Border Ops

Flying Pig · July 01, 2009, 05:11:38 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/obama-plan-seek-national-guard-volunteers-protect-border/

I wonder how this might affect missions for us down south?

jimmydeanno · July 01, 2009, 05:29:38 PM

"a move some officials worry will be seen as militarizing the region..."

Just my personal opinion, but isn't this what the NG is for? To stop foreign invaders? I'd rather have the NG guys there than a bunch of DHS gestapo...

TeamBronx · July 01, 2009, 09:28:55 PM

While the NG should not have any posse comitatus issues, I think that the country will be better served by enhancing law enforcement resources (Border Patrol on the ground & Customs & Border Protection Air above). Sorry - I just don't see these organizations as a "DHS gestapo." In fact I find that comment offensive.

jimmydeanno · July 01, 2009, 09:33:04 PM

Quote from: TeamBronx on July 01, 2009, 09:28:55 PM
In fact I find that comment offensive.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Obviously a discussion for a different thread in a different forum. But as I said, IMO, the flow of organized personnel from drug cartels, weapons smugglers, etc - to me - is an invasion of US soil - something the NG is responsible for defending against.

JohnKachenmeister · July 02, 2009, 01:25:40 PM

Quote from: TeamBronx on July 01, 2009, 09:28:55 PM
While the NG should not have any posse comitatus issues, I think that the country will be better served by enhancing law enforcement resources (Border Patrol on the ground & Customs & Border Protection Air above). Sorry - I just don't see these organizations as a "DHS gestapo." In fact I find that comment offensive.

I don't, but then I've been declared a "Threat to National Security" by the Secretary of DHS and will probably be sent to a kamp soon.

Smithsonia · July 02, 2009, 02:48:52 PM

The National Guard defended the southern US border against Poncho Villa in 1916/17. My Grandfather was there, detached from the Kansas National Guard. Billy Mitchell, John Curry, George Patton and Carl Spaatz went along to help my granddad, Black Jack Pershing too. They didn't have any more luck finding Poncho than we've had finding Osama in Afghanistan/Pakistan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Villa
SEE RAID ON COLUMBUS NEW MEXICO-March 1916

Whatever the difference between the Mexican drug lords and the Mexican warlords of the early 20th Century is lost on me. Both of them launched cross border raids, kidnap Americans, killed, stole, shot at police - It seems rather much the same now and then.

Major Lord · July 02, 2009, 04:23:13 PM

Article IV of the U.S. Constitution and other law requires the U.S. Government to defend the borders. There is no Posse Comitatus Act issue in play here. Its important to remember that the U.S. has also declared a state of war against a non-governmental group in the past, so there is no restriction against using the military to defend against pirates and brigands. ( Barbary pirates-"the shores of Tripoli" Marines, please sing along)

Major Lord
(p.s. I think that BATF has copyrighted the title "Gestapo" so DHS can't use it. "Jack-booted thug" is still in the public domain though)

JohnKachenmeister · July 03, 2009, 11:12:12 AM

Quote from: Major Lord on July 02, 2009, 04:23:13 PM
Article IV of the U.S. Constitution and other law requires the U.S. Government to defend the borders. There is no Posse Comitatus Act issue in play here. Its important to remember that the U.S. has also declared a state of war against a non-governmental group in the past, so there is no restriction against using the military to defend against pirates and brigands. ( Barbary pirates-"the shores of Tripoli" Marines, please sing along)

Major Lord
(p.s. I think that BATF has copyrighted the title "Gestapo" so DHS can't use it. "Jack-booted thug" is still in the public domain though)

I don't think that the Barbary pirates were the subjects of a formal declaration of war. The President used force to protect US vessels under his authority as Commander-In-Chief.

Trivial point: The Barbary Expedition was the first use of military force under our new Constitution.

Flying Pig · July 03, 2009, 02:50:34 PM

Considering Gestapo refers to Nazi troops, or people with that mind set, I think its a highly inappropriate statement. They are American Law Enforcement Officers. While you may not agree with the statements of their management, referring to them as Gestapo uncalled for. You may as well call the US military jack booted thugs if your going to make blanket statements like that. Heres your tin foil hat.

jimmydeanno · July 03, 2009, 03:01:17 PM

heliodoc · July 03, 2009, 03:24:45 PM

Rob

Missions for us down south?

Are u talking CAP or Guard

IMHO, CAP would be the last to be called and the Guard's roles has been pretty well defined as to what they would do...

Does CAP have a DEFINED, other than we are cheaper argument??

Cheaper does not mean better. Although recon and surveillance we can do BUT all the hoorah around CD type ops and how its limits as far as LE ....well

Let the paid professionals do the real work.

Again this is my second time in CAP and with all the border type missions going and the economy the way it is......I do not know of many CAP members who are willing to give up time for these types of missions. I personally have been laid off , looking for work as are number of pilots in my area and we are all looking for work and looking to volunteer YET to go do Border work, is not right up there, unless CAP NHQ foots at least lodging and per diem....NOT!

Be nice to be considered, but again IMHO CAP may or may not even be considered for this, THAT I would imagine, would be up to the State EMA and State AG on how are tasking could / would be considered....again cheaper is not always be better

You LE type pilots would be the first to be tasked on interagency, wouldn't you??

JohnKachenmeister · July 04, 2009, 02:19:06 PM

I do not agree with the statement: "Let the paid professionals do the work." CAP exists to serve the United States. The United States has bought us more than 500 aircraft prepositioned over the US on standby if needed. The US Air Force pays for our fuel, and is permitted to pay other expenses, at their option.

We offer our services as volunteers. If that is to have any meaning, we need to be available when called.

