The spread of norms and human rights

Jacob asked "Just a quick question/comment on your terrorist/freedom fighter issue: I agree that anyone who kills thousands of civilians is a terrorist/criminal. Doesn't who/what you're fighting determine who gets "civilian" status in a war in which both sides (although I disagree with my own implication that there are only two sides) are fighting ill-defined enemies?"

I do not know if this is a direct response to the comment. I remember my IR class learning about norm diffusion in the area of human rights. The main point was that part of the liberal theory follows that the spread of capitalist markets with representative democracies will help propagate what we in the West view as human rights. The problem is that globalization has delivered benefits to the global South, but the benefits have so far failed to be reliable or widespread. One other problem that presented itself on 9/11 is how the West, an area that has a deeply entrenched belief in individual freedom and rights, can fight a war on terror within the bounds of its own moral conscience. We have unfortunate seen the decision up to now how to deal with our beliefs and that is to forget obligations to domestic and international regimes on human rights and torture (US Constitution, Geneva Convention, UN Declaration on Human rights).

I will try to relate this to Jacob's question. I think the global nature of terrorism is what makes this especially difficult to answer. The War on Terror is not a war on a state. It is a war on an unknown (I won't go into the sad implication of this on the chance of peace). As an unknown, the war ranges from the US to Great Britain to Africa and finally to the Middle East. If this war is truly global, then the question of civilian status is extremely muddled. So far combatants have yet to even gain legal recognition as civilians or soldiers.

If we go back to the Geneva Convention, there is what I see as what today could be construed as a protection against civilians and the current practice of networking prisoners to escape regulation.
GENERAL PROTECTION OF PRISONERS OF WAR
Article 12

Prisoners of war are in the hands of the enemy Power, but not of the individuals or military units who have captured them. Irrespective of the individual responsibilities that may exist, the Detaining Power is responsible for the treatment given them.
Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.
Nevertheless if that Power fails to carry out the provisions of the Convention in any important respect, the Power by whom the prisoners of war were transferred shall, upon being notified by the Protecting Power, take effective measures to correct the situation or shall request the return of the prisoners of war. Such requests must be complied with.

With this is mind, maybe the question evolves into what needs to be done to ensure pre-existing measures are followed by the global community. I would enjoy ideas for a solution from the rest of you. Good night.