Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 21, 2018, 02:41:04 AM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: CAP and Why We are Civilian
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All] Print
Author Topic: CAP and Why We are Civilian  (Read 6152 times)
francisderosa16
Recruit

Posts: 40

« on: July 01, 2018, 05:04:15 PM »

Hello,

I have the theory of why CAP is Civilian. It could be because the Military can't deploy on US soil, [except: National and Air National Guard].  Keeping CAP Civilian, [which military is non-civilian], allows a "form" of troops to deploy on US soil, considering CAP is not part of the military.

This is my theory, if I'm wrong, tell me, or feel free to add on.

HAPPY FOURTH!!!

V/R
Cadet Airman
DeRosa
 M.
Francis
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,221

« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2018, 05:16:19 PM »

Quote
de·ploy

verb
move (troops or equipment) into position for military action.

So that would be a negative to your idea. CAP will not "deploy" for military action of any kind.

We search for missing folks, sometimes with planes and ground teams. More often than not it seems we do it in front of computer screens with cell phone forensics.

We take purdy pictures for FEMA.

Etc., etc.

If you want to "deploy" .... there are recruiters who would love to talk with you.  :)
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
CAP9907
Member

Posts: 67
Unit: NER-000

« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2018, 05:20:31 PM »

It certainly does not allow a ‘form of troops’ or anything remotely connected for any ‘deployment’ in the CONUS or anywhere else for that matter.. 

Logged
16 yrs of service
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,946

« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2018, 05:32:19 PM »

CAP is a civilian service because that's how it was chartered.
Logged


Pace
CAPTalk Moderator
Dark S'Member Lord
*
Posts: 716

« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2018, 06:48:07 PM »

Just gonna throw these sound bites out there guys:


Be nice.
Teaching moment.
Lead by example.
Logged
Lt Col, CAP
Former C/Lt Col
Former this & that
Squadron guy
OldGuy
Seasoned Member

Posts: 437
Unit: TBKS

« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2018, 09:05:11 PM »

We started civilian, we are civilian we are likely always to be civilian. You are overthinking this.
Logged
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,650

« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2018, 11:51:23 PM »

Hello,

I have the theory of why CAP is Civilian. It could be because the Military can't deploy on US soil, [except: National and Air National Guard].  Keeping CAP Civilian, [which military is non-civilian], allows a "form" of troops to deploy on US soil, considering CAP is not part of the military.

This is my theory, if I'm wrong, tell me, or feel free to add on.

HAPPY FOURTH!!!

V/R
Cadet Airman
DeRosa
 M.
Francis
First.......we are civilian because we are civilian...that is not members of the military.   Second.....who says the Military can't deploy on U.S. Soil?   
Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
Pace
CAPTalk Moderator
Dark S'Member Lord
*
Posts: 716

« Reply #7 on: July 02, 2018, 12:03:23 AM »

I'm going to try this again.

Be nice.
Teaching moment.
Lead by example.
Logged
Lt Col, CAP
Former C/Lt Col
Former this & that
Squadron guy
Brad
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 802
Unit: MER-SC-020

« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2018, 12:54:16 AM »

We're civilian because we always have been, and that's what the primary nature of our missions have been.

Quote
The Civil Air Patrol was conceived in the late 1930s by aviation advocate Gill Robb Wilson, who foresaw general aviation's potential to supplement America's military operations. With the help of New York Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia, in his capacity as then-Director of the Office of Civilian Defense, CAP was created with Administrative Order 9, signed by LaGuardia on 1 December 1941 and published 8 December 1941.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Air_Patrol#History

The military accomplishes its own objectives perfectly fine, but sometimes due to a variety of things such as cost, manpower, etc., some of those lesser objectives can be more readily accomplished through the use of "force multipliers" such as CAP to assist the military in training operations and non-combative operations such as SAR.
Logged
Brad Lee
Maj, CAP
Assistant Director of Communications
SCWG
K4RMN
Holding Pattern
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,273
Unit: Worry

« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2018, 01:53:27 AM »

If you think the military can't deploy on US soil, please kindly read up on the DSCA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Support_of_Civil_authorities

See also FEMA IS-75:Military Resources in Emergency Management
https://training.fema.gov/is/courseoverview.aspx?code=is-75
See also in there the notes on military auxiliaries.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2018, 02:02:14 AM by Holding Pattern » Logged
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,395

« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2018, 10:10:37 AM »

Making CAP a military force would reduce the size of the corps. The military employs numerous processes for the recruiting and acquisition of personnel that CAP just cannot afford to implement without a major loss of its members.

CAP is a cost effective alternative to combat air and ground power being used for domestic incidents. If it were a military force, that cost effectiveness would greatly diminish.

Logged
francisderosa16
Recruit

Posts: 40

« Reply #11 on: July 02, 2018, 10:36:00 AM »

Hello,

I have the theory of why CAP is Civilian. It could be because the Military can't deploy on US soil, [except: National and Air National Guard].  Keeping CAP Civilian, [which military is non-civilian], allows a "form" of troops to deploy on US soil, considering CAP is not part of the military.

This is my theory, if I'm wrong, tell me, or feel free to add on.

HAPPY FOURTH!!!

V/R
Cadet Airman
DeRosa
 M.
Francis
First.......we are civilian because we are civilian...that is not members of the military.   Second.....who says the Military can't deploy on U.S. Soil?   

The "Posse Comitatus act" prevents military troops deploying on US soil.
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,664

« Reply #12 on: July 02, 2018, 10:52:22 AM »

Did you read the actual act? I suggest you read it before you continue citing it. There are provisions in the Posse Comitatus Act which will allow the military to support, and in fact has been used by a President despite the act. To wit, President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas in support of school desegregation despite the Posse Comitatus Act.

Also look at the Enforcement Acts.


Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
lordmonar
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 10,650

« Reply #13 on: July 02, 2018, 10:58:27 AM »

Hello,

I have the theory of why CAP is Civilian. It could be because the Military can't deploy on US soil, [except: National and Air National Guard].  Keeping CAP Civilian, [which military is non-civilian], allows a "form" of troops to deploy on US soil, considering CAP is not part of the military.

