Mr. Stirling, it is not merely the "broadest plausible interpretation": the circumstances in which Geneva Convention protections MUST be extended to a state not one of the High Contracting Parties are explicitly stated in the Conventions. And that rule is what you claim to be only "plausible".

Article 1, in all four conventions, is as I quoted. I believe that it is plausible to regard it as a SHOULD statement, placed there as a guard against using lawyerly hair-splitting to escape the duties which the High Contracting Powers have accepted.

And I think you forget what the Taliban were. Until we kicked them out, but supporting a different faction in another dirty little Afghan civil war, they were the legitimate, internationally recognised, government of Afghanistan. Hence it is stupid to claim all Taliban are unlawful combatants. It's so stupid that short planks would refuse to associate with you.

Al Qaeda, whatever we're using the label for, wasn't ever a government. It makes a difference.