If they are criminals or members of a criminal organization , they should each have been tried.
Now that is talking expensive.
I think they could be treated as prisoners of war which doesn't require trials for most of them , but does require certain respect and protection of rights that we haven't been careful enough about.
Then POWs get 100% released at the close of hostilities. Without further trials or prejudices , unless there is evidence of extraordinary bad behavior , that is to say "war crimes" .
There is also a category commonly considered obsolete "pirate" which the Congress has authority to prosecute and to appoint military prosecution . Because this is a congressional responsibility for attacking international crime "piracy " is my favorite.
But because congress in recent years seems to avoid responsibilities, I don't see commissions on piracy being set up in congress. This choice is unlikely.
Since POWs are supposed to be held in safety for the length of the war , and the other side promises to keep the fight up perpetually there is a practical problem with calling them POWs that will be released at the close of a war that isn't ever going to close.
Calling them criminals has an appropriate ring to it , but this choice has the unfortunate drawback of declaring the entire planet to be US jurisdiction. I don't see this as the most practical choice nor the least insulting to the rest of the world.
The least desirable choice is to treat them as nonpersons and dither in between firm and lenient, having no connection to the process of law. I think this choice is what we have as a default result of not choosing the established categories that we have rules for dealing with.