I was over at CAPBLOG (www.capblog.typepad.com) and was reading the postings and reply from the director of CAP-USAF to some very good questions.
Did you know that Congress (the dunderheads) changed the language of the public law that established us as the permanent auxiliary of the United States Air Force. Now we are the "temporary auxiliary" of the United States Air Force when engaged in AF sponsored or santioned activities or missions.
It kind of puts things into perspective now. The new CAP Distinctive Uniform, the ID Card issue (If you look at the approved design the CAP MAJCOM Patch no longer says United States Air Force Auxiliary, but Civil Air Patrol).
I foresee changes coming....many changes. Some good, some bad. We'll see.
Since we're now only the auxiliary of the AF on AF assigned missions, it gives us a lot more lattitude in doing CD type missions. Before when were officially "the military," the posse comitatus laws applied to us all the time. Now, if our customer is a sherrif's dept, DEA, etc we can do survelliance in addition to reconaisance.
I'm sure this also has ramnifications in fundraising, getting corporate sponsorship, etc...
Overall, I think there are more ups than downs to this. I think we'll always have a close relationship to the USAF....and the history and relationships built during the 5 decades of being a part of the AF won't just evaporate....so, I think we'll be ok.
I wish that I could respond to that news with such optimism. We had enough problems with funding and support as the full aux, now we're only temporary? We may have a historic relation to the USAF, but we may have to fight for that relationship soon... even if it does mean that we advance in other areas (Like actually doing missions)
You know, I really have my doubts as to our actual status. I don't think that any attempt to simply "get rid of us" is going to go over well, least of all with the USAF. If we're gone, then they lose their free SAR services, and have to do it themselves.
I'm guessing that the wording is just that: wording. I don't honestly think that there's any ominous meaning behind it. Maybe that's just me being optomistic, but you have to admit, the USAF would be pretty screwed in more than one area if they lost us. SAR, USAF recruiting ports, homeland security, etc.
Quote from: ande.boyer on April 06, 2006, 09:46:01 PM
Before when were officially "the military," the posse comitatus laws applied to us all the time. Now, if our customer is a sherrif's dept, DEA, etc we can do survelliance in addition to reconaisance.
What kind of other stuff would this apply to? Im not all that familiar with the Posse Com. What would we be able to do now that we couldnt before? (other than as you said survelliance)
Yes, spot on.
And this information should not be treated as new information. It was done ages ago for legal clarifiation.
Our charter both enables and limits our role in the grand scheme. Depending on where your personal desire for a given activity lies, we are either above or below the curve.
What will be interesting to see is how the President's legal counsel's indication that Posse Com might not apply could effect our tasking.
Not that I am excited about getting overly involved with LEA's. Cops don't make enough money, but at least they get paid for the risk. Association with an LEA brings with it risks many of our members may not be interested in assuming.
Even "guarding" a downed airplane, vs "observing" it brings with it additional responsibility and liability when some yo-yo decide he wants to enter the the crash zone, and its CAP's job to stop him. (if things changed)
I do think that many more changes are in the works, and they may not be pleasant. Bigger budget cuts, fewer AFRCC assigned missions and less direct support from the AF. Look at the mission trend of the AF and you can see the same thing. The Air Force is receiving less money, they have Commissioned fewer Officers and they have been lowering their enlistment goals each year for the past five years. It makes perfect sense for them to dump a program that costs them nearly 23-30 Million a year. They have already decided not to fund the DDR program of units that fall outside a 30 mile radius of Air Force Facilities. Even then, there has to be dependants of Air Force personnel at that CAP unit within the 30 mile radius, if that unit wants money or equipment.
I would seriously like to know who proposed the change in the Public Law relating to CAP. I bet it was some Senator or Representative that had a Felony and could not become a CAP Member.
.
Quote from: mikeylikey on April 07, 2006, 07:19:57 PM
I would seriously like to know who proposed the change in the Public Law relating to CAP. I bet it was some Senator or Representative that had a Felony and could not become a CAP Member.
What was proposed?
NOTHING WAS PROPOSED!!!!
Guys, READ THE WHOLE THREAD and the references.
This is a reference to legislation which was changed ages ago to adjust our status
from full-time auxilary to part-time (meaning only during AFAMs).
Nothing to see here, move along
I meant to add this a while ago. I guess that's what I get for spending so much time between work and school...
Quote from: Major_Chuck on April 06, 2006, 12:35:07 PM
Did you know that Congress...changed the language of the public law that established us as the permanent auxiliary of the United States Air Force.
I remember hearing about it when it happened in 2000. I haven't given it a second thought since.
Quote from: Major_Chuck on April 06, 2006, 12:35:07 PM
It kind of puts things into perspective now. The new CAP Distinctive Uniform, the ID Card issue (If you look at the approved design the CAP MAJCOM Patch no longer says United States Air Force Auxiliary, but Civil Air Patrol).
Not really. It's old news...over five years old in fact.
Quote from: Major_Chuck on April 06, 2006, 12:35:07 PM
I foresee changes coming....many changes. Some good, some bad. We'll see.
I doubt we'll see any significant change as a result of this that we haven't already seen.
Now...is there any
real news about CAP out there?
May not have been real CAP news to you but it was to me and obviously many others as well.
Quote from: shorning on April 09, 2006, 08:30:00 AM
I meant to add this a while ago. I guess that's what I get for spending so much time between work and school...
Quote from: Major_Chuck on April 06, 2006, 12:35:07 PM
Did you know that Congress...changed the language of the public law that established us as the permanent auxiliary of the United States Air Force.
I remember hearing about it when it happened in 2000. I haven't given it a second thought since.
Quote from: Major_Chuck on April 06, 2006, 12:35:07 PM
It kind of puts things into perspective now. The new CAP Distinctive Uniform, the ID Card issue (If you look at the approved design the CAP MAJCOM Patch no longer says United States Air Force Auxiliary, but Civil Air Patrol).
Not really. It's old news...over five years old in fact.
Quote from: Major_Chuck on April 06, 2006, 12:35:07 PM
I foresee changes coming....many changes. Some good, some bad. We'll see.
I doubt we'll see any significant change as a result of this that we haven't already seen.
Now...is there any real news about CAP out there?
Quote from: Major_Chuck on April 10, 2006, 10:49:18 AM
May not have been real CAP news to you but it was to me and obviously many others as well.
How is it "news" if it happened in 2000? Maybe people weren't paying attention, or they forgot, or they've recently joined, but that doesn't make it news. It just shows a lack of awareness.
Quote from: shorning on April 10, 2006, 10:59:53 AM
Quote from: Major_Chuck on April 10, 2006, 10:49:18 AM
May not have been real CAP news to you but it was to me and obviously many others as well.
How is it "news" if it happened in 2000? Maybe people weren't paying attention, or they forgot, or they've recently joined, but that doesn't make it news. It just shows a lack of awareness.
Doesn't have to be current to be news. Not everyone reads the language in appropriation bills and the 'news' part could be perceived as how uninformed many of us were about the change. I know many people that still assume that we are the "Auxiliary, United States Air Force". National still bills us out as this and if you look at all of our promotional literature they make reference to this.
Not everyone is going to monitor or read the language in legislation that effects us. NHQ should have gotten the word out and began an active campaign to correct the misconceptions that we are not like the Coast Guard Auxiliary that has a closer relationship with their parent service then we do with ours.
The 'news' part of it for 2006 would have to be how unaware much of the membership in CAP actually is when it comes to legislative matters and affairs. Sadly that only reflects how much the general public knows about what our elected officials at every level are actually doing.