I haven't followed it too closely but from what I've seen I'd say the guy is fugged.
It depends on the jury. If I were on it (and just from what has been made public) I would acquit, even though he's probably guilty. Why? because we've ROUTINELY killed prisoners is all the wars we've fought. We made a big deal about Malmedy, yet we did similar things to the krauts and japs, not to mention gooks, Zips, etc. I would also end his career with a bad evaluation and send him to count paper clips whilst his paperwork was processed. He's one of those guys that has gone over the edge (if the evidence is there). I'm not buying the defense argument that his underlings are "out to get him" by hanging a murder wrap on him. Besides, the "victim' was a terrorist and us such not subject to the Geneva protocols (which the US has not signed onto) and they all need to die.
