The "detainees" are indistinguishable from the (state-sponsored terrorist) Pirates of the Barbary Coast, and are "entitled" to the same treatment their predecessors often received: hanging from the yardarm. Al-Queda? Probably. The Taliban? Probably not.
And as for the argument that states that sponsor terrorists and thieves aren't really states at all, it doesn't hold water. All the European nations (at least those that weren't landlocked) sponsored piracy during the 1500-1700's.
It is totally disingenuous to suggest pirates should be treated with the honor and respect due a military foe !
Captain John Morgan, after a very successful career as a pirate, was made the lieutenant governor of Barbados in the 1600's.
Sad to say, but I'm not sure you can argue that the Taliban aren't POW's.
As to why Rumsfeld doesn't want to call them POW's? Well, the problem is that after a war, POW's usually get send home. Sending Taliban members back to Afghanistan would be problematic, to say the least.
Listen, easy solution. We send them to Pakistan w/ a couple of our people to listen to the information while the Paki's beat it out of them. There, we gave them to the people who they have really hurt. We are not the bad guys, we just want to help the Pakistanis. Send the sissy John Walker over there too.
Your wrong on your history. The people you mention were not pirates, they were privateers. Privateers were licensed by their government to prey on the shipping of enemies of that government. When a privateer violated the rules of war, he paid a penalty. That's what led to Sir Walter Raleigh's execution.