The use of "if" (refer to "if you are going to use the Constitution . . .") is precisely the point. The use of "Since" is the logical choice, and in so doing, reaffirms and RE-establishes the prescribed American course of action in dealing with Walker and any future captured American terrorists.
As for the "war on terrorism" being one that it ought be illegal due to Congress' not having officially declaring a war: President Bush stated it accurately: The 9/11 events are ACTS of war on the part of the perpetrators (unknown at that time).
Your statement,"Korea was equally not a WAR but in it prisoner transfers were common place" does not argue for your point to regard Walker as a P.O.W. There is no question that Walker is definitely a prisoner. However, without an enacted declaration of war, there is no war -- at least, not in keeping with its traditional definition. Which may have to change since the concept of war has dramatically changed.
Regarding "Communist China was not recognized by the US for almost 30 years, that did not change reality of the Communists and not the nationalists being in charge.": The US didn't wage war against China in the Korean conflict (which also was never declared a war); China fought with Korea in that militarily fought conflict but the conflict was with Korea.
As for "Since they were recognized by several countries, they were the government" to be intended to substantiate the claim that the US is militarily fighting a country because the Taliban is recognized as a government by other countries other than the US, are we (the US) then at war with Afghanistan? According to our elected government officials (President Bush, VP Cheney, etc.) and appointed government officials such as Rumsfeld, we are not at war with Afghanistan or any other country (yet). Furthermore, as I stated before, the fact that the United States has never acknowledged or recognized the Taliban regime as the Government of Afghanistan, the United States is correct to posture itself at war against terrorism and not with Afghanistan.
As for: "As for the Confederacy, should the Union have slaughtered the Southern soldiers? After all, by your standards, they were never recognized by the only government I guess that matters? I guess that's why the indians were treated so well by the US, they weren't recognized by it":I didn't bring up anything regarding the Confederacy or the Union or the slaughtering of Southern soldiers or the ill treatment of the Native Americans during that time . . .I would not have included anything related to these incidents within the context that I wrote.
As for "my standards": I am an American citizen, bound by the same Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other such documents as all other Americans, including Walker (until he is deemed otherwise in a court of law). THESE are my standards. And when I think that something needs to change, I use the System of Democracy that America uses (petitioning for an amendment, voting at the polls, etc.). Americans who think its standards ought to be changed should take advantage of the Constitutional right to get it amended. In the meantime, it is the same Constitution that protects all Americans -- including Walker.
In conclusion, consider the latest statements (1-27-02) from our government as reported moments ago by Robert Burns, Associated Press: "They are not POWs. They will not be determined to be POWs,'' Rumsfeld told reporters accompanying him on his first visit to the detention facility, a hot and dusty camp amid scrub brush and rock. The Bush administration considers the captured fighters to be "unlawful combatants'' and "detainees'' rather than prisoners of war because they don't represent a recognized government and their method of terror violates internationally accepted laws of warfare. The distinction is significant because under the Geneva Conventions, written after World War II, a POW has certain legal rights that would govern the U.S. military's interrogations of the detainees and would require that they be released when the hostilities in Afghanistan are over. If there is any ambiguity about whether a captive should be considered a prisoner of war, the Geneva Conventions say a special three-person military tribunal should be convened to decide. Rumsfeld said that is irrelevant at Guantanamo Bay "There is no ambiguity in this case,'' he said. Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday that officials agree the detainees are not prisoners of war. But administration lawyers are debating whether the Geneva Conventions, which have provisions that deal with unlawful combatants, apply in this case."
Since I am in agreement with this determination (so far), I am not seeking to change anything . . . which is also a Constitutional right.