Big Mick, I hear you. I cannot match your experience, but I was attempting to acknowledge the lad's own situation when I pointed out that extenuating circumstances applied (he was scared shitless after having been shot the previous day) and that the Law of war is not a perfect instrument to deal with situatuions like an urban insurgency. As i said, I suspect if he is found to have acted wrongfully he will be treated leniently.

Beardedbruce:

"Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are."

Both the US and Iraq are parties to the Geneva Conventions. So I'm not sure why you quoted this passage and then accused people of not knowing what they are talking about. There are passages of the conventions that would make more sense for you to quote. In specific, the US is not in fact at war with Iraq; the militia members are not representing the Iraqi state, though they are Iraqi nationals. So there is some question as to whether the Geneva conventions are relevant; while the US as a state is at war, Iraq as a state is not.

But one could argue that the current "government" of Iraq is merely a puppet regime established by the US, and the US HAS been occupying Iraq since it attacked the state of Iraq under Hussein, so is this not the same war? Until there are elections, the Iraqi state as far as the conventions are concerned would have to be the state that was party to the conventions. These wounded Iraqis are nationals of that state and thus would count as protected people under the conventions.