to the second. 

[Major Carrales]

The date looks like 17 May 1948??  My eyes are not that great......

This is very interesting.  I am wondering if groups petitioned for recognition of their service in the War (after the war) for some VA purpose?  So they could get medical, and veteran benefits of some type??

I know of other groups that petitioned for such recognition, for the purposes of post war employment rights, pensions, VA benefits and home loans.  I think this may be the same.

One interesting point is that the Army did not produce this certificate, even though CAP members were "Auxiliary of the Army Air Forces".

Brings me to a question....... Why is cap no longer the "Auxiliary of the United States Air Force:, but is the "United States Air Force Auxiliary"?  Many things up to about 1980 are written in the first manner, then it changes to the second.

Here, a strage phrasing is evident.  It says "a volunteer Civilian Auxiliary" instead of "the volunteer Civilian Auxiliary."  This beings up the idea that there can be, are or were other "auxiliaries" of the Air Force.

[RiverAux]

Maybe just a way of recognizing their service without having to do anything tangible...Also, CAP at one time had ribbons for such service and perhaps this was the authorizing document. 

[Major Carrales]

Maybe just a way of recognizing their service without having to do anything tangible...Also, CAP at one time had ribbons for such service and perhaps this was the authorizing document.

Anyway to know that for sure?

[RiverAux]

From Maine to Mexico has a photo of one and the caption says it was issued to anyone who served at a coastal patrol base for more than 30 days. 

[Major Carrales]

From Maine to Mexico has a photo of one and the caption says it was issued to anyone who served at a coastal patrol base for more than 30 days.

Any "regulatory" source?  USAAF, USAF, CAP or otherwise?

[Spike]

Here, a strage phrasing is evident.  It says "a volunteer Civilian Auxiliary" instead of "the volunteer Civilian Auxiliary."  This beings up the idea that there can be, are or were other "auxiliaries" of the Air Force.

Nice catch.  There were other Auxiliary during the war.  The Woman's Army Auxiliary, as well as a few other that I don't know off the top of my head......need to go to Wikipedia to find them.  I also believe there was still an "ambulance auxiliary".

[Cecil DP]

If one is engaged in "Armed Conflict" with an enemy, you must have status under the Geneva Convention. If a coastal Patrol plane had to ditch or had been shot down by a U-Boat, resulting in their capture, not having a status under the Convention would have  resulted in their being shot as guerrilas.

[RiverAux]

From Maine to Mexico has a photo of one and the caption says it was issued to anyone who served at a coastal patrol base for more than 30 days.

Any "regulatory" source?  USAAF, USAF, CAP or otherwise?

None was given.  Thats all I know. 

[Gunner C]

If one is engaged in "Armed Conflict" with an enemy, you must have status under the Geneva Convention. If a coastal Patrol plane had to ditch or had been shot down by a U-Boat, resulting in their capture, not having a status under the Convention would have  resulted in their being shot as guerrilas.

Point of order - guerrillas are not shot (legally).  They are legal combatants.  The underground and auxiliary of an insurgency are not (don't confuse an insurgent auxiliary with us:  it is the insurgency support arm).  A guerrilla is an overt, armed irregular fighter whereas the underground is a clandestine organization and the auxiliary is a covert organization, neither bearing arms openly, with a chain of command, and a recognizable fixed insignia), thus are legally spies.

[USADOD]

If one is engaged in "Armed Conflict" with an enemy, you must have status under the Geneva Convention. If a coastal Patrol plane had to ditch or had been shot down by a U-Boat, resulting in their capture, not having a status under the Convention would have  resulted in their being shot as guerrilas.

Point of order - guerrillas are not shot (legally).  They are legal combatants.  The underground and auxiliary of an insurgency are not (don't confuse an insurgent auxiliary with us:  it is the insurgency support arm).  A guerrilla is an overt, armed irregular fighter whereas the underground is a clandestine organization and the auxiliary is a covert organization, neither bearing arms openly, with a chain of command, and a recognizable fixed insignia), thus are legally spies.

:clap: :clap: cool,although it did take me a few minutes to comprehend that

[JohnKachenmeister]

If one is engaged in "Armed Conflict" with an enemy, you must have status under the Geneva Convention. If a coastal Patrol plane had to ditch or had been shot down by a U-Boat, resulting in their capture, not having a status under the Convention would have  resulted in their being shot as guerrilas.

Point of order - guerrillas are not shot (legally).  They are legal combatants.  The underground and auxiliary of an insurgency are not (don't confuse an insurgent auxiliary with us:  it is the insurgency support arm).  A guerrilla is an overt, armed irregular fighter whereas the underground is a clandestine organization and the auxiliary is a covert organization, neither bearing arms openly, with a chain of command, and a recognizable fixed insignia), thus are legally spies.

:clap: :clap: cool,although it did take me a few minutes to comprehend that

Well, you figured it our faster than the current administration and the previous one.  Status as a legitimate combatant MUST be determined by a military tribunal.  Placing combatants on trial in civlian courts is considered a war crime.  The Japanese did that to captured fliers from the Doolittle Raid.

And... For Sparky... the other Air Force (Air Corps) auxiliaries were the Women's Air Service Pilots and the Ground Observer Corps.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I don't think that CAP would be given status as a "Belligerent" in our current incarnation ( I don't think the Geneva Conventions use that nomenclature, but its been awhile since I read the thing) But the agreement does make provision for non-combatant citizens, contractors, "volunteer forces" etc. and my guess is that we fall into the same category as the Salvation Army.... Too bad we never fight anybody who is a signatory.......Maybe we can invade Canada?
Cool Cert though! I wish they were back in style!

Major Lord

I think you are right about the nomenclature.  "Beligerant" refers to the nations at war, not the individual warriors.

We would fall under the category of "Civilians Accompanying an Armed Force," or "Regular members of the Armed Forces," depending on your interpretation.  In either case, we would be entitled to status as POW's if we ever again fight a civilized enemy.

[alamrcn]

...if we ever again fight a civilized enemy.

Not someone from, say... Still in the 2nd Centrury? 

I really like the certificate, thanks for posting it. What's that date near the lower-left corner, 1948? The certificate looks newer than that for some reason.

[ol'fido]

Could it be something requested for reasons of not being categorized as someone who avoided military service during the war even though the bearers didn't serve in the regular armed forces? Kind of like the "ruptured duck" pin/patch given to discharged veterans.

[JohnKachenmeister]

It probably was not requested, but simply a way of recognizing the service of persons who were not regularly enlisted nor conscripted, but still served in combat.

At the very least it would document which CAP members saw action, should the discussion of veterans' status move from this board to an official forum.

[Gunner C]

It probably was not requested, but simply a way of recognizing the service of persons who were not regularly enlisted nor conscripted, but still served in combat.

At the very least it would document which CAP members saw action, should the discussion of veterans' status move from this board to an official forum.

I think it's exactly that - there was no other way to recognize CAP combat vets, so they gave them these. I saw one of those about 30 years ago.  A squadron mate had it up on the wall along with his air medal certificate.

[Johnny Yuma]

I don't think that CAP would be given status as a "Belligerent" in our current incarnation
Major Lord

Well, maybe on a 2B...