In this week’s episode, Professors Chesney and Vladeck make a whole series of blatantly un-Mirandized statements about some of the latest national security law developments. First, they take up a number of questions relating to the events in Charlottesville. Was the murder an act of “domestic terrorism”? What does federal criminal law have to say about domestic terrorism? How does this situation compare to Monday’s news of a man in Oklahoma City who sought to set off a bomb ala Timothy McVeigh? And what issues arise when heavily-armed self-styled militias take to the streets in these settings? Second, they give a quick review of the controversial search warrant issued by a judge in Washington, DC, to the web hosting service Dreamhost (seeking information about visitors to a website that helped organize protests that turned violent during the Trump inauguration). And third, they explore a brand-new opinion from the district court in United States v. Abu Khatallah. That case arises out of the Benghazi attack, in which the defendant was captured in Libya and then transported to the U.S. (to face criminal charges) on a U.S. Navy vessel. Along the way, the defendant initially was interrogated without Miranda warnings, and then an FBI clean team eventually took over. In today’s opinion, the district court rejected the defendant’s motion to suppress the “clean team” statements, rejecting the defendant’s arguments involving delayed presentment, voluntariness, and compliance with Miranda. Your hosts seem to agree: a win for the government on the surface, yes, but signs of trouble for future cases are there too. This is followed by some quick responses to listener questions, and then, because they can’t leave well-enough alone, they conclude with the inevitable segment on Game of Thrones.