Actually, Sites was pretty clear what happened; I saw him on MSNBC yesterday. The man WAS unarmed. He was not confirmed to be a civilian. It appeared to the US forces at though he was an insurgent wounded the previous day and left in the mosque overnight. There was not really another "battle" at the mosque; the US forces simply came back. According to Sites it wasn't all that clear why they went there.

Just before the unarmed man was shot, one of the US soldiers (couldn't tell if it was the one who shot him) accused him loudly of "playing dead." Apparently, the kid was afraid that the wounded man had a gun, and was pretending to be dead/wounded so he could either shoot the American troops when they weren't expecting it, or get away. (Odd that he had been left there unattended overnight and then shot for allegedly "playing dead.")

The NBC military advisor, a retired Marine Colonel, said that he thought it was pretty clearly a "war crime," but that investigations would determine what appropriate punishment would be. Unless the insurgent is found to have been armed after all, this incident would clearly violate the third Geneva convention, which states that unarmed combatants and those placed out of combat by wounds must be treated humanely.