Originally Posted by
Alan
I think too many of us have a TV drama view of due process. The Miranda warning serves two purposes, one being to inform the suspect of the right to resist self-incrimination and the second being the understanding that counsel is available to assist in purpose #1. Failure to provide that warning ensures that the suspect's self-incriminating statements cannot be used against him/her in a subsequent trial.
If the state believes that there is ample evidence to ensure a conviction, such as photographs, video, witnesses and confessions made to witnesses, etc., the due process argument doesn't hold water as any post-arrest self incrimination is not necessary to the trial.
To me, the real question is whether or not the suspect should be classified as an enemy combatant, a designation which leaves me with mixed feelings in this case.