That terminology salad is mixing apples with oranges and with bananas.
Being a P.O.W. has nothing to do with being a "combatant". A "combatant" simply means an individual that engages in the planning or execution of attacks by armed force.
Military medical personnel and chaplains are classified as “non-combatants” but, when captured, they are considered POW’s.
A uniformed soldier on the front line is a “combatant”. A Sunni terrorist in civilian clothes machine gunning the shippers at a Shiite mosque is a “combatant”. Osama bin Ladin planning terrorist attacks from his sick bed while hooked up to a dialysis machine is a “combatant”. A terrorist planning terrorist attacks from his apartment in Madrid or in Macedonia is a “combatant”.
The difference is that the military law classifies the uniformed soldier as a “legal combatant” and classifies the latter three as “illegal combatants”.
Only “legal combatants”, as defined by Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention are entitled to belligerent rights which include the privilege of POW status.
According to Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention, should there be a question about whether or not a captured combatant is an illegal combatant, " such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal".
According to Article 84 of the Third Geneva Convention, those tribunals are Military Courts:
Article 84 of the Third Geneva Convention: "A prisoner of war shall be tried only by a military court, ......"
At Guantanamo, individuals who, allegedly, do not meet the legal criteria for classification as “legal combatants” under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention are being judge by Military Tribunals as specifically required by Article 5 and Article 84 of the Geneva Convention.
So, except for the political slander generated by American liberals and European politicians, what exactly is wrong with Guantanamo?
http://www.google.de/search?hl=de&q=definition+combatant&meta=lr%3Dlang_de%7Clang_en
See the different definitions. There´s a terminology salad, right. Terrorists can be lawful/legal combatants, but mostly they´re illegal combatants (=non-combatants in the sense that they´re protected). I wouldn´t say that Bin Laden were a combatant ordering attacks from his bed. AQ isn´t an "armed force" - rather a terrorist organization. And what´s the "enemy combatant" (Pentagon)??
Have inmates in Gitmo the status POW? As far as I know, no.
The criticism is, as you know, about the lack of trials and transparency. So, Merkel is quite right when she has that Gitmo cannot exist "in the longer term".