Re "He could have been classified as a war criminal, rather than a prisoner of war."

as I understand it, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and their protocols, set forth the "laws of war" which oblige any country which is a signatory to the Conventions to put to trial those suspected of grave human rights breaches such as genocide (war criminals). The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary that accompanies these Conventions states that the suspected war criminal can be handed over to an international criminal tribunal.

If Saddam were to be treated as a suspected war criminal, he would be taken out of the control of the US government and put through an internationally accepted legal procedure. He would be tried in an international court, similar to those courts set up by the UN for Bosnian and Rwandan war criminals.

AI and Human Rights Watch called for the speedy ratification of a treaty which would allow the International Criminal Court to begin operations. To date, 83 countries have signed the court's treaty and four have ratified it. The United States has objected to the treaty, however, and vowed not to support it unless changes are made which would allow it to block any prosecutions of Americans accused of war crimes. Until the treaty is ratified, the UN will continue to set up individual, specific war tribunals for particular wars, crimes and countries, such as the ones it set up in the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The US is twitchy about allowing Saddam or anyone to be classified as a war criminal. Technically, by showing pictures of him having his dental examination internationally, The US itself violated the stipulation in Article 13 of the third convention that POWs must be protected against "insults and public curiosity". Political leaders of governments who do so risk being tried as war criminals themselves at the International Criminal Court.

The third convention is the "Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949." This Convention details obligations for the physical care of POWs—requiring, in essence, that POWs receive food, clothing, housing, sanitation, medical care, and so on, to the same standard as the armed forces of the country that is holding them. It also states that POWs are exempt from forced labor.

George Bush's recent order creating the US' own separate military tribunals for the prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay directly contradicts provisions of Convention (III). It reserves final judgment on the verdict for the American president. It denies the defendants the right to an appeal. It prevents them from choosing their own lawyers. And it allows the death penalty to be imposed without a unanimous jury. All these provisions violate the 1949 conventions.

Thus, by classifying Saddam as a POW rather than a war criminal, George Bush has prevented his trial in an international tribunal, and has given him legal protection that has been denied the people held without charge in Guantanamo Bay.
If the people in Guantanamo Bay were given the same classification as Saddam, (that of POW) they would have the continuing right to be visited by outsiders, including agents of the International Red Cross and the representatives of a neutral country designated to act as a "Protecting Power." This means that several independant parties would be appointed to certify that the prisoners are properly treated. They would not be able to be interrogated, even politely, except to the extent of being obliged to give their name and rank. And of course, most critically, POWs must be allowed to go home when the conflict in which they are captured ends.

A war criminal may or may not be designated a POW. The Geneva convention only affords protection to convicted war criminals if they are also designated as POWs.

freda