[tater]

POWs are not given due process. Never have been—except after hostilities end, THEN, some might be tried for war crimes.

Saboteurs, etc, were sometimes tried during wartime, and sometimes executed (very quickly, in the case of the Germans captured in NY).

I think it's rather nice of us to even consider giving them due process before hostilities end. (if the combatants are AQ, then hold until AQ surrenders, if Taliban, then hold til that war is over, Iraqis could likely be repatriated soon (when US forces are gone), and only try those who we can charge with war crimes, etc).

It's a cliché, but this is indeed a different kind of conflict, and I think that the "rules" should be reevaluated. The GC as originally drawn up and understood, was an agreement between powers (and their clients) that was considered reciprocal. All the wording implies reciprocity, and testing for same (why define how combatants are supposed to appear/behave if there is no sanction for not appearing/behaving in that way? The implication is clearly "to be treated as defined in this document, then you must do X, Y, and Z" (else you won't be treated that way). It has since been considered largely unilateral. Regardless, it is designed for use with nations that have an interest in being part of a larger community of nations.

Non-state actors like AQ exist outside any limitation on behavior. Treating their combatants the same way as soldiers of nations is anachronistic, IMHO. "Rules" for combat need a carrot and a stick approach. The penalty for intentionally targeting civilians, or for murdering prisoners, etc, should be harsh. In WW2, the Allies largely followed the GC, and the rules of war, but vs combatants who were in clear violation (or who were not even signers, like the Empire of Japan), we violated those rules with our eyes wide open. The obvious example being area bombing. They started it and broke the rules, so that rule is now off the table. We largely treated prisoners very well, indeed, but there were many cases of summary execution in WW2, as well as shooting survivors in the water, etc (not just subs, I'm thinking about the Battle of the Bismark Sea).

I think for the modern world, terrorists should be considered, to use an old term, "outlaws."

Outlaws were "outside the protection of the law." Legally no longer people. Shoot an outlaw in the street, and you might get charged with "discharging a weapon within city limits," but nothing more. IMO, AQ absolutely deserve this treatment. Clearly US citizens would require some sort of due process to be made "outlaws," though this could happen in absentia, obviously (my passport says that citizenship can be revoked for joining a foreign military, I'd say going to any AQ camp should result in summary removal of citizenship, and outlaw status).

The carrot would be that if they changed their ways, and adopted uniforms, badges of rank, and ceased intentionally attacking civilians, etc, that they'd get treated as legal combatants, instead.