Well, just to play devil's advocate for a moment, that last point might be the defensible core under the repulsive exterior. It doesn't seem unreasonable to say that the authorities should have the right to interrogate terrorists as least as much as much as they can common criminals -- and the POW statute forbids it.... Michael Pollak
----
Gotta go to work, again.. so briefly.
Back up. Prior to 9/11, al qaeda was a loosely affiliated international group of no specific nationality. As such, for crimes committed in the US, they could be apprehended, charged, tried and punished as ordinary criminals (which they really still are). But the US as a state declared a military action against them, making them a de facto state, and proceeded to behave as if al qaeda and the provisional taliban were the government of Afghanistan, and attacked the country as an enemy. Now, the US captured combatants against the US attacks in Afghanistan, and has them detained in Guantanamo.
In effect the US has created them as POWs, since it did not bring them to the US and charge them with crimes in the US.
So, I would argue that the US can not have it both ways, ie. lawful combatant in battle, ie. not civilian, and then turn around and claim they were acting as civilians committing crimes against the rules of war, and are therefore unlawful combatant.
On the interrogation issue, the GG makes it illegal to subject POWs to cruel, degrading, and humilitating treatment---all of which I am certain their current interrogator are subjecting them to.
But you are making a more subtle argument here. I have go. More later tonight.
Chuck Grimes