The problem of enemy combatants

The subject of what the U.S. should do--or can do--with enemy combatants is a tricky one. Should we bring them onshore, where our laws are more likely to be applied? Do the combatants have rights at all, or do they give them up by virtue of being enemy combatants? Is strict adherence to the Geneva Convention the highest good when weighed against other issues, such as intelligence-gathering which may result in foiling a terrorist plot? On the other hand, other argue that intelligence gathered through brutal interrogation methods is secondary in importance to creating and maintaining alliances with other nations to fight terror. Obviously, Bauerism is not a universal good. Let me just say I'm glad I'm not the policy-maker.

It seems evident to me that sometimes the CIA just has to do what it has to do. I know that sounds awfully ambivalent. It is. But considering the people we're fighting, I don't see any other way. I definitely don't want the courts sticking their grubby hands in interrogation business. I think the CIA sees this as well, which is why it maintains offshore prisons for enemy combatants to avoid the domestic legal issues. Of course, these prisons' host countries may eventually decide it's incongruous to proclaim human rights while allowing a free-for-all on their soil by the CIA. Perhaps "plausible deniability" plays a role in all this...

To try and craft a domestic policy of enemy combatant interrogation would be an absolute nightmare. The moment we give terrorist access to our rights and laws, it will be a free-for-all by the left to defend and protect them.

Any details we dig up about these off-shore prisons won't be pretty. Why keep digging? I don't say this because the Bush Administration committed some crime which I'm trying to cover for. The reason this should be avoided is because it will hurt the prosecution of the War on Terror--something that will continue across administrations. There are certain dark corners that should never be lit up, or we risk darkening other already-lit corners.

UPDATE: [H/T Powerline] President Bush has articulated in the past that America's policy for any enemy combatant, off-shore or otherwise, is humane treatment:

I accept the legal conclusion of the Department of Justice and determine that none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or elsewhere throughout the world because, among other reasons, Al Qaeda is not a High Contracting Party to Geneva.

Of course, our values as a Nation...call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment...As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.

This point was reitterated earlier this week:

President Bush's directive banning the torture of terror suspects applies to all prisoners - even if held in a secret prison reportedly set up by the CIA for its most important al-Qaida captives, a senior administration official said Wednesday.
...

[National Security Advisor Stephen] Hadley said that "while we have to do what is necessary to defend the country against terrorist attacks and to win the war on terror, the president has been very clear that we're going to do that in a way that is consistent with our values."

"And that is why he's been very clear that the United States will not torture," Hadley said, responding to questions at a White House briefing. "The United States will conduct its activities in compliance with law and international obligations."

Asked about secret prisons, Hadley said, "The fact that they are secret, assuming there are such sites, does not mean" torture would be tolerated.

enemy combatants, terrorist, cia, geneva convention, offshore prisons, off-shore prisons, war on terror, enemy combatant