Quote Originally Posted by TinCow
We are not talking about jailing or executing these people without a trial. We are talking about holding them for questioning and interrogation. POWs may be held for the duration of the conflict without access to legal counsel. They most certainly may not be abused and must be afforded the rights of the Geneva Convention, but by no means do they have any rights to access to the justice system. 'Irregular Hostiles' (again, for lack of the proper term) have even fewer rights and may or may not be covered by the Geneva Convetion.
The term you are looking for is illegal combatants sometimes the term unlawful combatants is also used - it dates back to World War 2 when two spies were executed by the United States for activities conducted on United States soil.

The matter in which the individual is determined if he or she is an illegal combatant is through a military tribunal - or if you want to look at the Hague Conventions - a summary court martial also works. I won't mentioned what a summary court martial on the battlefield entails if your found guilty.

Either way, they may be held without trial and without legal representation for the duration of the conflict. After this point they must be released or tried in open court for their crimes. The conflict is clearly still going on and as such we have not reached a point at which they are given access to the court system.
Actually they can be tried during the conflict - but its up to the holding power to decide which is it going to do.

Originally Posted by Kanamori
does this apply to someone who is simply detained in a war zone, or do they have be a combatent? it seems that being detained in a war zone is seperable from being a terrorist
I refer to the two German Spies executed in the United States during WW2 for acts of sabatage (SP) on US soil. THey were tried as illegal combatants and I believe hung when they were convicted.