Then they are NOT POWs, they are plain old criminals. So the US military should not be detaining them, nor should they be instituting military trials.
So put them in US jails, and charge them under international or even internal US civil laws with treason, sedition, felony, robbery, buggery, avoiding customs, or the murder of Rasputin - whatever - but get the heck on with it and quickly.
I think the point that some, including me, are trying to make is that we live in a real world, not one of fixed immutable definitions that we have no control over or ability to change.
POW definitions were created to add some basis of commonality between nations armies even while they tried their damndest to kill each other. The US claims it applies most of those principles to terrorist prisoners, even though they are obviously not POWs in the original sense.
You talk of possible innocence of some. It's conceivable, but just as likely as some POW in WWII saying he just put on the uniform of a dead soldier because his clothes were torn, and somebody just asked him to hold the grenades for a while, and could he please go home now?
If any were innocent they will have been among the many already released, but from what I have heard of some of them, I doubt it.
However your biggest mistake, that you do repeat often along with many others, is that they are "plain old" criminals if not POWs. Why is it so impossible for you to accept that times have changed somewhat? Are you too young or too old?
As I've said many times, we have ample proof that our criminal justice system cannot deal with such cases well, to a large extent because it cannot, and should not, have access to all the information that the criminal justice system says should be available to the defense. Additionally, I doubt very much that those who plead for pity and compassion for our enemies (alleged) would believe any US military person testifying to anything that didn't fit their mindset.
If a policeman says he saw the guy shoot, that pretty much guarantees a conviction in civilian court unless the defense can find something very very clearly says that is a lie.
In these cases I suspect you would dismiss any statement by the military witnesses as unreliable and perhaps biased. What's more, I suspect you would give more weight to the thousands who would volunteer to swear on the Koran that so and so had nothing to do with terrorism and just happened to be taking some sheep to market that day; and they beat him for "no reason" (I see that a lot in print) just like they did with AZ, and they saw it all from just a few miles away with their telescopes.
Arghh. I'm going to talk about religion for a while. So much harder to understand some stuff over there.
