I usually don't get into this sort of windmill charge, but there goes.

>So, soldiers now must read enemy combatants the Miranda warning when captured?

No, only when they are arrested.

> Are soldiers now no longer part of a government militia to protect the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic, but rather a police force? Will soldiers captured in Iraq or Afghanistan by enemy forces now be tried by local governments (which typically means warloads) and no longer kept as prisoners of war and protected under the Geneva Conventions?

They will probably receive the same treatment. So the Afghani security contractors will have a detention facility on an island off Terra de Fuego, where neither set of laws will exactly have jurisdiction, and will occasionally subcontract interrogation to friendly services in Inner Mongolia, Borneo and Madagascar. Them being contractors, they aren't engaged in any kind of war, therefore not covered by the Convention.

>This whole thing is a farce and the most idiotic thing this administration (or almost any administration in our history) has done! Until the U.S. leaves Iraq and Afghanistan, all those captured laying bombs, building bombs, shooting at our soldiers,

The soldiers may be "our" from your perspective, but from theirs they are very foreign, uninvited, and therefore an occupying force.

>spying on our soldiers, etc should be held as prisoners of war and protected under the geneva convention.

So why aren't they?

> When those two countries can maintain their own peace and government and infrasture and the U.S. and other nations leave,

Ah, but who's to decide when they can? Surely they can't decide for themselves - that would be, that would be... self-determination!

>they should be held as long as they are determined to be a threat to the U.S. and her allies. They are clearly at war with the U.S. and breaking international rules of war by targeting civilians, journalists, and killing soldiers when captured.

Or worse - whatever punishment was forced on Blackwater et al, should befall these guys equally and then some.

>What happened when the French resistance was captured by the Nazis? What has happened in all previous wars when civilians spying and fighting were caught by enemy forces? That is not the answer, but these are organized groups fighting and even financed by states and organizations and should be treated as enemy forces even without a uniform.

Exactly - as enemy fighters, not some vague descriptions as "militants" (politicians are militant, or there wouldn't be wars), "combatants" (every gamer is in a combat with his oponents, and so are any two wrestlers, guys with epees, boxing gloves etc). They are enemy forces, therefore bound by Geneva Convention - exchange of POWs should be a regular thing, for example, Red Cross should be given visitation rights etc etc.

>The international community needs to look closer at the rules of war and the Geneva Conventions and make adjustments for the new fighting forces.

But are they really new, or has current political discourse conveniently chosen to forget some history?