Mr. Holder, what would these men have been guilty of per our laws? Can we convict someone of "being a soldier of our enemy captured on the battlefield"? Because that would have ended up being the argument that a jury would have had to decide on. That's how I would have defended the guy. Did we arrest every surviving German and Japanese soldier that put on a uniform during WWII? What law do we have that we can enforce that gives us the power to prosecute a soldier captured on a battlefield during a declared war?
Now, throw in the "torture" and what he "confessed" to under duress? HE WOULD HAVE WALKED. The reason it is taking so long is that we are now trying to apply federal laws (meant for American citizens) to a military tribunal at Gitmo. He was read miranda rights and the defense is moving to have everything he said to be stricken from the record (torture).
Holder, you and Obama screwed this up from the start. Just like everything else you have touched in this country.
They can only be tried for being war criminals...and the Geneva Conventions specify those trials are to be done by the military - to protect simple soldiers from the wrath of civilians who confuse being a soldier for a foreign power with murder. Also, what does Holder think will happen in discovery in regards methods to locate them and determine what they did? The SCOTUS determined long ago that once they set foot on US soil they get the full benefits of constitutional rights...so good luck with a system created to deal with neighborhood thugs.