Wait a minute. Premeditated murder? Soldiers and Marines have been charged with murder for violating the ROE and killing civilians. Most have been acquitted based on a 'heat of battle' argument, or just a lack of evidence.
In this case, 'premeditated' means they planned to kill him at a time and place of their choosing--which is legal. However, they violated ROE and comitted 'murder' because he was unarmed?
While they could premeditate his killing legally, how could they know beforehand that he wouldn't be armed so they could violate the ROE and 'murder' him?
On the battlefield, with the ROE in place, if it is premeditated, it's not 'murder'. If it is 'murder', it is not 'premeditated'.
How are they going to prove that not only did they plan to kill him legally, but illegally planned to catch him specifically unarmed so that they could 'murder' him outside of the ROE?
Well stated. Unfortunate for the pain they and their families are going through during the interim after which they’ll hopefully be cleared.