That's a great philosophical dissertation of somebody that hasn't been there and done that, experienced the absolute terror that comes with the territory, experienced days, weeks, months, of knowing the next minute is going to be your last minute on this earth.
You haven't experienced picking up your best friends body parts and putting them in a bag, then being told to take his place in line.
You haven't experienced seeing your buddy's summarily executed while laying wounded after a firefight.
You haven't experienced seeing the mutilation, and desecration of the dead soldiers body's.
You have no clue about battlefield interrogations where information gained can save the lives of no telling how many Americans.
You only sit on the sidelines, and comment on your Ideals of how combat should be conducted in the perfect liberal world you live in.
You have no way to know what goes on in the minds of these soldiers in the conditions they have to live in.
In your perfect world of right and wrong, the scene may have had some indications of murder, but there were only two people there.
I believe the story of the survivor.
This was not a battlefield interrogation. He was not trying to extract info about future attacks, he was trying to extract revenge for his soldiers that had been killed earlier.
And you might want to read up-thread, by the time he shot and killed the man, it doesn't matter if the man "went for his weapon". It was murder due to his actions up to the actual shooting. That's not my opinion. I'm sorry you don't agree with the court's ruling.