Not even close. A military detention facility is in place and run under the UCMJ. The military has congressional authority to discipline itself and that includes those in captivity. The CIC has the authority to command the forces as in he has the final say as to purpose and mission of the military, not how we discipline ourselves or those whom we take prisoner.
Political prisoners are another story since they are held at the convenience of the CIC, such as Noriega. But POWs and captives are held for military reasons, outside of the scope of the CIC.
“But POWs and captives are held for military reasons, outside of the scope of the CIC.”
You may be right, but that seems like a contradictory statement to me. How can one be the commander in chief (CIC) and not have command authority over the “military reasons” for holding captives? Isn’t that an unconstitutional limit on the president’s authority to command?
“The military has congressional authority to discipline itself and that includes those in captivity.”
Any authority or privileges utilized by any branch of the U.S. federal government is derived from the people and the States. The U.S. Constitution outlines a delegation of limited authority to the U.S. federal government from the God-given rights of the people and the States.
The UCMJ is controlled by the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The NDAA is not effective until the President signs it into law or the Congress overrides a the President’s veto.
The people have unlimited, God-given rights (Ninth Amendment) and powers (Tenth Amendment). Congress has limited Constitutional authority derived from the people