They exist in a legal grey area between POWs and war criminals.
POWs don't get a trial. They are held indefinitely until the end of hostilities. Given that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are still operating against the US and its allies, hostilities are clearly not over. The trouble is that with such a 'war' against a decentralized enemy that has already lasted 15 years, and could quite conceivably last decades more, it's clear that 'indefinite detention' can effectively become 'life imprisonment' and that we're venturing into territory not accounted for by the pre-existing legal framework.
It's not a simple situation. Obama, who ran on a policy of closing Gitmo, was forced to accept
>They exist in a legal grey area between POWs and war criminals.
Yeah, it is pretty normal for a repressive regime to come up with a legal theory for why it is perfectly OK to hold people indefinitely without trial. Normally such theories are only accepted by that particular regime...
I think Obama felt exactly the same way going into office, but quickly realized the people being sent to Gauntanamo Bay are as dangerous, ambitious and as hardened extremists as they had been saying. Releasing them would greatly increase the chances of a terrorist act on western countries. I'm not saying they shouldn't get some kind of trial, but the notion that they are very likely all at the very least future suicide bombers is often overlooked. Bush's administration had been saying it and I think Obama came to believe it first hand once he got into office.
We'd know what they were like, if they were allowed a trial and could defend themselves? As it is, we take the word of military police etc. Who have never made a mistake?
This whole WoT was an eye openner. Silly naive younger me, for example, was shocked to find out Geneva Conventions only apply to soldiers in uniforms. (I had assumed earlier it was because of human rights.) Turns out it is a gentlemen's agreement in context of playing war with their cannon fodder.