Supposing Joe Soldier or Joe Office is captured by the enemy. He is tortured and eventually tells them what he knows.
Know, I understand that:
[ul]
[li]No one soldier/officer has enough information to signifigantly jeopardize any one mission or war unless he’s a reasonably high-ranking officer.[/li][li]The enemy, unless they’re signatories to the Geneva Convention (and obey it), will probably torture captured soldiers/officers for the hell of it.[/li][li]Some soldiers are taught mechanisms for resisting/coping with torture.[/li][/ul]
Would this soldier be charged with a crime (assuming he lives that long) upon his liberation? Are considerations made for the degree to which his information helped the enemy?
As CurtC said I don’t believe anyone expects that someone can keep theri mouth shut under torture. Given an adept torturer they will get anyone to sing like a canary sooner or later.
There may be some coping mechanisms taught. While they may expect you to blab eventually under torture it may be that the victim can still withhold information or give answers but keep those answers as vague or misleading as possible.
Meatros: I saw McCaine (damn it, now I’m not sure how to spell his name!) interviewed on television the other night. IIRC, he said that he eventually “broke.” I don’t remember if his “breaking” included giving up secrets, or just saying what the enemy wanted him to say (you know, America sucks, he was a criminal, etc.).
Give the torturer’s enough time and motivation, and everyone breaks. Rambo not withstanding. That being the case, there would be no sense in the military (who know a lot about torture, themselves) instituting rules to punish their own soldiers for being human.
No, handy. AFAIK, we’re not taught to lie. At least, I wasn’t. The bottom line is that you need to resist. As long as you do that as long and as much as you can, the military isn’t going to blame you for anything the enemy gets out of you.
The answer I got during Basic was: “The Code of Conduct does not order you to commit suicide.”
Breaking because you can’t possibly bear the punishment any more w/o going mad = understood.
Breaking in exchange for getting moved from the tiger cages to a hotel suite with steak dinner and two 16-year-olds = you’re in trouble when you get back.
…and a more forgiving note from a review of his book:
“Before reading this book, I didn’t quite understand why McCain so regretted affixing his name to an absurd-sounding Stalinist confession. No one else would criticize him for caving to torture–why did he beat himself up about it? In McCain’s version of events, his obsession with his surrender starts to make sense: It was the moment he realized that he was beyond his own control. “I felt it blemished my record permanently, and even today I find it hard to suppress feelings of remorse,” he writes. “In truth, I don’t even bother to try to suppress them anymore. My remorse shows me the limits of my zealously guarded autonomy.” He couldn’t hold out alone, and wouldn’t have held up at all without the solidarity of his fellow inmates. Today McCain is still a rebel, but he’s no longer an adolescent rebel.”
Giving false information seems like a great idea, but it can sometimes have the opposite effect than you had planned: If you try to tell the enemy the opposite of what’s true, they might figure it out - and you’ll have accomplished nothing except possibly pissing your captors off.
If your story after you “break” contradicts the stories they beat out of others, you or one of your fellow prisoners could be “made an example of” - and since no enemy the US and our allies have fought since the Geneva Conventions were signed has actually adhered to said conventions, that could be a heavy thing to have on your conscience.