Should CAP be subject to the UCMJ?

[Jester]

We can't get members to follow the rules and regs we already have.

[Shuman 14]

USCGAux goes on missions with their parent service. CAP, with very very narrow exceptions, does not.

Yes, but narrow exception do exist and as I said before, in this ever-changing world in which we live in, "interesting' things may/could happen.

[Shuman 14]

We can't get members to follow the rules and regs we already have.

Are those members likely to get requested for a mission that operates under USAF or DoD direct control? Signs say no.

For those that do follow CAP rules and regulations, most should/would not have issues being under the UCMJ for very specific (and limited) USAF missions.

[RiverAux]

}
The USCGAux is also a noncombatant organization, yet the USCG issues them a Geneva Convention Card ID (ie Military ID) to cover them in the event something unexpected happens when they are on a mission.

Coast Guard Auxiliary members get a Coast Guard Auxiliary identification card -- not a "i.e.,military id". 

On the back of the card it does state a Geneva Convention Category Code (IV -"Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model."

[Shuman 14]

}
The USCGAux is also a noncombatant organization, yet the USCG issues them a Geneva Convention Card ID (ie Military ID) to cover them in the event something unexpected happens when they are on a mission.

Coast Guard Auxiliary members get a Coast Guard Auxiliary identification card -- not a "i.e.,military id". 

On the back of the card it does state a Geneva Convention Category Code (IV -"Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model."

Thank you. I could not find mine, it was in my right ODU pocket, but I think it may have gotten lost in the wash.

The point I was making is it is an ID, issued by the Government, to USCGAux Members, that conforms to the Geneva Convention, for identification required for personnel that operate with Military Forces.

Not a "Military ID" per say, but much closer to one than a CAPID.

[Eclipse]

That being said, when we do operate as an USAF Auxiliary on official USAF Missions orders

The Air Force is not in CAP's chain of command, and it does not "order" CAP to act,
it requests assistance.  CAP, nor its members, is /are not obligated to provide that
assistance nor fulfill the request.

Under AFAMs CAP is essentially a contractor.

True, but under certain circumstances, DoD Contractors are placed under UCMJ jurisdiction. Normally when deployed OCONUS and in a conflict area, but there can be other situations where they are as well.

If a CAP member accepts the request, they should accept USAF Command and Control, just saying.

Negative.  That is not how the organization is charted, nor how it works in practicality, any more then the cleaning service for the Pentagon would fall under USAF command.

Prior to a nuclear exchange, CAP members are never going to be combatants again.

After one, the cadets and adults within an age range will be coscripted, and the rest likely told to burn their
golf shirts and take care of their families.

There's never, ever going to be ANY CAP members, per se, listed as combatants, ever again.

[Jester]

We can't get members to follow the rules and regs we already have.

Are those members likely to get requested for a mission that operates under USAF or DoD direct control? Signs say no.

For those that do follow CAP rules and regulations, most should/would not have issues being under the UCMJ for very specific (and limited) USAF missions.

Probably not, but we're not swimming with options if that request for forces gets too large. 

I do agree that if you're augmenting active duty you should be subject to their regulations, but not their laws.  Civilian police officers on bases aren't subject to the UCMJ to my knowledge.

[RiverAux]

Although certainly not a recent example, it is still allowed in federal law for the Coast Guard to have temporary members of the reserve that are unpaid and I would presume would fall under UCMJ if in that status.  Been a few years since I looked into how temporary reserves were utilized in WWII to see if that was the case then.

[Shuman 14]

Negative.  That is not how the organization is charted, nor how it works in practicality, any more then the cleaning service for the Pentagon would fall under USAF command.

Are you very familiar with the Pentagon's Cleaning Service? Please tell us about your vast sanitary engineering career.

Prior to a nuclear exchange, CAP members are never going to be combatants again.

Roll Eyes. Hyperbole to say the least.

After one, the cadets and adults within an age range will be coscripted, and the rest likely told to burn their
golf shirts and take care of their families.

There's never, ever going to be ANY CAP members, per se, listed as combatants, ever again.

I guess we can thank your generation of CAP for that.

No one was talking about combat until you brought it up. You don't have to be in combat to be subject to the UCMJ, even as a contractor. If you don't think it happens, you're misinformed.

Now let me give you an example of a non-combat mission where a CAP member would need to operate under the UCMJ.

Lets say the USAF experiences a pilot shortage because of an overseas conflict. I can envision CAP multi-engine rated pilots being trained to fly cargo planes such as C-24s, C-27 and maybe even C-130s and being used for CONUS supply missions to free up USAF pilots for overseas assignments. That would be well within a "non-combat" role for CAP; think those CAP crews "might" need to be subject to the UCMJ?

Let give you an example of why a CAP crew might need an ID that complies with the Geneva Convention.

Many time in the past, Mexico and the US have come close to going to war and had incidents at the border. There has been talk of use of CAP aircraft and crews in support of DHS missions for border security.

So imagine a CAP plane and crew, flying a Border Patrol or CBP officer over a caravan of migrants crossing the border and a Mexican Military unit, possibly under the control of a cartel, fires upon the CAP aircraft and it goes down on the Mexican side of the border and the crew is taken into "custody" by this rogue unit.

Depending on how high the tensions are between the US and Mexico or internal Mexican issues, say a near civil war between the Government and the cartels, you might want to have Geneva Convention Protections.

If you think these are super far fetched ideas, then you have a very low opinion of yourself and CAP.

[Eclipse]

It's not going to happen, go back to playing COD.

[SarDragon]

Wow, that turned ugly.

The current measuring competition is now concluded.

Click.