Skip to comments.Military Probers Have Not Read Bowe Bergdahl His Rights
Posted on 06/25/2014 10:51:23 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has not been read his legal rights but anything he says during his medical "reintegration" process could be used against him a military court martial, officials said Wednesday.
Military investigators looking into possible criminal charges of AWOL or desertion have not yet questioned Bergdahl about his disappearance from an Army outpost in Afghanistan five years ago and his subsequent capture by the Taliban.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Washington would have shot him
Won’t be shocked it Obama Military deems him a hero and says his platoon was a bunch of nutcases (as the WH has already suggested).
The fix is in folks.
I almost forgot about him... I thought perhaps they made him ambassador to Cuba or something.
When we enlist or are commissioned into the US military, we are all read our rights. There is no Miranda requirement in courts martial.
The don’t have to read him his miranda rights until they start questioning him. So yes, anything he says prior is admissible as long as it wasn’t compelled.
The penalty for desertion during the time of war SHOULD be death.
Funny how the media is jumping to his defense though isn’t it? What abot the rights of his fellow soldiers to expect him to man up and do his part?
Will it really matter as they will continue to delay it all til most have forgotten about him...and he’ll walk just the same. Probably say he’s mentally unsound.
Not exactly. If he is questioned and is suspected of a violation of the UMCJ, he must be read his Article 31 (military Miranda) rights, which are more extensive than Miranda because they apply even if the person isn’t in custody.
Further, statements made during his “medical reintegration”, if made in the context of counseling, will be privileged under the psychologist/psychiatrist - patient privilege of the Military Rules of Evidence.
They’re doing this on purpose, methinks, to poison any subsequent statement he might make.
Sorry, the response was meant for rjsimmons, not you. You’re quite correct, voluntary statements are absolutely admissible.
Why would they, since they have no intention of arresting him?