How kind of you to share that determination. You know I hold your linguistic skill and knowledge in the highest regard, but that doesn't make it the "proper" basis for American foreign policy. Particularly given my belief you're incorrect in this case; they have thugs, criminals, thieves and murderers we refer to as "enemy combatants" because in 2005 Congress changed the DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms definition of "enemy combatant" to, "any person in an armed conflict who could be properly detained under the laws and customs of war, " in 2008 they changed it again:

"( 8 ) The term 'enemy combatant' has historically referred to all of the citizens of a state with which the Nation is at war, and who are members of the armed force of that enemy state. Enemy combatants in the present conflict, however, come from many nations, wear no uniforms, and use unconventional weapons. Enemy combatants in the war on terrorism are not defined by simple, readily apparent criteria, such as citizenship or military uniform. And the power to name a citizen as an 'enemy combatant' is therefore extraordinarily broad, "

in the interim Bush changed it to "an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces. "

Finally, disgusted with all this and having to arbitrate it, US District Court Judge Richard J. Leon ruled on October 27th of last year it was the 2004 definition in rules of Combatant Status Review Tribunals:

"'Enemy combatant' shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy combat forces. "

I'll give you credit for consistency the Bush administration lacked, but apart from that, if I won't let them get away with redefining words to suit them, why would I overlook it from you?

As you may have noticed above, the previous administration dismissed the Geneva definition of "enemy combatant" (to which we are bound under treaty) and replaced it with its own. Several times, in fact. Depending on which administration official was asked when an enemy combatant could be any member of a hostile armed force, strictly any member of Al Qaeda or, the second definition (my personal favorite) it could be expanded beyond the "traditional" meaning with no attempt to devise a new one nor state its limits.

Put the politics, the bloodshed and our past differences over them aside for a moment and really think about that:

Congress explicitly expanded "enemy combatant" far beyond its original meaning without bothering to define the new limits. It could literally be ANYONE; the revised definition tells you whom it's NOT (solely) but not whom it IS (entirely. ) The technical term is "blank check, " and while always troubling when applied to government, it's alarming when applied to government detaining people without charge, counsel or trial, then bringing them before a military tribunal where they can't see the evidence against them nor confront their accusers, even if it means their execution.

Incidentally, the current DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms definition has been AGAIN altered to "In general, a person engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners during an armed conflict. Also called EC. "

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/doddict/data/e/18084.html

So the ten year old martyr with a bomb attached is an enemy combatant--but so is the uniformed fighter pilot, the soldiers marching in ranks; everyone. It's a neat bit of legalistic linguistic legerdemain: We've gone from asserting terrorists aren't POWs because they aren't soldiers but rather enemy combatants, to asserting there are NO POWs because they're ALL enemy combatants and we can do with them as we please, whatever treaties we've signed.

Ah, yes, the Boumediene case. Technically what you say is true, but the specific right in question is habeas, which, as Wikipedia paraphrases it, grants access to US courts. It desperately needed doing and still does, for, as Wikipedia quotes the law,

"Section 950q. Principals:

"Any person is punishable as a principal under this chapter who commits an offense punishable by this chapter, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, or procures its commission. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006#MCA_as_an_unconstitutional_suspension_of_habeas_corpus

Now the prison guard, the head of state, even the taxpayer who funds a hostile nations military is subject to the law. Anyone who's provided any aid of any kind or degree. Note the absence of any exemption of US citizens. So, if you've ever stated terrorist action was right in anyway, you've counseled it and are subject to Gitmo detention until your trial; mentioning the Bill of Rights won't get you anything but a rifle butt to the face.

You have three choices:

1) Demonstrate the words mean other than they clearly and precisely state,

2) Accept it's OK for US citizens to be sent to military tribunals (if ever charged, which they needn't be to be detained) and possibly execution for any favorable statement about a terrorist or

3) Change your position.

I do have a preference, but the choice isn't mine, and I wouldn't take it for you if I could, due to an unfortunate sentimentality when it comes to thinks like freedom and democracy. Oh, and my country. If you wish to tell me once more why we must destroy America to save her, that's your prerogative, but it's also the most helpful thing anyone could do for terrorists, and will receive no response. Please understand: This is not "Why do you hate America?" but "Look, really LOOK, at what's being done to America!"