Frollein wrote: Terrorists aren't combatants. They are not protected under Geneva and they damn well shouldn't be.
Obviously they are protected by the Geneva Convention.
The Status and Protection of Unlawful Combatants.
The term ‘unlawful combatant’ became better known during the recent armed conflict in Afghanistan, when the Bush administration announced its decision to classify the captured Taliban soldiers and al-Qaeda fighters as unlawful combatants and, as a consequence, to deny them prisoner-of-war status.* This has provoked a heated debate over the exact status and protection of such persons. In view of the current security situation around the world, it has been asserted ever more frequently that unlawful combatants are not entitled to any protection whatsoever under international humanitarian law. These statements are clouded in emotional rhetoric and are also dangerous, as they lead to a situation where certain persons in armed conflict are left in a legal vacuum. Yet every person has the fundamental and undeniable right to recognition before the law. It is the general principle of the four Geneva Conventions (1949)* and their two Additional Protocols (1977) that every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law — that of either a prisoner of war or a civilian. There is no intermediate status: nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. The present article will not discuss whether unlawful combatants should be treated as prisoners of war according to the Third Convention but, instead, will first shed some light on the status of unlawful combatants and then argue that they are protected as civilians under the Fourth Convention.
IF I HAD UNDERSTOOD THE SITUATION A BIT BETTER I SHOULD HAVE PROBABLY JOINED THE ANARCHISTSGeorge Orwell