The Taliban prisoners have not always been afforded full legal POW rights. What do you think the category of unlawful combatant is all about? You quote a bit of that in another comment, but appear not to comprehend what you're quoting.

Taliban prisoners were begrudgingly [allegedly, according to official statement] afforded POW privileges, not legal rights of POW status. There is a vast difference between the two. The privileges include meals, communication, and some other humane things. But the entire purpose of the unlawful combatant designation was to deny the legal status of POW altogether. This was done with disingenuous arguments denying the Taliban recognition as the government of Afghanistan, as well as denying satisfaction of other requirements under the Geneva Conventions that would require POW status. The Bush administration was adamant about denying Taliban captives POW status.

There is no requirement that unlawful combatants be released after hostilities are ended, nor has there ever been an offered picture of what it would mean for hostilities to end. Were these prisoners declared as POWs, they could never have their detainment and crimes reviewed, presided over, or decided by tribunals. That violates international law.

In my humble opinion, "after hostilities have ended" is too weak of a standard. I'm still a young man, yet I would be surprised if hostilities ended before I die of natural causes. Perhaps we can argue that we didn't know better before this conflict, but now that we do we should make some changes.

I was not aware that the Taliban were given POW rights. That was an extremely poor decision but I guess I stand corrected on that issue.

I don't really have a solution, I'm just weary of watching the slowest train-wreck in the history of the world. We should be better than this.

Well, the US did vote for the guy who said he would close Guantanamo. So it would seem most are better than this, but not the ones who matter.