You call them POWs in your subject line: Declaring them POWs and holding them until at least the cessation of hostilities wouldn't bother me. What we've done instead, however, is declare them enemy combatants, and, on realizing that still didn't give us a blank check, repeatedly redefined that term (despite it being well defined by treaty) until it did.

That doesn't bother you even a little? The government telling the people the rules by which it will operate rather than the reverse doesn't seem a LITTLE un-American to you?

Again, put the politics aside for a moment. Forget you're criticizing Leahy for basically saying what so many here have: We don't need to interrogate them to establish guilt, because it's already established and all that's left is sentencing. For the record, I think that's wrong whatever the party of the person saying it, and worrisome from a US Senator. Really look at the situation and how we've handled it though: At no time has Bush OR Obama ever done what you OR I think we should. So I'm mad they're denying civilians civil rights and you're mad they're giving POWs trials instead of military tribunals.

If they want to call them POWs and hold them indefinitely, put some in front of tribunals, fine by me.

If they want to call them enemy combatants and hold them for trial in civilian courts, also fine.

If they want to call them freaking spies and saboteurs because they were carrying a gun out of uniform in enemy territory, then execute them on the spot, still fine with me.

Defining them as civilians and giving them military trials is a non-starter though.