What type of military status is cap?

[JohnKachenmeister]

After 9/11, there WAS a discussion that CAP be armed, and assume the duties of securing general aviation airports.  This discussion never got past the talking stage, because the costs of training, equipping, and deploying CAP officers on that mission over the thousands of airports nationwide was deemed to be far out of proportion to the threat.

There was this one time, at band camp...Assuming this happened outside of your own basement, it never got past the TALKING stage because it's absurd.

That is the closest we have come to being an armed combat asset since 1945.

Maybe we will hit the trifecta again!

I said it never got past the talking stage.  Whether you choose to believe that the idea itself was absurd or believe the explanation that was given to me is up to you.

Since this is a mission we performed in World War II, I can understand how it may have come up in discussion.  I don't understand why it would be a viable mission in WWII but "Absurd" now, but in any case the concept was rejected.  The reasons explained to me was that the costs of such a plan were too high in comparison to the benefit.

I remember that when it was told to me (after the consideration and rejection) I was happy that it had been dismissed, because I did not think that we could perform that mission as volunteers, even with per diem.  We all have families, civilian jobs, and serious time constraints.  To add the mission of securing all GA airports, in addition to our current missions, is simply beyond the capability of our current force, even if you limit it to those airports with paved runways of more than 5000 feet.  If that is what you mean by "Absurd," I agree with you.

[major pain]

CAP until recently, very post 911 had been subject to pose commutates status.. no guns, no surveillance, no police authority

[JohnKachenmeister]

CAP until recently, very post 911 had been subject to pose commutates status.. no guns, no surveillance, no police authority

The Posse Comitatus Act only pertains to the military.  Some posters insist CAP is a civilian organization.  How do you reconcile Posse Comitatus Act restrictions on a "Civilian SAR organization?" 

[RiverAux]

CAP until recently, very post 911 had been subject to pose commutates status.. no guns, no surveillance, no police authority

Nothing has changed in regards to restriction on the use of CAP due to the the posse comitatus law.  To my knowledge there hasn't been any change in this as affects us since they allowed some use of the military for counterdrug efforts in the 1980s (leading to our current CD program). 

[JohnKachenmeister]

CAP until recently, very post 911 had been subject to pose commutates status.. no guns, no surveillance, no police authority

Nothing has changed in regards to restriction on the use of CAP due to the the posse comitatus law.  To my knowledge there hasn't been any change in this as affects us since they allowed some use of the military for counterdrug efforts in the 1980s (leading to our current CD program). 

Nothing has changed since 9/11, true, but...

The 2000 law re-creating CAP as a part-time element of the Air Force may have changed our Posse Comitatus status with regard to missions NOT flown at the request of federal agencies.  I say "May" have changed, since our regulations still are written as though we would be under PCA at all times.  I don't think the issue of providing air support to state and local law enforcement agencies has been thought through yet at echelons above reality.

[es_g0d]

Instead of asking, "what military status is CAP," perhaps a more appropriate question for the real world is, "is CAP a Federal, State, or Local resource?"  If the answer changes with the circumstances, as it invariably will, then can we clearly delineate when each set of rules will apply?  This problem definitely rears its head when we work for any customer other than AFRCC.

Good luck and good hunting,
-Scott
www.CAP-ES.net

[JohnKachenmeister]

Another reason why we are unique.  We have the capability and legal authority to serve all three levels of government.

[es_g0d]

So true, but when you've got the State Department of Agriculture saying they can't use you once a fire goes Federal because of the Stafford act, how should we respond? 

I hate to say it, but I need a lawyer! 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I used to think CAP could not get worse when it was run by lawyers.  Now that I'm an IC I have discovered that the lawyers have been replaced by computer geeks, and yes, it got worse!

[Rotorhead]

I wouldnt QUIT..Id quit CAP and go where they hand out guns.  I think its funny that we are actually insulting members who would chose not to "go to war with CAP".  Would we be like the Thunderbirds where all of our red white and blue aircraft would be painted a dull grey and redeployed within 72 hours?

Exactly.

John, your line about conisdering arming CAP, etc., after 9/11 would be more a lot believeavble if it didn't come with the standard "I was told" disclaimer.

[RiverAux]

The 2000 law re-creating CAP as a part-time element of the Air Force may have changed our Posse Comitatus status with regard to missions NOT flown at the request of federal agencies.  I say "May" have changed, since our regulations still are written as though we would be under PCA at all times. 

I don't think that change is relevant since what is important is when an individual member is being used by the AF, which has for a very long time only been the case when we are on an AFAM.  And as I argued in another thread, some part of CAP is always in AFAM status due to some mission or another so in effect we are always the serving as the AF Auxiliary, its just that not all members are doing so at once. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I wouldnt QUIT..Id quit CAP and go where they hand out guns.  I think its funny that we are actually insulting members who would chose not to "go to war with CAP".  Would we be like the Thunderbirds where all of our red white and blue aircraft would be painted a dull grey and redeployed within 72 hours?

Exactly.

John, your line about conisdering arming CAP, etc., after 9/11 would be more a lot believeavble if it didn't come with the standard "I was told" disclaimer.

