Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1955-08-18

A Code of Conduct
For the Future
The leaders Of the American
Armed Forces-the Joint Chiefs
Of Statf-the Department Of De-
tense Committees--the various
planning and policy making
boards--reach decisions through
discussion and debate based on
facts. In striving to design Q
Code Of Conduct for United
States fighting men, the Defense
Advisory Committee weighed op-
posing points Of view In regard
to the name, rank. serial num-
>ber and date Of birth" provision
embodied in the Geneva Con-
ventions.
The traditional view is that
the POW stockade is only an
extension Of the battlefield where
the prisoners must be taught
TO carry on the struggle with the
only weapons remaining-faith
and courage.
The absolute restriction -
name, rank. number, date Of
birth, and nothing more. has
been called the Spartan Code. u
To some persons, such a re-
strictive code seemed unrealistic.
Especially in the light Of mod
ern interrogation methods. Au-
thorities on the subject Of in
terrogation insisted that the
iron-bound nothing more" Of
the Spartan Code was iInpos-
sihle. They pointed out that
Communist interrogators h q d
bent such men of steel as Cardi-
nal Mindszenty. Doctors and
psychiatrists generally conceded
that EVERY man has q breaking
point" Many prisoners in World
War II were forced beyond
name. rank and serial number. "
And nearly every prisoner in
Korea divulged something. Why,
then, the dissenters asked.
should a man endure purgatory
when his breaking" was inevi-
table? This view was publicized
in an article in a popular mag
azine. It was the authors opin-
ion that American servieemen
should be told that they may
sign any document the Commu-
nists want them to. or appear
on TV and deliver any script
the Reds hand them"
Referring to the case Of q Ma
rine colonel, the author pointed
to q fine officer who had been
coerced into signing a germ
warfare confession. Why not let
American captiyes sign any
thing at all? The United States
could announce that all such
confessions were obtained under
duress, and therefore invalid.
In addition to the Spartan
view" and the let them talk
view" there were numerous
advocates Of in-between meas
uresLtalk, but don't say any
thing.
In Axis camps and in Korea
many prisoners had stood up
against interrogation. Many had
refused to sign on any dotted
line. The idea that an officer or
enlisted man might stand UP to
q microphone and denounce his
country, his President, or his
faith, remained repellent. More
over, the man who signed q
germ warfare or some other con-
fession let himself in for a war
criminal" charge. Having OBJ
tanned such a confession the
INSCRIPTIONS enemy labeled him
q war criminal and claimed that
he was beyond the protecting
Geneva Convention.
The Committee believes that
this pratice is another strong
reason for our prisoners OF war
adhering to q well defined code
Of conduct in any future conflict
Pro and Con. There was much
to be said on both sides. And
there was something to be said
by experienced officers who fell
that q man could be taught II
hold his own In the battle Of wit:
against enemy interrogators
Authorities pointed out that the
Geneva Conventions did not i'm
pose absolute silence" on the
Interrograted war prisoner. There
were clauses indicating that hi
might discuss his employment
his finances, or his state Of
health, or conditions Of cap
tiyity" If necessity demanded
In short, he did not have to
remain mute.
The committee agreed that Q
line Of resistance must be drawn
somewhere and initially as far
forward as possible. The name,
rank and service number proyi-
sion Of the Geneva Conventions
is accepted as this line Of resist
ance.
However, in the face Of ex-
perience, 1t is recognized that the
POW may be subjected to an ex-
IRENE Of coercion beyond his
ability to resist. II in his battle
with the interrogation he Is driven
from his first line Of resistance he
must be trained for resistance in
successive positions. And, to
stand on the final line to the
end-no disclosure 0f vital mil
itary information and above all
no disloyalty in word or deed to
his country, his service or his
comrades.
Throughout, the serviceman
must be responsible for all Of his
actions. This In brief Is the spirit
and intent Of the Code Of Con-
duct which the Defense Advisory
Committee recommends.