Question: Can a soldier be court-martialed for revealing intelligence while in duress? Let's say a soldier is captured and then tortured by Russian agents to reveal critical top-secret intelligence to the Russian government. Can the soldier be then court-martialed in the U.S. for treason or some other crime?

Answer: 
[2019 Manual for Courts-Martial](https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/Documents/2019%20MCM%20(Final)%20(20190108).pdf?ver=2019-01-11-115724-610), Rule 916(h):

> 
> (h) Coercion or duress. It is a defense to any offense
> except killing an innocent person that the accused’s
> participation in the offense was caused by a reasonable
> apprehension that the accused or another innocent
> person would be immediately killed or would
> immediately suffer serious bodily injury if the accused
> did not commit the act. The apprehension must
> reasonably continue throughout the commission of the
> act. If the accused has any reasonable opportunity to
> avoid committing the act without subjecting the
> accused or another innocent person to the harm
> threatened, this defense shall not apply.
> 
> 
> 

So, if your hypothetical soldier asserts they had a reasonable apprehension that they would have immediately suffered serious bodily injury if they didn't reveal the intelligence, then they should not be convicted by a court-martial, unless the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was not the case (Rule 916 (b)(1)).
[uk](/questions/tagged/uk "show questions tagged 'uk'")

As I understand it, in the UK, there is no specific defence of 'duress' under law against the charge of *Assisting the Enemy* (e.g. in contravention of the [Armed Forces Act 2006](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/52/pdfs/ukpga_20060052_en.pdf)).

> 
> 1. **Assisting an enemy**  
> 
> (1) A person subject to service law commits an offence if, **without lawful excuse**,
> he intentionally  
> 
> ...  
> 
> (b) gives an enemy information that would or might be useful to the
> enemy;
> 
> 
> 

Various defences to *lesser charges* are raised in the [supporting documents](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/617132/20170523-Chapter_12-Defences_Mitigation_Criminal_responsibility-AL42-v1.pdf) which **do** include duress;

> 
> 15. **Duress.**  
> 
> Duress may form a defence **to all offences which may be heard summarily.** However, the exact scope of this defence is not clearly defined in law and staff legal advice should be sought if it is raised. **This defence covers the situation where a person is threatened by another with death or grievous bodily harm if they do not undertake a criminal act.** For example, where an accused claims that another person threatened to seriously harm them unless they stole a digital camera for them.
> 
> 
> 

But since the charge of Assisting an enemy is not one that can be dealt with at a summary hearing, this defence could only be raised *in mitigation*, not as a lawful defence against the charge itself.

---

That all being said, the Attorney General and DPP have a wide latitude to determine whether a prosecution would be in the public's interest. If the individual could demonstrate (to a reasonable extent) that they were *genuinely fearful of their life* when giving up vital information, then it's highly unlikely that a prosecution would be called for.