POW's like Stockdale and McCain caused themselves harm for no good reason

Great Debates
121

Perhaps we’re not making it clear to you what the situation was.

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
I don’t see what’s with everyone saying “let’s all do whatever or captors say”. Everyone knows the actions and comments of POW’s is not to be believed- you see a POW even in Iraq reading an anti-American statement, you don’t believe he means it right?
[/QUOTE]

That’s not true. POW’s getting up and saying awful things is a huge psychological hurt. Moreover, it’s not at all true that all they wanted was a meaningless statement. The Vietnamese wanted intel and they wanted action. Slackeriffic, grudging acceptance was not sufficient. They wanted positive acceptance. They didn’t just want you to meekly say yes. They wanted you to enthusiastically sell out your fellows, spy on them, say the most awful things in public and do it convincingly, and then thank them for the opportunity to help. They were not trying to compel obediance through force. They were trying to turn the prisoners inside out and make them sell out body, mind, and soul. They wanted you to act like the captors acted - scum spying on each other for “ideological flaws” or some other nonsense.

I want to make something clear since it’s pretty obvious that the answer is right therein front of you and you dind’t think about it for a moment. Stockdale demanded that a couple of released prisoners be charged. He didn’t request that for a lot of other people who were momentarily pushed. Why? If you read his book, he’ll tell you: there was a difference between those who sold out and hurt others and those who didn’t. The latter group might have been hurt or broken from torture for a moment. The former threw in with the captors wholheartedly.

Plus, the mere fact that you cooperated didn’t mean you were going home, or that you would get better treatment. You might or might not. The captors were unpredictable for a reason. Psychologicaly, it gets better results, and they couldn’t torture everyone all the time. And by the same token, the prisoners also acted unpredictably.

Stockdale talks about this. If they seemed like they wantd to talk, he busted his chair and theartened to beat the crap out of their intestines. They might beat him down for it, but he would gain the psychological advantage and meet them only on his terms. And often enough they’d back away, afraid, trying to get him to calm down. And of course he would, but it was clear that at those meetings that he held the psychological power - they had come to him and he had graciously allowed them to speak to him. And likewise, McCain signed a confession. But they couldn’t get anthing more from him. He refused them any advantage and wouldn’t cooperate more. After days of torture, all they got was trivial and they knew it.

And it’s all about that. If you mess up, even for a moment, you get back on track - you don’t go any further next time.

122

[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Diogenes was a military cook, so it’s probably nothing more than a bad case of self-loathing.
[/QUOTE]
People here have attacked his manhood, patriotism, and his love for his family, but THAT was stone cold, Mr. Moto. :wink:

My dad used to tell me that in WWII the military had different expectations from officers than from the ranks, and that only officers were expected to try to escape. Did the code changes in the 50s add that expectation from everybody?

Discussions like these remind me of my TV role model, Stepin Fetchit. Faced with a difficult situation, often slavery, from which he could not escape he stayed on the fine line between being so helpful that more was expected of him and being so annoyingly useless his owner just shot him. Perhaps being clinically depressed gives me an advantage that some of you lack in that, without my meds, I could not care less what happens to me, including pain and death. I assume I would just sit there until they finally broke through the fog and they pissed me off (I may not care but I’m not catatonic) and THEN they’d shoot me to shut me up.

Or else I’d tell some long, rambling, inconsistent, inaccurate, and self-aggrandizing tale full of archaic and incorrectly-used words and convoluted constructions–you guys already know to expect that from me–and their translators would get lost trying to figure out what I said and if any of what they thought I said was true. Beneath the worlds of truth and lies there is the netherworld of incoherency, and that is where I live.

123

smiling bandit- how can a prisoner have the psychological edge? Why would you be scared of a prisoner? If he talks fine, if not, beat him, if he talks then, fine, if not, beat him some more? If he actually said those things himself, he’s delusional- prisoners have no edge, especially when they have no vital knowledge. If he wants to think his actions demoralized the enemy, well that’s his right I guess.

And someone breaking under torture is to me no different than someone who broke from day one, and went above and beyond to make sure a finger was never put on them- different people have different levels of tolerance for pain, and its not Stockdale’s place to judge someone for that.

124

was the USA EVER officially at war with North Vietnam? I don’t seem to recall any declaration of war (by the Congress). So, in a so-called “polic action” are POWs bound by the same codes of conduct?

125

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
the twisted military code
[/QUOTE]

If you’re wondering why I find it hard to believe that you’re willing to listen and learn, perhaps your answer is right there.

126

[QUOTE=Monty]
If you’re wondering why I find it hard to believe that you’re willing to listen and learn, perhaps your answer is right there.
[/QUOTE]

Basically someone as lowly as an 18 year old lowest level private if captured and who doesn’t know anything is supposed to adhere to this code and take “reasonable” torture to keep from telling the minimal useless info he has- I think that’s twisted yes, as no one has yet provided anything logical detailing why someone with little knoweldge should subject themselves to unncessary abuse, especially someone who was drafted.

