>>>>>>>>>When will people get it that these are enemy combatants, not suspects?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As long as there is no trial, they are suspect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wrongola. They are only suspects when the police make an arrest. This is military.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is so bogus. The military has rules, too. Maybe not the exact same rules as the civilian police and courts operate under, but the principles are largely the same. You can't just detain someone "on suspicion" and keep them in jail without charges, counsel, or trial.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, there are military rules. Under the conditions most of these guys were grabbed they could be interrogated in the field, and then shot as spies since they are not in uniform. No rendition, no detention.
>>>>>
>>>>>Better? Works for me.
>>>>
>>>>Except there is no war going on, other than in the phrase "war on terror." Was there a declaration of war? By what country or countries? What army or navy are we fighting? Who is going to surrender when we defeat them? There is no military conflict as such.
>>>
>>>What is the 'War in Iraq' if not a war in Iraq? Someone is fighting our soldiers. I guess our soldiers should do what, just ignore them? Time to volunteer Mike and then let us know how it goes for you when you ignore the enemy. :o)
>>
>>Actually, I thought it was more like "our soldiers are fighting someone". After all, who invaded whom?
>
>It is still a war zone.

True. I was just looking at the syntax. ;)

As far as whether there was a 'declaration of war'; iirc, there wasn't actually a formal declaration, but it was authorised by congress, so that's probably just as good.