"The Pentagon said that these prisoners were kept in accordance with the Geneva Convention, and of course I was not reassured by that, but I couldn't prove that that was wrong; so we're clearer about that"

Peter Singer’s words reflect deep skepticism about official statements regarding the treatment of prisoners by the Pentagon. When authorities asserted that prisoners were being kept in line with the Geneva Convention, Singer’s reaction was far from one of confidence or trust, he openly acknowledges his lack of reassurance. This hesitancy is telling; it underscores a broader atmosphere of doubt about whether government claims regarding ethical behavior and lawful conduct are truthful or simply attempts to ward off criticism and international scrutiny.

Singer emphasizes a crucial limitation: while he was not reassured, he also lacked the evidence needed to disprove those official narratives. This introduces a dilemma common in situations where state secrecy and information control are the norm. Ordinary citizens and outside observers often cannot verify claims made by powerful institutions, especially concerning sensitive matters like detainee treatment during times of conflict. The inability to prove something wrong does not amount to proving it right, a gap that authorities can exploit to maintain plausible deniability.

The concluding remark, “so we’re clearer about that,” signals a shift; with time, perhaps more evidence or more critical scrutiny has arisen, and the reality behind those official statements is now more apparent. It suggests that the truth of the matter, whether those prisoners were indeed treated according to international law, has since become more transparent and perhaps has justified Singer’s initial skepticism. There is also an implicit moral dimension: those in power, especially during war or crisis, may use legalistic language to offer assurances, but those assurances warrant ongoing critical examination rather than automatic acceptance.

Singer’s observation ultimately invites readers to question official accounts, to recognize the limitations of information available to the public, and to remain vigilant and critical until clarity, and accountability, can be truly achieved.