Two answers:
First, given that we *did* have uniforms and they didn't, then any native-looking greaseball firing a weapon at us would be fairly recognizable.
Second, you didn't read down far enough:
- Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
Not a lot of doubt in my mind either, but there are mechanisms for this sort of thing that the administration ignored.
AFAICT, they just didn't want them to be able to "lawyer up", which I can understand, but under our constitution may simply be unavoidable. It would have made things less convenient, take longer, and cost more. But that's no excuse; that's life in a constitutional republic.
They made at least one decision... That the detainees *do* have the right to access our court system. A point that the BA fought tooth and nail.
It would strengthen the case for considering them soldiers rather than criminals. It's one factor among many.
No one falls outside the protection of the GC. You are either a POW, a Protected Person, or a War Criminal. In no case are you beyond the reach of law.
The fact that there is disagreement is de facto proof of "doubt arising".
Immaterial. See comments above.
It is simple. The GC always applies in one way or another.
Not to the administration. It was specifically chosen because of a ruling from the 1950's that made it sort of a no-man's land.