as quoted from the WSJ's Opinion Journal

The notion that the Geneva Conventions apply to al Qaeda is utterly preposterous. Article 4 of the convention provides that members of "militias," "volunteer corps" or other "organized resistance movements" are protected only if they comply with these conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Those on the pro-terrorist side of this argument claim that captives are presumptively considered POWs unless a tribunal rules otherwise. But that provision, in Article 5, is qualified (emphasis ours): "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Anyone who argues that the al Qaeda prisoners at Gitmo should be classsified as POWs, then, is claiming that it may be within the laws and customs of war to hijack airplanes, blow up buildings and murder innocent civilians. These days, such monstrous foolishness goes under the alias of "human-rights activism."