Miranda? We don't need no stinking Miranda!

I am aghast at the joint statement released by Lindsey Graham and John McCain:

“Now that the suspect is in custody, the last thing we should want is for him to remain silent. It is absolutely vital the suspect be questioned for intelligence gathering purposes. We need to know about any possible future attacks which could take additional American lives. The least of our worries is a criminal trial which will likely be held years from now,” Graham and McCain said. “Under the Law of War we can hold this suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or the appointment of counsel. Our goal at this critical juncture should be to gather intelligence and protect our nation from further attacks.”

You see, they didn't Mirandize him. And technically, they have legal backing at the point of immediate arrest at least. There is what's called a "public safety exception." It's based on a 1980 case in which a police officer subdued a rapist, noticed an empty gun holster on the suspect, and asked him where the gun was prior to Mirandizing. The cop found it in the alley at the direction of the suspect. Lawyers tried to get the gun tossed as evidence, but the SCOTUS ultimately ruled that in the event of an immediate safety threat, the Miranda could be read after the threat was neutralized. In other words, they do eventually have to Miranda this guy, but they're claiming a "threat" still exists in that he may have knowledge of additional sleeper cells, plots, etc, so questioning him pre Miranda after he wakes up in the hospital is legal. They're gambling. They're gambling that enough physical evidence exists to convict even if every self incriminating word he utters is tossed out. They're weighing that against the value of any information he will potentially offer up.

Now, here's my concern. I get, honestly I do, the technical legal gamble they're taking. Essentially it's a basic risk/reward decision. But this guy is a U.S. citizen. He was naturalized on 9/11/12. Ya, on 9/11. My concern is less with this legal "gamble" as I describe it, and more with McCain & Graham's statement. What did I warn about in my last post? Certain linguini-spined GOP'ers on Capital Hill willing to hand the POTUS (and by definition all future presidents) powers that we will not get back. Reread the statement above, that is EXACTLY what they're doing. They want the POTUS to have the authority and political cover to declare a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant, and thrown in GITMO. What's worse, if he is declared an enemy combatant then BY DEFINITION Graham and McCain have ceded that the U.S is a "battlefield", and battlefield rules apply, even to U.S. citizens. Thus the CIC's powers to operate domestically will match those in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is that alone not a "fundamental transformation" of our country? After all, if a U.S. citizen is an enemy combatant conducting operations on the battlefield of U.S. soil, than why would we deny the CIC the ability to conduct drone strikes in Boston, Chicago, L.A., or Austin? Why not military checkpoints? Why not courts martial assembled? Hell, why not turn the drum upside down, read the accusation, then hang em'? For the love of all that's holy, where is the Left on this? They should bare in mind, one day a Republican will reclaim the White House... do they really want the president's domestic powers to be limited only by battlefield rules?