There are a lot of misconceptions here, both in the original article and many of the comments. Most of them derive from assuming that this is some type of "crime" situation that automatically falls into the purview of the civilian courts, with Miranda rights and all that stuff. That is wrong. A completely separate system of jurisprudence is involved.<p>There are two basic statuses for captured combatants. The first is "prisoner of war". There are rules about how POWs may be treated, but they don't include anything like a "fair trial". It is, in fact, <i>illegal</i> to put POWs on trial. Instead, they are supposed to be treated humanely and repatriated after hostilities have ceased. The catch here is that to be entitled to POW status the combatant must abide by the so-called laws of war, including bearing arms openly in the field (i.e, not hiding among civilians) and wearing a uniform or other insignia recognizable at a distance (something like a purple armband would be enough -- it just has to be something that clearly identifies you as "not a civilian" as seen from a distance).<p>The second status is that of the so-called "unlawful combatant". This includes pirates, spies, terrorists, or anyone else who engages in hostilities without wearing a uniform or insignia, or who engages in other actions in violation of the laws of war (for example, deliberately attacking civilians, hiding among the civilian population, falsely wearing a symbol that indicates that the combatant is a medic, and so on).<p>Unlawful combatants have no rights of any kind. They may be detained indefinitely (even after hostilities have ceased), tried by a military tribunal, or even be summarily executed on the spot when captured.<p>This basic framework has been the rule for centuries, and was most recently codified by the Geneva Conventions. It's not some new policy that the United States made up.