What we do know is that Iraqi insurgents frequently fake death, booby-trap dead bodies and perform other ruses that have resulted in many GI deaths. In the context of that knowledge, is it possible that the young Marine acted reasonably? That he was acting in self-defense?
To those of us who can't imagine combat, the notion that war has rules seems odd. All is fair in love and war, right? But indeed there are strict rules of war as outlined by the Hague Convention, which governs the means and methods of warfare, including permissible tricks and ruses.
Among those rules: Don't fake surrender, and don't fake dead or wounded to gain an advantage and kill the enemy.
Meanwhile, at the same time the incident inside the mosque was taking place, a U.S. Marine was killed and five others wounded when the booby-trapped body of a dead insurgent blew up.
Insurgents and terrorists don't play by anyone's rules but their own. They're not held to the same standards, as the Hague Convention applies only to state actors. Technically, I'm told, the United States doesn't have to adhere to the conventions when fighting non-state actors such as terrorists either, but we do "because it's the right thing to do."
The Marine who fired the killing shot, ending the life of a man we now know to have been alive, unarmed and - at least in that instant - no threat, was a kid who obviously did know the rules and was attempting to balance that knowledge against his fear of being killed.
He himself had been shot in the face the day before but was back in the fray. By his words we can conclude that his mind was racing. His rapid-fire thoughts most likely went something like this: The man is faking; he intends to shoot me; if I don't shoot him, I will die.
His decision under those circumstances seems reasonable to me. The gravest concern, however, is that the Marine risked his life to voice his rationale, possibly aware he was being filmed and had to justify his actions for the media.