First of all, I don't say that these detainees should be
freed, and I'm not sure how many other people there are excpet for the members of the extreme left who would argue that position.

As I've stated, I still have enough confidence in the government that if they arrest and detain someone because they feel that the person is a terrorist, that's fine.

But I think that the person is entitled to a trial within a reasonable amount of time.

As far as what their rights are, with respect to them being American citiznes or having the rules of the Geneva Convention apply to them:

If they were arrested on American soil, they are entitled to the same rights as anyone else who is arrested on American soil.

If a French tourist in the United States is accused of a crime and arrested, he isn't denied the same rights that an American citizen would have simply because he isn't an American citizen, is he?

Or an illegal immigrant from Mexico, say?

As far as the others go....

This is a unique situation, this business of our enemy not being the member of the army of a specific enemy country (altho I would argue that those captured who were originally members of the Iraqi army and the Taliban are entitled to have the Geneva Convention applied to them), and a unique solution for the problem of what to do with those we capture on the battlefield is called for if you're going to say that the Geneva Convention does not apply to them.

The unique solution that we've come up with, however - detaining them indefinitely without counsel or a trial - is not, IMO, a practical one.

Same thing for those we capture in a foreign country that we accuse of terrorism who we do not capture on the battlefield.