I personally would have zero problem flying recon in border areas. See a group of Mexicans headed north? Call the Border Patrol by radio. Maintain surveillance, report changes in position until ground apprehension forces arrive. Then move on to your next adventure.

Exactly what part of this mission is too hard for you?

In WWII, CAP performed this same mission. Are you saying that you are not as good of a pilot as they were? Even with all the wonderful and expensive electronic toys we have we can't do the mission we did 70 years ago?

heliodoc · July 04, 2009, 02:45:08 PM

John

Never asked you to agree with my statement and hanging with what CAP did 70 yrs ago isn't / doesn't hold "enuf" water these days.

CAP's leadership in alot of things is woefully inadequate for interagency operations in some arenas. The organization has improved in the last few years, but not at the speed other than getting new aircraft. That in itself is great, but there is training issues and training curriculum that left on a Squadron level eats enough of the members time that alot of this needed MORE time at the NHQ level to be thought on how it has to be delivered other than "online testing"

Good enough pilot?? I am BUT I am not cocky enough to say I can operate in an CBP environment with a 110 -130 knot environment with folks who do this EVERY day. GREAT for CAP for its radios and electronics and its surveillance experience, I would do as would any CAP driver but I don't see NHQ putting up and shutting up about getting involved with this mission BUT there are spending time and money meeting up with the Church of LDS, GREEEEEATTT spend time and money doing that over real missions, you OK with that??

I am not! Luv to argue with you, John, but I won't personally attack you or your skills, but I obviously struck a chord with you, about the beloved organization that needs to do more at all leadership levels in order to work on today's DHS and incident environment. We need to tie SAREX's into DHS and EMA exercises more and more, and not just wonder "why we are not used more." I have a feeling we have not done enough of sitting with the real power hitters of the real world outside CAP's hallowed 65-70 yr history!!

RiverAux · July 04, 2009, 03:37:58 PM

Uh, CAP has been flying various border operations for several years. Haven't heard much about them lately, but we weren't really advertising them all that strongly either.

bosshawk · July 04, 2009, 04:11:14 PM

I have let this conversation go on for some time without comment. CAWG happens to have been flying a border mission for something like the last 15-20 years, 3 aircraft for three days every weekend. Now, we are about to undertake another similar mission in a different location. Do we have difficulties in getting people to volunteer: definitely not. In fact, we have to allocate weekends to individual groups, so that everyone has an even shot at the mission. I can't and won't go into details, but suffice it to say that we are very successful in what we do. Our customers are all LE agencies and they love it. Our crews get room and per diem, plus fuel paid for. How do I know this: I am the Wing Staff Officer responsible for the programs. We have a great group of CD folks in this Wing.

Flying Pig · July 04, 2009, 04:14:53 PM

I was referring to CAPs missions. Here in CA at least, we are usually standing in line waiting to head south for our missions. I think some members in other wings would be pleasantly surprised with some of the things we do in CAWG. Not trying to start an us against them argument, but I just spent the last 8 straight days flying CD that literally took me all over CA.

As far as local law enforcement aviation, local agencies are not going to send their resources to assist the border patrol. Not gonna happen. We have daily missions in our own jurisdictions to deal with. That would be a political firestorm when local PDs and Sheriffs start patrolling the border. Politically and logistically it would never happen.

Tater · July 04, 2009, 04:38:19 PM

Been flying the border mission for at least 15 years and I gotta say that currently it could be a model for the type of interagency cooperation that heliodoc is lamenting about. It is a great program and apparently effective. Lots of good flying, interaction with crews from other areas. A very professionally executed mission that I am very proud to be a part of. I can't wait to see what Bosshawk referred to as a similar mission in another location.

JohnKachenmeister · July 04, 2009, 04:58:24 PM

Obviously, Heliodoc missed my point. Let me try to make it clearer:

1. 1942-1945: CAP flies border patrol missions looking for Nazi infiltrators. I do not know how to tell a Nazi from a Republican from 1000 feet AGL, so, obviously, ALL activity must be reported to ground operators with guns. They sort out the Nazis from lost-in-the-desert birdwatchers. This was done in 1930's-1940's vintage aircraft. 5 or 6 round dial instruments, a map, and (sometimes) a primitive radio.

2. 2009: Aircraft now have superior radios, GPS systems, VOR's, official CAP markings, better engines, longer endurance, and more cabin comfort. So... WHY could we not perform the same mission that was performed 70 years ago, this time with far better equipment?

Of course, the answer is that there is NO reason that such a mission cannot be performed by CAP. Absolutely none. Not a violation of Posse Commitatus, can be performed in our Air Force role. Does not involve actual combat. No CAP person is arresting anyone. That is being done, as it should be, by the Border Patrol.

So, why should we leave this mission to the "Paid Professionals?"

Flying Pig · July 05, 2009, 01:42:53 AM

I am one of those CAPers doing just as you have explained. I don't think its that we cant do it, but back in the days of the costal watchers, CAP and their military counterparts all had the same equipment, and for the most part, all used the MK1 Eyeball on a shoulder mounted gimbal. No-a-days, CAP is still using the eyeball, and our counterparts are using Night Vision, Thermal, UAVs and a whole host of other gadgets. Although, I will say, the Border Patrol is still flying the Piper Super Cub on the border at 500ft.
But, as you say, there is no reason CAP cant still do the mission. Your argument, Jack, s very valid because we are doing the exact mission you have described, and doing it well and often in my neck of the woods.

RiverAux · July 05, 2009, 02:23:57 AM

Its sort of a shame that we're not actually getting credit for it, just like we never got any credit for CAP's coastal patrol service in WWII. Its not like its a secret (TP testified about it before Congress), but it sure doesn't get much attention from our public affairs folks -- and I presume that is at the request of the requesting agencies.