This is my theory, if I'm wrong, tell me, or feel free to add on.

HAPPY FOURTH!!!

V/R
Cadet Airman
DeRosa
 M.
Francis
First.......we are civilian because we are civilian...that is not members of the military.   Second.....who says the Military can't deploy on U.S. Soil?   

The "Posse Comitatus act" prevents military troops deploying on US soil.
No.....Posse Comitatus prevents Federal Military Troops to be used to enforce policy with in the united states.   Does not prevent them from being deployed or to be used in other capacities.
And in regards to CAP and being civilians to circumvent that......Posse comitatus does apply to CAP.   We hacked this one out many many many many many (ad nauseam) here on CAPTALK.
Logged
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP
Pacific Region
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,946

« Reply #14 on: July 02, 2018, 11:08:30 AM »

Posse comitatus does apply to CAP. 

Maybe, no, does it?

NHQ generally holds that it does, until it's convenient to argue that it doesn't, and then it doesn't, at
least in not in regards to CAP acting as a Corporate entity.
Logged


etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,221

« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2018, 11:59:20 AM »

Isn't simply wearing a uniform that closely resembles the AF enough for some folks? Do they really dream of being "deployed" so they can see some "action"?  Why can't everyone simply understand that, uniforms or not, we are simply a group of civilian volunteers?

Has it always been this way, or has the recent advertising campaigns of "Total Force" just confused some? Maybe the top brass at the AF should weigh in and remind us of our civilian status.

(Yes, I thought I would be the first to bring up uniforms as a way to sidetrack the thread. ;) )
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,946

« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2018, 12:25:02 PM »

It has always been this way, people get themselves wrapped around the axle about PC and
CAP's status in general, and in this case, as Pace pointed out, we're talking about a new cadet, so
it's possible the message received during recruiting, or even during meetings isn't "optimal".
Logged


abdsp51
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,559
Unit: Classified

« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2018, 12:29:10 PM »

Posse Commitatus prevents the use of federal troops to emforce laws.  This came about after the end of the Civil War.   It doesn't apply to the Coast Guard since they are considered LEOs.

The military can be deployed on US soil and be used to enforce laws under the "Absolute Martial Law".  And I believe that the only branh of the military Posse Commitatus doesn't/didn't apply was the USMC. 

Now since CAP doesn't fall under the DoD spectrum per say I don't believe that PC would apply though I'm sure Col Lee would be able to provide more insight into the legalese.
Logged
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,208

« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2018, 12:34:31 PM »

Hello,

I have the theory of why CAP is Civilian. It could be because the Military can't deploy on US soil, [except: National and Air National Guard].  Keeping CAP Civilian, [which military is non-civilian], allows a "form" of troops to deploy on US soil, considering CAP is not part of the military.

This is my theory, if I'm wrong, tell me, or feel free to add on.

HAPPY FOURTH!!!

V/R
Cadet Airman
DeRosa
 M.
Francis
First.......we are civilian because we are civilian...that is not members of the military.   Second.....who says the Military can't deploy on U.S. Soil?   

The "Posse Comitatus act" prevents military troops deploying on US soil.


Posse Comitatus only applies to troops under FEDERAL control. National Guard troops under State Control are not subject to it.
And it only governs if the military can be used for law enforcement purposes. Like preventing looting and enforcing mandatory evacuations and such.
CAP operating on an Air Force Assigned Mission are probably (legal opinions differ) subject to it, but CAP operating on a "Corporate" mission for a state or local government is probably not subject to it.
There has been some legal back and forth about this over the years.
Logged
Blanding
Recruit

Posts: 33
Unit: MER-VA-102

« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2018, 02:52:54 PM »

Now since CAP doesn't fall under the DoD spectrum per say I don't believe that PC would apply though I'm sure Col Lee would be able to provide more insight into the legalese.

There's really no "per se" in that sentence.

Quote from: CAP Constitution and Bylaws
Civil Air Patrol is a private, nonprofit corporation chartered under special Act of Congress, 36 USC §§
40301 - 40307, which sets forth the purposes, rights, and duties of the Civil Air Patrol.

The objects and purposes of Civil Air Patrol shall be:
a. To provide an organization to encourage and aid American citizens in the contribution of their
efforts, services, and resources in the development of aviation and in the maintenance of aerospace
supremacy.
b. To provide an organization to encourage and develop, by example, the voluntary contribution of
private citizens to the public welfare.
c. To provide aviation and aerospace education and training, especially to its senior and cadet
members.
d. To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities.
e. To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate facilities to assist in meeting local
and national emergencies.
f. To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its noncombat programs and missions.

Source: https://www.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/CAP_Constitution_Bylaws_4BC09E935985F.pdf

Everyone say it together: CAP is a nonprofit corporation that sometimes provides assistance to other organizations.
Logged
MSG Mac
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,903
Unit: MER-MD-071

« Reply #20 on: July 02, 2018, 03:31:57 PM »

Posse Comitatus Act. The Posse Comitatus Act is the United States federal law that was passed on June 18, 1878, after the end of Reconstruction and was updated in 1981. Its intent was to limit the powers of Federal government in using federal military personnel to enforce the State laws.

As has been pointed out there have been exceptions to the law, including the Little Rock school desegregation. the Governor refused to have the Police or NG to assist so President Eisenhower sent a unit of the 101st
Airborne.
But there are numerous examples of federal troops being deployed to assist during National Disasters. Including Hurricane Katrina/Rita, Mississippi  river flooding, earthquakes, etc.
Logged
Michael P. McEleney
Lt Col CAP
MSG USA (Retired)
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 807
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2018, 01:12:05 AM »

Isn't simply wearing a uniform that closely resembles the AF enough for some folks? Do they really dream of being "deployed" so they can see some "action"?  Why can't everyone simply understand that, uniforms or not, we are simply a group of civilian volunteers?

Has it always been this way, or has the recent advertising campaigns of "Total Force" just confused some? Maybe the top brass at the AF should weigh in and remind us of our civilian status.

(Yes, I thought I would be the first to bring up uniforms as a way to sidetrack the thread. ;) )

I don’t know about “always,” but I remember when an earthquake struck Managua, Nicaragua in 1972.

