Miranda Rights on the Battlefield: Why?

Have you heard the news? The latest idea to defeat radical terrorists - having FBI agents read Miranda rights to enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan. What? Since when do insurgents or prisoners-of-war captured by our military had the right to remain silent, or the right to consult with an attorney? You can not fight a war, much less win one, with a flawed policy like this. We must consider the far-reaching ramifications for the defense of our country. There is a clear distinction between fighting a war and maintaining order through law enforcement. Law enforcement officials within the country naturally face legal constraints, implemented to protect the basic rights of our citizenry. Enemy combatants captured during military operations should not be categorized as ordinary "criminals." The last time I checked, we "mirandize" individuals in this country based on the 1966 Supreme Court decision in Miranda v. Arizona. That landmark Supreme Court decision applies to law enforcement activities conducted inside our borders. What legal application does that precedent have in Afghanistan? Absolutely none. Detainees captured in wartime outside our borders have no legal standing based on the Miranda case, nor should the administration attempt to arbitrarily create one as U.S. policy. Reading Miranda rights on the battlefield is not smart or expedient from a tactical perspective. Has warfare ever been conducted this way? This policy sets a very troubling legal precedent for future engagement of the enemy. What if we must defend South Korea against invasion from North Korea, Taiwain against a Chinese takeover, or Israel from Iranian aggression? Are we going to apply that same philosophy to detainees in those circumstances? Detainees have information which could save the lives of our troops or civilians working in theater. In the War on Terrorism (personally, I refuse to call it "Overseas Contingency Operations," as I earned a ribbon proudly worn on my military uniform designated specifically for my service in the "Global War on Terrorism"), interrogation of captured insurgents has provided intelligence preventing a domestic terrorist attack. For the sake of our armed forces, their mission, and the safety of the country, the Administration must realize the error of this policy and rescind it before it costs American lives. I say this as an American who gained first-hand knowledge and experience with detainee operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom.