Task: Text Completion
Input (English): applicability of the Edwards rule to apply to interrogative conduct by a non-law enforcement commander; see United States v. Brabant, 29 M.J. 259, 263 (C.M.A.1989) (concluding that Sergeant Brabant’s commanding officer’s order that Sgt Brabant attend a meeting following his invocation of counsel created the "functional equivalent of a ‘reinitiation of interrogation’”); see also United States v. Mitchell, 51 M.J. 234, 237 (C.A.A.F.1999) (extending applicability of Edwards to question, "Was it worth it” by Petty Officer Mitchell’s leading chief petty officer who was there as part of official command brig visit). The CMA has also created an overseas exception to the Edwards rule. United States v. Vidal, 23 M.J. 319 (C.M.A.1987); see United States v. Coleman, 26 M.J. 451, 453 (C.M.A.1988) (<HOLDING>). 10 . Upon remand, the U.S. Army Court of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an ambiguous mention of an attorney is not a request for counsel (B) holding suspect must unambiguously request counsel before applying rule established in edwards that police questioning must cease once suspect requests counsel during interview (C) holding that in determining whether there exists a valid waiver of the right to counsel in the criminal setting the court may consider a defendants lack of good faith in working with appointed counsel including an unreasonable refusal to cooperate with counsel or an unreasonable request for substitution of appointed counsel and the timeliness of defendants request for new counsel particularly when a defendant makes an untimely request for new counsel  under circumstances which are likely to result in a continuance (D) holding that a suspect must unambiguously request counsel (E) holding that a request for counsel made to foreign authorities is insufficient to trigger edwards rule even if army cid agents were aware of specialist colemans prior request for counsel made to german police
Output (English): (E)