Most people include many congressmen/women don't understand Miranda rights, most people don't know the law, and this includes incompetent lawyers which many congressmen are. (You don't need to be good at law to be a congressman, you don't have to take an iq test or show mastery of a subject, just a good face, having ambition, and be electable.)

If you are not read your Miranda rights it doesn't prevent you from being tried. If you are not read your Miranda rights and you then incriminate yourself during interrogation than that testimony can't be used against YOU at trial. Miranda prevents self-incrimination.

It doesn't mean you can't interrogate that person, you can interrogate you them all you want. In fact we wouldn't want to read Osama Bin Laden his Miranda rights, for we would want to interrogate him, and use his testimony as evidence against other Al Qaeda suspects.

We already have enough evidence against Osama Bin Laden that we don't need to worry about his own testimony during interrogation. We already have enough evidence against him to nail him for life, and to execute him.

------------------------------------------

And for people who don't understand this subtle fact about Miranda rights, well they don't understand enough to contribute to a debate of public trials vs military tribunals to add to the academic discussion between the two. They are in over their head, and they don't add to the discussion, instead they are just clouding up the waters and some ideologues on this subject are just pontificating.

Note I consider myself to be one of those people who believes this subject is over my head, and I am not going to pontificate about how America should have X,Y,Z and we should do A,B,C to terrorist subjects. My only opinion is that we shouldn't have legal blackholes and we should throw-away haebus corpus for this war on terror has to have an endpoint, there is no such thing as cessation of hostilities.

Military Tribunals or Public Courts, I will let the people that know better decide.