| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Coast Guard Auxiliary and Homeland Security
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
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." |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
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." |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
