Well, one could write a thesis on either question. I'll try to be as brief as I can.
It's my position that the laws of armed conflict are very problematic when dealing with asymmetric warfare. I think everyone can seize that point. They were clearly designed to deal with two armies of civilized western countries who respect certain basic norms of warfare. Built into them is an enforcement mechanism of reciprocity, so that if your side will obey the laws of war, your prisoners will be treated according to the Geneva conventions and given the full panoply of rights under the conventions. If they do not, they will not be accorded the full panoply of rights. Really, that's the only enforcement mechanism that the Geneva convention presupposes.
Mr. Khadr, as a member of al-Qaeda, is not a member of a contracting party to the Geneva conventions. He does not participate in a militia or an army that follows the laws of war, including distinguishing marks to distinguish them from civilians, bearing arms openly, otherwise complying with the laws of war, a recognized hierarchy of leadership. So he is not entitled to the full panoply of rights under the Geneva conventions, which in any way are anachronistic. The Geneva conventions really conveyed a Hogan's Heroes sort of detention camp of gentlemen soldiers. Whatever you want to say about Mr. Khadr, he is not a gentleman.
The rights he is entitled to--the U.S. Supreme Court has found this, and this is why I say his process is being well supervised by the U.S. courts--are the minimum protections of the Geneva conventions, which are “the indispensable rights”. So I wouldn't say the Geneva conventions are wholly inapplicable. I would say that those protections, such as receiving pay during his detention and receiving scientific instruments through the mail, are things that are wholly anachronistic in dealing with murderers and fanatical would-be martyrs. He's not entitled to those protections. But he is entitled to be treated humanely. He is entitled to fundamental requirements of a neutral arbiter and to be made aware of the case against him and to have an opportunity to rebut it.
Those are the requirements that the U.S. Supreme Court has said must be provided and that have been provided to detainees in Guantanamo Bay, which is why I say the process in place actually meets the minimum requirements of the Geneva conventions.