Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
 

On 16 Jan 2004 00:10:17 GMT, 123 (Butch Ammon) wrote:

incidentally, info on the need for secret clearance in the auxiliary
is public info at the DIRAUX website.


Let me back up what wf3h is saying.... I was a Yeoman 2nd Class in the Coast
Guard back in the early/mid 80's and worked for DIRAUX 9th District Eastern
Region in Buffalo, NY. I admired the CG Aux and had a great time with them.
They are a hardworking bunch of volunteers!

They don't have any MLE authority over anyone, but they do assist in some of
the CG Ops centers and help out anywhere they are needed.

Bravo Zulu, USCG Aux. I miss working with you guys!!

Butch Ammon
YN1, USCG (Ret).


thanks butch and, believe me, it's an honor to work with the 'gold
side'!


---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
 

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:10:11 -0800 (PST),
(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?UglyDan=AE=A9=99?=) wrote:

Well we all now know who/what the weak link is!
Just because you have access to the system means you have to be a
braggert to the whole world about it?
Most of,and I mean most of the CGA I've known are little more than
Wannabe Coasties, like AUX Wannabe cops,but lack the maturity,
Integrity, and physical capabilities required to be a regular, or even a
reservist for that matter. But not to worry Aux Sparks, You can hold
your head high, because everytime a regular closes the Comm Center door,
You'll never hear the laughter from the other side.
Semper Paratus, or in your case Semper Braggipuss. UD




incidentally, you might want to check this site:

http://www.uscgaux.org/%7Eopr/revolution.htm

where the coast guard chief director of auxiliary says:

As the Chief Director, my view of a "grand" strategy is fairly straightforward. That is, to increase the capability and capacity of the Auxiliary so a to provide the right and ready volunteer forces to support the full spectrum of Coast Guard missions, with a focus on on-the- water and in-the-air operations. We have several sub-strategies to best position the Auxiliary in support the larger grand strategy. These strategies are primarily in the areas of resourcing (budget), legal issues (legislative change proposals), security (security checks and clearances), operations, and training.


oh my GAWD!!! the chief director has let the cat out of the bag! the
auxiliary will be involved in security operations!

oh, gee. i guess now the whole coast guard is laughing...at the coast
guard...

---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field

Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
 

"Butch Ammon" wrote in message

Bravo Zulu, USCG Aux. I miss working with you guys!!

Butch Ammon
YN1, USCG (Ret).

And our thanks to you, too, Butch.

Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
 

"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.

--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."

Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
 

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.

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.

heh heh maybe you feel the same way about body cavity searches. Why don't you
submit to one of them, in public? After all, if you've got nothing to hide, why
not? It only takes two minutes.

I am sick and tired of the "if you've got nothing to hide, then you have no
reason not to" line of reasoning with regard to Consitutional rights.

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.

DSK

Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...


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.

Thank you, you've made my point for me. If you won't comply with the
established rules, then you don't belong there. Oh, and as far as the
humiliation aspect, I've never seen public fingerprinting. Is that something
new in your neck of the woods?


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.

heh heh maybe you feel the same way about body cavity searches. Why don't
you
submit to one of them, in public? After all, if you've got nothing to
hide, why
not? It only takes two minutes.

First of all, body cavity searches will not determine if you've got a
criminal history or not. Secondly, they won't establish a permanent record
of an individual. Therefore, your body cavity search insult not only does
not apply, it just makes you sound dumber than you obviously already are.


I am sick and tired of the "if you've got nothing to hide, then you have
no
reason not to" line of reasoning with regard to Consitutional rights.

Certain "constitutional rights" do not apply to individuals assigned the
responsibility of protecting our nation.


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.

Again, thank you for making my point for me. The fingerprinting in question
from the original post (if you bothered to read it) purtained to individuals
employed by the United States Coast Guard (government position, in case you
dont abla). It's got nothing to do with respecting anyone in their homes. It
does, however, apply to individuals who have access to national security
issues. If you are uncomfortable living in a more secure nation because we
choose to screen the people who protect us, than maybe you'd be better off
moving somewhere else. Irag, for example.
--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."

Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
 

swatcop wrote:


First of all, body cavity searches will not determine if you've got a
criminal history or not. Secondly, they won't establish a permanent record
of an individual.

So, you think it would be fun to have one done on you? Great. I think there are
some other newsgroup political regulars who would like to watch.


Therefore, your body cavity search insult not only does
not apply, it just makes you sound dumber than you obviously already are.

Why does it make me sound dumb, because I am not in favor of a police state? I
guess a cop would be in favor of a gov't that would allow him to do anything at
all, to any citizen, anywhere... now that would be nice & secure, wouldn't it...

DSK

Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
 

(snip)
The "mentality" would sound like fiction if I hadn't been hearing about it
from my father since I was old enough to understand it. He spent 8 years
in
the Navy beginning in 1941, flying a Grumman TBF Avenger (torpedo bomber).
He and his cohorts used to get flak for using too much small ammo. The
pilots' theory was that a little cannon fire caused Japanese ship side
gunners to get rattled, which bought the TBF Avengers the 30 seconds they
needed to get down nice and low and line up their gifts. The people who
kept
track of the ammo didn't understand what it meant to be in warrior mode.

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 =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."

Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
swatcop wrote:


First of all, body cavity searches will not determine if you've got a
criminal history or not. Secondly, they won't establish a permanent
record
of an individual.

So, you think it would be fun to have one done on you? Great. I think
there are
some other newsgroup political regulars who would like to watch.

Geez, I must have missed something - I don't recall mentioning anything
about the pleasures of body cavity searches, only how they didn't apply to
the original post that you were trying to flame. Keep going - you're
sounding dumber by the minute.



Therefore, your body cavity search insult not only does
not apply, it just makes you sound dumber than you obviously already
are.

Why does it make me sound dumb, because I am not in favor of a police
state? I
guess a cop would be in favor of a gov't that would allow him to do
anything at
all, to any citizen, anywhere... now that would be nice & secure, wouldn't
it...


Obviously you've got a problem with reading comprehension. Here's a
suggestion: go back and actually READ what I wrote. Then take a few minutes
to digest it and think about what you're going to reply with before you
start typing. The goal is to fabricate an intelligent response, not just
flail away on the keyboard typing a response that amplifies your obviously
handicapped intelligence level.
--
-= swatcop =-

"If it wasn't for stupid people I'd be unemployed."

Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
 

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.
---------------------------
to see who "wf3h" is, go to "qrz.com"
and enter 'wf3h' in the field