so, you (used generically for "a person") can be both right and wrong - depending on whether the brief you carry is carried in one country or another.

On one hand, the Eminent Jurists Report has a viewpoint that gh_uk probably favors.

On the other hand, the US courts - and both the Bush II and Obama administrations - have a different viewpoint, which is gradually evolving based on principles of the Laws of War (as interpreted and applied in the US) and on the principles and interpretations of the US Constitution. That is still a work in process - with ramifications not only on the Laws of War, but also on future ROEs. So, this thread which looks at developments in both the US and the UK.

For a more in depth look at Astan, look at this thread -which presents the US constitutional view on some related issues.

The Bush II administration had some very odd ideas (promulgated mostly in the period 2001-2003 by John Yoo et al) about executive power, rendition, interrogations and a number of domestic situations. While those odd ideas have been largely scrapped, the more mainstream Bush II positions (as to detention, Iraq and Astan) have been continued with different rhetoric.

I have a lot of problems with Wilf's examples and definitions, which I expect is due to having completely different perceptions of the same facts. However, this is enough for now.