The Obama administration has received a terrible public lashing over their handling of the attempted plane bombing on Christmas day by the so called "underwear bomber" and this criticism has been totally off-base and a waste of America's time and effort which has much better uses considering the state of our nation. The major criticisms are that the Administration should have never mirandized this perpetrator and refrained from interrogating him when he asked for a lawyer but subjected him to long-term interrogation process getting from him all he knew about al qaeda and terrorism. Secondly, that this perpetrator should not be tried in the civilian court system but rather be subject to a military tribunal. The major problem with these critics criticism of the administration and I am surprised that more analysts aren't raising and making a big deal over this point to rebut the criticism is that America does not have a reliable, legally tested military tribunal system to try perpetrators of terrorism against the United States or its citizens. The last two times the Supreme Court addressed the military tribunal/Guantanamo Bay Detention system they ruled against the executive branch of the U.S. government. For these critics to say try this perpetrator in front of a U.S. military tribunal is egregiously unwise because the case could very likely be overturned on appeal and the prosecution of this perpetrator may be so harmed by such a misstep that America may never see justice done in this case. Further what if this young man was just a lone operator, off on his own twenty-something intellectual kid that misguidedly thought because America has done and does do some wrong things Americans deserve to be killed over it. Say it was crystal clear al qaeda never heard or had any dealings with this kid and neither did any other terrorist group he was totally acting alone, America would look ridiculous trying this guy in front of a military tribunal. Well when this perpetrator was in the hospital after being taken there because of his burn injuries, the Federal agents did not know if he was a real terrorist agent or a fake "only in the perpetrators mind" terrorist agent. So it is completely understandable what the agents did in mirandizing this perpetrator because in the interest of caution agents always want to do the prudent thing and protect the criminal case against the perpetrator which their actions did. The government agents did initially question the perpetrator to try to illicit if there was any other ongoing or pending terrorism acts that the perpetrator was aware of. And maybe in the future, when a perpetrator is picked-up for an act of terrorism the procedure should be like the one followed but an investigation should be expeditiously done to determine if the perpetrator is a real terrorist and if he or she is then the Attorney General should do a balancing test weighing the loss of potential evidence if Miranda rights are ignored and the perpetrator is interrogated and that effect on a prosecution against gaining intelligence on terrorism to protect Americans and if the potential gain for terrorism intelligence is found to be compelling the government should continue interrogating the perpetrator. Another outrageous point of these critics is that they condemn the Administration, the U.S. government giving this underwear bomber constitutional rights because he is a foreigner, not a U.S. citizen. These people are disgracefully short-sighted. These constitutional rights are due process rights they are rights to be treated fairly. Based on these critics position Americans in foreign countries accused of a crime are not entitled to due process rights. This is scary and wrong beyond description. Any responsible American believes people accused of a crime in America whether U.S. citizen or foreigner are entitled to the full scope of due process rights provided for in the U.S. constitution it goes to the core of American principles, America fully supports a person's fundamental rights. On a related topic, the Administration does deserve to be criticized. Trying the Guantanamo detainees in America's civilian criminal justice system is a bad and unwise idea. The vast vast majority if not all these detainees should be tried in front of military tribunals and it is noted that the military tribunal system to be used has not been found to be legal. The thing about civilian trials for these detainees is that the governments evidence will doubtful hold up to the high legal standards of the American civilian criminal justice system. These detainees were isolated, subjected to rough physical environments, harshly interrogated some were even repeatedly water boarded. Trying these cases in America's civilian criminal justice system will tarnish and cause long-lasting damage to the reputation of America's criminal justice system. If the Administration is trying in this civilian system move to placate people's opinion throughout the world about America's treatment of these detainees. The Administration should place a higher priority on doing the right thing and if people throughout the world are acting good they will understand. These detainees deserve to tried in military tribunals for the following reasons. America is at war with the Taliban and al qaeda and these detainees are accused of involvement with these enemies or conspiracy in a militant act(s) of these enemies; the nature of their wrongdoing is war crimes which are warranted to be tried in front of military tribunals. Because these detainees were participants in this war on the side of America's enemies they had to be aggressively interrogated to gain intelligence to protect Americans lives. Because of this necessary action on America's part it put at issue from a fairness standpoint all this evidence gathered from the detainees. Plus, many of these detainees were taken into custody in combat type situations which do not lend themselves to fair and adequate evidence collecting procedures and actions.