The captured suspect believed to be the mastermind behind the 2012 Benghazi attack, which killed a U.S. ambassador and three diplomats in Libya, is reportedly talking to U.S. officials, though he has not been given his Miranda rights.

Officials say that since being captured by U.S. Special Operations forces near Benghazi on Sunday, Ahmed Abu Khattala,the alleged ringleader has been talking freely with American interrogators aboard a Navy ship in the Mediterranean Sea,.

After the suspect was brought into custody Monday aboard the USS New York, interrogators began questioning him about what he knows about planned or past attacks, his Islamic militia and security in Libya, an official said according to New York Times.

However, as of Thursday afternoon, Abu Khattala had not been read his Miranda rights, informing him that he has the right to remain silent and to be represented by a lawyer.

According to House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul, R-TX, U.S. officials have one month to interrogate the Libyan before reading him his Miranda rights.

"He's on a Navy ship at sea. They can interrogate him for up to a month," McCaul said Wednesday on CNN's "Erin Burnett OutFront."

"I would argue they should do so before he's read his Miranda rights," he added, reports The Hill.

"We want to find out who he is working with to attack Benghazi and kill our ambassador, who was responsible. There is a lot of intelligence inside of his head that we need to get into," McCaul said after being briefed on the situation.

Others Republicans have called for Abu Khattala to be sent to Guantánamo Bay and interrogated without being read his Miranda rights. In response, the Obama administration confirmed that he will be tried in a federal court in Washington, not sent to Gitmo.

Still, federal criminal procedure rules state that all suspects taken into custody must be presented to a magistrate judge for an initial hearing without "unnecessary delay." That time frame is generally within 48 hours, but federal courts have decided that the penalty for such a violation would be limited.

"There is a rule requiring presentment without unnecessary delay," Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor and former federal prosecutor, told the Times. "That said, sanction for violation is unlikely to be dismissal of the charges, and at most the suppression of statements made during the period of unnecessary delay [would be the sanction]."

Related