Well, the fact is I was NOT there for the discussion, but it was told to me after the fact.  I cannot change that, and I will not deceive anyone by implying that I was privy to a discussion.  I was also surprised to hear that it had been discussed, even briefly.

[JohnKachenmeister]

The 2000 law re-creating CAP as a part-time element of the Air Force may have changed our Posse Comitatus status with regard to missions NOT flown at the request of federal agencies.  I say "May" have changed, since our regulations still are written as though we would be under PCA at all times. 

I don't think that change is relevant since what is important is when an individual member is being used by the AF, which has for a very long time only been the case when we are on an AFAM.  And as I argued in another thread, some part of CAP is always in AFAM status due to some mission or another so in effect we are always the serving as the AF Auxiliary, its just that not all members are doing so at once. 

You are correct that the change is not relevant to the discussion on this thread.  I want to point it out only as an instructional point for those who wish to claim that CAP is a purely-civilian entity.  A "Civilian SAR agency" to be exact.

Equisearch IS a civilian search agency.  There is no law that prevents a sheriff from deputizing the searchers.  CAP is an Air Force asset, and the PCA prevents its use in civil law enforcement.  The PCA is a law that only affects the military.

So the statements:  "CAP is a civilian SAR agency," and "CAP is subject to the provisions of the Posse Comitatus Act" are logically inconsistent.

And lieutenants who find it amusing to call me "Rambo" cannot alter this logical inconsistency with silly personal attacks.

[Major Carrales]

Is all this really necessary?  The best we could ever hope to do in the ways of small airport security would be an augmented "Airport Watch."  No CAP officers would be armed...unless you count being armed with a radio/cell phone or camera.

Ideas and pilot programs might be discussed and even implemented, however, the "elite" rifle toting CAP is far from ever becoming a reality system wide.  

I find it odd that some of you here would get so emotional over the matter.

I will tell you this, if it ever reached the point where CAP needed to be armed, we would likely be facing the waning days of the United States...to which a squadron of armed CAP officers would not make a difference...in fact, I would recommend you protect your home instead.  However, that too is a flight of fancy that is the stuff of Fiction.  And bad fiction at that.

[JohnKachenmeister]

They are civilians accompanying an armed force in the field.  They are subject to the UCMJ.  They are considered to be legitimate targets by the Geneva Convention, and they are entitled to treatment as prisoners of war if captured.

No, they were not covered by the UCMJ.  They were civilians hired by GTE to maintain the phone/data network in a county other than the USA.   By your defininitoin, Blackwater and the other private security companies in Iraq are subject the UCMJ, are legitmate targets by the Geneva Convention, and are entitiled to treatment as prisoners of war.

The UCMJ applies to "Civilians accompanying an armed force in the field."  That's the law, not an opinion.  If the GTE employees were accompanying the armed force, they are covered.  If not, they fall under Iraqi civil jurisdiction.

Blackwater private guards may or may not be covered under the Geneva Conventions as POW's.  They wear uniforms, bear arms openly, and are organized under a chain of command.  If they conduct their own operations under the LOLW, then they meet the definition of "Lawful combatant" and would be entitled to POW status.

Good luck with that, by the way.  POW status simply means they have to use a sharp knife to saw your head off with.

[es_g0d]

If CAP is acting as a state or local agency, then Posse Comitatus might not apply.  Truth is we've painted ourselves into a corner by trying to play both sides of the fence (those sides being: "we're an auxiliary of the air force" and "we're a civilian corporation").  The bottom line is that WE need to pick our poison and go with it...

[RiverAux]

If CAP is acting as a state or local agency, then Posse Comitatus might not apply.  Truth is we've painted ourselves into a corner by trying to play both sides of the fence (those sides being: "we're an auxiliary of the air force" and "we're a civilian corporation").  The bottom line is that WE need to pick our poison and go with it...

CORRECTION: The Air Force has put us in this situation since they are the ones that insisted on the split status.  We're just living within the results of that decision on their part. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

Actually, you are right.  At least in my opinion, anyway.

Prior to 2000, we were ALWAYS the USAF auxiliary.  When they changed the law in 2000, we are NOT acting as an AF Aux. when acting under contract with subordinate levels of govt. as a 501(c)3 corporation.

That means that, legally, we could accept taskings that were law enforcement related when acting under the provisions of an MOU, but not when acting as an AF asset, except drug interdictions, which is a narrowly-carved exception to the PCA.

Our regulations, however, have not been changed.  60-1 still says support to LE is a bad thing.

[es_g0d]

The troubles I've run into are those that are more humanitarian and public need; my example with wildland fire is real.  If we're not a Federal Agency when we're not the Air Force Auxiliary (Aux OFF), then we need to use that to our advantage.

Furthermore, I'd say that when we ARE acting as the Air Force Auxiliary, then our airplanes fall under public use.  But that's another fight, for another day.

[PHall]

CAP, with the current "Aux On/Aux Off" situation is in the same boat as the Guard.

The PCA applies to the Guard when they are performing their FEDERAL mission, but it does not apply when they are performing their STATE mission.

It's pretty much the same way with CAP.

If we're performing an Air Force mission or a mission for the Federal Government, then the PCA applies. If we're doing a non-Air Force mission (corporate, state or local) then the PCA does not apply since we're not in "FEDERAL" status.