says quite rightly that conversations and treatment on the basis of civil law are irrelevant as this was a combat/war situation and different ruies apply.
what “different rules” exactly? Either they’re soldiers (military law, Red Cross, Geneva etc) or they’re Civilians (civil or criminal law etc etc)
The US as I remember realised that both of these would mean that they’d have to treat these men they’d just snatched with something approaching their human rights. Which, as they wanted to torture them, they clearly couldn’t do, hence the made up term “Enemy Combatant”
The US can thusly talk about “war on Terror” and couch it in terms of imminent danger and a battle for survival, which of course it clearly isn’t, as the US is the single most powerful entity on the planet, and is in no real danger from disparate groups of terrorists, any more than we were from the IRA, or the Germans were from Baader-Mienhoff, etc etc …
Propaganda is a glorious thing, no?