The Topic Got Locked Before I Knew It Was Open!

[Grumpy]

I dont believe this topic has gone on for four pages. You folks actually believe that CAP is a combatabt force? LOL

In the 1940's it was.  I'm really not sure what's so hard to understand about that.

Thats my point. Its NOT the 1940's. So, who cares? Why is this even a discussion? As a CAP member you will NEVER see combat. You will NEVER get captured by an enemy.

So when CAP eventually flies border patrol missions, and one of the planes goes down in Mexico, and the drug runners hold the pilot and crew hostage, I will remember what you said here.  Never is a poor choice when speaking of the future.

Do you think a bunch of crooks would pay attention to the Geneva Convention in the first place?

[RAZOR]

So much misguided information being put here on CAP being a "COMBAT" force . MODS please lock this before somebody gets their feelings hurt....

[Major Carrales]

I recall a story about a CAP officer that was once detained in Cuba for having a CAP ID.  Is this correct or rumor.

[isuhawkeye]

Or how about the IACE group detained in eastern europe (former soviet block) shortly after the wall came down

[RiverAux]

I recall a story about a CAP officer that was once detained in Cuba for having a CAP ID.  Is this correct or rumor.

I believe it was in CAP News in late 1990s.  He was awarded some kind of POW medal from the British government (why they got involved is beyond me).

[Major Carrales]

I recall a story about a CAP officer that was once detained in Cuba for having a CAP ID.  Is this correct or rumor.

I believe it was in CAP News in late 1990s.  He was awarded some kind of POW medal from the British government (why they got involved is beyond me).

Yes, that is what I remember reading.  It had to be the late 1990s.  Like 1998 or 1999.

[fyrfitrmedic]

I recall a story about a CAP officer that was once detained in Cuba for having a CAP ID.  Is this correct or rumor.

I believe it was in CAP News in late 1990s.  He was awarded some kind of POW medal from the British government (why they got involved is beyond me).

Wasn't he a British subject with UK/US citizenship?

[JohnKachenmeister]

I never made any claim that combat action or capture was likely for CAP members.  Only that the status of "Noncombatant" under International Law does not extend to CAP members.  Saying that CAP is noncombatant because we wear blue flight suits or name badges is not true.

[RAZOR]

war or armed conflict.

Combatants
The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.

Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.

(THIS RULES CAP OUT)

Noncombatants. These individuals are not authorized by Governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. In fact, they do not engage in hostilities. This category includes civilians accompanying the Armed Forces; combatants who are out of combat, such as POWs and the wounded, and certain military personnel who are members of the Armed Forces not authorized to engage in combatant activities, such as medical personnel and chaplains. Noncombatants may not be made the object of direct attack. They may, however, suffer injury or death incident to a direct attack on a military objective without such an attack violating the LOAC, if such attack is on a lawful target by lawful means.

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.

Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person's status.


Military Targets
The LOAC governs the conduct of aerial warfare. The principle of military necessity limits aerial attacks to lawful military targets. Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemy's military capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives.


(SO TELL US WHERE CAP FALLS INTO A COMBATANT STATUS, SURELY NOT LISTED HERE)

[JohnKachenmeister]

war or armed conflict.

Combatants
The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.

Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.

(THIS RULES CAP OUT)

Noncombatants. These individuals are not authorized by Governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. In fact, they do not engage in hostilities. This category includes civilians accompanying the Armed Forces; combatants who are out of combat, such as POWs and the wounded, and certain military personnel who are members of the Armed Forces not authorized to engage in combatant activities, such as medical personnel and chaplains. Noncombatants may not be made the object of direct attack. They may, however, suffer injury or death incident to a direct attack on a military objective without such an attack violating the LOAC, if such attack is on a lawful target by lawful means.

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.

Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person's status.


Military Targets
The LOAC governs the conduct of aerial warfare. The principle of military necessity limits aerial attacks to lawful military targets. Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemy's military capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives.


(SO TELL US WHERE CAP FALLS INTO A COMBATANT STATUS, SURELY NOT LISTED HERE)

"Engage in hostilities" does not necessarily mean direct combat.  Any activity in support of the military mission of the beligerent nation is "Engaging in hostilities."

[JohnKachenmeister]

By the way.  I'm not making these rules up. 

If we engage an enemy force that uses a uniformed military auxiliary to perform military support tasks but not in direct combat, we would consider them a legitimate target and captives from that military auxiliary would be considered POW's.

[lordmonar]

According to the Geneva Convention CAP meets the test

1. Uniform
2. Direct Control under Military (We are a Militia Force

Let's see Have we ever been used as a Combat Unit?

Four of them.

3.  We carry our arms in the open (our airplanes are clearly marked and they are considered arms)
4.  We conduct our operations in accordance with the LOAC and GC.

[lordmonar]

You know what, the Air Force barely knows we're around.  Do you think some middle east country or maybe N. korea would know about us?

Most certainly they do...or the intel advisers do when they are coming up with their plan on how to invade and subdue the American people.

We do the same to them.

We know all about the Young Pioneers and any number of youth and volunteer groups in any of our target counties to assess their impact on any of our operations.

[lordmonar]

That was a good movie. 

