[jajko]

Think about it a bit, its actually practical. Who is more probable to instill a mutiny or escape, a foot soldier with basic education who is whole life just being told what to do and think, or a westpoint captain / russian officer with kgb training?

Also, you want valuable information from officers, so you treat them better and wear them down with soft power (often used in Vietnam, I've read whole book how they gradually befriended some officers treating them nicely, and then one day an officer reads how US is evil into the camera).

Also, you project how you want the other side to treat your higher ranks, there is often quid pro quo mentality.

I can go on and on. To think that people 100 years ago creating Geneva charter were clueless idiots and warfare changed dramatically is... unwise, this worked for millennia and I see no change.

[brandall10]

Don't quite follow why the Geneva convention would written to seemingly confer advantages to the captor.

The quid pro quo part makes sense, to some extent allowing the ranking to carry forward behind enemy lines out of respect and to ease post-war tensions as higher ups can segue into positions of political power.