What is the Geneva Convention status of CAP members?

Started by skymaster, June 10, 2010, 02:04:09 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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

Quote from: Major Lord on June 10, 2010, 05:33:59 PM
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. ;D
But if the Cubans joined forces with the Mexicans...  :o

C/1st Lt. Kaufman
SER-FL-169

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?
MICHAEL M STANCLIFT, 1st Lt, CAP
Public Affairs Officer, NCR-KS-055, Heartland Squadron

Quote"I wish to compliment NHQ on this extremely well and clearly written regulation.
This publication once and for all should establish the uniform pattern to be followed
throughout Civil Air Patrol."

1949 Uniform and Insignia Committee comment on CAP Reg 35-4

SarDragon

Good olde Kansas - miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

davidsinn

Quote from: SarDragon on June 11, 2010, 07:25:10 PM
Good olde Kansas - miles and miles of nothing but miles and miles.
And wheat. Don't forget the wheat.
Former CAP Captain
David Sinn

Gunner C

Quote from: Spaceman3750 on June 10, 2010, 11:59:00 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on June 10, 2010, 05:33:59 PM
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

Quote from: Marshalus on June 11, 2010, 05:02:18 PM
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?  :-\
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: lordmonar on June 11, 2010, 09:25:21 PM
Quote from: Marshalus on June 11, 2010, 05:02:18 PM
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."
Exiled from GLR-MI-011

vmstan

Quote from: CyBorg on June 11, 2010, 10:43:24 PM
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?

Quote from: lordmonar on June 11, 2010, 09:25:21 PM
Who would want to invade Kansas?  :-\

OPSEC ;)
MICHAEL M STANCLIFT, 1st Lt, CAP
Public Affairs Officer, NCR-KS-055, Heartland Squadron

Quote"I wish to compliment NHQ on this extremely well and clearly written regulation.
This publication once and for all should establish the uniform pattern to be followed
throughout Civil Air Patrol."

1949 Uniform and Insignia Committee comment on CAP Reg 35-4

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
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

AirDX

Quote from: Major Lord on June 12, 2010, 12:34:22 AM
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.
Believe in fate, but lean forward where fate can see you.

RRLE

QuoteTheir 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
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: Major Lord on June 12, 2010, 01:17:55 PM
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

Quote from: Marshalus on June 10, 2010, 03:19:02 PM
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

Quote from: JeffDG on June 12, 2010, 06:02:13 PM
Quote from: Marshalus on June 10, 2010, 03:19:02 PM
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

Quote from: USAFaux2004 on June 12, 2010, 05:45:45 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on June 12, 2010, 01:17:55 PM
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
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."

PHall

Quote from: Major Lord on June 12, 2010, 10:25:01 PM
Quote from: USAFaux2004 on June 12, 2010, 05:45:45 PM
Quote from: Major Lord on June 12, 2010, 01:17:55 PM
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!