Yes, But Was He Interrogated?

This story recently hit the wires:

Prosecutors unsealed an indictment against a son-in-law of Osama bin Laden on Thursday that charged him with conspiracy to kill Americans, after U.S. government sources said he was arrested overseas and brought to New York.

Shortly after president Obama entered office he developed the "HIG", or high-value interrogation group, which was supposed to supplant the evil torture regime of George W. Bushitler and Dick Cheneyburton. So was the HIG used with Suleiman?

After all, he was a legacy AQ member and the brother-in-law of AQ's leader. Seems like he should have at least been sent to Bagram, if not GITMO, before reaching a lower Manhattan jail.  Or was he taken somewhere already and they aren't telling us? Like maybe a Navy ship in the Red Sea, perhaps?

According to FBI Director Mueller the HIG has been used 14 times since 2010.  The examples given were terrorists wanna-be's whom nobody knew about until they almost blew something up, like the Underwear bomber and Times Square almost bomber.  As recent congressional testimony and this story from 2012 suggests, there has only been one AQ capture since Obama took office, Warsame, the guy interrogated on the ship.

So is it really possible Holder thinks we should return to the glory days when he was Deputy AG during the 90s and America treated AQ members like bank robbers, followed by 9/11?  Or are they really just doing what Bush did but not telling anyone anymore?   

MORE  3/8/13

The White House is playing coy with the interrogation aspect of Ghaith's capture.  Reporters asked today if it was more important to bring the man to justice or get information, and the spokesman said they are going to get both.  He did not explain whether the interrogation was ongoing, occurred with the HIG people before transfer to New York, or when he was read Miranda rights.  

But let's be clear!   There's nothing wrong with taking terrorists to Article III courts if the case is fairly solid and there is no intelligence to be gleaned from the suspect.  The track record is pretty good.   But they can't have it both ways.  They can't claim to be at war when discussing drone strike protocol then say terrorism is a law enforcement matter when someone is caught.  Let's see them 1) try to explain to the public why an Abu Ghaith walks out the front door of the court a free man because of a technicality, or 2) is acquitted then taken into custody as a enemy combatant and shipped to GITMO.   That's why it's not a law enforcement issue.