Did the Times Square bombing suspect deserve the right to remain silent? Authorities read Faisal Shahzad his Miranda rights after his arrest (and an initial interrogation to suss out any imminent threats to public safety) — a decision Glenn Beck, among other commentators, support. Wrong move, say Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Peter King (R-NY) arguing that officials should have squeezed Shahzad, a Pakistan-born naturalized U.S. citizen, for everything he knew. Was the FBI right to "mirandize" Shahzad? (Watch Glenn Beck defend Faisal Shahzad's Miranda rights)

No Miranda = no conviction: McCain and King are "nuts" to oppose mirandizing Shahzad, says Matthew Yglesias in Think Progress. To bring Shahzad to justice, the government needs legally admissible evidence, which is "the whole reason cops mirandize suspects." The "law enforcement" approach to fighting terror has worked just fine in this case — let it keep working.
"McCain wants to execute terrorism suspect, make it impossible to secure conviction"

National security trumps a legal confession: The Obama team's use of Miranda only makes sense if the highest goal is to preserve Shahzad's statements for a criminal trial, says Marc Thiessen in the AEI's Enterprise blog. It isn't. Given his apparent ties to Pakistan's Taliban, our "first priority" is learning "who sent him, who trained him, and whether other attacks are planned" — and Shahzad can't tell us that if he remains silent.
"Has the Times Square terrorist been read his Miranda rights?"

Protecting the constitution first: Everybody "put away the pitchforks already," says Adam Serwer in The American Prospect. I'll trust the cops and intelligence pros over "Republican politicians" on the wisdom of mirandizing terrorism suspects. Depriving terror suspects of their constitutional rights has not only proven ineffective in the past, it sets a very dangerous precedent.
"The consequences of not mirandizing Shahzad"