What followed was known in some circles as “The Managua Disaster Disaster.”

Latrine-o-grams were circulating like crazy regarding CAP. Such as CAP being “mobilized” for assignments in Nicaragua to unload C-130s full of supplies.

Even better - rumors that CAP members were being mobilized to receive “emergency field training” as “assistant loadmasters” and CAP multi-engine rated pilots being mobilized to serve as “crew relief co-pilots.”

All of this was supposedly due to military resources being stretched thin in Vietnam.

Just as one ludicrous rumor would be put to bed, another would arise.

Good times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
supertigerCH
Forum Regular

Posts: 137

« Reply #22 on: August 30, 2018, 08:05:59 PM »

Hello,

I have the theory of why CAP is Civilian. It could be because the Military can't deploy on US soil, [except: National and Air National Guard].


can't deploy on U.S. soil...

except for...

1776 - 1783 -- Revolutionary War
War of 1812
1846 - 1848 -- Mexican War
1860 - 1865 -- Civil War
late 1700's - early 1900's  -- Various Wars with Native Americans in U.S. states & territories... (also while expanding into/settling the west)
1932 -- during the Great Depression years... against American Veterans ("Bonus Army" incident)
1957 -- 101st Airborne sent to Little Rock Arkansas... to have schools comply with new laws requiring racial integration


Did i miss any?   ;D 




Logged
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,124
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #23 on: August 30, 2018, 09:29:19 PM »

Hello,

I have the theory of why CAP is Civilian. It could be because the Military can't deploy on US soil, [except: National and Air National Guard].


can't deploy on U.S. soil...

except for...

1776 - 1783 -- Revolutionary War
War of 1812
1846 - 1848 -- Mexican War
1860 - 1865 -- Civil War
late 1700's - early 1900's  -- Various Wars with Native Americans in U.S. states & territories... (also while expanding into/settling the west)
1932 -- during the Great Depression years... against American Veterans ("Bonus Army" incident)
1957 -- 101st Airborne sent to Little Rock Arkansas... to have schools comply with new laws requiring racial integration


Did i miss any?   ;D

Meaning, any after 1878 that apply?   ::)


Logged
Nick
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 518
Unit: SWR-TX-001

« Reply #24 on: August 30, 2018, 10:02:52 PM »

So there’s 10 USC 9442...

Quote
(a)Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary.—
The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.

(b)Use by Air Force.—
(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may use the services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat programs and missions of the Department of the Air Force.
(2) The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the United States with respect to any act or omission of the Civil Air Patrol, including any member of the Civil Air Patrol, in carrying out a mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force.

When that “instrumentality of the United States” switch gets flipped (e.g., in an A or B mission status), the Posse Comitatus restriction kicks in. See any 1 AF legal brief in the last 5 years for more information.

When in a corporate status, it’s a non-starting issue because there is no USG affiliation for the work CAP is performing.
Logged
Nicholas McLarty, Lt Col, CAP
Texas Wing Staff Guy
National Cadet Team Guy
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,221

« Reply #25 on: August 30, 2018, 10:13:11 PM »



Quote
(a)Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary.—
The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.


^^^ Emphasis mine.

When most folks say it they just say "auxiliary of the Air Force" ... when in reality they should say volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force

.. but that doesn't fit what they want into say. LOL
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,946

« Reply #26 on: August 30, 2018, 10:36:04 PM »

The proper term is "Air Force Auxiliary" - it's right there on both the seal and the new 2018 insignia.

Forcing "volunteer civilian" or anything else into the verbiage shows it's own slant.

If people ask "what that means?" then explain.
Logged


DakRadz
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,364

« Reply #27 on: August 30, 2018, 11:29:44 PM »



Quote
(a)Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary.—
The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of the Federal Government.


^^^ Emphasis mine.

When most folks say it they just say "auxiliary of the Air Force" ... when in reality they should say volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force

.. but that doesn't fit what they want into say. LOL

I usually lead with the civilian portion. While not as prevalent here in the MidWest BooniesTM, it does help with the wide eyed look resulting from a parent assuming I am conscripting their 12 year old into military service. (And yes, I've several of those anecdotal incidents to learn how phrasing helps)
Logged
etodd
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,221

« Reply #28 on: August 31, 2018, 12:12:14 AM »


I usually lead with the civilian portion. While not as prevalent here in the MidWest BooniesTM, it does help with the wide eyed look resulting from a parent assuming I am conscripting their 12 year old into military service. (And yes, I've several of those anecdotal incidents to learn how phrasing helps)

For sure.  I can talk to new folks, about Civil Air Patrol and what we do, for hours, and never even mention the Air Force. Its like an after-thought, if I ever mention it at all.
Logged
MS - MO - AP - MP - FRO
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,395

« Reply #29 on: August 31, 2018, 10:38:03 AM »


I usually lead with the civilian portion. While not as prevalent here in the MidWest BooniesTM, it does help with the wide eyed look resulting from a parent assuming I am conscripting their 12 year old into military service. (And yes, I've several of those anecdotal incidents to learn how phrasing helps)

For sure.  I can talk to new folks, about Civil Air Patrol and what we do, for hours, and never even mention the Air Force. Its like an after-thought, if I ever mention it at all.

That's the biggest recruiting ploy there is: "We're the Auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force. :clap: " (self applause)

More accurate:
"The CAP Cadet Program is a youth leadership program which uses of a variety of aerospace and military-style training elements to develop teens to become active, responsible members of their community."

From the Cadet Program standpoint, the Air Force provides training opportunities and experiences, but cadets really do not serve under the Air Force aside from being part of the aerospace education mission.

