|
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
"Bob" wrote in message ... On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 10:45:48 -0500, DSK wrote: swatcop wrote: Hmmm. WHY won't they submit to fingerprinting? If they've got nothing to hide, what's the problem? Because it's an invasion of privacy and it's humiliating. I would not be part of any organization that insisted I be fingerprinted. this is a contradiction. being a member of the auxiliary is voluntary. it's not an invasion of privacy to have a background check when you're handling classified materials. do you think everyone should have this type of access? I believe that citizens should be respected in their homes and in their persons. If the gov't cannot abide by that agreement, then we need to either rip up the Consitution once and for all (and many would say "good riddance") or else get the gov't back on the right track. being a member of the auxiliary is not a right, it's a privilege. it's not unconstitutional to have a background check. Thanks for helping to meke my point, Bob. But I think this guy is a moron. I replied to his last attempt at a reply, but I'm not going to reply to any more of his posts unless he comes up with something intelligent that actually applies to the topic. I think we're wasting our time. -- -= swatcop =- "If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed." |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
"swatcop" wrote in message
m... If the "mentality" exists in other government organizations, it's somewhat less meaningful because it doesn't involve human lives. There's always a place for people who are only comfortable in church committes, where the blame for mistakes is diffused. But, it has no place in the military. So basically what you're saying is that you've never served in the military and are relying on hearsay from 1 individual to form an opinion about the entire organization? (No disrespect to your father, he's entitled to his opinions). Well, I HAVE served in the military in a U.S. Marine infantry unit. My opinion differs from yours. -- -= swatcop =- I believe the word "clusterfu*k" is most often used by ex-military people, at least based on my experience with the word. But in all fairness, I come to this discussion with a heavy load of bias. When something needs to be done and I know I can do it, and someone puts a list of prerequisite requirements between me and the task, I have a tendency to check off most of the list very quickly as crap, if it does, in fact, fit that category. And, I'm very vocal about it, which is why I haven't lasted long in team-based jobs unless the team consisted of either two, or two. I will say, however, that I'm far from unusual in that regard. Quite a few effective people cannot function on a team, including a couple of the best managers I've worked for. You know the type: "You think it's a good idea, then just do it. You don't need to ask me. That's why I hired you. We think alike". Meanwhile, the committee disease is spread at a young age. Wanna here a story about a Boy Scout trip from Rochester NY to Hershey PA (285 miles) that took 11 hours because 3 knuckleheads wanted to drive as a convoy? :-) |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:59:27 GMT, "swatcop"
wrote: "Bob" wrote in message ... being a member of the auxiliary is not a right, it's a privilege. it's not unconstitutional to have a background check. Thanks for helping to meke my point, Bob. But I think this guy is a moron. I replied to his last attempt at a reply, but I'm not going to reply to any more of his posts unless he comes up with something intelligent that actually applies to the topic. I think we're wasting our time. -- what's amazing to me is how so many people think ANY kind of check is an 'invasion of privacy'. do they think guys from saudi arabia who spent time as jihadists in afghanistan should be allowed to fly planes because, if we checked on their backgrounds, that's an 'invasion'? and these are the same people who complain about the lack of diligence on the part of defense agencies to protect the country...damned if you do, damned if you don't. --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
When you guys are done with your goose-stepping and sniffing each others butts,
you might consider dragging yourselves back to the original point: "why would anyone not choose to join a volunteer organization that required them to be publicly (or at least semi publicly) finger printed?" My answer to this question has produced nothing but insults. Thank you for making my point. Your type of intelligent procedure is certainly going to do wonders for national security. DSK "swatcop" wrote: Thanks for helping to meke my point, Bob. But I think this guy is a moron. I replied to his last attempt at a reply, but I'm not going to reply to any more of his posts unless he comes up with something intelligent that actually applies to the topic. I think we're wasting our time. Bob wrote: what's amazing to me is how so many people think ANY kind of check is an 'invasion of privacy'. do they think guys from saudi arabia who spent time as jihadists in afghanistan should be allowed to fly planes because, if we checked on their backgrounds, that's an 'invasion'? and these are the same people who complain about the lack of diligence on the part of defense agencies to protect the country...damned if you do, damned if you don't. --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
