I though the AQ guys are no POW, because POW can only be combatants, which those fighters without a uniform cannot be??
So you are saying that Al Qaeada should be treated better than POWs because they have chosen to fight as enemy-combatants. I guess you missed the point of my post. We don't try people while we are at war with them. No one has ever done that and we are not obligated to do it now. Hopefully you will be able to understand that and you will stop with the silly comments about "judging" the people at Guantanamo -- at least until the war is over.
It is worth noting that a signicant number of detainees have been released from Gitmo after being screened by US authorities. It is also worth mentioning that some of those released have rejoined AQ to fight again.
Gitmo is a physical institution. If the prisoners are not held there, they would have to be held elsewhere. Closing Gitmo is meaningless and would only be symbolic.
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?