Since the first 20 detainees from the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign in Afghanistan arrived at the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Jan. 11, United States officials have countered claims of inhumane treatment in violation of international law.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have each, in turn, defended the conditions at Camp X-Ray. But really it's just an argument of semantics. The captives are not prisoners of war, according to the United States, they're "detainees." Oh, not at all, say humanitarian organizations around the globe. The "detainees" are prisoners of war and as such, they are entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.

The Convention includes standards of treatment for military captives in times of war and binds countries party to the agreement to uphold those standards. Rumsfeld and other military officials have argued the detainees were "unlawful combatants," which prevents classification as prisoners of war.

"My understanding is that one of the higher purposes of the Geneva Convention is to distinguish between legitimate combatants and unlawful combatants," Rumsfeld told the Associated Press Jan. 22. "They felt a higher standard should be provided to those in uniform, fighting for a legitimate government and carrying weapons openly. "By not fighting openly and carrying an insignia [of a country], you indicate you want the liberties that are granted to an innocent. They have been found to engage in action against the United States, so we detained them," Rumsfeld said.

The U.S. government's argument hinges solely on the fact that the detainees were unlawful combatants and as such, deserve treatment less than what is prescribed by an international, humanitarian movement our country agreed to.

There are some nations that feel American fighters are among the most dangerous, best trained and vicious killers on the face of the Earth, a description Rumsfeld applied to the al-Qaida and Taliban detainees in Cuba. Were our fighters captured and the situation reversed, no doubt the U.S. government would be screaming to have the captives classified as prisoners of war to ensure humane treatment and would quickly discredit any semantical argument to the contrary.

We should not circumvent rules we agreed to because it suits us to do so and still expect others to follow them if the situation involves our citizens. The fact is, America is not above the law. No argument of simple language frees us from our duty to provide humane treatment to these prisoners according to the provisions of the Geneva Convention. The U.S. government clearly declares every day we are in the throes of war.

If that is in fact the case, we cannot with good conscience classify individuals captured during that war as anything but prisoners of war.