"DSK" wrote in message
... When you guys are done with your goose-stepping and sniffing each others butts, you might consider dragging yourselves back to the original point: "why would anyone not choose to join a volunteer organization that required them to be publicly (or at least semi publicly) finger printed?" My answer to this question has produced nothing but insults. Thank you for making my point. Your type of intelligent procedure is certainly going to do wonders for national security. DSK I usually like what you have to say, but I'm still not clear on whether "publicly" and "fingerprinted" belong together in a complaint. What difference does it make who's watching? I was fingerprinted for my pistol permit in a room with several people who were doing administrative cop things, and a couple of other guys waiting on a bench 10 feet away. Only the cop who printed me was close enough to matter. Of course, I just had 3 enormous oatmeal cookies and sugar shock may be keeping me from seeing the point. That was a disclaimer. Be gentle with me. :-) |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:47:18 -0500, DSK wrote:
When you guys are done with your goose-stepping and sniffing each others butts, you might consider dragging yourselves back to the original point: "why would anyone not choose to join a volunteer organization that required them to be publicly (or at least semi publicly) finger printed?" My answer to this question has produced nothing but insults. Thank you for making my point. Your type of intelligent procedure is certainly going to do wonders for national security. meaningless response. your knee jerk paranoia that every single security check is done by the sturmabteilung speaks for itself. --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
swatcop wrote: Certain "constitutional rights" do not apply to individuals assigned the responsibility of protecting our nation. This is a very troubling statement from someone who has represented themselves as being in law inforcement. -- Charlie ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
"swatcop" wrote in message . ..
"Capt Lou" wrote in message ... When the Coast Guard was transfered into the Department of Homeland Security, so was the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Now all auxiliarists have to be fingerprinted, and if they want to volunteer as crew or for other jobs, they have to pass a security background and criminal check. I know an auxiliarist friend of mine who had long hair and was told to cut it. Does anyone feel that the government is going a little overboard for civilian citizen volunteers? Absolutely not. If you're volunteering to be part of a government organization that has certain grooming standards and other rules that separate the professionals from the people who say "would you like some fries with that," then obviously you have to comply with those standards. If you don't want to comply, then you don't belong there. See ya. What about the auxiliarist who has been volunteering for the past 15 or 20 years? Is he or she a security threat? I don't know, is he/she? They probably didn't run any criminal history checks on volunteers 15 or 20 years ago, and who's to say that he/she hasn't committed a crime in the last 15 to 20 years? I don't know about you, but I think that the U.S. has been too lax on some of their security issues (evidenced by 09-11). I think I'd rather have intensive screening of ALL of our country's government employees regardless of their time in service to avoid any domestic terrorist issues. If thev've got a clean record, then they've got nothing to worry about. Maybe it is time to consider the U.S. Power Squadron and tell the USCGAUX enough is enough! I hear that 60% of the auxiliarists in my division will not submit to the fingerprinting. That's a lot of dues paying members dropping out! Hmmm. WHY won't they submit to fingerprinting? If they've got nothing to hide, what's the problem? I fingerprint people on a daily basis. You know how long it takes? About 2 minutes. Maybe there's a reason they don't want to be fingerprinted, and if that's the case, then good riddance. Being a police officer assigned to a tactical unit and a former Marine, I take security very seriously. It's about time our government did, too. As a true conservative, I am diametrically opposed to forcing "fingerprinting" or other such nonsense on the law-abiding public. |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
"Charles" wrote in message
... swatcop wrote: Certain "constitutional rights" do not apply to individuals assigned the responsibility of protecting our nation. This is a very troubling statement from someone who has represented themselves as being in law inforcement. -- Charlie Yeah, but it's true. In various news stories over the years, I've heard that enlisted people are missing a few rights in criminal proceedings. It's just accepted as part of the deal. |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
|
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
Doug Kanter wrote:
