The focus of the essay is the injustice directed at prisoners whom the U.S. has seized in the current "war" on terrorism 

The "war on terrorism" is a HYBRID. It combines ideas about prisoner treatment drawn form our understanding of WAR with ideas drawn from our legal system. The result is incoherent and fails to provide stable guidance.

THESIS: the hybrid is incoherent. It combines ideas in a way that anyone designated an "enemy" loses the rights that are normally granted by either the war or legal models of prisoner treatment.

SOME MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THE HYBRID MODEL:

1. The WAR model respects the right of enemies to engage in violence against us. Captured enemies can be imprisoned, but they cannot receive PUNISHMENT for being enemies. Their violence is a legitimate action according to the war model.  Problem: the U.S. has claimed that we can punish these enemies for plotting to harm us. In contrast, the LAW model allows us to punish someone, but if it's a "war," we are violating their rights in doing so. (There is a special case. An "unlawful combatant" is someone who uses violence but who does not wear military insignia -- these people do not become POWs. They are placed under the LAW model.)
2. International consequence: War model permits other countries to remain neutral, refusing cooperation when we try to hunt down terrorists. Criminal activity does not provide the excuse of neutrality. SO if we want to hunt down terrorists who cross borders to escape us, we should use the criminal model. If we pursue the war model, other countries have the right to provide safe haven to them.
3. The LAW model recognizes that prisoners have various rights, including presumption of innocence & judicial review of the grounds for imprisonment while proceeding toward punishment. Charges must be brought in a timely manner. Problem: because the WAR model presumes a right to imprisonment of enemies, but NO PUNISHMENT & no concern for questions of innocence and guilt, there is no need to grant these rights to prisoners of war. In treating suspected terrorists as prisoners of war, current U.S. policy denies the need for judicial review, no need for trial, etc. Although we claim that they can be punished, and thus must assign them the rights of the law model, we deny them these rights by classifying them under the war model. So we are violating the rights they have under the law model. 
   
   In a 1942 Supreme Court ruling, the court held that "enemy combatants" who are out of uniform and who engage in sabotage on U.S. soil must be treated with due process in a criminal proceeding. It can be with a military tribunal, but due process is required (e.g., hearings, trial, sentencing, etc.). Enemy combatants of this type CANNOT be held indefinitely without hearings and trial.
4. The WAR model assumes a state of conflict between groups under the control of political authorities. (Most often, there are two countries/nations/governments.) One side can negotiate with the other in order to end the war and establish peace. Just War Theory says that peace must be our overall goal. Problem: The U.S. does not recognize any legitimate authority with whom it is at war in this "war." There is no one with whom to negotiate a peace. The U.S. claims a right to kill in self-defense: our own safety is the ONLY goal we recognize. The "war" on terror has no FINALITY (no goal that counts as achievement of our action), so the suspension of human rights is a PERMANENT suspension of rights. But Just War Theory gives us no justification for this.

IN OTHER WORDS, 

• The war model presumes GUILT of those who would harm us: we acknowledge their right to attack us, and in response we can harm them without due process (unless they surrender, after which we cannot harm them or punish them -- we can only confine them until the war ends). 
• The law model presumes INNOCENCE. We deny their right to attack us, but we also acknowledge that we cannot harm them unless we have used due process to establish their guilt. If we do not use due process, we cannot confine them. 
• Since the war model suspends articles 4, 5, and 6 of the Bill of Rights while the law model upholds them, we cannot combine the two models in a justified way.

OVERALL PROBLEM: The U.S. is claiming that we can deprive anyone, anywhere of a wide range of rights simply by our decision to classify them as terrorists.