UC Berkeley law professor John Yoo responded in a matching article in the same publication , that the court 's view provides interpretive guidance when a suspect says nothing for an extended period . More significantly ( he wrote ) , it symbolizes and parallels the Obama administration 's favouring of the " terrorism-as-crime " pre-2001 paradigm over the " terrorism-as-war " paradigm of the Bush era . ( See anti-terrorism legislation and Bush Doctrine ) This perspective could influence terrorism cases , when the opponents were declared to be at war , since " interrogation would seek actionable intelligence to stop attacks , not confessions for use in civilian trials " . Yoo concluded that the court 's " new flexibility " would perhaps allow it to " ease the burden " on military , intelligence and police " and permit " more flexible responses to terrorism within the criminal-justice paradigm , though at the expense of weakening the civil rights of all Americans " . The present ruling might clarify that '' Miranda '' was not relevant where information was not being collected for use at a trial . As such it might act in mitigation of " weak anti-terrorism policies "
pre-2001
September 11 attacks
Berghuis v. Thompkins