Back here, in the comments section, some folks who really should know better continue to whinge on about how some people have no rights in combat because they lack the appropriate spiffy dress:
If they were to play by the rules, the rules would indeed apply to them.
Ignoring the fact that the claim about uniforms is, well, total crap:
The Journal editorial also falsely claimed that the ICRC is "demanding POW status for un-uniformed combatants who target civilians." In fact, the ICRC made clear in a 2003 report titled "The legal situation of 'unlawful/unprivileged combatants'" that the group acknowledges a distinction between POWs and unlawful combatants and does not demand POW status for detainees captured in Afghanistan. Rather, the ICRC asserts that while these detainees may not be POWs as defined by the Third Geneva Convention ("Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War"), they still deserve more limited protections under the Fourth Geneva Convention ("Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War") and the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions.
it's always struck me as delightfully colonial and imperialistic to deny the enemy fundamental rights because they're not wearing matching trousers and epaulets. Apparently, we (that would be us white folks) have every right to invade another third-world country and start slaughtering its citizens, while said citizens -- who quite possibly are as impoverished as one could imagine and can barely feed themselves while living in mud huts -- are expected to drop whatever they're doing and nip down to the nearest tailor for swanky duds before they're entitled to fight back. Sort of like this:
The Geneva Conventions: Apparently, only for well-dressed white people.