No, I'm for not making the military rules of engagement the same rules as your local law enforcement agency have to follow.
The people in Guantanomo Bay were not taken in military engagements. If they weren't wearing uniforms and weren't representing a government, but were busy trying to kill people with guns and bombs, they're just CRIMINALS. That's all.
There is no such thing as a terrorist, as a legal distinction. There are military combatants and there are civilians. If a civilian plants a bomb, he's still a civilian. He's just a criminal civilian. If a civilian shoots a bunch of people with an automatic weapon, he's still a civilian. He's just a criminal civilian. If a civilian gets together with a bunch of his buddies and plants bombs and shoots a bunch of people with automatic weapons, he's still just a civilian.
We even have a name for that. We call them mobsters.
Attempting to create terrorism as a legal distinction is stupid twice. Once because you're playing in to their narrative, giving them far more credence than they deserve, and twice because it's being used to foment fear and trample rights here at home. One is cowardly, the other treasonous.
Taliban, Al Queda, blah blah, these are just mobs. Organized crime. Treat them as such. The people in Gitmo are foreign nationals. Deport them. A bunch of Iron Age assholes running around in a desert on another continent are not a threat to me. If you failed to capture them via proper criminal procedures, you're just a fuckup. Releasing them is fixing a fuckup. If they are what you say they are, they'll reoffend, in which case they can be captured with proper law enforcement procedures, tried, and locked up legally. Meanwhile, you personally should stop defending the fuckups.