Stuff about whether they are nice guys or not, or whether they are dangerous guys or not, or whether they or their friends break the rules as well, just are not relevant to the particular point as to whether they are POWs or not.

Those kind of things are relevant on deciding how to treat POWS, within the overall requirements laid down and agreed - but not in the least germane to the question of determining their status as POWs or not. (The argument isn't even affected if the prisoners were in fact being treated in the same way as if they were recognised as POWs).

Here are the conditions that were left of the end of GUESTjtt's quote from the Geneva Convention :

a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

I haven't heard anything to suggest that the Taliban forces didn't generally operate within those conditions every bit as much as their opponents, including US personnel. (Incidentally I'd have thought that "conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war" would have to exclude unilaterally announcing that POWS are not POWs.)

Remember, the war in Afghanistan was a consequence oif what happened on September 11, and among the prisoners there could well be people who bear some knd of responsibility for what happened. But that is a separate matter from the question of the status of men captured fighting on behalf of the Taliban regime.