I usually like what you have to say, but I'm still not clear on whether "publicly" and "fingerprinted" belong together in a complaint. What difference does it make who's watching? Actually, I'd object to being fingerprnted at all, but there are certainly more negative connotations the more people are watching. With the powerful association our culture has for fingerprinting = criminal, it seems pretty obvious why. ....I was fingerprinted for my pistol permit in a room with several people who were doing administrative cop things, and a couple of other guys waiting on a bench 10 feet away. Only the cop who printed me was close enough to matter. Here in NC, we have concealed-carry permits which I believe requires fingerprinting, but to get a license to buy a pistol all you need is a signature from your county sheriff. But, for example, let's say that one of the cops who was present when you were fingerprinted stops you for some petty reason, traffic or something.... and remembers your face but not where & why he remembers it... and you end up handcuffed or worse. Of course, I just had 3 enormous oatmeal cookies and sugar shock may be keeping me from seeing the point. That was a disclaimer. Be gentle with me. :-) I only hammer those whose skulls have been proven thick enough to need it ;) swatcop wrote: Certain "constitutional rights" do not apply to individuals assigned the responsibility of protecting our nation. "Charles" wrote This is a very troubling statement from someone who has represented themselves as being in law inforcement. I'm glad someone else feels this way. Law enforcement professionals should have *more* respect for constitutional rights, not less. Doug Kanter wrote: Yeah, but it's true. In various news stories over the years, I've heard that enlisted people are missing a few rights in criminal proceedings. It's just accepted as part of the deal. You mean people who enlist in the military? Yes, they definitely have limits on some of their constitutionals rights, and not just with regard to criminal matters. They are allowed to vote, but not to publish political material or speech. But that's the military, would it make sense to have soldiers, sailors, and marines suing the gov't every time there was a battle? When you sign up, your ass belongs to Uncle Sam and they make that plain before you go in. What bothers me is the casual attitude about privacy and consitutional freedoms for citizens... and the disdain for volunteers who might not want to submit to various kinds of negative procedures and/or hazing. No wonder they are losing people. A while ago I was associated with some hospital volunteers. People who gave up their time to try and help others when they need it most. The hospital assigned "volunteer coordination" as a subsidiary job to the least effective and least liked administrator.... who proceded to drive away all the volunteers. Way to problem solve! Is the issue really national security, or is it just a front so a few under-endowed guys can act all macho? DSK |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
"DSK" wrote in message
... Is the issue really national security, or is it just a front so a few under-endowed guys can act all macho? DSK It's a desire to control everything, when in fact, we can control next to nothing except ourselves, and sometimes even that's not possible. |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
Take a moment to go to this site and listen to a sound clip. It's a
commentary on NPR from Andrei Codrescu, a pretty interesting guy. Scroll down the page about 2/3 of the way and look for a link called "Commentary: Thumbs and Fingerprints". I think you'll get a laugh out of it. I'm also going to post it as a new thread. I really want to hear comments from a few of the Borg. You know who I mean. :-) http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown....te=15-Jan-2004 |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:02:55 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
Of course, I just had 3 enormous oatmeal cookies and sugar shock may be keeping me from seeing the point. That was a disclaimer. Be gentle with me. :-) Oh-oh...better put oatmeal cookies on the "illegal drugs" list. Drug-user! Evil Cookie-head! Jail him! Fingerprint him! :) Lloyd "I never eat cake, because it has vanilla and one little bite turns a man to a gorilla! Can you imagine a sadder disgrace Than a man in the gutter with crumbs on his face." |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
(snip) As a true conservative, I am diametrically opposed to forcing "fingerprinting" or other such nonsense on the law-abiding public. Ah-ha! See! You've made my point for me as well! We're not talking about the PUBLIC. We're talking about government employees who have access to classified information! If I was John Q. Public, I wouldn't want to be fingerprinted for no good reason either. But, if I (John Q. Public) was employed by the federal governmant that required me to be fingerprinted, I'd either follow the rules or find another job. Thank you for inadvertantly proving my point AGAIN. -- -= swatcop =- "If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed." |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