The senior member side is a totally different ballgame in their affiliation with the Air Force as they serve in a more direct support capacity. I would consider this to include cadets that have various qualifications that allow them to participate in that capacity, but that's not really in the overall realm of the Cadet Program curricula; it's an add-on. Keep in mind that CAP Emergency Services is not always performing support for the Air Force. There are a number of state and local functions that may have similarities, but they are not tasks that would otherwise be assigned to the Air Force if CAP weren't performing them.
Logged
waukwiz
Member

Posts: 70
Unit: GLR-WI-048

« Reply #30 on: September 01, 2018, 02:06:18 PM »

"volunteer civilian auxiliary" seems kind of redundant, aren't auxiliaries by nature "voluntary" and "civilian"?
Logged
Cadet Cullen Mayes
Waukesha Composite Squadron
"Ok, how about instead of doing that, let's not do that. Ok?"
The senseless drivel in this post is Copyright © 2017 by waukwiz. All parking spots are reserved. Vague and confusing permission is given to quote this post anywhere except CAP-Talk only.
jeders
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,091

« Reply #31 on: September 01, 2018, 03:13:56 PM »

"volunteer civilian auxiliary" seems kind of redundant, aren't auxiliaries by nature "voluntary" and "civilian"?

From Wikipedia:

Quote
An auxiliary force is an organized group supplementing but not directly incorporated in a regular military or police entity. It may comprise either civilian volunteers undertaking support functions or additional personnel directly performing military or police duties, usually on a part-time basis.

Historically the designation "auxiliary" has also been given to foreign or allied troops in the service of a nation at war
Logged
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,985

« Reply #32 on: September 01, 2018, 11:27:50 PM »

See CAPR 900-3, para. 3

Since my cadet days in the 1970s, the Posse Comitatus Act has always been cited by National and CAP-USAF as the reason behind the prohibitions and limitations listed in this regulation.
Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,401
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #33 on: September 02, 2018, 12:47:20 PM »

See CAPR 900-3, para. 3

Since my cadet days in the 1970s, the Posse Comitatus Act has always been cited by National and CAP-USAF as the reason behind the prohibitions and limitations listed in this regulation.

It goes back to the 1960s for me.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,946

« Reply #34 on: September 02, 2018, 01:22:06 PM »

The PCA is frequently cited as the "Reason®" CAP can't do this, that, or the other, but
it's, IMHO, generally misinterpreted, or "flexible" when necessary (i.e. CD flights).  There are plenty
of ways to characterize a given task or mission to take it out of LE and into HLS or SAR.

"Reconnaissance" vs. "surveillance", for example.

But the reality is that those writing the regs had the good sense to understand that CAP members, per se,
aren't remotely prepared for the ramifications of becoming involved with law enforcement on anything
but the most peripheral level.

When you see how far off the rails some members can take basic, clear regulations about normal ops,
just imagine the "fun" having an LE mission would entail.

I'd give CAP 6 months to a year of that before the whole thing was shut down either by the DOJ or civil courts.
Logged


PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,208

« Reply #35 on: September 02, 2018, 01:38:08 PM »

As per AFI 10-2701, 7 AUGUST 2018

2.2.2.1. Limitations. Flight operations during Air Force-assigned missions performed by
Civil Air Patrol are subject to Federal Aviation Administration regulations and directives.
Air Force-assigned missions performed by Civil Air Patrol in support of other federal
agencies do not involve the targeting or surveillance of persons, groups of persons,
buildings, or vehicles, unless specifically permitted by Air Force-assigned mission
approval authority. Civil Air Patrol is not an intelligence gathering organization, has no
assigned intelligence mission, and does not engage in intelligence activities. Civil Air
Patrol members are not assigned activities prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Act.


Emphasis mine.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,946

« Reply #36 on: September 02, 2018, 01:46:59 PM »

This is what 18 U.S. Code § 1385 actually says:

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the
Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."


When is CAP "part of the Air Force"?

1AF makes it clear it's only on their missions, so the other 99% of the year, PCA doesn't apply, which
is why you still need the internal CAP regs prohibiting LE activities.

Logged


PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,208

« Reply #37 on: September 02, 2018, 03:43:13 PM »

AFI 10-2701 is the governing reg for CAP when we are performing an Air Force assigned mission.
The federal law you quoted applies the rest of the time.

You were at Katrina, do you really want to perform law enforcement functions in an environment like that?
« Last Edit: September 02, 2018, 03:47:50 PM by PHall » Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,946

« Reply #38 on: September 02, 2018, 03:47:58 PM »

You were at Katrina, do you really want to perform law enforcement functions in an environment like that?

I don't want to do anything LE-related period, especially in a CAP uniforms,
but Katrina is a fine example of a "double-NOPE".

This issue isn't wanting to or not, it's that PCA is used an the excuse as to why a given mission
isn't accepted, or silliness like removing USAF Aux from the tails (now going back on), etc., when in
fact it's not really a CAP-issue.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2018, 03:52:24 PM by Eclipse » Logged


Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 807
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #39 on: September 02, 2018, 06:04:05 PM »

AFI 10-2701 is the governing reg for CAP when we are performing an Air Force assigned mission.
The federal law you quoted applies the rest of the time.

You were at Katrina, do you really want to perform law enforcement functions in an environment like that?

Way, way, way back, in the 60's, whether or not the Posse Comitatus Act NEEDED to be mentioned much, it was frequently referenced as the justification for not "guarding" aircraft at airshows, or guarding crash sites. There were a lot of anecdotes about matters escalating to the point of physical contact, sometimes ending with "citizen's arrests." Those were sometimes followed by lawsuits, which put CAP Inc. in a weird place, it's members having invented authority in some cases, or having been actually deputized in others.

The easy solution was to simply say "Nuh-uh! Posse Comitatus!  You/We can't do that!"

(I wouldn't be surprised to hear that was how CAP acquired a TWELFTH General Order, to accompany the original 11 (at the time; I think only the Marines have kept all 11, the Army went to 3 sometime in the 60's or 70's and I have no idea what anybody uses now).  That 12th General Order was "To use no force or show of force in the execution of my duties").
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,946

« Reply #40 on: September 02, 2018, 06:26:40 PM »

Way, way, way back, in the 60's, whether or not the Posse Comitatus Act NEEDED to be mentioned much, it was frequently referenced as the justification for not "guarding" aircraft at airshows, or guarding crash sites. There were a lot of anecdotes about matters escalating to the point of physical contact, sometimes ending with "citizen's arrests." Those were sometimes followed by lawsuits, which put CAP Inc. in a weird place, it's members having invented authority in some cases, or having been actually deputized in others.

The easy solution was to simply say "Nuh-uh! Posse Comitatus!  You/We can't do that!"

