A soldier is pursuing the legal and thereby legitimized sovereign state. There are officers, uniforms, and a code of military justice on both sides. After the war, there are war tribunals, but mostly, the state surrenders, the troops are disarmed and subordinated to the victor. Torturing soldiers because their society has gone to war... that isn't pursuing appropriate aims. It makes war more vicious than necessary, at least in a modern time when we believe that states can be 'peacefully' subdued after a time of war. They are expected to become peaceful citizens later.

Soldiers act for the protection of their families, the good of their nation. We respect that.

Thieves and other criminals break the laws of the sovereign state of which they are sworn citizens. They are punished by the rules they agreed to. Executed, imprisoned, it is all part of the implicit social contract. If they commit a crime at home, other countries are expected to hand them back for appropriate judgment. They are protected citizens until they go rogue for personal gain.

Thieves act for selfish gain. We understand that.

Terrorists are neither of these, I agree. They act on behalf of a group that does not act like a sovereign state. It can be lawless, or it is has done everything but formally secede from the state in which it exists. We need to do away with the false dicotomy and treat them as something new -

The President calls them 'unlawful enemy combatants.' This accurately describes their enemy status and their violent, quasi-military means. This also appropriately describes how they act outside international laws, or in fact the laws of any recognized nation or sovereign state.

Terrorists dehumanize themselves for the purpose of destroying others. Their tactics of using human shields and employing children or women as suicide vectors for weapons... their unwillingness to avoid making civilians their primary targets... all of these put them outside the scope of any protections which are rendered by any law. Defense of their actions is inappropriate, and inhuman.

So... I agree, they are neither criminals nor soldiers. They are outside any lawful society, and thus outside the scope of the protections we give humanity. Unfortunately, they typically kill themselves before it can be done with any due process. However, should there be the opportunity, once their status is confirmed and they are in custody,...

As you know England didn't reconize the Goverment of the USA so George and his troops were not fighting for a state. One can say 'well others countries felt the USA was a state after 1776'.

The PLO believe they are a state and others believe they are independent. So are they terrorist or freedom fighters.

Also what do you expect the 'little guy' in a conflict to do?

For example, if the non religious young people in Iran used terrorist methods (e.g. a suicide bomber was to kill some Imans) would that be a terrorist act and one you would condem?

Actually... George Washington had standard encampments and battlelines. He worked very hard to get the men in uniform.

There were plenty of other revolutionaries who were... irregulars.

How they were treated - well, we know how the spies were hung (my only regret), how the swamp rat was lucky to escape.

So, try again.

Why are you telling him to try again? If the revolutionaries had lost the war to the British, the civilian government would have been hung as well.

By the way, several terrorist groups wear uniforms -- you can buy these on the Internet.

...several terrorist organizations wear uniforms...

Maybe in propaganda videos but generally not when they are killing civilians.

People at McD's wear uniforms, it obviously does not constitute a military. 'Unlawful enemy combatant' is not new by any means. It is still a kind of POW, but one acting contrary to the rules of war. Each case is different and that is why we have judges. No one I know of is arguing that we should let terrorists go free, but if they are not proven terrorists then we should try and sort that out so we are truly fight terrorists and not wast time needlessly destroying liberties. GW was fighting his own government. One could argue that he was a terrorist, but he was more like a separatist. We can argue about what would have the British done had they won but there is no way of knowing. Comparison is risky given the vast differences that come from the passing of time (today, GW would be an international criminal for owning slaves).

How does one determine who is a terrorist? There is no proof that most of the people interned at Guantamano are terrorists, they were merely declared to be terrorists by the government. If some government official declares that you are a terrorist, would you agree that they have a right to detain you indefinitely without trial? Is this not exactly the kind of situation the habeus corpus is intended to address?

Your saying that just because terrorists don't act on behalf of a state and commit crimes outside of their home country they are some sort of different offender. No. If I go to France and kill a bunch of people, I am an INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL. I am not operating "outside international law." If I claim I did it for my religion, or because I don't like the French, thats a motive - not a reason to prosecute me differently. If I'm friends with a bunch of people who might do the same, an investigation continues into my organization, and they are apprehended on conspiracy to committ murder and acts of terror. Why do you think there are no legal systems in place to deal with this?

An issue everyone seems to be ignoring is that most humane people think that the pre-trial label of soldier/criminal/unlawful combatant must address the issue of those who are falsely accused.

Are some of you saying that our military and law enforcement officials are infallible? Or trying to say that the acts of a terrorist are so much more infuriating than the acts of a criminal or enemy soldier that we will willingly, knowingly imprison, torture and perhaps execute all the accused in a quest to punish the guilty.

Ditto, Bsharp -

the purpose of a trial is to determine guilt or innocence. Only after can you hand down a fitting punishment. If I commit murder (in reality), I am not legally a murderer until proven so via evidence. Such is the system of law.