We refuse to call the people we capture "prisoners of war" because it would qualify them for a specific type of treatment under the geneava (sp?) convention. Can we demand our guys be classified as POWs when we don't extend the same thing to the people we capture?
That is NOT why we don't call them POW's.
There is no comparison. Our guys are in uniform (and therefore identifiable), and members of a regular army. The al Queda members are neither. They are merely mercenaries and, as such, not covered by the Geneva Convention.
Remember those two GIs last week who were shot by the police? They were in civvies so apparently we regard not wearing uniforms as a legitimate ruse de guerre when we do it. We seem to have a consistency problem about what does and does not define a soldier.