"DSK" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: I usually like what you have to say, but I'm still not clear on whether "publicly" and "fingerprinted" belong together in a complaint. What difference does it make who's watching? Actually, I'd object to being fingerprnted at all, but there are certainly more negative connotations the more people are watching. With the powerful association our culture has for fingerprinting = criminal, it seems pretty obvious why. There you go - proving my point again. If fingerprinting=criminal (which it doesn't), then the person afraid of being fingerprinted shouldn't be allowed to hold a government position which allows him/her access to classified information. If they've got a criminal history then they don't qualify for the job. End of story. By the way, teachers and other such employees are required to be fingerprinted. Does that make them criminals? How about the kids that are fingerprinted for such programs as "Ident-A-Kid?" Are they criminals as well because they were fingerprinted? ....I was fingerprinted for my pistol permit in a room with several people who were doing administrative cop things, and a couple of other guys waiting on a bench 10 feet away. Only the cop who printed me was close enough to matter. Here in NC, we have concealed-carry permits which I believe requires fingerprinting, but to get a license to buy a pistol all you need is a signature from your county sheriff. Now THAT'S security. "Hey, cousin Bob? Since you're Sheriff now and me being a criminal and all, can you sign my license to buy a gun since the last 3 Sheriff's wouldn't do it?" Great, just what we need. But, for example, let's say that one of the cops who was present when you were fingerprinted stops you for some petty reason, traffic or something.... and remembers your face but not where & why he remembers it... and you end up handcuffed or worse. If you end up "handcuffed or worse" I'm sure it's not because the cop recognized you as someone that he fingerprinted for a job application. More like because you committed a crime. Of course, I just had 3 enormous oatmeal cookies and sugar shock may be keeping me from seeing the point. That was a disclaimer. Be gentle with me. :-) I only hammer those whose skulls have been proven thick enough to need it ;) swatcop wrote: Certain "constitutional rights" do not apply to individuals assigned the responsibility of protecting our nation. "Charles" wrote This is a very troubling statement from someone who has represented themselves as being in law inforcement. I'm glad someone else feels this way. Law enforcement professionals should have *more* respect for constitutional rights, not less. I have the utmost respect for regular, everyday citizens' constitutional rights. But we're not talking about everyday citizens, we're talking about government employees who have access to classified information. Doug Kanter wrote: Yeah, but it's true. In various news stories over the years, I've heard that enlisted people are missing a few rights in criminal proceedings. It's just accepted as part of the deal. You mean people who enlist in the military? Yes, they definitely have limits on some of their constitutionals rights, and not just with regard to criminal matters. They are allowed to vote, but not to publish political material or speech. But that's the military, would it make sense to have soldiers, sailors, and marines suing the gov't every time there was a battle? When you sign up, your ass belongs to Uncle Sam and they make that plain before you go in. Thank you once again for proving my point for me - "You mean people who enlist in the military? Yes, they definitely have limits on some of their constitutionals rights, and not just with regard to criminal matters." I just cut and pasted exactly what you just typed, which is exactly what you've been trying to contradict for the last 4 hours. Make up your mind. What bothers me is the casual attitude about privacy and consitutional freedoms for citizens... and the disdain for volunteers who might not want to submit to various kinds of negative procedures and/or hazing. No wonder they are losing people. If they're volunteering for a governmental position, then they should expect to be held to higher standards and screening processes. A while ago I was associated with some hospital volunteers. People who gave up their time to try and help others when they need it most. The hospital assigned "volunteer coordination" as a subsidiary job to the least effective and least liked administrator.... who proceded to drive away all the volunteers. Way to problem solve! We're not talking about candy-stripers, we're talking about people who have access to classified information and work for the government. BIG difference. Is the issue really national security, or is it just a front so a few under-endowed guys can act all macho? Yeah, that must be it. I'm glad you put that into perspective for all of us. -- -= swatcop =- "If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed." |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
(snip)
As a true conservative, I am diametrically opposed to forcing "fingerprinting" or other such nonsense on the law-abiding public. swatcop wrote: Ah-ha! See! You've made my point for me as well! We're not talking about the PUBLIC. We're talking about government employees wrong. We are (or at least, we were last time I looked) talking about volunteers. who have access to classified information! If I was John Q. Public, I wouldn't want to be fingerprinted for no good reason either. AHA! See? Now maybe you "get" the reason why so many of the volunteers said, "Thanks but no thanks, bye." But, if I (John Q. Public) was employed by the federal governmant that required me to be fingerprinted, I'd either follow the rules or find another job. Thank you for inadvertantly proving my point AGAIN. -- -= swatcop =- "If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed." You're employed by a place that deliberately hires stupid people? In law enforcement? What are you, the bait? DSK |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
