But let's remember why this was an issue in the first place. Mr. Eggleton's startling revelation, that members of the Joint Task Force 2 commando unit had captured several enemy fighters nearly two weeks ago, was only newsworthy because it contradicted the Prime Minister, who had been saying publicly that no prisoners had as yet been taken.

The Prime Minister had said this in order to make the point that the question of what should be done with any prisoners our forces might happen to come across -- whether they should be handed over to the American forces, or to some other body -- was "hypothetical," and that as such he was not obliged to take a position on it.

And the reason the Prime Minister took refuge in this non-answer was because he did not wish to confront critics within his own party, who have worked themselves up into a state over the Terrible Wrong that would be committed if Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters were to be delivered into the hands of the Americans, and sent to the notorious Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay.

So while the question on the opposition's collective mind -- what didn't the minister know and when did he not know it -- is certainly interesting, as is the question of why, when he did find out, he did not tell the Prime Minister, it is of secondary importance. Had the Prime Minister simply stated from the beginning that it was government policy to pass any prisoners taken over to the Americans -- as evidently was the policy -- then it would not have been such big news that a capture and transfer had been effected, the Minister would not have been caught out contradicting his boss, and no one much would care when Mr. Eggleton knew or did not know about it.

The real question is: Why didn't the Prime Minister bat this one out of the park? Why did he allow the prisoners controversy to simmer, until it inevitably boiled over? Was he playing for time? Did he think we could take prisoners without anyone finding out? Or did he hope, the state of the military being what it is, that our boys just wouldn't capture anybody?

Such timidity is peculiar, not only coming from this Prime Minister, but over such a transparently phony issue. At first, the Guantanamo hysterics claimed that the prisoners held there were being "tortured." When this was disproved -- the worst the Red Cross, which has had unrestricted access to the prisoners from the start, could say was that they had been photographed -- the issue became the conditions in which they were being held.

That is, until reporters toured the camp, and found that conditions of life for the prisoners compared rather favourably with that of the Marines standing watch over them.

Then the issue became whether they had been accorded the status of prisoners of war under the fourth Geneva Convention, with all the privileges this entails. But anyone who knows the first thing about the Geneva Convention can tell you this is preposterous. As many experts have pointed out, PoW status is reserved for those fighting in a regularly constituted army, or who at least make it obvious that they are combatants, by wearing distinctive uniforms, carrying arms openly and the like.

The purpose of these rules is clear: not only to ensure humane treatment for prisoners taken in combat, but to offer an incentive for all sides to conform to the laws of war.

Then, when the fighting was over, the prisoners could be safely returned to their country of origin, to resume their ordinary lives.

Now try to apply any of this to the present situation. The prisoners exhibit none of the qualifying criteria. They fight in the service of no recognized government. They have made it abundantly clear that for them, the fighting is never over: They will kill their captors if they can, and kill again the minute they are let loose. And Afghanistan doesn't want them: indeed, the country's interim leader, Hamid Karzai, has explicitly endorsed the American view, that they are "unlawful combatants." What, then, is left of the critics' position? That, although these are clearly not prisoners of war, a tribunal should be empanelled to make the same finding about each of them, one at a time. Fine. But it's not as if the issue is in any doubt. These folks weren't pulled out of a police lineup. They were captured on the field of battle.

The Prime Minister knows all this. Why didn't he just say so?