>>>>>So, it's a war except when it isn't, and it isn't a war except when it is. They are at war, but when they're captured they don't get any of POW status and no law applies to them;
>>>>
>>>>They do not get POW status as they are not soldiers. I do agree that they need to be charged and tried.
>>>
>>>In a regular court, if not military, not the special monkey courts where they can't even see the evidence against them (which, I presume, can't be seen by prosecution either, being nonexistent in many cases).
>>
>>It appears this matter is now settled as the Administration has reversed their policy and granted Al Qaeda Geneva protection. I can't say I agree with this, but in light of the Supreme court's decision in Hamdon vs. Rumsfeld I don't think they had much of a choice.
>>
>>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e1de1572-1089-11db-8eec-0000779e2340.html
>
>Even nicer, the ruling is based on the premise that there's no such thing as I-am-above-the-law-I'm-a-super-duper-commander-in-chief. Which then tears down the whole house of cards (NSA eavesdropping, phone calls datamining, SWIFT intrusion etc etc).
>

It says nothing about any of those. You are reading way too much into the decision. You do realize that we are at war and that information is the primary weapon, do you not?

>Good thing in that article that you mention is that it also has a link to the text of the Geneva Convention: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/92.htm
>Recommended reading from article 49 and onwards - that's what I meant with Bremmer's ruling by edicts, while doing nothing to fulfill the obligations of the occupying force.

You're going to have to be specific here. I don't have time to go through them article by article.