swatcop wrote:
If you end up "handcuffed or worse" I'm sure it's not because the cop recognized you as someone that he fingerprinted for a job application. More like because you committed a crime. Thanks for proving my point AGAIN. Cops who think that any and all citizens are automatically crminals ("if they aren't criminals then why am I suspicious of them?") should be summarily fired.... A police officer is a public servant. Not a macho bully. You don't seem to understand *any* of the issues of citizens rights. You sound more like a bitter ex-cop who got fired for abuse of police power... or one who will be soon. I hope your senior officers see some of your posts here. DSK |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
"DSK" wrote in message ... (snip) As a true conservative, I am diametrically opposed to forcing "fingerprinting" or other such nonsense on the law-abiding public. swatcop wrote: Ah-ha! See! You've made my point for me as well! We're not talking about the PUBLIC. We're talking about government employees wrong. We are (or at least, we were last time I looked) talking about volunteers. Well, you better look again. Volunteers, yes. But what KIND of volunteers. United States Coast Guard volunteers, maybe? Ring a bell? Ding ding ding ding! who have access to classified information! If I was John Q. Public, I wouldn't want to be fingerprinted for no good reason either. AHA! See? Now maybe you "get" the reason why so many of the volunteers said, "Thanks but no thanks, bye." Good. Then they shouldn't be there. Employ someone who is able to follow the rules and comply with the screening process. But, if I (John Q. Public) was employed by the federal governmant that required me to be fingerprinted, I'd either follow the rules or find another job. Thank you for inadvertantly proving my point AGAIN. -- -= swatcop =- "If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed." You're employed by a place that deliberately hires stupid people? In law enforcement? What are you, the bait? Um, NO. You misinterprated what it means. If it wasn't for stupid people (quite like yourself), then I'd be unemployed (due to the lack of need for law enforcement because if there were no stupid people there would be less crime). -- -= swatcop =- "If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed." |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
"DSK" wrote in message ... swatcop wrote: If you end up "handcuffed or worse" I'm sure it's not because the cop recognized you as someone that he fingerprinted for a job application. More like because you committed a crime. Thanks for proving my point AGAIN. Cops who think that any and all citizens are automatically crminals ("if they aren't criminals then why am I suspicious of them?") should be summarily fired.... A police officer is a public servant. Not a macho bully. You don't seem to understand *any* of the issues of citizens rights. You sound more like a bitter ex-cop who got fired for abuse of police power... or one who will be soon. I hope your senior officers see some of your posts here. Either we're reading two entirely separate things, or you've got a serious reading disability. That or your hallucinogenic drugs are making you see things that aren't there. In either case, you're really beginning to bore the hell out of me. I'm getting tired of explaining and re-explaining what I post to you. Nobody else has seemed to have any trouble understanding what I say, just you. You know, there are remedial adult classes available at most colleges. Why don't you try one. -- -= swatcop =- "If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed." |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
AHA! See? Now maybe you "get" the reason why so many of the volunteers
said, "Thanks but no thanks, bye." swatcop wrote: Good. Then they shouldn't be there. Employ someone who is able to follow the rules and comply with the screening process. There you go... 'employ' Thanks for spending more of our tax money, so that you can be a bullying asshole with your subordinates as well as any average citizen that has the bad luck to catch your eye. ... if there were no stupid people there would be less crime). But there would still be small souled men who enjoy putting down others when they can get away with it, and of course they gravitate to any job where they can indulge in that. Look in a mirror, you'll see what I mean. DSK |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. heheh
-W "swatcop" wrote in message news:yFZNb.5919 Either we're reading two entirely separate things, or you've got a serious reading disability. That or your hallucinogenic drugs are making you see things that aren't there. In either case, you're really beginning to bore the hell out of me. I'm getting tired of explaining and re-explaining what I post to you. Nobody else has seemed to have any trouble understanding what I say, just you. You know, there are remedial adult classes available at most colleges. Why don't you try one. |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
"swatcop" wrote in message
m... I'm playing both sides of this discussion because moderation is usually the best way. So: Did you ever read the novel "1984"? |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
"swatcop" wrote in message
