Aren't we splitting hairs here? I'll admit to being out of my depth, but functionally, a limit placed on what a prisoner is required to provide combined with a restriction against coercion, is essentially equivalent to a prohibition against interrogation, isn't it? (Functionally equivalent, not absolutely equivalent.)

Not at all. Unless you define interrogation as beating the crap out of someone until they tell you what you want to hear. Coercion is not an integral part of the definition of interrogation. It is quite possible to interrogate someone without resorting to coercion. Some people are really good at it. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff>.

If charged with a crime, one is not required to answer questions without a lawyer present.

True, but even if not charged with a crime one is not required to answer questions without legal advice.

In all instances, one may answer questions voluntarily, including, I might add, the "detainees who can't be named" currently at issue (reference to an earlier thread and a bit of a pun, too).

Sorry, I must have missed it. I don't get it.

In all cases but one, the aforementioned "detainees", one has the right to either remain silent or provide only limited personal information.

This is not quite correct. POWs have the right to provide only limited personal information (date of birth is also a piece of information a POW is required to provide under the Geneva Conventions, but gets dropped out of the the Hollywood line "name, rank, and serial number") and to refuse to answer any other questions.

Persons charged with crimes or those who are suspected of involvement in crimes, however, while they have a right to have a lawyer present during interrogation, only have a right to refuse to answer questions that may result in self-incrimination. Failure to answer other relevant questions may lead to charges of obstruction (see Libby, I. Lewis [aka "Scooter"]). The presence of a lawyer to advise what questions may be answered is a guard against infringement of the accused's constitutional right to protection from self-incrimination.

Another difference between POWs and accused criminals is that POWs, captured on the battlefield, can be assumed to have relevant information about the disposition of enemy forces (deployments, staging areas, level of supply, location of units, names of commanders, etc.), whereas a suspected criminal very well might know nothing about the criminal acts of which he is accused or suspected.

And the right not to be tortured.
— The Reality Kid

Everyone has that right.

First, the two of you have given me informative and detailed replies, probably better and more than my comment deserved. I say that both humbly, but also literally.

I say it humbly, because these were excellent answers, so much so that I've copied both for ongoing reference. Thank you for taking the time to respond in such a useful fashion. Your attempts to inform have not been in vain.

I say it literally, because I think both of you provided answers that went beyond my rather limited point which, frankly, was not as clearly framed as it should have been. As the two of you point out, clearly and ably, we're not splitting hairs (to use my term) and I was wrong to see a functional equivalence where none exists.

However, although I'm a little embarrassed about it now, my point was that, in any other circumstances where one might expect a prisoner to have important information, there are limits placed on how that information may be obtained. Not so in the case of the detainees (and F,md,..., my vague allusion was to the various detainees in the "war" on "terror", held in Gitmo and elsewhere, about whom we were having a discussion about proper naming in a recent thread), who in many cases should not have even been expected to have valuable information, given the circumstances of their "capture".

I won't speak for pow wow (whose point I was supporting, not that pow wow needs my lame support), but I think the over-arching point is that, with regards to these detainees, all other precedents with regards to POWs or alleged criminals simply serve to underscore the lawlessness and inhumanity that has been given free rein in regards to these captives - which, as you both point out in your own way, is not only criminal, but unnecessary, as other precedents illustrate how information may be obtained even with procedural constraints and protections.

in a country no longer deserving of or fit for heroes:

Supreme Court turns down 9/11 families' appeal "without comment", lets stand Saudi immunity

June 29, 2009, 2:23 p.m. EST

PHILADELPHIA, June 29, 2009 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- The following is a statement by Jerry S. Goldman of Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C., counsel to the family of JOHN P. O'NEILL, Sr. (Former FBI Anti Terrorist Officer and Head of WTC Security):

"We are disappointed by today's decision by the United States Supreme Court to refuse to hear the case brought by the family of the late American hero, John P. O'Neill, on behalf of the victims of 9/11 against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and others. Federal Insurance Company, et al., v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, et al., No. 08-640 (6/29/09).

We are saddened to see that the Court declined to apply its traditional standards for accepting a case for review. We assume that it relied upon the arguments propounded by the Executive branch and the defendants to deny the 9/11 victims their day in Court against certain sovereign nations, such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, that we allege materially support terrorists.

We note, however, that there are still cases pending in the lower courts against other sovereign nations unaffected by the Supreme Court's ruling."

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090629172526510

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

http://www.potw.org/archive/potw351.html