Point by point

Afghan at war 2001 and before, but between 2002-2005 by "some measures" it wasn't, and America wasn't at war with or engaging in war on some segment of the Afghan population (presumably only the "bad guys" and not the good guys excluding "collaterals") except between 2001-2002 and 2005 to present because we didn't change the AUMF or (?) legal justification, AND I don't get what's going on and you do because you included a gratuitous swipe at lawyers with neural tangles . . . or something like that. Right?

Um, the neural tangle thing was to tell you that what you formulated was from your own head, not from mine, not a gratuitous swipe at lawyers with neural tangles.

The Afghan Civil War was on before the U.S. "invaded" (really just came to the assistance of one side and then the Bushies blew up their importance to the nth degree after). That war was ended by treaty on December 5, 2001, with a battle in Kandahar fought after the treaty was signed. In that treaty, the U.S. and 40 other countries, agreed to a reconstruction plan in Afghanistan in which NATO forces, under the name ISAF, would provide the peacekeeping. Peacekeeping is part of nearly every reconstruction plan, so that doesn't constitute continuing the war. There was an inserted provision in the treaty to allow the U.S. to continue Operation Enduring Freedom, but that was the official cessation of hostilities. That lasted, in the usual ceasefire way, or actually a little worse because the Bush administration and several European governments refused to carry out their obligations by some estimates (e.g. Peters) until 2003, and by others (e.g. Rashid) until 2005-6.

The fact that the prisoners were no longer being held for "duration of conflict" because no international organization recognized the existence of that conflict is why Afghan prisoners were argued to be entitled to habeas corpus rights: They were being held and there was no conflict so they were not combatants held on "duration of conflict" on grounds that they would return to the battle (the stipulations of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols). That, actually, was argued in court before Judge Bates, as far as I know, at some point, or it was argued in Afghanistan before the High Court (same lawyer in both cases so I don't know where the argument was made). Supporting it was the fact that the ICRC and the Bush administration clashed over prisoners as they were being taken in Afghanistan and plans were being made to ship them to Guantanamo on precisely these grounds: That the U.S. was not sufficiently party to the conflict to take prisoners of war, and that the conflict had not endured and therefore the prisoners could not continue to be held.

So again your point was what? Our kinda sorta legally amorphous ever changing "war status/posture" in Afghanistan leads to prisoners held without habeaus rights and war crimes but we should keep on keepin' on and maybe do a little "escalatin' or surgin'" and whatever happens it's the non-interventionist's fault if more war results by way of a steady withdrawal of combat troops and you'll be the first to petition the ICC to that effect? Did I get that right or not?

I pretty said it above: The fact that public perception argues so strongly for a continuous war since Oct 17, 2001 in Afghanistan, orignally a highly disputed Bush administration position, has now kept at least one prisoner from habeas rights specifically (the Afghan in the Bagram prisoners case), and actually a class, namely all prisoners at Bagram in similar circumstances, since Judge Bates ruled that they may be held for "duration of conflict" because they may have been taken on the field of battle.

I may be a lawyer with a neural tangle but you still aren't making the slightest bit of sense. At least to me. But I'm not real smart and you are.

I'm not the one leveling insults, I guess. At least it's a Greenwald certified insult. I can live with that.