They're not POW's

It seems some folks have gotten their knickers in a knot over the CF position that captured Taliban fighters aren't POW's (ht:ST).

I'm no legal beagle, but Article 4 of the Geneva Convention seems pretty clear to me. This is the relevant passage:

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
...
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following 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.

The Taliban insurgents might meet the first condition, but they certainly don't meet the rest. They don't qualify for POW status.

Which is not to say that they shouldn't receive humane treatment from the forces capturing them, as LGen Michel Gauthier clearly affirms:

“They are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status but they are entitled to prisoner-of-war treatment,” he said, asserting that all detainees are humanely treated.

Our treatment of prisoners - especially the agreement that sees them handed over to the Afghan government - might be in contravention of treaties to which we are signatories, but the Geneva Convention is not one of them.