Why didn't he sign the paper?
What would happen if he did sign it?
Its a matter of following the Military Code of Conduct. There are 6 articles that you can Google and read up on. Military members are expected to follow them if captured by the enemy. The other prisoners signed but they were also Air America pilots, not military. Chances are that you would of received nothing in return from the enemy for signing the paper. If you are military then understand what is expected of you in that situation. How long someone can last being tortured before they will sign or say anything doesn't matter. What matters is that you resist until you CAN'T resist any longer.
shareThe real Dieter explains all these things in the 1998 documentary. It's nothing to do with military code, just patriotism. He drew strength from his grandfather who had been persecuted/spat at for refusing to vote for Hitler.
_____________________
Tally-ho, my fine saucy young trollop!
Actually from what I have read, prisoners who were willing to cooperate with the NV were treated rather well. Even for very small bits of information they were rewarded with candy bars, extra food, and/or an extra blanket or pillow. It was in the NV's interest to treat the cooperating prisoners better. In addition to some possible valuable information, you destroy the morale of the Pow group by getting some to cooperate. This was especially true of higher-ranking officers, or just officers period.
Of course if you cooperate right off the bat, you have betrayed your country and fellow servicemen. You could also face some serious charges after your release.
I'd give a rat's a$$ about some stupid military code if I could save my own life. America really is a JOKE.
shareThere are variables. Who are the combatants involved? Who is holding the prisoner? Where are they holding the prisoner?
It's all well and good to sit in a stateside classroom and listen to what the instructor says about obedience to the Code of Conduct. If you are privileged to be captured by some western European nation, adherence to the Code might be advisable. On the other hand, if you are captured by remote tribesmen somewhere 100 miles from nowhere and the political officer only comes around once in a blue moon, reconsideration might be necessary. When a piece of paper is thrust in front of you to sign, how else can it be taken except that not to do so portends danger to self? Does it do your country any good for you to be dragged by a water buffalo?
It's mighty fine to uphold national honor, personal values, and so forth. But when some hungry guard whose village you just bombed comes at your nut-sack with red hot tongs, you're gonna sign. All those high-sounding reasons for honoring the Code of Conduct will fly out the window.
The military has to have such a code for the purposes of appearances. To do otherwise would send a wrong message. However, as an institution, it realizes that lapses are going to be more the rule than the exception. In reality, unless you're at war with the Canadians or the British, for the most part the Code is meaningless in realization.
To answer another question posed previously, yes, POW's interned in major military prisons in North Vietnam did receive better treatment for having signed such papers and other forms of cooperation. Out in the bush in Laos, it probably wasn't as certain.