... You know, there are remedial adult classes available at most colleges. Why don't you try one. Either there are two people who've used the nickname "swatcop" here in the past month, or you're having woman problems, because you don't sound like the same mellow guy who was thanking almost everyone for marine law enforcement suggestions a month ago. |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
"Lloyd Sumpter" wrote in message
... On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:02:55 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: Of course, I just had 3 enormous oatmeal cookies and sugar shock may be keeping me from seeing the point. That was a disclaimer. Be gentle with me. :-) Oh-oh...better put oatmeal cookies on the "illegal drugs" list. Drug-user! Evil Cookie-head! Jail him! Fingerprint him! :) Lloyd Hey....be quiet. I saw oatmeal cookies for sale all over Canada on my last visit. The place is a veritable stoner's paradise. Especially Ottawa. |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
"Charles" wrote in message This is a very troubling statement from someone who has represented themselves as being in law inforcement. If it is a troubling statement, it ought to be troubling regardless of the speaker. The fact is that active duty military members are subject to the UCMJ as well as (and sometime instead of) civil law. In some areas the standards and procedures of the UCMJ appear somewhat harsh in comparison to civilian criminal law. |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
He's the same guy. He's frustrated because apparantly his sparring partner
speaks a totally different dialect of English. -W "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "swatcop" wrote in message ... You know, there are remedial adult classes available at most colleges. Why don't you try one. Either there are two people who've used the nickname "swatcop" here in the past month, or you're having woman problems, because you don't sound like the same mellow guy who was thanking almost everyone for marine law enforcement suggestions a month ago. |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
Yeah. I think it's English versus Kremlin. Guess which is which.
"Clams Canino" wrote in message news:xe1Ob.72761$5V2.77265@attbi_s53... He's the same guy. He's frustrated because apparantly his sparring partner speaks a totally different dialect of English. -W "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "swatcop" wrote in message ... You know, there are remedial adult classes available at most colleges. Why don't you try one. Either there are two people who've used the nickname "swatcop" here in the past month, or you're having woman problems, because you don't sound like the same mellow guy who was thanking almost everyone for marine law enforcement suggestions a month ago. |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
I was looking at some photos of Coast Guard vessels. I'm puzzled, why do
Aids to Navigation vessels like the Juniper Class buoy tenders have "provision for 25mm Bushmaster" chain gun? That's a lot of gun! I'd bet every one of them is armed with the 25mm and then some, right now. I've seen other buoy tenders, icebreakers and tugs with 12.7mm machine guns and/or 7.62mm machine guns as well. Keep in mind these ships were commissioned before the Department of Homeland Security in most cases. The Coast Guard while having some military and law enforcement missions was under the Department of Transportation. I look at a buoy and think why would you need to shoot it? I can see that those non-military and non-law enforcement responsibilities returned to the DOT as civil service jobs at some point, but would that mean these boats would have to become unarmed? They don't let other civil service employees have weapons. Where does that leave the Auxiliary? I wonder if it will end up becoming militarized at some point. I hope not. It would be an easy step for someone to take in Washington, kinda like a floating militia. The job of the Coast Guard has become very complex. Perhaps there are elements that should remain as military units and some that should be pushed away from their military ties? Capt Lou wrote: When the Coast Guard was transfered into the Department of Homeland Security, so was the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Now all auxiliarists have to be fingerprinted, and if they want to volunteer as crew or for other jobs, they have to pass a security background and criminal check. I know an auxiliarist friend of mine who had long hair and was told to cut it. Does anyone feel that the government is going a little overboard for civilian citizen volunteers? What about the auxiliarist who has been volunteering for the past 15 or 20 years? Is he or she a security threat? Maybe it is time to consider the U.S. Power Squadron and tell the USCGAUX enough is enough! I hear that 60% of the auxiliarists in my division will not submit to the fingerprinting. That's a lot of dues paying members dropping out! "Listen to the live broadcast of 'Nautical Talk Radio' with Captain Lou every Sunday afternoon from 4 - 5 (Eastern Standard Time) on the web at www.959watd.com or if you are in Boston or Cape Cod set your radio dial to 95.9FM. |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:00:56 GMT, Hewel
