Quote Originally Posted by stinkyattic
Excellent point.
But as for the third status- I'd expect that a court would not accept it retroactively. You can't change the rules of the game after it has been played, and then declare yourself the winner.
I think you are probably right about the third status not being something the court would accept at this point. I think the governemnt missed it's chance to define a legal status for a foreign person who is not a member of a foreign army (with a name, rank and serial number) but who is still part of an organization waging war against the US.

There are legitimate problems with calling them POWs, becasue they aren't members of a recognized army, and there is no government with which to negotiate their eventual status. Although, I do not think these are the reasons the government did not want to call them POWs --- I think it had more to do with not wanting to afford them rights under the Geneve Conventions. If the governemnt did not want to treat such people as civilians, then the governemnt should have set about creating a new legal definition in a way that would have been acceptatble. My feeling is that they did not do that in good faith, and now after 7 years the court is saying, "Enough already. They're civilains. Get on with it." It's probably not a very good solution, but the court will not tolerate the legal limbo any longer.