Investors Business Daily (IBD) weighs in:
...When pressed about speculation that the administration has made a significant policy shift on Mirandizing suspected terrorists, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was coy, saying he had "no reason to disbelieve a member of Congress."
Asked on a follow-up question if it would be "a surprise at the White House" if the Mirandizing was taking place, Gibbs said: "It's not a surprise to me."
That's an unmistakable admission that the administration has, in fact, changed course and is now treating terrorism as it would domestic crime. Now it's just a nuisance, reduced, as Sen. John Kerry was hoping for in 2004, to an offense that has to be endured like prostitution and gambling.
And here we thought it was about life, death and the preservation of America and Western civilization.
If Rogers is right, forget waterboarding. A Mirandized terrorism detainee cannot even be interrogated. A hostile combatant who might have information that can save lives on a foreign battlefield or in an American city has the option, one he is sure to take, to just remain silent — that is, until he begins to taunt his interrogators while his lawyer is present.
What if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had been Mirandized rather than waterboarded? He reportedly told his captors that "I'll talk to you guys after I get to New York and see my lawyer." But instead of huddling with an attorney, he rode the waterboard and gave up information that saved American lives.
With conditions in Afghanistan deteriorating to the point that Gen. David Petraeus sees "difficult times ahead," American soldiers don't need to be playing policeman. They and others fighting in the war on terrorism have more pressing needs to attend to on the battlefield than reading Miranda rights.
While the U.S. justice system is effective in dealing with domestic crime, it is not sufficient for foreign enemies who want to slaughter on a mass scale. When we give them rights, we put lives at risk. Full Editorial Here
While many, such as IBD above, have been expressing concern about giving terrorists the right to remain silent, other concerns quickly come to mind as well.
Do not Miranda rights also include a right to an attorney? If the terrorist cannot afford an attorney, will one be provided by the US government at taxpayer expense?
If the purpose of this policy is to be able to try these terrorists in US courts, will US soldiers have to collect evidence consistent with US law? Will they need search warrants to search suspected terrorist hideouts? Would evidence improperly collected or collected from an improper search be thrown out of court? Will US soldiers have to wait to be fired upon, before they fire on Taliban insurgents? Will ambushes conducted by US soldiers now be illegal?
Do we really want to head down this path?