wrote: I was looking at some photos of Coast Guard vessels. I'm puzzled, why do Aids to Navigation vessels like the Juniper Class buoy tenders have "provision for 25mm Bushmaster" chain gun? That's a lot of gun! I'd bet every one of them is armed with the 25mm and then some, right now. I've seen other buoy tenders, icebreakers and tugs with 12.7mm machine guns and/or 7.62mm machine guns as well. Keep in mind these ships were commissioned before the Department of Homeland Security in most cases. The Coast Guard while having some military and law enforcement missions was under the Department of Transportation. I look at a buoy and think why would you need to shoot it? I can see that those non-military and non-law enforcement responsibilities returned to the DOT as civil service jobs at some point, but would that mean these boats would have to become unarmed? They don't let other civil service employees have weapons. Where does that leave the Auxiliary? I wonder if it will end up becoming militarized at some point. I hope not. It would be an easy step for someone to take in Washington, kinda like a floating militia. The job of the Coast Guard has become very complex. Perhaps there are elements that should remain as military units and some that should be pushed away from their military ties? our charter as the auxiliary comes from congress. it would, literally, take an act of congress to militarize the auxiliary. although the aux. was armed during ww2, there is no plan to do so now and it's unclear how it would be done. --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "swatcop" wrote in message ... You know, there are remedial adult classes available at most colleges. Why don't you try one. Either there are two people who've used the nickname "swatcop" here in the past month, or you're having woman problems, because you don't sound like the same mellow guy who was thanking almost everyone for marine law enforcement suggestions a month ago. Oh, I'm the same guy. I'm just tired of arguing with this idiot. First he's totally against being fingerprinted, then he makes my point FOR me about the difference between civilians and military, then he disagrees with himself, and when he becomes confused he reverts back to square one or tries insults. What an idiot. Sorry if I'm not the same "mellow" guy asking about Police Marine Patrol units, but this guy is enough to make you want to reach through the computer monitor and choke the **** out of him. -- -= swatcop =- "If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed." |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
"DSK" wrote in message ... AHA! See? Now maybe you "get" the reason why so many of the volunteers said, "Thanks but no thanks, bye." swatcop wrote: Good. Then they shouldn't be there. Employ someone who is able to follow the rules and comply with the screening process. There you go... 'employ' Yes, EMPLOY. You know, "give a job to." You twist everything that I say, don't you? Thanks for spending more of our tax money, so that you can be a bullying asshole with your subordinates as well as any average citizen that has the bad luck to catch your eye. Now I'm a bullying asshole because you have a problem with reading comprehension? Um, no. Oh, and I don't spend your tax money, YOU do. And you're not an average citizen, either. Judging from you poor reading comprehension skills, I'd place you in the UNDER average category. ... if there were no stupid people there would be less crime). But there would still be small souled men who enjoy putting down others when they can get away with it, and of course they gravitate to any job where they can indulge in that. Look in a mirror, you'll see what I mean. Yep. Just looked in the mirror. I said "mirror, mirror, on the wall - who the dumbest one of all?" You know what it said? "That idiot who goes by the initials DSK on the rec.boats newsgroup." Well, it's time to say farewell, dip****. You've just earned youself a spot on my "blocked senders" list. So live it up, post whatever you want. I'll never get it. Take care now, bye-bye then. Oh, and I really would check into those remedial classes if I were you. -- -= swatcop =- "If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed." |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
"Bob" wrote in message our charter as the auxiliary comes from congress. it would, literally, take an act of congress to militarize the auxiliary. You're right, Bob. The Aux, by congressional charter and subsequent legislation, is specifically defined as "non-military". As such, we are excluded from participation in any CG function that is purely military or that involves direct law enforcement. These areas are particular provinces of the active and reserve CG. JG |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
|
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
The USCG can be transferred to the DOD. CG were in Viet Nam. Also the
