The signatories are held to the treaty only so long as the belligerents follow them.

So, since Al Queda is not a state and has never claimed or implied that it wished to invoke the Conventions, we are not bound by the Conventions in our treatment of them. We maybe bound by other treaties or our own laws, but the Conventions do not apply except insofar as we may choose to arbitrarily accept them.

Also, Saddam's former soldiers who are currently engaged in the insurrection could have chosen to accept foreign fighters and been a legitimate, recognizeable army according to the conventions if they had followed the various obligations of combatants under the Conventions. I think the only one that they have followed is in having a recognized chain of command.

So, a strict interpretation of the Conventions could easily make the case that Saddam's former soldiers are terrorists and NOT protected by the Conventions.

What the USA has done is afforded the Al Queda detainees some protection under US law and some from international treaty. This is why they are called detainees and not POW's.

Also, the USA has, in general, treated Iraqis caught in the insurgency as POW's and not as Al Queda detainees. This will mean that when complete military and civil authority is returned to the Iraqis, the disposal of the Iraqi POW's will be up to Iraq, not the USA. That might be a bit sticky for them.

Bot