> But aren't they referred to as enemy combatants because calling the POWs entitles them to rights and process that as ECs can be denied to them. Not my under

> But aren't they referred to as enemy combatants because calling the POWs entitles them to rights and process that as ECs can be denied to them. Not my understanding, no. Which POW rights are you saying they've been denied? The problem with POW / EC is, to my understanding, more about them largely not actually being uniformed soldiers. Which they can't really be because they're part of a non-state entity. > This is also why they are not kept on US soil, yes? POW are very commonly not kept in the "home country" of a warring force? Being in the US, or a de-facto sovereignly controlled area like Guantanamo, would give them additional rights, that's true, but by my reading that's unrelated to being a POW, EC or whatnot. > Also don't we have to be at war to have POWs? The US is involved in a number of conflicts but none have been declared wars. That's why the 2001 AUMF is so important. The US is essentially at war with AQ and associated forces, except that they're no state entity so you can't formally declare war. And e.g. ISIS is argued to be a successor of al quaeda. Hence they argument that the laws of armed conflict are applicable. IANAL. Please do not mistake my arguments here to be arguing that I agree with all that's done under this logic. I'm only saying that it's not quite as simple as often argued.