That may be the party line, but I doubt that it's factually accurate. The problem is that nobody really knows, and as has been alluded to by others, with an open-ended "war," what's the desired end-state with all these prisoners? It's become quite the legal and ethical conundrum. If we assume that there won't be any kind of end or settlement to the GWOT, where POWs are exchanged post conflict, then we ought to figure out a way of dealing with these guys in a more concrete manner. There needs to be a way (military tribunals, courts, whatever) to adjudicate the guilt or status of these people. I'd argue that the bad guys should be sentenced and put in jail - for life, if necessary. On the other hand, those who are found to be innocent, or those that have a tennuous or tangential association with terrorism, should probably be deported. At least then we can say that there's been some kind of process.
Blackstone's principle suggests that it's better to set free 10 guilty men then to wrongly imprison a single innocent man. That's a concept that most people in America would probably agree on within a criminal justice context. I understand that the "detainee" issue is in kind of a gray area between criminal justice and POW, but I think we have an ethical obligation to consider Blackstone's charge.
Brett