I understand why the ruse might be needed - anyone Whacker enough to belive they could be "deputized",
or that even if they could it's a good idea, might need some fancy-sounding Latin to slow their roll,
but those with common sense would know they aren't LE, regardless, and wouldn't want to be mistaken as such.

Despite this, there's plenty of airshows that indicate CAP members will "secure" aircraft, flight lines, etc.
Because people like the way that sounds, despite the knowledge that an 8-year-old can kick them in the shins
and run into the plane they are "securing".

(I wouldn't be surprised to hear that was how CAP acquired a TWELFTH General Order, to accompany the original 11 (at the time; I think only the Marines have kept all 11, the Army went to 3 sometime in the 60's or 70's and I have no idea what anybody uses now).  That 12th General Order was "To use no force or show of force in the execution of my duties").

CAP General what now?
Logged


Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 807
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #41 on: September 02, 2018, 06:34:42 PM »

Way, way, way back, in the 60's, whether or not the Posse Comitatus Act NEEDED to be mentioned much, it was frequently referenced as the justification for not "guarding" aircraft at airshows, or guarding crash sites. There were a lot of anecdotes about matters escalating to the point of physical contact, sometimes ending with "citizen's arrests." Those were sometimes followed by lawsuits, which put CAP Inc. in a weird place, it's members having invented authority in some cases, or having been actually deputized in others.

The easy solution was to simply say "Nuh-uh! Posse Comitatus!  You/We can't do that!"

I understand why the ruse might be needed - anyone Whacker enough to belive they could be "deputized",
or that even if they could it's a good idea, might need some fancy-sounding Latin to slow their roll,
but those with common sense would know they aren't LE, regardless, and wouldn't want to be mistaken as such.

Despite this, there's plenty of airshows that indicate CAP members will "secure" aircraft, flight lines, etc.
Because people like the way that sounds, despite the knowledge that an 8-year-old can kick them in the shins
and run into the plane they are "securing".

(I wouldn't be surprised to hear that was how CAP acquired a TWELFTH General Order, to accompany the original 11 (at the time; I think only the Marines have kept all 11, the Army went to 3 sometime in the 60's or 70's and I have no idea what anybody uses now).  That 12th General Order was "To use no force or show of force in the execution of my duties").

CAP General what now?

The 12 General Orders.  They WERE a real thing. Feel free to look them up in your CAPM 50-3. 
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,946

« Reply #42 on: September 02, 2018, 06:39:16 PM »

The 12 General Orders.  They WERE a real thing. Feel free to look them up in your CAPM 50-3.

Yes, were.  I get it, but when you drop stuff like that without a "used to have", it gets into the Zeitgeist
and starts to show up in other places.

We should start the pool and see which encampment or NCSA sees them first in FY2019.
Logged


xyzzy
Recruit

Posts: 8

« Reply #43 on: September 02, 2018, 07:34:49 PM »

I understand why the ruse might be needed - anyone Whacker enough to belive they could be "deputized",
or that even if they could it's a good idea, might need some fancy-sounding Latin to slow their roll,
but those with common sense would know they aren't LE, regardless, and wouldn't want to be mistaken as such....

To an EMT like me, the general idea of being deputized doesn't seem the least bit whacker. Every time I hold a drunk driver still while the cop puts the cuffs on, or transport a drunk driver in an ambulance while the cop follows in her cruiser, I've been "deputized". (In my state, there's no ceremony; the officer asks for help, and you do it.)

R900_3 is really quite confusing. It presents itself as a regulation of a not-for-profit organization, and as such, it's trumped by state law. But, at least in some situations, it's the Posse Comitatus Act that's operative. Since that's a federal law, it trumps state law. But the CAP member who only reads R900_3 wouldn't know about the Posse Comitatus Act.

Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,401
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #44 on: September 02, 2018, 07:45:24 PM »

That 12th General Order was "To use no force or show of force in the execution of my duties").

That one hit the streets WIWAC. It was in CAPM 50-3, 2nd edition, 1967.
Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,946

« Reply #45 on: September 02, 2018, 09:04:31 PM »

I understand why the ruse might be needed - anyone Whacker enough to belive they could be "deputized",
or that even if they could it's a good idea, might need some fancy-sounding Latin to slow their roll,
but those with common sense would know they aren't LE, regardless, and wouldn't want to be mistaken as such....

To an EMT like me, the general idea of being deputized doesn't seem the least bit whacker. Every time I hold a drunk driver still while the cop puts the cuffs on, or transport a drunk driver in an ambulance while the cop follows in her cruiser, I've been "deputized". (In my state, there's no ceremony; the officer asks for help, and you do it.)

R900_3 is really quite confusing. It presents itself as a regulation of a not-for-profit organization, and as such, it's trumped by state law. But, at least in some situations, it's the Posse Comitatus Act that's operative. Since that's a federal law, it trumps state law. But the CAP member who only reads R900_3 wouldn't know about the Posse Comitatus Act.

There's no place to be confused as long as you don't try to make CAP something it's not.
Members only need to know about PCA as general information, since the actions it governs bind
the agencies and military, not the member per-se.

A CAP member only reading 900-3 would be fine, because regardless of PCA, the reg says a member can't be deputized,
so PCA is extraneous.  PCA may well have informed the verbiage of the reg, but it doesn't even appear there, because it
doesn't need to.

What you may, or may not be bound to do as an EMT is irrelevant  to what you may or may not do in a CAP uniform.
Being a medical professional, LEO, mandatory reporter, etc., etc., doesn't supercede CAP regs in regards to your
following them, it means that as soon as some higher authority you need to to obey kicks in, you are no
longer acting as a CAP member, nor will you be protected by the corporation.

From that point forward you're acting under whatever authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility that outside agency
affords or requires.
Logged


ironputts
Forum Regular

Posts: 157
Unit: PA-101

Lower Bucks Squadron PA101
« Reply #46 on: September 02, 2018, 09:46:16 PM »

HISTORY OF CIVIL AIR PATROL Origins/1936-1941

The origins of Civil Air Patrol date to 1936, when Gill Robb Wilson, World War I aviator and New Jersey director of aeronautics, returned from Germany convinced of impending war. Wilson envisioned mobilizing America’s civilian aviators for national defense, an idea shared by others.

