How They Got the Second Suspect
slate.com
slate.com
What he can do when he's tried, and when they're using any of his testimony against him, is that he can say "I was not read my rights" and then the judge can ask "were you aware of your rights?" and if the court determines that he might actually have been unaware of his rights then they can throw that testimony out, or provide other remedies.
I have my suspicions that his own testimony won't be the deciding factor in any criminal proceedings, however, so it may come to nothing in the end.
(No commentary on the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the decision to not-read-him-his-rights is herein advanced by this comment, except that it would have at least avoided the fuss which is currently being made about it, so that is a point against it.)
This is a huge stretch for the definition of "national security" and not necessarily one that a US Attorney should be making in this case, lest courts rule against them for over-extension and they lose the privilege of invoking this exemption for the future.
And when everything becomes a national security issue, then national security means nothing. But that doesn't matter to one prosecutor trying to notch one more case.
At the time he was questioned though, the point wasn't "Let's get a confession we can use in court", it was "Are there any more bombs out there".