as Judge Bates might say:

from BW
As to the legality of insurgency, we declare "just" insurgency as not only legal, but as the nobelest of callings in our Declaration of Independence. We declare it to be both an inalianable right and a sacred duty of a populace faced with despotism that cannot be cured by available legitimate means. This is our first law as a nation, and as such it has precedence over all others, or at least I would comfortably argue that to be true in court.

We only find insurgency to be illegal when the populace exercising this duty and right is doing so against us or an ally. That is a hard position to justify, unless we are willing to nullify the Declaration first. And that, would be cause for insurgency indeed.
Since these speak of the legality of insurgency, I have to say that the justness or unjustness of the insurgency is not material to whether the acts of the insurgents are lawful within the Laws of War or within the Rule of Law. The question of "justness" or "unjustness" are valid policy questions for a nation to ask in deciding whether to support or oppose an insurgency. They also are valid questions of conscience (between you and God) for you to ask before engaging in an armed conflict.

Whether the insurgents are lawful combatants or not (within the 1949 GCs as ratified by the US) hinges on whether their insurgency (a "Power" to the armed conflict as defined in Common Article 2) has accepted and applied the 1949 GCs in their insurgent acts.

The "justness" or the "unjustness" of their cause has nothing to do with it - unless you adopt the 1977 Protocals which are very clearly aimed at "justness" and "unjustness" - as in "national liberation struggles" which are presumptively "just" in those additions to the GCs. If, BW, you are arguing that, so be it - but that ain't the law in the US.

In 2 of our wars directly dealing with the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, the insurgents were first treated as traitors. Eventually, in both wars, the respective parties saw the light of law and treated their opponents as lawful combatants (for the most part).

------------------
None of the following statements has any legal validity, except the third.

from GLS
Since when do you we give US citizenship status to foreign terrorists [which term I do use as it is accurate, despite academic asides] in order to then give them the "benefits" of US citizesn?

This is absurd on it's face, and it looks to me [my view, again] that some here are pandering to what they may think to be "political correctness."

Summary court martials in the field with executions would stop more, not fewer, repeat murders and attacks by the same terrorists, my view again here.

What you are defiant of is the fact that this is a religion driven form of terrorism, which the terrorists advertise daily but some here in the West want to "pretend" it just "ain't" so...but it is.
As to the first ("US citizenship"), none of the cases so far decided has conferred US citizenship on any detainee - and the sole benefit accorded has been habeas corpus. That latter right, BTW, has always existed for aliens within the jurisdiction of US courts. You can validly argue (as Justice Scalia did very well) that the Gitmo detainees are not properly within that jurisdiction (but he lost that argument). The first talking point is best left to talk radio.

As to the second point, "pandering" and "political correctness", and if that is directed at yours truly, I'll leave it to the readers of 700+ posts to decide whether "pandering" and "political correctness" is part of the program.

As to the third point, that has legal validity. We could have a statute which says in effect that any unlawful combatant, in an armed conflict declared by the Executive and Legislative branches, shall be tried before a summary court martial in the field and, if found to be an unlawful combatant, shall be executed.

As to whether that would be wise or effective, I would like to hear from some field officers who would have to be doing the trying and the executing - Cavguy and Schmedlap immediately come to mind, but there are many more here.

As to the fourth point, whether the combatant is religiously motivated has nothing to do with the lawfulness of his acts - except in one respect. The laws of war accepted by AQ, for example, are not the GCs (which they cannot accept in good faith).

Guess it's just my day to interpose with O-6s.