Okay, guys, once more with feeling: Terrorist groups are not signatories to the Geneva Conventions
Why is it that there's this concept of the Geneva Conventions as sacred writ? They're agreements between nations - i.e., treaties. Nations that don't sign don't get to claim the benefits and protections granted. Forces that use extranationality as an extra means to evade capture - i.e., terrorists - really
don't get any benefits. It may or may not be wrong to perform actions that would
be violations of the Geneva Conventions were the terrorist suspects in question members of a uniformed fighting force, but that's neither here nor there; they're not, which means the entire article is based on a false premise. This is purposeful and fairly obvious obtuseness from a partisan media.
Of course, this CTV (that is, BellGlobeMedia; that is, The Globe & Mail
) article has BBC-trademark sneer quotes around "war on terror," so I suppose I can't expect too much moral clarity.