Persian Gulf during Gulf 1 and probably 2. "Hewel" wrote in message ... I was looking at some photos of Coast Guard vessels. I'm puzzled, why do Aids to Navigation vessels like the Juniper Class buoy tenders have "provision for 25mm Bushmaster" chain gun? That's a lot of gun! I'd bet every one of them is armed with the 25mm and then some, right now. I've seen other buoy tenders, icebreakers and tugs with 12.7mm machine guns and/or 7.62mm machine guns as well. Keep in mind these ships were commissioned before the Department of Homeland Security in most cases. The Coast Guard while having some military and law enforcement missions was under the Department of Transportation. I look at a buoy and think why would you need to shoot it? I can see that those non-military and non-law enforcement responsibilities returned to the DOT as civil service jobs at some point, but would that mean these boats would have to become unarmed? They don't let other civil service employees have weapons. Where does that leave the Auxiliary? I wonder if it will end up becoming militarized at some point. I hope not. It would be an easy step for someone to take in Washington, kinda like a floating militia. The job of the Coast Guard has become very complex. Perhaps there are elements that should remain as military units and some that should be pushed away from their military ties? Capt Lou wrote: When the Coast Guard was transfered into the Department of Homeland Security, so was the Coast Guard Auxiliary. Now all auxiliarists have to be fingerprinted, and if they want to volunteer as crew or for other jobs, they have to pass a security background and criminal check. I know an auxiliarist friend of mine who had long hair and was told to cut it. Does anyone feel that the government is going a little overboard for civilian citizen volunteers? What about the auxiliarist who has been volunteering for the past 15 or 20 years? Is he or she a security threat? Maybe it is time to consider the U.S. Power Squadron and tell the USCGAUX enough is enough! I hear that 60% of the auxiliarists in my division will not submit to the fingerprinting. That's a lot of dues paying members dropping out! "Listen to the live broadcast of 'Nautical Talk Radio' with Captain Lou every Sunday afternoon from 4 - 5 (Eastern Standard Time) on the web at www.959watd.com or if you are in Boston or Cape Cod set your radio dial to 95.9FM. |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
It's bad enough when the Power Squadron/USCGA types confront you at
every boat ramp and marina for permission to snoop around your boat. Ok, this has come up twice in this thread...I've been boating all my life and have never been "confronted" by anyone from the USCGA or US/PS at any time. I have, on occasion, been approached in a polite and neighborly manner for boat safety checks. This is absolutley voluntary! In addition to enhancing everyone's safety, vessels that are found to be properly equipped get a decal that gives the regular Coasties notice that you're operating a safe boat...thus decreasing your odds of an on the water stop & check. Where. pray tell, is the problem in that? James |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 18:53:11 GMT, "James W. Sloan"
wrote: It's bad enough when the Power Squadron/USCGA types confront you at every boat ramp and marina for permission to snoop around your boat. Ok, this has come up twice in this thread...I've been boating all my life and have never been "confronted" by anyone from the USCGA or US/PS at any time. I have, on occasion, been approached in a polite and neighborly manner for boat safety checks. This is absolutley voluntary! In addition to enhancing everyone's safety, vessels that are found to be properly equipped get a decal that gives the regular Coasties notice that you're operating a safe boat...thus decreasing your odds of an on the water stop & check. Where. pray tell, is the problem in that? James excellent point. the CG aux doesn't 'snoop' around folk's boats. thanks for the update... --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:37:39 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote: The USCG can be transferred to the DOD. CG were in Viet Nam. Also the Persian Gulf during Gulf 1 and probably 2. that's true but the DOD can not overrule congress. if the CG is transferred to DOD, the aux will still be prevented from military operations. --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
Was referring to gun mounts on CG boats / ships. Only gun mount on a aux
boat, may be for a shotgun, the owner owns. Bill "Bob" wrote in message ... On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 17:37:39 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: The USCG can be transferred to the DOD. CG were in Viet Nam. Also the Persian Gulf during Gulf 1 and probably 2. that's true but the DOD can not overrule congress. if the CG is transferred to DOD, the aux will still be prevented from military operations. --------------------------- to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com" and enter 'wf3h' in the field |
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
swatcop wrote: Oh, I'm the same guy. I'm just tired of arguing with this idiot. I thought you were do tired of it that you weren't going to post any more? First he's totally against being fingerprinted, And, when push came to shove, it turns out that you would prefer to not be fingerprinted yourself. Talk about "making your point for you." then he makes my point FOR me about the difference between civilians and military, then he disagrees with himself, Sorry, I did not disagree with myself. Better review... my posts have been consistent all along. and when he becomes confused he reverts back to square one or tries insults. Better review again. You were the first one to start hurling insults. What an idiot. Sorry if I'm not the same "mellow" guy asking about Police Marine Patrol units, but this guy is enough to make you want to reach through the computer monitor and choke the **** out of him. If you were a cop in my town, you'd be out of a job. An attitude like that is no way to approach police work. DSK |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:37 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com