Memorandum for William J. Haynes II, General Counsel of the Department of the Defense: Re: Potential Legal Constraints Applicable to Interrogations of Persons Captured by U.S. Armed Forces in Afghanistan [February 26, 2002] [open pdf - 3MB]
"You have asked a series of questions concerning legal constraints that may potentially apply to interrogation of persons captured in Afghanistan. Several of the issues you have raised relate to the applicability of the Supreme Court's decision in 'Miranda v. Arizona', 384 U.S. 436 (1966), to interrogations that may be conducted for various purposes (and by various personnel) ranging from obtaining intelligence for military operations and force protection to investigating crimes with a view to bringing subsequent prosecutions. As explained below, the Self-incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in 'Miranda', provides a trial right in a criminal prosecution before U.S. courts and governs the admissibility of statements made by the defendant in a custodial interrogation. The issue of the applicability of 'Miranda' and restrictions it may place on conduct in interrogations, therefore, is best addressed in the context of the subsequent use that is made of statements obtained in custodial interrogation. As we explain below, the Self-incrimination Clause (and hence 'Miranda') does not apply in the context of a trial by military commission for violations of the laws of war. Accordingly, military commissions may admit statements made by a defendant in a custodial interrogation conducted without 'Miranda' warnings. Therefore, to the extent that the only trial-related use of statements obtained in an interrogation will be before a military commission, there is no need to provide 'Miranda' warnings."
U.S. Dept. of Justice: http://www.justice.gov/