>>Keep them in jail forever without charging them, too.
>>
>>>Then it means that you give them the power to torture any one they want. They could torture you only on the basis that they think you represent a threat.
>>>
>>>>AFAIK, interrogation comes before trial, i.e. if some terrorists already judged and found guilty that it implies that some interrogation already had place.
>
>This is why (I think) the previous administration was so intent on calling it 'the war against terrorism.' In a war, it is standard by all countries to keep all prisoners until hostilities cease. So in that sense, it was legal and within the rules of war and the Geneva conventions.
>
>Where they went wrong is they did not afford them the rights of the Geneva conventions to enemies of combat. Instead, they tried to put them into a non-existent category of 'detainees' to attempt to put them into a category that doesn't exist and isn't protected.

By definition you can't fight a war against terrorism. (Where are the armies? Who would surrender?) That was a fictitious phrase IMO, one of many we were treated to.