ICAC sting cases are mushrooming across every service. Shaw Air Force Base is one of the clearest examples: the cases occur there often enough, and follow a defined enough pattern, to illustrate what happens everywhere. A good Airman slowly morphs into a court-martial defendant through choices he makes, in a sting designed to get him to make exactly those choices. The military prosecutes these cases aggressively, but the defense can challenge the ICAC undercover standards if the attorney knows what to do. ICAC cases take a long time to develop, which is both the danger and the opportunity, and there are things an Airman should do, and not do, before the charging decision is made. How a Good Airman Slowly Morphs into a Court-Martial Defendant […]

Military investigators start manipulating you long before you ever meet them. They do it in the way they coordinate your interrogation through your chain of command. When you meet them, everything they say and do is designed to get you to waive your Article 31(b) rights. When they advise you of your rights, they’ll try to make it sound like a minor housekeeping task. They will use mind games and word tricks to get you to waive your rights. This charade will continue all the way through trial, when agents will testify against you in pastels to look soft and harmless. The only safe way to respond to an interrogation is to make a clear, unambiguous request for a lawyer. Anything else can leave you […]

Article 31(b) of the UCMJ prohibits military investigators from questioning suspects before informing them of the nature of the accusation and advising them of their right to remain silent. Your rights under Article 31(b) are clear but the forms agents use to inform you of those rights are not. This article covers what Article 31(b) requires, how rights advisement forms differ across the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard, and how investigators use mind games and the rights form itself to get you to sign your rights away. United States v. Scottgeorge (NMCCA 2026) and United States v. Campbell (AFCCA 2017) illustrate where courts draw the line between a valid waiver and one that violates your rights. Article 31(b) Rights Advisement Forms […]