POW or Unlawful Combatant?

I was recently asked how i thought these accused foreign terrorists should be treated and this question lead perfectly into this post. This first requires the understanding of the qualifications and treatment granted to POWs and how they differ from unlawful combatants. A POW is defined as a lawful enemy combatant of a foreign state. This means that the prisoner has allied themselves with a recognized state, has a legitimate commanding officer who is responsible for his subordinates, and follows the generally accepted rules of war. The privileges granted to anyone with POW status is protection from military trial, they are not subject to the laws of the capturing nation, they are commonly exchanged and released at the end of the war. There is a definite problem with designating terrorists as POWs and it starts with the latter privilege. By declaring them POWs, they are to be released at the end of the conflict. However, since we are not fighting a war against a legitimate government, it would be rather difficult to determine the end of the conflict and furthermore we would be releasing accused persons whom many have declared that they would do anything to kill Americans. Not the best of strategies for self-preservation. Also, they would be immune from trial of any kind by military tribunal which would essentially mean that if we were ever to capture Osama Bin-Laden, we could not try him for his involvement in planning the 9/11 attacks. However, by designating them as unlawful combatants they no longer have these protections. Unlawful combatant simply means that the soldier violated the agreed rules of war. They are no longer protected from trial and are held responsible for their actions which seems a fitting policy for accused terrorists.