The possibility exists that Garwood and the others may have cooperated with the enemy because they did not understand their moral obligation to resist or lacked the proper training on how to conduct themselves. It is also possible that they lacked the character to stand by their moral responsibilities in the face of mental and physical punishment. There is ample evidence in the experiences of Korean POWs to support both of these possibilities. Finally, the whole issue of free will and the ability to determine rightful action may be better addressed in terms of moral responsibility. Dr. Hunter admits that acceptance of her thesis will inevitably require an ethical and moral judgment.
Moral responsibility is outlined by the code.
It provides the goal and general guidance for all military captives. It is founded on the most honored values of the military profession and the principle of eternal free will. In a hostile captivity, these two concepts provide the captive the ability to distinguish right from wrong. It permits them to disassociate forced external compliance from voluntary internal acceptance. It places responsibility for crossing the threshold with the captive and not the captor.