I believe Yak's argument to be a bit too neat! The war scenario that the Geneva Convention and the "rules" that have applied to conflict in the past, like the conflict itself have "evolved " greatly in the war on terrorism. In Malaya, Vietnam,Korea, Afghanistan and other conflicts soldiers have stood toe to toe and fought in battle and were easily identified as soldiers.That sort of fighting is not prevalent in this war which is more a battle of intelligence and policing.
Todays war on terrorism has given the power to authorities to imprison people for allegedly broadcasting thoughts and doctrine, consorting,attending meetings, supporting financially or even putting an anti government view. This of course reminds us of previous eras when European and South American Governments interned and eliminated people because they were suspected of being (by association, religion,family ties etc) guilty.
The point I am making is that while the war on terrorism exists, which could be for the next 50 years or longer, Yaks definition gives authorities the right to hold anyone indefinitely without having to produce evidence and have it tested in a court. The prisoners we speak of bear very little resemblance to the POW's of past battles.
Having said that, once tried, if found guilty, throw the book at them.