In Ohio, Milton Knight, a pilot and businessman, organized and incorporated the Civilian Air Reserve (CAR) in 1938. Other military-styled civilian aviation units emerged nationwide, training for homeland defense.

 In 1941, Wilson launched his perfected program: the Civil Air Defense Services (CADS). That summer, tasked by Fiorello H. LaGuardia (New York mayor and director of the federal Office of Civilian Defense and also a World War I aviator), Wilson, publisher Thomas H. Beck and newspaperman Guy P. Gannett proposed Wilson’s CADS program as a model for organizing the nation’s civilian aviation resources.

Their proposal for a Civil Air Patrol was approved by the Commerce, Navy, and War departments in November, and CAP national headquarters opened its doors on Dec. 1, under the direction of national commander Maj. Gen. John F. Curry. Existing CADS, CAR and other flying units soon merged under the CAP banner. Public announcement of CAP and national recruiting commenced on Dec. 8.
Logged
Greg Putnam
Lt. Col., CAP
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,946

« Reply #47 on: September 02, 2018, 10:46:13 PM »

Factually correct, but what is the relevance to PCA?  Especially in light of the significant
evolution of the organization in the last 30 years?

Logged


xyzzy
Recruit

Posts: 8

« Reply #48 on: September 03, 2018, 06:49:39 AM »


There's no place to be confused as long as you don't try to make CAP something it's not.
Members only need to know about PCA as general information, since the actions it governs bind
the agencies and military, not the member per-se.

A CAP member only reading 900-3 would be fine, because regardless of PCA, the reg says a member can't be deputized,
so PCA is extraneous.  PCA may well have informed the verbiage of the reg, but it doesn't even appear there, because it
doesn't need to.

What you may, or may not be bound to do as an EMT is irrelevant  to what you may or may not do in a CAP uniform.
Being a medical professional, LEO, mandatory reporter, etc., etc., doesn't supercede CAP regs in regards to your
following them, it means that as soon as some higher authority you need to to obey kicks in, you are no
longer acting as a CAP member, nor will you be protected by the corporation.

From that point forward you're acting under whatever authority, jurisdiction, or responsibility that outside agency
affords or requires.

To the member who reads R900_3 but not PCA,it appears it's merely the regulation of a non-profit organization that prevents the member from being "deputized". Supposing the member is also aware of the law in his/her state authorizing LEOs to demand the assistance of the inhabitants, the member would naturally suppose R900_3 is superseded by the state law. But on an Air Force assigned mission, it probably isn't; PCA probably applies. Eclipse says PCA applies to organizations, not members. My understanding is PCA theoretically would punish the LEO who demanded active law enforcement help from a CAP member on an AF assigned mission*, not the CAP member who followed the LEO's order. But the CAP member would be exposed, because the CAP member would be disobeying the CAP regulation and following an illegal order.

*I've read that no one has ever been prosecuted for following PCA, but those who have been arrested by, or with the aid of, the military have used PCA to further their cause.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,946

« Reply #49 on: September 03, 2018, 09:12:52 AM »

To the member who reads R900_3 but not PCA,it appears it's merely the regulation of a non-profit organization that prevents the member from being "deputized". Supposing the member is also aware of the law in his/her state authorizing LEOs to demand the assistance of the inhabitants, the member would naturally suppose R900_3 is superseded by the state law. But on an Air Force assigned mission, it probably isn't; PCA probably applies. Eclipse says PCA applies to organizations, not members. My understanding is PCA theoretically would punish the LEO who demanded active law enforcement help from a CAP member on an AF assigned mission*, not the CAP member who followed the LEO's order. But the CAP member would be exposed, because the CAP member would be disobeying the CAP regulation and following an illegal order.

*I've read that no one has ever been prosecuted for following PCA, but those who have been arrested by, or with the aid of, the military have used PCA to further their cause.

First, where are US citizens forced to be conscripted to a posse?

Second, absent literal apocalypse, what Sheriff or LEO would ever even consider that idea?
Logged


Hawk200
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,559

« Reply #50 on: September 03, 2018, 10:01:04 AM »

First, where are US citizens forced to be conscripted to a posse?
From what I know, a person has to be in agreement with being deputized. The individual also has to put forward any issues with acting in a LE capacity. (For example, I don't believe someone with a felony record may be deputized.)

So, it can't be forced.

Second, absent literal apocalypse, what Sheriff or LEO would ever even consider that idea?
Pretty much.
Logged
xyzzy
Recruit

Posts: 8

« Reply #51 on: September 03, 2018, 02:04:01 PM »

First, where are US citizens forced to be conscripted to a posse?
From what I know, a person has to be in agreement with being deputized. The individual also has to put forward any issues with acting in a LE capacity. (For example, I don't believe someone with a felony record may be deputized.)

So, it can't be forced.

Second, absent literal apocalypse, what Sheriff or LEO would ever even consider that idea?

In my state a person who refuses to assist a LEO is subject to a fine. However, the person is not required to take excessive risk, so it would be hard to enforce.
Pretty much.
Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,946

« Reply #52 on: September 03, 2018, 02:55:40 PM »

In my state a person who refuses to assist a LEO is subject to a fine. However, the person is not required to take excessive risk, so it would be hard to enforce.
Pretty much.

Cite please.  This isn't the Seinfeld universe.
Almost every state has some "value-add" law regarding assisting a peace officer.  That's not the
same as being deputized, that's "Hey!  Stop that guy!"

Also, this went from "EMTs who must" to "a person", which is it?

This is a typical conversation where members want to conflate "edge case emergency" to "normal operations".
Logged


Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 807
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #53 on: September 03, 2018, 04:34:03 PM »

In my state a person who refuses to assist a LEO is subject to a fine. However, the person is not required to take excessive risk, so it would be hard to enforce.
Pretty much.

Cite please.  This isn't the Seinfeld universe.
Almost every state has some "value-add" law regarding assisting a peace officer.  That's not the
same as being deputized, that's "Hey!  Stop that guy!"

Also, this went from "EMTs who must" to "a person", which is it?

