What should be done when a suspected terrorist is caught, as happened Christmas Day?

Do authorities lock him up incommunicado, throw away the key and try to squeeze everything out of him that they can? Or should they read him his Miranda rights, charge him with a crime and get him a lawyer, who no doubt will advise him to clam up?

More than eight years after the 9/11 attacks, the issue still is not settled. Instead, the Bush and Obama administrations have handled each tough case as if it were the first, stumbling along. President Bush erred by condoning torture. Now President Obama has been too hasty to confer all the rights of US citizenship on a foreign suspect.

What's needed is a middle ground that would allow terror suspects to be interrogated, not tortured, for timely information that could save lives, before they are turned over to the criminal justice system. The absence of such a standard can lead to foolish, even dangerous, decisions.

Consider the Christmas capture of would-be bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Authorities questioned the Nigerian briefly after he was apprehended at the Detroit airport. But within 30 hours, investigators opted to treat him as a garden-variety criminal, and he was provided with a lawyer. Within a dozen days, he was indicted on attempted murder on an airplane. Two days later, he was arraigned before a federal judge.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Abdulmutallab provided "useable, actionable intelligence" before he was read his rights and provided with a lawyer. But isn't it possible — even likely — he might have told interrogators more with repeated questioning over a few days? Going back a second or third time often elicits more information.

Click here for the full story