Your assuming one HAS to go with the other.
If that story were true than he should have either been held in Afghanistan and tried there, tried at an international court (which the US doesn't participate in), or tried here for being a civilian who attacked US forces.
If the Taliban is a government and he's a member of there army and is held as an enemy combatant then he would have to be released to Afghani authorities or hold a war crimes tribunal.
Enough evidence to convince you apparently wasn't enough to convince the Justice Department of either the Bush or Obama administration, because those solutions above have been used in the past (except ICJ)... Bush needed to keep them off American soil because there wasn't enough evidence. There were plenty of options no matter which political take you have on the status of detainees, enemy combatants, Combative NGOs, and Regime Remnants, IF there was significant evidence.
Bush screwed himself and the American people by trying to create a new legal category where Americans could detain enemy combatants indefinitely because he was an anti-internationalist (maybe even super nationalist).
There's already laws (domestically and internationally) that can deal with this type of thing. If anyone guilty is going free, they are going free because Bush chose to work outside of the law.
Granted, my argument depends on the assumption that the Bush Administration wanted to find a solution...
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.