This is a typical conversation where members want to conflate "edge case emergency" to "normal operations".

“Being deputized” and “Hey! Stop that guy!” ARE the same thing. And it is good that it is. That way, the “stop that guy” order gives authority to the person asked to do the stopping. That’s important, because additional charges can be levied against the guy who refuses to get stopped by the “deputized” person. Also, the deputized person will receive legal protections should the matter ever get to a civil suit or the person requiring medical care.   Doctors and lawyers not being cheap, it’s nice to get the city or county to provide and/or pay for them.

You guys are making way more out of deputization than needs to be made. For long-term deputization, there are selection, training and ceremonies. But for a cop who needs help RIGHT NOW in the field, there is no oath, no ceremony, no formality, no badge. (Also no pay, no pension).

I think I invoked the state law regarding deputization maybe a half dozen times in 30 years (three of those were due to September 11, 2001).  It was NO BIG DEAL. I was careful not to deputize members of the armed forces though. And no mail carriers, either. Because the mail must get through, they are apparently exempt, as I recall from a long-ago class on this.

FWIW, here is the relevant California law:

CHAPTER 7. Other Offenses Against Public Justice [142 - 181]  ( Chapter 7 enacted 1872. )
 
150. 
Every able-bodied person above 18 years of age who neglects or refuses to join the posse comitatus or power of the county, by neglecting or refusing to aid and assist in taking or arresting any person against whom there may be issued any process, or by neglecting to aid and assist in retaking any person who, after being arrested or confined, may have escaped from arrest or imprisonment, or by neglecting or refusing to aid and assist in preventing any breach of the peace, or the commission of any criminal offense, being thereto lawfully required by any uniformed peace officer, or by any peace officer described in Section 830.1, subdivision (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), or (f) of Section 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, who identifies himself or herself with a badge or identification card issued by the officer’s employing agency, or by any judge, is punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(Amended by Stats. 1998, Ch. 760, Sec. 4. Effective January 1, 1999.)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,985

« Reply #54 on: September 03, 2018, 08:27:48 PM »

I think the key phrase here is "being there to lawfully  required ".

If a LEO tried to require the assistance of Army or Air Force personnel,  I would imagine that federal law would supersede state law.

Wouldn't that also be true for CAP members in uniform,  at least in the context of an  AFAM?
Logged
Luis R. Ramos
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,664

« Reply #55 on: September 03, 2018, 08:51:08 PM »

“Being deputized” and “Hey! Stop that guy!” ARE NOT the same thing.

Being deputized involves swearing to uphold laws, ordinances, and regulations. Involves swearing to follow officer's directives.

Stop that guy? ANYONE can yell or be the eyes and eras.

Two completely different concepts!

Otherwise we can say that anytime CAP is at an airshow manning the snow fence, we are sheriff's deputies!

Anytime someone does a CD mission, he is a deputy!

IN YOUR DREAMS!



Logged

Squadron Administrative Officer
Squadron Communication Officer
Squadron Emergency Services Officer
PHall
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 6,208

« Reply #56 on: September 03, 2018, 09:44:09 PM »

“Being deputized” and “Hey! Stop that guy!” ARE NOT the same thing.

Being deputized involves swearing to uphold laws, ordinances, and regulations. Involves swearing to follow officer's directives.

Stop that guy? ANYONE can yell or be the eyes and eras.

Two completely different concepts!

Otherwise we can say that anytime CAP is at an airshow manning the snow fence, we are sheriff's deputies!

Anytime someone does a CD mission, he is a deputy!

IN YOUR DREAMS!


Mitchell 1969 is the retired Chief of the Los Angeles World Airports Police with 30+ years of law enforcement experience.
I think he knows what he is talking about.

Logged
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 807
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #57 on: September 04, 2018, 12:36:48 AM »

“Being deputized” and “Hey! Stop that guy!” ARE NOT the same thing.

Being deputized involves swearing to uphold laws, ordinances, and regulations. Involves swearing to follow officer's directives.

Stop that guy? ANYONE can yell or be the eyes and eras.

Two completely different concepts!

Otherwise we can say that anytime CAP is at an airshow manning the snow fence, we are sheriff's deputies!

Anytime someone does a CD mission, he is a deputy!

IN YOUR DREAMS!

One more time - “being deputized” outside of some planned effort or unit does not require anyone to swear to do anything. And, the “Stop that guy!” version is enough deputization to give authority and protections to the guy who was told to do the stopping.

It isn’t like what you used to see on Hopalong Cassidy.

And, no, we can’t say that “...anytime CAP is at an airshow manning the snow fence, we are sheriffs deputies.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,395

« Reply #58 on: September 04, 2018, 10:21:55 AM »

Can we stick to present-day regulations and standards, and stop using remnants of past heraldry to suffice as active guidance?
Logged
supertigerCH
Forum Regular

Posts: 137

« Reply #59 on: September 13, 2018, 01:58:48 PM »

Hello,

I have the theory of why CAP is Civilian. It could be because the Military can't deploy on US soil, [except: National and Air National Guard].


can't deploy on U.S. soil...

except for...

1776 - 1783 -- Revolutionary War
War of 1812
1846 - 1848 -- Mexican War
1860 - 1865 -- Civil War
late 1700's - early 1900's  -- Various Wars with Native Americans in U.S. states & territories... (also while expanding into/settling the west)
1932 -- during the Great Depression years... against American Veterans ("Bonus Army" incident)
1957 -- 101st Airborne sent to Little Rock Arkansas... to have schools comply with new laws requiring racial integration


Did i miss any?   ;D

Meaning, any after 1878 that apply?   ::)


You are 100% correct, of course.

Was just laughing at the irony there.
Logged
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 807
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #60 on: September 14, 2018, 02:58:16 AM »

Can we stick to present-day regulations and standards, and stop using remnants of past heraldry to suffice as active guidance?

You lost me. What “...past heraldry...” is being invoked here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
TheSkyHornet
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,395

« Reply #61 on: September 14, 2018, 10:30:08 AM »

Can we stick to present-day regulations and standards, and stop using remnants of past heraldry to suffice as active guidance?

