kevin smith
 I was pointing out the proper procedure for implementing the Geneva conventions, of which many people to seem to be unaware . Considering the large number of people incarcerated in Iraq, I imagine there was quite a bit of doubt over their status. I don't know of any tribunals operating to classify prisoners, but there may well be.
The convention protects combatants and civilians, so everybody is covered one way or another. People who committ acts of violence and who aren't combatants are criminals and have the right to a fair trial by a regularly constituted court.

It doesn't give you the right to torture and abuse them.

It is pretty obvious that the US has violated the Geneva conventions, but whether these violations were random and aberrant or systematic remains to be seen.

kevin I don't think "quasi-soldiers, quasi-terrorists, quasi-civilian, hiders-behind-women-and-children, civilian killers " should be treated as regular soldiers, either, but the point is they have to be subject to some kind of rule of law not left in a legal black hole. I can see why the administration didn't want to treat them as POWS -they wanted to be able to interrogate them. They could have saved themselves from a lot of criticism by establishing some kind of legal framework to govern the holding of these people. But they didn't even give these people a chance to go before some kind of judge or tribunal and say " Hey it wasn't me, I was just tending my goats"
In the absence of any other laws, people look to the Geneva conventions, which are the closest thing.
More importantly to me, you can't hold the moral high ground and try to weasel your way in and around international laws and treaties at the same time. You are hurting your own cause, which is our cause, which ultimately is western civilization.