|
POWs would have rights under the Geneva and other conventions.
Even non-citizens would have rights under the US Constitution. There is a large body of law about what rights they have and which ones they don't. It is clear that habeas corpus and a right to know the charges against them and recieve a fair trial are the bare-bones minimum, and even non-citizens would and SHOULD have these rights.
The argument is that they are not POWs but are "illegal combatants" (which is bovine scattology), and that they cannot use constitutional rights as they are not within the US borders (more bovine scattology). It is an abuse of military and political power.
Keeping them for a reasonable period to extract info was understandable in the interests of national security (the "trump card" when it comes to ignoring rights). That excuse is old, moldy, and stinky now.
__________________
 
|