Someone doesn’t want to be there, and they have to take abuse or be sent to prison after years of torture because Sotckdale feels they went overboard in avoiding abuse? Sorry, not buying it, especially since I don’t see proof that the code is truly the best way to survive, that providing comfort to the enemy actually has any real effect on a war, none of that. Some people in jail accept rape, some fight back and get the shit beat of them, who am I to tell someone they are wrong for doing one or the other?

127

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
And someone breaking under torture is to me no different than someone who broke from day one, and went above and beyond to make sure a finger was never put on them- different people have different levels of tolerance for pain, and its not Stockdale’s place to judge someone for that.
[/QUOTE]

Why is it not Stockdale’s place to judge? The men in question were still active-duty officers and Stockdale was serving as their effective commanding officer?

I think he was in a perfect place to judge, and the fact that he only brought charges against two men (who by all accounts had earned this kind of censure from the Navy, at the very least) shows that he wasn’t throwing these charges around willy-nilly.

The other men mentioned, including Kavanaugh, were at other prisons. They would have had to answer to other chains-of-command.

128

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Some people in jail accept rape, some fight back and get the shit beat of them, who am I to tell someone they are wrong for doing one or the other?
[/QUOTE]
And yet here you are, doing exactly that.

129

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
I don’t see what’s with everyone saying “let’s all do whatever or captors say”. Everyone knows the actions and comments of POW’s is not to be believed- you see a POW even in Iraq reading an anti-American statement, you don’t believe he means it right? So why take abuse to avoid doing something meaningless?
[/QUOTE]

If it is so obvious to you and everyone else it is meanless why do you think the captors made them do it? Do you think they were oblivious or too stupid to see that the confessions weren’t genuine? Were they unable to see these confessions would fool no one?

It isn’t meanless.
The truth is that it gave them a chance to take what was seen as proud individuals and make them appear beaten and humbled before the world. It does affect those at home. Sometimes it angers them, but to be honest even with the anger there is shock and disbelief at what they see but not at what is said. It is affecting regardless of whether teh confession seems genuine or not. They were beaten (physically or psychologically) into saying something they wouldn’t say otherwise.

Secondly, the marches that the prisoners wanted to avoid were designed to show the world the prisoners were being treated well and no outside monitoring was required. Once filmed the terrible brutal condirtions continued while the world looked away thinking all that talk was nonsense. This worked before with another well know belligerent nation*

By participating they would have done nothing to better the whole groups lot, in fact it made it worse because there would less of a chance an outsider could prevent abuse.

Watch the Jane Fonda propaganda film showing how prisoners were treated. Those in America who wanted to believe that the North Vietnamese were nothing more than misunderstood defenders could watch this and ignore the fact that their fellow countrymen were being tortured… or worse pretend that those being tortured were doing something to deserve it.. like say being stubborn.

That kinda allows some to mentally skirt the fact that the bastards who ran and operated the POW camp were using fucking torture!

*To risk Godwinising the Nazis did something similar at Auschwitz when they had a seperate temporary camp created with families who were well fed and treated for propaganda purposes. They were paraded around and there are shots of kids playing with guards and the like.

Once the cameras stopped rolling the entire group were sent off to the gas chambers. This allowed those who could not comprehend or believe the stories of teh autrocities happening behind enemy lines to continue in the fantasy that the rumours were just alarmist fairy tales. Worst of all it made those not yet shipped from the ghettos a little less wary when they were moved.

130

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
If I were the top ranking solider in a camp, I think I’d get us all in a group and say screw this honor and pride crap, let’s do whatever the hell the say to make our time here as tolerable as possible.
[/QUOTE]

Luckily no one like you would ever be the top ranking soldier in any camp. You don’t rise up the ladder based on seniority in the military, you actually have to demonstrate competence and leadership. The path-of-least-resistance mentality you’re exhibiting in this thread would get you nowhere.

131

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
And yet here you are, doing exactly that.
[/QUOTE]

Actually I’m not. If the military code stated a POW was free to do whatever he personally needed to do to survive, and Stockdale and McCain decided, independently of military mandate, that for their psyche it would be best to handle captivity by being beligerent to the enemy, I got no problem with that. However, it seems to me that their stance was because it is the stance the military says you should take, and duty and honor to the military dictated their actions, not personal choice, which should come first when you personally are the one facing torture, not the code author. I’m question blind allegiance at the risk of personal safety.

Again if a ranking military person gave up missile launch codes that were used to bomb the US to prevent torture, yes, that’s wrong. But this case is nowhere close to that example.

132

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Actually I’m not.
[/QUOTE]

Sure you are. You’re stating that their actions did them harm for no good reason. Sounds like rather a judgment call on your part to me.

And by your own standards enunciated above, who are you to judge at all? You weren’t there. And if you’d give a pass to regular prisoners to get through prison by any means necessary, why not extend the same courtesy to Stockdale and McCain?

And if they found the Code of Conduct useful, again, who are you to judge? Again, by the standards you yourself enunciated above.

