one way into the problems: say you take the bush admin position that you can apprehend anyone anywhere and hold them without evidence or representation. and say you also hold, with these patriotic defenders of freedom, that the interrogation techniques you use on these people are state secrets. now say you interrogate someone for a few years, waterboard him a couple of hundred times, see how he likes insects, rodents, large bruises, electricity to the testicles, and so on, trying to figure out what his role is in terrorism, etc, and come to the conclusion that you kind of made a mistake and he doesn't know anything and is not guilty of any crime or act of war. this is peculiarly likely to be the case since you never had to provide any evidence of his guilt to anyone in the first place. (in fact, you nabbed him on the basis of a denunciation by his father-in-law. but better safe than sorry, and the bomb is ticking.) however, you now have an extremely good reason to hold him: he is in possession of state secrets, namely the interrogation techniques you used on him. that is, torturing him made him guilty of espionage. so you are obliged to hold him forever or ditch his body out back.