About 250 years ago there was a colony to the west of Britain that revolted. Some fought in and out of uniform. Many used guerilla tactics. They even shot at officers of the British Army.<quoted text>
Have you read the charges? He's not on trial for picking up Osama's dry cleaning.
And he's classified as an "illegal (enemy) combatant" (as are all terrorists), not an "enemy combatant." Illegal combatants wear civilian clothes or don't otherwise "advertise" themselves as combatants when they pull the pin on the grenade, and are not considered POWs when captured. Enemy combatants wear uniforms when they fight and are granted POW status when captured.
It's nothing new. It's why in all the WWII movies where commandoes captured behind enemy lines dressed as civilians or disguised as solders of the other side were charged as "spies" and not detained as POWs.
But the issue is muddied further now in the "War on Terror" as a war against an action, not a nation. It's a war without end (no prisoner releases or swaps at the end of the war which resolved muddy cases in previous conflicts). And we have uniformed groups, such as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, who have been declared terrorist groups. They fight in and out of uniform. So how would you treat them? According to what they were wearing at the time of capture? What they were wearing at the time of the act? What if they acted both in and out of uniform? Do you treat them as terrorists or soldiers?
The US Attorney General has been asking Congress to pass legislation clarifying these issues for some time now.
What should they be classified as?