133

I served in the 82nd Airborne as an infantryman and participated in combat operations in Iraq. I was actually in situations where capture was a distinct possibility. That said I am geting a strong vibe of ChickenHawkism in this thread. I have no problem with Wee Bairn’s question and frankly do not understand the sanctimonious outrage and disdain that is directed his way. (at Dio I understand but that is another mater)

The fact of the matter is the the Code of Conduct does not require soldiers to submit to torture if it can be avoided. It requires you to resist giving information or doing things that aid the enemy. You should not sell out your fellow inmates for an extra desert or sign a false confession if they threaten to take away your pillow. But if they put a gun to your head or start pulling fingernails nothing in the code prevents you from taking whatever steps needed to stop it. As long as those steps don’t increase the chance of torture of your fellow POWs or endanger their lives. And sure you will be held accountible for your actions when you come home but Duress or Torture are valid defenses at a court martial. If you divulge what unit you were in and what your duties were and sign a false confession after having fingernails ripped out no courts martial will convict you of anything but if you divulged escape plans in exchange for extra food or early release you can and will be held accountable.

134

Well, it’s a moot point now, askeptic. Looks like one of the contrarians has dropped out of the thread.

135

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
archaic mindsets of a bygone era?
[/QUOTE]

Honor is not an archaic mindset of a bygone era. It is something that is often ignored, or belittled, but it is far from archaic. It is part of the social contract, the concept that a handshake agreement is a binding contract.

136

[QUOTE=askeptic]
. I have no problem with Wee Bairn’s question and frankly do not understand the sanctimonious outrage
[/quote]

I think that is a result of the way he phrased the subject:

(Bolding mine)

You are right. They were not required to do so. But in many peoples minds, they had good reason (and most importantly, their own) to do so.

137

[QUOTE=askeptic]
I served in the 82nd Airborne as an infantryman and participated in combat operations in Iraq. I was actually in situations where capture was a distinct possibility. That said I am geting a strong vibe of ChickenHawkism in this thread. I have no problem with Wee Bairn’s question and frankly do not understand the sanctimonious outrage and disdain that is directed his way. (at Dio I understand but that is another mater)

The fact of the matter is the the Code of Conduct does not require soldiers to submit to torture if it can be avoided. It requires you to resist giving information or doing things that aid the enemy. You should not sell out your fellow inmates for an extra desert or sign a false confession if they threaten to take away your pillow. But if they put a gun to your head or start pulling fingernails nothing in the code prevents you from taking whatever steps needed to stop it. As long as those steps don’t increase the chance of torture of your fellow POWs or endanger their lives. And sure you will be held accountible for your actions when you come home but Duress or Torture are valid defenses at a court martial. If you divulge what unit you were in and what your duties were and sign a false confession after having fingernails ripped out no courts martial will convict you of anything but if you divulged escape plans in exchange for extra food or early release you can and will be held accountable.
[/QUOTE]

I wouldn’t do anything just to get a reward, I would do it to avoid torture. Not because I think it would be more moral, but because I am a pussy.

138

[QUOTE=askeptic]
The fact of the matter is the the Code of Conduct does not require soldiers to submit to torture if it can be avoided. It requires you to resist giving information or doing things that aid the enemy. You should not sell out your fellow inmates for an extra desert or sign a false confession if they threaten to take away your pillow. But if they put a gun to your head or start pulling fingernails nothing in the code prevents you from taking whatever steps needed to stop it. As long as those steps don’t increase the chance of torture of your fellow POWs or endanger their lives. And sure you will be held accountible for your actions when you come home but Duress or Torture are valid defenses at a court martial. If you divulge what unit you were in and what your duties were and sign a false confession after having fingernails ripped out no courts martial will convict you of anything but if you divulged escape plans in exchange for extra food or early release you can and will be held accountable.
[/QUOTE]

Again, no one here has stated that McCain was a chickenshit for signing his “confession” after being tortured.

What upsets some of the folks was the position/opinion that McCain & Stockdale were stupid for trying to resist the coercion.

Wee Bairn used the terms “Jingoistic”, “Blind Obediance”, “silly macho posturing, pompous military code and archaic mindsets of a bygone era”.

He is refusing to acknowledge that the men in question felt it important enough to resist the coercion.

139

[QUOTE=mlees]
Again, no one here has stated that McCain was a chickenshit for signing his “confession” after being tortured.

What upsets some of the folks was the position/opinion that McCain & Stockdale were stupid for trying to resist the coercion.

Wee Bairn used the terms “Jingoistic”, “Blind Obediance”, “silly macho posturing, pompous military code and archaic mindsets of a bygone era”.

He is refusing to acknowledge that the men in question felt it important enough to resist the coercion.
[/QUOTE]

Or he could have just been baiting you as seen by his recent banning. So it is pointless to answer any of his posts.

140

[QUOTE=Loach]
Or he could have just been baiting you as seen by his recent banning. So it is pointless to answer any of his posts.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I thought he was banned for having socks, not for trolling… which means I think he actually holds the opinions he has expressed in this thread.