In One Rule for Them , The Guardian's George Monbiot examines the hypocrisy of Rumsfeld's decrying Iraq's non-compliance with the Geneva Convention for American POW's while the U.S. has not afforded such protections to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

Here are the violations Monbiot lists with respect to the Guantanamo detainees:

The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72). They were not "released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities" (118), because, the US authorities say, their interrogation might, one day, reveal interesting information about al-Qaida. Article 17 rules that captives are obliged to give only their name, rank, number and date of birth. No "coercion may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever". In the hope of breaking them, however, the authorities have confined them to solitary cells and subjected them to what is now known as "torture lite": sleep deprivation and constant exposure to bright light. Unsurprisingly, several of the prisoners have sought to kill themselves, by smashing their heads against the walls or trying to slash their wrists with plastic cutlery.

Moniot debunks the Government's theory that the Guantanamo detainees are exempt from POW status.

But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be regarded as prisoners of war. Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified, article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal".

We've argued these same points many times, most recently here.

Yes, we know the difference according to the Administration between enemy combatants and prisoners of war. The Administration argues that Al Qaeda members don't qualify because they don't have these qualifications: (1) being under a responsible command; (2) having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (3) carrying arms openly; and (4) conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. At times they have included the qualification of wearing a military uniform. Back last February, Bush said the Taliban and Al Qaeda were enemy combatants. After a lot of heat, he revised his position to recognize that Taliban soldiers were entitled to POW protections but not Al Qaeda. This Administration has been making up the rules as it goes along and refuses to concede that enemy combatants are entitled to judicial review of its decision.

"Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention states that if there is "any doubt" as to whether captured combatants should be recognized as POWs, "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." In other words, if doubt exists, the status of each detainee must be determined individually, not by a blanket decision of the President."

"Even if not technically prisoners of war, al Qaeda and Taliban captives still qualify for "humane treatment" under the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, a resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1988."

We believe in treating all prisoners as human beings and with dignity. As we said here, "If we treat the citizens of other countries this way, why won't these other countries retaliate with similar or harsher treatment when they capture members of our military?" Don't we reap what we sow?