I am still weighing the considerations and learning more about the difference between treating a suspect as a enemy combatant, or a domestic criminal. Domestic criminals are supposed to get their Miranda rights (though there are exceptions as noted in the NYT article), and enemy combatants can effectively be shipped off to black holes with no public information about them or their activities ever to see the light of day.
I understand that Terrorist is subjective; many in parts of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen would have a case that the CIA are terrorists with the drone strikes that kill and maim non-combatants. But I view a Terrorist as one who purposefully kills and maims the general public as a means of sowing fear and/or attempting to make a political statement. And those who engage in Terrorism are the dregs of humanity just as pedophiles are. So I have no mercy for Terrorists. Part of me says to take Terrorists to a black hole and do anything/everything necessary to get any valuable information from them. No need for regard to their rights or physical well-being. But I also am skeptical about the actions of those in power when we as citizens give them cart-blanche power with little or no oversight.
I actually believe that a happy medium of “black hole” treatment in the initial interrogation of a suspected Terrorist, followed by a public and a fully disclosed trial similar to what a domestic criminal would receive. As I work through my thoughts and opinions, this New York times blog posting is a great tool with information on the different means of treating Terror suspects.