Ye Gods, looks like we're agreeing on just about everything.

Of slight note is the bit about the "law change". What I may have not made clear was that to the best of my knowledge, the US authorities have not made new laws, instead sticking with the "unlawful combatant" status from WW2.

My point was that if there is a justification for treating these subjects differently than existing laws allow, then new laws should have been enacted and be seen to be enacted. That kind of transparent action would allow the US to be seen as a defender of the rule of law, rather than risk comparisons with 3rd world dictators (a Mr H of Baghdad comes to mind...).