But that is exactly the point. And the reason the Geneva convention does not apply. An arguement could have been made for declaring war on Afghanistan when the Taliban refused to hand over Bin laden but we didn't. This is uncharted territory and more akin to the Brits fighting the Thugees or the Kali cult.

"Sophisticates" scoff at the (airquotes) war on terror, but we are sure as hell at war with something. Maybe a biological attack on Chicago or suicide bombers in the NY subway system will remind people who can only remember back as far as last season's "American Idol" or who buy the DVD collector set of "Deal or No Deal"


>>>>>>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.