But isn't that the whole point of designating them as non-combatants? It allows them to slip through the cracks that you've pointed out. They are captured during war, so the Geneva convention should apply, but it only applies to enemy soldiers, right? If they are not designated as soldiers, then they get no rights at all. Or have I got that wrong?

>I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Do think the same holds true for prisoners of war during war? No pows have ever (to my knowledge) received due judicial process in a civilian or military court while pows during a time of war. that has never been the case and that is not guaranteed anywhere. There is no due process for prisoners of war - they haven't committed any crime. They are enemies held until the war is over. If war crimes are suspected, then they are held for a military tribunal later.
>
>I state again, if they are not prisoners of war, then they should be guarantee due process under the law and a fair process through the civilian judicial system. Either that, or the western governments need to get together and come up with a fair judicial process for terrorists. As far as I know, terrorists have always been processed under the country's judicial system. In that sense, I agree with you.
>
>Once again the problem is that they hold no legal status. That needs to change.
>
>I guess I am not sure what you are stating and what you are disagreeing with me about.
>
>
>>Don't you find it convenient, from the POV of those who wish to hold them indefinitely without due process, that their legal status is kept in limbo?
>>
>>Again, I think you either believe in such legal rights or you don't. I think things like legal representation and right to a speedy (or at least somewhat timely) trial are human rights, not American rights. Of course we know they aren't always, in all places, but they should be IMO. And I think it flies in the face of our self-image as a beacon of democracy to deny these rights. It kind of gives credence to those who say we're for democracy only when it's convenient.
>>
>>>I disagree to some extent (not completely). The question is are we at war? Are they prisoners of war? they are not designated as such. during war, prisoners of war are afforded rights according to the geneva conventions, however, they are not afforded lawyers and trial in a civilian court and they are contained until war is over. If we are not at war and they are not prisoners of war, then they should be afforded the full protection under the law and the same due process as our judicial system provides citizens. The problem is that they are not classified as anything that is provided either treatment and protection according to the geneva conventions or due judicial process.
>>>
>>>>>This poor lad was held by the bad guys at Guantanemo.
>>>>>
>>>>>Luckily he got a lawyer.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354209,00.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I don't think anyone has said these guys are all saints. Only that they are entitled to protection under the law, which used to be a pretty important right in this country.
>>>>
>>>>Some say those rights only apply to U.S. citizens. To me you either believe in the principle or not.