Huh????  If you are talking about military operations, then you are talking about a whole different set of circumstances. . . . .and laws.  Does the Geneva Convention come to mind here?  Our Constitution is not supposed to cover anyone but our own citizens and those from other countries that are within our borders.

As for Miranda. . . . .that is only between law enforcement (yes, even military law) for those that have been "alledged" to have violated a law.  In reference to your question. . . .we are not talking about violation of laws. . . .we are USUALLY talking about prisoners of war. . . .correct?

po0131 says ...

NO.

A short answer is a good answer, clear and to the point.

No

No

Bump the No.

uncledennis1 says ...

What? Did a police officer axe that question?

My thoughts exactly.

War is not a criminal matter.

Potential combatants in a war zone should be receiving incoming rounds not a Miranda Warning.

The answer is no, of course, since enemy combatants on established battlefields are captured or killed, not arrested.  

But in the Long War, where terms like 'battlefield', 'war zone', 'enemy combatant' and 'armed belligerent' are increasingly hard to define - in what context is mirandization required?  Then - what's next?

We know we don't have to mirandize a Yemeni uniformed enemy combatant who, from an off-base position in the tree-line near perimeter of a parking lot of a military installation in Colorado, has just picked off an un-uniformed soccer mom who is coming from her job as a private contractor where she sits at a console all day operating remote-controlled drone missiles to strike at Al Qaeda encampments in Pakistan or other locations.   (see: Harvey Rishikof). 

What if the Yemeni sniper also is not in uniform?  What if he is an ununiformed, stateless,  Al Qaeda operative?   What if he is a citizen of the United States residing in the Bronx?   

WTF??? 

Romans_116 says ...

Shall we appoint them a lawyer as well?

And give them a telephone call as well?