I have been somewhat...amazed...at recent statements by Susan Collins and
other members of Congress that seem to advocate dispensing with
long-established Due Process rights (Miranda warnings, the right to an
attorney) in criminal proceedings, on grounds that if the crime may be
classified as terrorism, such things are unnecessary.

I always thought a main premise of our Constitution was that guilt not be
pre-judged, no matter what the circumstances.

As a matter of policy, what about "as you judge, so shall you be judged"? 
If the US govt. is to dispense with what I thought we regarded as
fundamental rights, can we expect Americans abroad to be treated any
better?  I remember when the Soviets  detained Americans for spying, and
much of the world was outraged at the travesty of the proceedings.

I have no idea if the hikers detained currently in Iran are reckless
tourists, spies, or innocents somehow gone astray over a border.  But from
the standpoint of the Iran government, I can see how they can make a case
that their presence alone is evidence of hostile intent (after all, this
was the grounds for detention of a number of men in Guatanamo, according
to the DOD).

It seems to be a very dangerous slope to be on.

And I also think that if it is true that Congressional leadership is
unaware that the FBI procedures involve upholding the 5th and 6th
Amendments, as they appear to be currently claiming, I consider them unfit
for their jobs.

I hope this won't be regarded as flaming the board, but I am curious as to
how fellow legal scholars view the situation!

cheers,
Suzy