Prisoners of war aren’t supposed to be punished. The basic idea is that they’re detained to prevent them from returning to the fight. The Geneva Conventions allow them to send letters, buy things, receive pay, recognize their own hierarchy, etc. The Geneva Conventions also allow them to be detained without charge until the end of the war.

If they have committed certain crimes, then they can be convicted and held after the end of the war, but that’s something of a special case. Many Confederate soldiers during the Civil War never understood this (remember, the Union declared that the South couldn’t secede, which would have made all Confederate POWs US citizens).

Just to clarify: the US Civil War pre-dates the Geneva Conventions. So Confederate soldiers weren’t confused about whether the Conventions applied.

But they sent letters home wondering why they hadn’t been informed of charges against them, given a bail hearing, or promised a speedy trial. I think it’s a safe bet they also didn’t have an attorney represent them during any questioning. They were confused about why they were in a prison even though they hadn’t been arrested for a crime.

They are very commonly classified as prisoners of war. Note that e.g. this prisoner had access to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Committee_of_the...

(Note that I don't at all think it's ok that they're not releasing the name of this prisoner, accept some parties next friend status, or release that the prisoner is cooperating)

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. This is also why they are not kept on US soil, yes?

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.

> 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.