You lost me. What “...past heraldry...” is being invoked here?

I'm referring this comment:

Quote
Factually correct, but what is the relevance to PCA?  Especially in light of the significant evolution of the organization in the last 30 years?

But even in reference to other comments through this subject...what does a good bulk of this topic have to do with CAP? I mean, we're talking about the General Orders of the different service branches. That's not a thing in CAP. It has no relevance.

CAP has evolved significantly over time. It's pretty clear today that it does not have a military role, or law enforcement. There seems to still be a lot of "back in my day." Back in that day doesn't apply anymore. It's histories, not basis or intent for today's CAP.

I don't mean it as a snide remark or insult to anyone. But we really need to be living in the present here. ... and I've had enough of the topics about how we need to go back to x-service uniform because reasons.

I'm with Eclipse on this. What is the relevance of most of the points discussed?
Logged
Mitchell 1969
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 807
Unit: PCR-CA-051

« Reply #62 on: September 15, 2018, 02:31:10 AM »

Can we stick to present-day regulations and standards, and stop using remnants of past heraldry to suffice as active guidance?

You lost me. What “...past heraldry...” is being invoked here?

I'm referring this comment:

Quote
Factually correct, but what is the relevance to PCA?  Especially in light of the significant evolution of the organization in the last 30 years?

But even in reference to other comments through this subject...what does a good bulk of this topic have to do with CAP? I mean, we're talking about the General Orders of the different service branches. That's not a thing in CAP. It has no relevance.

CAP has evolved significantly over time. It's pretty clear today that it does not have a military role, or law enforcement. There seems to still be a lot of "back in my day." Back in that day doesn't apply anymore. It's histories, not basis or intent for today's CAP.

I don't mean it as a snide remark or insult to anyone. But we really need to be living in the present here. ... and I've had enough of the topics about how we need to go back to x-service uniform because reasons.

I'm with Eclipse on this. What is the relevance of most of the points discussed?

The “relevance” is indeed of the historical variety, perhaps in simple background.

What threw me for a loop was the objection to heraldry, which was not referenced anywhere in the thread.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged
_________________
Bernard J. Wilson, Major, CAP

Mitchell 1969; Earhart 1971; Eaker 1973. Cadet Flying Encampment, License, 1970. IACE New Zealand 1971; IACE Korea 1973.

CAP has been bery, bery good to me.
Spam
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,124
Unit: GA-001

« Reply #63 on: September 16, 2018, 01:56:37 PM »

Sidebar:

last night I was using that GTL SET designation and was reviewing a fellow member on Ground Team task O-0803 (Supervise a Site Surveillance Shift) from the Ground Team and UDF Task guide of 24MAY.

The task required "4) Knowledge of General Orders". This appears to have been a final gasp of the writers who probably were former cadets like so many of us (grin).

I stopped, checked the 2003 GTL Reference Text, Chapter 15, and it was silent on this, so I advised him to ignore the referenced text. We discussed the intent of "using no force nor the appearance of force", and moved on.


V/r
Spam

Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 28,946

« Reply #64 on: September 16, 2018, 02:23:04 PM »

What a mess - just looked at the task guide - I'm sure when I did this BITD
absent actual verbiage the general "first, do no harm" or similar was assumed.

The task guide isn't even consistent on the dates - some pages say 01, some say 04.

I am not a proponent of the whole "CAP should be GSAR compliant", etc., however at least in that
case it wouldn't have this type of problem.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2018, 02:26:11 PM by Eclipse » Logged


sardak
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,197

« Reply #65 on: September 17, 2018, 01:49:56 AM »

Sidebar:
last night I was using that GTL SET designation and was reviewing a fellow member on Ground Team task O-0803 (Supervise a Site Surveillance Shift) from the Ground Team and UDF Task guide of 24MAY.

The task required "4) Knowledge of General Orders". This appears to have been a final gasp of the writers who probably were former cadets like so many of us (grin).

I stopped, checked the 2003 GTL Reference Text, Chapter 15, and it was silent on this, so I advised him to ignore the referenced text. We discussed the intent of "using no force nor the appearance of force", and moved on.

V/r
Spam
What a mess - just looked at the task guide - I'm sure when I did this BITD absent actual verbiage the general "first, do no harm" or similar was assumed.

The task guide isn't even consistent on the dates - some pages say 01, some say 04.

I am not a proponent of the whole "CAP should be GSAR compliant", etc., however at least in that case it wouldn't have this type of problem.
Youngsters. In 1998 (It was 20 years ago today this month/Sgt. Pepper taught the band to play/They've been going in and out of style...) there existed:
Task O-0801 "Man a Surveillance Point."
CONDITIONS
You are part of a ground team on a Surveillance mission, and have been assigned a guard post.
OJECTIVES (sic)
Successfully maintain surveillance of your portion of the perimeter and correctly deal with potential intruders.
Training Outline
1. Once a downed airplane is located, CAP often is tasked to secure the wreckage until FAA investigators or other authorities arrive. Once a missing person is found, that scene may need to be secured as well for evidentiary reasons, like if any fowl  ::) play is suspected by law enforcement. The purpose of a CAP Surveillance mission is to ensure the wreckage is not disturbed. This will make the job of the investigators much easier.
2. In order to successfully man you (sic) post, you must know and use the 4 General Orders. You should memorize the General Orders, and know how to apply them.

The task proceeded to list and explain the the Four General Orders.

The evaluation tasks were:
1. Correctly recites the four general orders from memory.
2. Asks appropriate questions when posted to ensure he knows the post.
3. Correctly and politely handles the intruder: (with four sub-tasks)
4. Correctly briefs his relief.
5. Does not leave the post for any reason until properly relieved.

This was an advanced (not F&P) GTM task (before -1, -2, -3). It got dropped when the task guides and SQTRs were updated in 2004. In the early days there were separate task guides for GTM, GTL, and GES.

Quote
This appears to have been a final gasp of the writers who probably were former cadets like so many of us (grin).
It was indeed added by a former cadet, a Spaatzen, which eliminates me on both counts.

Mike
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [All] Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Membership  |  Topic: CAP and Why We are Civilian
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.573 seconds with 25 queries.
click here to email me