> the point of not giving a Miranda warning is that it pretty muh eliminates the possibility of having him tried within the criminal oourt sytstem---it pretty much assumes a military tribunal will be employed.

Not at all, at least according to numerous legal experts on TV. The Supreme Court has ruled an "Exception to the Miranda Decision." This Exception states that the warning is not required when public safety may reasonably be thought to be under continued threat (e.g., the possibility of unexploded bombs or a larger conspiracy).

No information gained under the Exception, however, may be used in court against the suspect. The reasoning is that the Fifth Amendment protects you from self-incrimination; it doesn't give you the right also to withhold vital information that cannot incriminate you. (And it cannot if prosecutors are forbidden to use it in court.)

What's more, if there's an airtight case against him - based on photos, physical evidence, and plenty of witnesses - prosecutors may not need any self-incriminating statement from him.

They can read him his Miranda rights after questioning him about things that cannot be used against him. And they probably will (short of an airtight case), if only to eliminate a basis for appeal.

Finally, if he doesn't want to talk, they can't legally make him. To "mirandize" a suspect only makes certain he knows what's in the Constitution, which he may know anyway. The Miranda decision was based on the fact that many arrested suspects *had no idea* they had a right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer.