Prof. Philip Heymann of Harvard Law gave a talk that fleshed out for me the uneasy story concerning the U.S. treatment of those labeled enemy combatants. He described in a dispassionate way the tension among different government agencies as each proceeded to implement, or not, new policies that were being promulgated in the aftermath of 9/11. Different decisions won out for different agencies. The policies originated particularly from the top of the federal administration.
After further thought, an analogy with card games occurred to me in which the winning outcome is a decision. I had a sense of the different 'trump' cards that came into play and dominated in the outcome. These cards included the Constitution and Bill of Rights, public (and individual) sense of morality, federal law, international law, appeal to authority, paranoia, fear of liability, and covert subterfuge. I suppose that public complacency could have been a card, but did not seem to be played. The subterfuge card, was the wild card in the pack that some thought could beat out the rest in a winning decision. Others argued, as would I, that subterfuge should not have been in the deck.
The rules of the game continue to develop. A useful rule would include that the trump cards not all be in the hands of one person or one group or one branch of government. Some felt that too many cards moved into the wrong hands.