The problem is, most of us don't really know in what circumstances the Convention applies. After all, it was written and signed during a time when only nations could mount armies, before anyone had any clue that such ad hoc entities as al Qaeda could conduct a war. We've tended to mix together Iraqi soldiers with ad hoc terrorists and just assumed that the Convention applies to both when there is no actual basis for that assumption. We're dealing with a new problem here, one not anticipated by the Convention. Uniformed Iraqi military should be treated in accordance with the Convention since this is a war between two sovereign nations. Beyond that, it gets a bit murky.
I happen to believe we should adhere to the Convention in our behavior toward any detainee, whether defined as a POW or not, because it is the right thing to do, but claiming we are violating the Convention when talking about how we handle ad hoc terrorists in captivity is neither fair nor true.
Cheers,
Daiwa
