Guantanamo War Crimes Trials Start

Whoops-- not exactly the ones I was hoping.

I *know* it's supposed to be "the war on terror" and all, but somehow it seems a stretch to me to call trials of terrorists "war crimes".

Besides the fact that most of these people were abused and any evidence they give is terribly tainted and that the real war crimes trials should be against the Bush administration (and other US leaders over the years), how exactly do you call people captured after fighting the USA when the USA invaded their land, "war criminals"?????

Granted, I've always had major trouble conflating terrorism with "war", but it just seems silly accusing even a real terrorist of "war crimes". I'm not saying there's no legal rationale for it; rather it simply sounds wrong. Even under the official precepts of al-Qaeda being a true separate hostile entity, war is usually a violent conflict with organized military, not rare and random acts of terrorism by a few sick people. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT AL QAEDA EVER WAS A SIGNIFICANT THREAT TO THIS COUNTRY APART FROM THE COMPLETELY BIZARRE 9/11 ATTACKS.

But mostly, I'm just wondering if there's some subtle psychological operation going on here with calling these "war crimes trials"-- pre-empting this term for terrorists rather than US leaders.