Of course, but if the evidence indicates that the crime was committed in Afghanistan or other territory in which U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction I would think they should be treated differently than prisoners against whom the evidence indicates the crime was committed within U.S. jurisdiction, but I'm not sure the Constitution or international law (Ugh!) allows us to go into another country and seize a prisoner without the permission of the host government for prosecution in our own courts... although I think our courts have held that we can.
For example, the criminal court would have only to prove that Mr. Achmed Al Rashid received communications from known terrorists.
I think it should take more than that. I have received communications from the DNC and the RNC. Only if it can be shown that I responded in a cooperative manner can I be legitimately be said to support even someof their activities. Only if I responded cooperatively to a communication which suggested specific action should I be held in any way responsible for that action.
Once that is established, Mr. Rashid becomes a prisoner of war.
No, once it is established that he conspired in a criminal action, he is charged with a crime under civil law. If his crime is only[!?} a war crime committed in a war zone, he remains a prisoner of war and is subject to prosecution by military authorities. In the past, prosecution for war crimes outside the territory of U.S. jurisdiction has been by international military tribunal, not U.S.-only. If his only crime is fighting alongside proven terrorists in Afghanistan he may well have merely joined the enemy of his enemy in protecting his homeland from invasion.
However, I don't agree that the civil jurisdiction should have anything to do with military tribunals. War is by nature transnational, so I would treat prisoners of war and war criminals the same regardless of the location of their offence.
I also don't agree that there is anything special in international military tribunals. The tribunal should represent the military that is engaged in the hostilities. Presently, that includes the US and the British, and at a great stretch, the Pakistanis.