significant interrogations that has been done in terms of productivity was the interrogation of abu jondahl and the 302s from that investigation, i believe, are still being used in cases to this day. and that was accomplished after miranda warnings, was it not? >> i think that's correct. i think more generally, depending on the circumstances, a very, very good interrogator can often get tremendously valuable information to -- depending on what he knows about the detainee and language and cultural issues and so it's a very complicated business. but the goal again is to keep all the options on the table. and i should say one other thing i guess that may not be obvious. to the extent that we don't have a miranda requirement in a military commission but we do have, let's say, a voluntary test, i'm not suggesting that we would start prophylactically giving miranda warnings across the base. but that doesn't preclude the admission of the statement and the prosecution in a military commission. indeed it may be helpful there as well as in article 3 court. >> and i share senator sessions high opinion