Care to give me a definition of...
"regular armed forces?"
That's the 1 category that you feel matches. The rest obviously do not. A recognized authority also wonders if these folks fit so neatly into any of these categories.
The reality is that they don't fit neatly into any of the catogories. Forcing them into the "regular armed forces" definition is a stretch...but convenient for those who are currently wringing hands at the fact that we have moved these people from harms way (per the Geneva Convention), have the Red Cross observing their conditions (per the Geneva Convention) and are most likely going to report the names of these people to the convening auhtority once it has been created (per the Geneva Convention).
NOWHERE does the convention state that Brandioch is required to be informed. NOWHERE does it say that the New York Times has a right to these names.
In addition...while we're spending so much time saying they must be protected by the Geneva Convention...would you mind terribly showing me where its been violated to date with respect to these detainees EVEN IF THE CLASSIFICATION OF POW APPLIES?
