During the Battle of the Bulge, 84 American soldiers who had surrendered to the Germans were summarily executed on the battlefield in the Malmedy Massacre.
“We rightly condemn this action and the Germans were tried for war crimes as a result.
Osama was killed, but we’re tetting the 72 versions. But of all the versions I have seen, none of them indicate that he was presenting a threat at the time he was killed.”
You are not thinking clearly. The Germans in yout example are in no way analogous to Osama unless Osama had surrendered or was trying to surrender (and the shooter knew he was trying to surrender) at the time he was shot.
An enemy combatant does not have to be presenting a threat at the time he is killed for the killing to be lawful. Otherwise, the targeting of enemy commanders and troops by drones would be murder, as would bombing enemy commanders as they sleep, eat, or engage in any other activity or inactivity that is not a threat.
Nice summary
I see your point. Drone strikes and bombing are legitimate because we are at war and killing the enemy is what you do in war. I’m OK with that. But that is not what we’re talking about here.
But if the enemy is trying to surrender, or it would be just as easy to capture him as to kill him, then a soldier must capture him, right? Even in battle, you’re not permitted to kill people just because they need killin’.