Mock Turtle

England expects… you to do what your captors tell you to

Posted by Dalton48 on 30 Mar 2007 at 10:38 am | Tagged as: Current Events

4 Responses to “England expects… you to do what your captors tell you to”

1. on 30 Mar 2007 at 12:05 pm   gigantichound
   
   

   That does put the ball firmly back into their chain of command; thx for finding this, D48.

   West sounds like a scary person to work for:

   These particular people would not be trained in counter-interrogation techniques because they are not expected to be captured.

   If the Iranians did the same thing back in 2004, why is there no expectation that they will be captured? Once can be excused, sort of, twice is carelessness. These are now prone-to-capture troops, like air crew. If naval ratings aren’t going to be trained in how to behave if captured, which a) in general is probably a poor use of resources and b) there will be cultural obstacles to in a traditional blue-water navy with a technocratic Cold War approach to its mission, then they should just be using marines for this kind of high-risk boarding.

   But I think our guidance to anyone in that position would be to say what they want you to say, let’s not be silly about it.

   West should be able to say: Our doctrine in this situation is: He really sounds like he’s making it up as he goes along.

   Don’t tell them secrets, clearly, but if they tell you: ‘Say this’, well if that’s going to get you out, then do it.

   There’s no incentive to release them if they’re serving a propaganda value. The incentive is to keep the individual because they’re useful, and also the group as long as possible to see how many of them will co-operate with you.

2. on 30 Mar 2007 at 12:09 pm   gigantichound
   
   

   For reference, here is the Canadian doctrine. OOTW stands for Operations Other Than War:

   411. DETENTION BY FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS DURING OOTW
   1. Once in the custody of a foreign government, regardless of the circumstances that preceded the detention situation, detainees are subject to the laws of that government. CF members detained by foreign governments shall maintain military bearing and must not participate in antagonistic or illegal behaviour. In addition, CF members should:

   a. Ask immediately and continuously to see Canadian embassy personnel or a representative of an allied or neutral country. Members should also attempt to contact the International Committee of the Red Cross/Red Crescent;

   b. Provide name, rank, service number, date of birth (blood group and religion if situation dictates) and the innocent circumstances leading to their detention. Further discussions should be limited to and revolve around health and welfare matters, conditions of fellow detainees and going home.

   c. Avoid signing any form or document or making any statement oral or otherwise. This is a common tactic used to exploit the detainee. If forced to sign a document or make a statement, the member should provide as little information as possible and then continue to resist to the utmost of his or her ability.

   d. Escape attempts shall be made only after careful consideration of the risk of violence, chance of success, and detrimental effects on detainees remaining behind. Unsuccessful escapes will provide the captor with further justification to prolong detention by charging additional violations of its criminal or civil law and might result in bodily harm or even death to the member.

3. on 30 Mar 2007 at 12:16 pm   Dalton48
   
   

   I should have noted, too, that this interview is from last Saturday, i.e., before any letters or videos from the captives — lest it look like this is retroactive spinning.

4. on 30 Mar 2007 at 12:44 pm   lawgeek
   
   

   As GH points out, the interview does make you wonder how much the Navy thought these things through, before putting their people in harm’s way. OTOH West is retired and obviously not speaking for the Navy.

   As for Canadian doctrine, the language of 411(1)(c) appears to recognize that what is ideal and what is actually possible under conditions of capture may be two very different things.

   (While we’re at it, note where the document says “shall” and where it says “should”. Legally, a world of difference.)