Thanks for your understanding. I'm asking questions for my own betterment, so I appreciate your indulging me. It seems that there is a fundamental difference between capturing British soldiers during an armed conflict where the British are a clear enemy on Colonial soil, and individuals who may or may not have ever actually held a weapon being captured on soil that may not even be a part of a battlefield that the US is actively (officially at least) involved in. Pakistan comes to mind. Yemen comes to mind. I wonder how many other individuals we've snagged in other places - sovereign countries - where there are not active combat operations in place. Technically, we are not at war in or with Pakistan. Can individuals captured in Pakistan be held this way? Under what justification? How about individuals captured by the CIA in Yemen who may at some point hold a weapon, but who have not yet? Under what justification?