As a veteran of the armed forces, and thus subject to the Geneva Conventions, I can't help but be confused by Mr. McLafferty's column on Wednesday, "Blair's terrorism act opposes American values," in which he states that we are "re-writing the Geneva Conventions." It seems that he, like most civilians, is unaware that Geneva is very specific about who is an illegal combatant and who is considered a prisoner of war, as well as how to treat illegal combatants.

Article 4 of the Geneva Convention specifies the conditions under which combatants who aren't members of a country's armed forces may be deemed POWs. All others are specified as illegal combatants.

1. That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.

2. That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance.

3. That of carrying arms openly.

4. That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Article 4 also authorizes the summary execution of those who are captured while engaged in illegal combat. This was last invoked in 1976 when three British and one American were executed by Angolan forces for engaging in illegal combat. It is clear (even to those of us not well-versed in law) that the terrorists in Iraq do not meet any of these requirements, much less all of them. Perhaps Mr. McLafferty would rather we begin simply executing terrorists in the field, as Geneva prescribes.