I believe the Geneva Convention also has something to say about interrogating POWs for intelligence. That was, IIRC, the primary argument against extending POW status to these detainees.

And since the whole idea of the GWOT was supposed to be to prevent further attacks, that kind of settles the question right there.

I understand that, but we really haven't gotten much decent, actionable intelligence out of them anyway. Firmly believe that labeling them POWs would have been the more viable option, that way, we would be completely justified in letting them ROT until the War on Terror is over (which will be, you know, um, NEVER), and we wouldn't have to bother with silly trials. People would look STUPID calling for trials when Geneva specifically prohibits it.

I know that these clowns don't meet the definition of lawful combatants (no uniforms, not part of an organized military, etc), but we have really gotten ourselves into a lot of hot water with the whole world over this "enemy combatant" silliness.

We would have had the moral high ground if we would have labeled them POWs.

Screw the ability to interrogate them. Ain't doin' us much good anyhow.

What does a "competent tribunal" look like? The D.C. Circuit's Court of Appeals has an interesting take. According to today's ruling, which gives a green light to the military commissions being used to try Guantanamo detainees, competency doesn't have to do with judges having legal experience or knowing how many articles are in the Geneva Convention. It doesn't require that a defendant be advised of the evidence against him or provided the right to independent appeal. It doesn't relate to strict standards for admissible evidence--in fact, hearsay and statements obtained under coercion are a-okay. In fact, really the only thing a competent tribunal needs is three commissioned officers, at least one of whom is ranked above captain. And, having those, says the court, "the military commission is such a tribunal." Release the kangaroos!

People wouldn’t be screaming about giving them trials (under Geneva, we simply couldn’t), and keeping them indefinitely locked up would also be legitimate.

I believe the Geneva Convention also has something to say about interrogating POWs for intelligence. That was, IIRC, the primary argument against extending POW status to these detainees.

And since the whole idea of the GWOT was supposed to be to prevent further attacks, that kind of settles the question right there.

People wouldn't be screaming about giving them trials (under Geneva, we simply couldn't), and keeping them indefinitely locked up would also be legitimate.

Branding them as "enemy combatants" leaves too much gray area and makes people demand trials for them and all kinds of other silly b.s.

Calling them POWs just makes so much more sense. Wish we would have done that from the get-go.