[alexeisadeski3]

The Bush administration announced its policy on captives from Afghanistan in February 2002. It drew a theoretical distinction between al-Qaeda fighters and members of the Taliban forces. Since al-Qaeda was a non-State group, the conflict between the United States and al-Qaeda was outside the reach of the Geneva Conventions, the White House said. By contrast, since the Taliban were the de facto armed forces of Afghanistan, the Geneva Conventions did apply to the conflict between the United States and the Taliban. However, according to the White House, the Taliban forces did not meet the criteria set out in the Third Geneva Convention for attaining POW status. Therefore, in practice, all detainees from Afghanistan were “unlawful combatants” who did not deserve the privileges of prisoners of war.

Nevertheless, the White House proclaimed, the prisoners would receive “many POW privileges as a matter of policy.” Included in the listed privileges which would be extended detainees held at Guantanamo were appropriate Muslim meals, opportunities to worship and correspond and send mail, subject, of course, to the security needs of the facility and the U.S. government. This limitation on the right of correspondence is permitted by Article 76 of the Convention.

http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/prisoners-of-war/#sthas...

[bobwaycott]

Are you attempting to dispute or corroborate that these prisoners are not, in fact, prisoners of war? You're quoting from the creative legal department of the Bush administration, in which it is made clear that the men are not categorized as prisoners of war, but were instead supplied a different distinction so as to remove them from Geneva Convention protections. Instead, your quote only says they've been allegedly provided POW privileges as a matter of policy.

Policy does not equal protection under and adherence to laws of war.