CAC · Conduct After Capture

CAC stands for Conduct After Capture. It covers maintaining physical and mental capacity, protecting relevant information, resisting exploitation and responsibilities towards fellow captives. It also includes assessing the captivity situation and considering possible ways out of it. Prisoner-of-war captivity, government detention outside war and hostage situations create different requirements for disclosure, cooperation, escape decisions and conduct during release or rescue.

Recognising the captivity situation

Who holds a person, the captive's legal status and what the captors seek to achieve are three different questions. A service member held by state police may still be a prisoner of war when the conflict and person-category conditions are met. Conversely, wearing a uniform does not make someone detained outside a relevant armed conflict a prisoner of war. In hostage-taking, a person's safety or release is used to exert pressure on a third party. A state actor can also use this mechanism. The captor's label alone therefore determines neither disclosure obligations nor a sound escape decision.

Prisoner-of-war captivity: disclosure, the group and escape

When questioned, prisoners of war must give their surname and first names, rank, date of birth and military identifying number or equivalent information. Operational plans, friendly-force capabilities and knowledge about other prisoners are outside these required particulars. Raising a need for water, injury care, shelter or group welfare serves a different purpose from disclosing military information. Notifying family of capture likewise has a different purpose from a propaganda interview.

For members of the US Armed Forces, the Code of Conduct connects information protection with continuing military responsibility. The senior military prisoner takes command; if unable to act, the next senior assumes it. Fellow prisoners must not be harmed through disclosures or actions. Special privileges at others' expense conflict with this framework. Leadership also organises supplies, hygiene and support for the sick or wounded. Military command must be distinguished from prisoner representation under POW law: in camps without officers, elected representatives present the prisoners' common concerns to the detaining power.

The US Code requires efforts to escape and assistance to others seeking escape. In communal captivity, military leadership and the consequences for those left behind form part of the decision. POW law separately governs penalties: the unsuccessful escape attempt itself may receive only disciplinary punishment. A legally successful escape means, for example, reaching one's own or allied forces or leaving the territory under the detaining power's control. A person subsequently recaptured must not be punished for that escape. Violence against persons can, however, lead to criminal proceedings.

Government detention outside war

In government custody outside war, domestic criminal law and proceedings may determine release. For US military personnel in such operations, the conduct framework therefore calls for calm, courteous behaviour and avoidance of aggressive, combative or unlawful acts. Confronting a guard can create further allegations and prolong detention. In addition to identifying details, personnel should explain the innocent circumstances leading to detention; further discussions should be limited to welfare, fellow detainees and going home. This differs from the limited required disclosure of a prisoner of war.

Under this US framework, detainees should avoid signing documents and making statements. Captors may use such declarations as confessions or for political exploitation. If compelled, detainees should limit the information given as far as possible. They should immediately and repeatedly request access to US embassy personnel or a representative of an allied or neutral government.

The escape decision also differs from the US framework for POW captivity. US guidance recommends escape from confinement by an unfriendly government outside war only in life-threatening circumstances. An escape attempt may lead to additional criminal prosecution. The individual must therefore weigh the immediate threat to life against the consequences of a failed or successful attempt.

Hostage situations: surviving pressure on a third party

Hostage takers hold and threaten a person to force a government, organisation or family, for example, to act or refrain from acting. The hostage thus has a role in a confrontation over which they have little control. Calm, predictable behaviour and avoidance of sudden movements or political arguments reduce additional conflict initiated by the hostage. Where circumstances permit, conversation about non-sensitive everyday subjects may help the captors perceive an individual person. Such conversation still requires protection of sensitive information and knowledge about fellow hostages.

A photograph or video can show that a hostage remains alive while also serving demands or propaganda. Civilian US guidance for the overseas Foreign Service and Civil Service employees within its scope recommends cooperating with proof of life. Service members remain subject to their own information and propaganda protection rules. If forced to convey demands, a hostage should, where possible, make clear that these come from the captors. Making a recording and endorsing its political content as a personal conviction are different acts.

Discreet observation can preserve an understanding of the situation: travel times, identifiable directions, sounds and changes of location may later matter when assessing a way out or reconstructing captivity. The captive uses only perceptions actually available. Conspicuous reconnaissance can draw the guards' attention.

Maintaining capacity with limited means

Captors largely control access to water, food, medical care, movement and personal equipment. Personal medical supplies may have been confiscated; even existing care depends on what the captors can provide and allow. Practical conduct therefore starts with the freedom actually available: use offered food and water to preserve strength, maintain hygiene where possible and communicate health needs in a factual manner.

Prolonged inactivity and solitary confinement make mental orientation harder. A recurring sequence of possible daily activities and self-chosen mental tasks helps organise the day. The person can deliberately revisit memories, plan a task mentally or organise observations. The amount they take on, including physical activity, must fit available nutrition, health, space and permitted movement. Contact with fellow captives allows tasks and support to be coordinated. Separation or lack of contact requires a routine they can follow alone.

Information about another captive can make their questioning more dangerous: occupation, specialist knowledge or personal relationships may show captors whom to target next. Information protection therefore includes other people. Shared agreements aim to limit internal conflict and prevent each captive from giving conflicting details or promises independently. After a compelled statement, limiting further exploitation remains worthwhile; one act of compliance under pressure does not make continued disclosure inevitable.

CAC and Resistance to Interrogation

Resistance to Interrogation, RtoI or RTI, focuses on resisting questioning and protecting information. CAC also covers life in custody, dealings with captors, group responsibilities, propaganda exploitation and the possible end of captivity. The Australian CAC model broadened the former interrogation focus to include Foreign Government Detention, Hostage Survival and Military Exploitation. Participants are expected to make different decisions in these scenarios: managing government detention, surviving as a hostage or limiting military exploitation. CAC is used there, among other applications, in preparing air mobility personnel.

In the United Kingdom, CAC forms part of practical resistance training; British SERE Level C training is delivered by the Defence SERE Training Organisation. Within the NATO level framework, resistance at Level B is addressed in the classroom, while Level C includes extensive practical application in a controlled, realistic environment. Australian CAC levels describe the captivity component and are not complete NATO SERE qualifications.

Canada uses Conduct after Capture and, in French, Conduite après la Capture. One Canadian approach first prepares personnel to understand captivity situations and their own stress responses, then rehearses self-regulation skills before applying them in controlled captivity scenarios. These skills include controlled breathing, muscle relaxation and deliberate self-talk: the captive aims to regulate strong arousal and retain focus on a concrete next task. Trained CAC instructors portray credible captor roles. German SERE training addresses protection of the individual and relevant information upon capture, as well as preparation for recovery. The US Code, by comparison, remains a national conduct framework for US service members; it does not impose military service obligations on civilian employees.

Release, escape and an actual rescue

Captivity may end through release or transfer, the individual's escape or a rescue operation. When assessing a personal way out, immediate threat, physical capacity, surroundings and consequences for fellow captives must be considered together. Leaving custody can lead back to survival and evasion: the person needs protection and supplies while avoiding recapture.

During an armed rescue, arriving forces must first distinguish hostages from captors. The hostage stays low, avoids sudden movement, keeps hands and face visible and follows the force's instructions. Joining the fighting or running towards armed personnel makes that distinction harder. Once freedom has been regained, medical care, reconstruction of captivity and possible information disclosure, and further reintegration form part of recovery.