No, it wasn't.  It wasn't even remotely like the book.  The book was an absolute classic; the movie was bilge.  Read Starship Troopers and see.

Two thumbs down ...

Jack

I agree!  The movies had nice graphics and cool battle scenes....but it was NOT the book by a long shot!  The only thing they got right was that hero's name was Jonny Rico!

[lordmonar]

So much misguided information being put here on CAP being a "COMBAT" force . MODS please lock this before somebody gets their feelings hurt....

No one is saying that we are a combat force......we are discussing international law...and what our status is in relation to what other countries think about us.

Is anyone saying that we would ever go into combat?  The likelihood of that are pretty slim...but it has happened in the past and could happen again.

So in the theoretical, what if, world of a war with Mexico (over say oil rights in the Gulf), how would CAP be seen in the eyes of international law?

Could the U.S. be justified if a CAP border patrol flight got shot down for crossing the border of saying that it was not a legal target?

Probably not.

If the Mexican Army Invaded and took over your sleepily little Arizona Air Port while you were at a CAP meeting could you claim POW rights, or would they have to treat you as a civilian or worse yet an "illegal combatant" (think GITMO)?

That is all that is going on here a little thought exercise that is all.

[lordmonar]

war or armed conflict.

Combatants
The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.

Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.

(THIS RULES CAP OUT)

(SO TELL US WHERE CAP FALLS INTO A COMBATANT STATUS, SURELY NOT LISTED HERE)

1.  We are the USAF Auxilary....that is definitely a member of the "regular armed forces or irregular forces".


2.  We have a legitimate command structure.  We have fixed distinctive emblems, uniforms, etc.

3.  We "engage" in hostilities by acting as a force multiplier...by doing our job we free combat forces to do their job.  Just as the cook, plumber, dorm manager, truck mechanic and fireman are there to do their jobs to enable the bomb droppers to engage in hostilities.  Notice it did not say anything about "combat" just hostilities.  The civilian receptionist at the billeting officer is most certainly engaged in hostilities right now.

[wingnut]

We may look like "F" Troop to the Air Force, but we are decidedly Dangerous if need be, and according to my wife;"Legends in our own Minds"

[JohnKachenmeister]

war or armed conflict.

Combatants
The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.

Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.

(THIS RULES CAP OUT)

Noncombatants. These individuals are not authorized by Governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. In fact, they do not engage in hostilities. This category includes civilians accompanying the Armed Forces; combatants who are out of combat, such as POWs and the wounded, and certain military personnel who are members of the Armed Forces not authorized to engage in combatant activities, such as medical personnel and chaplains. Noncombatants may not be made the object of direct attack. They may, however, suffer injury or death incident to a direct attack on a military objective without such an attack violating the LOAC, if such attack is on a lawful target by lawful means.

Unlawful Combatants. Unlawful combatants are individuals who directly participate in hostilities without being authorized by governmental authority or under international law to do so. For example, bandits who rob and plunder and civilians who attack a downed airman are unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants who engage in hostilities violate LOAC and become lawful targets. They may be killed or wounded and, if captured, may be tried as war criminals for their LOAC violations.

Undetermined Status. Should doubt exist as to whether an individual is a lawful combatant, noncombatant, or an unlawful combatant, such person shall be extended the protections of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention until status is determined. The capturing nation must convene a competent tribunal to determine the detained person's status.


Military Targets
The LOAC governs the conduct of aerial warfare. The principle of military necessity limits aerial attacks to lawful military targets. Military targets are those that by their own nature, location, purpose, or use make an effective contribution to an enemy's military capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances existing at the time of an attack enhance legitimate military objectives.


(SO TELL US WHERE CAP FALLS INTO A COMBATANT STATUS, SURELY NOT LISTED HERE)

Yes, it IS listed there, and don't call me Shirley.

[Grumpy]

war or armed conflict.

Combatants
The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants, noncombatants, and unlawful combatants.

Lawful Combatants. A lawful combatant is an individual authorized by governmental authority or the LOAC to engage in hostilities. A lawful combatant may be a member of a regular armed force or an irregular force. In either case, the lawful combatant must be commanded by a person responsible for subordinates; have fixed distinctive emblems recognizable at a distance, such as uniforms; carry arms openly; and conduct his or her combat operations according to the LOAC. The LOAC applies to lawful combatants who engage in the hostilities of armed conflict and provides combatant immunity for their lawful warlike acts during conflict, except for LOAC violations.

Yep, I gotta agree, we're pretty "irregular" alright.   

[thp]

While in civilian clothes and flying out over the Gulf, the two ran into strong headwinds which
caused more fuel to be used than had been expected. Realizing their fuel consumption would prevent
returning to Brownsville, they realized that they would have to land in Mexico. Immediately upon
landing in Mexico, they were immediately arrested by the Mexican authorities.
They protested loudly, but the fact that they were dressed in civilian clothes did not help to convince
the authorities that they were not spies of some sort. It was only after lengthy hand-waving
communications between themselves and the authorities, with the help of three Mexican pilots they had
encountered while flying their missions that they were permitted to refuel and leave Mexican territory –
thankfully without creating a diplomatic or military incident. Soon after this incident Mexico granted
CAP permission to land it planes in its territory in special situations.

Not sure of relevance but thought it might be helpful...