I think this entry has focused the geometrically expanding debate on this issue back onto the key point: What does the LAW say about these activities? I would suggest anyone read this post, if you haven't already - it articulates the admittedly fuzzy nature of my own rough thinking a lot better than I could.

If we truly accept the idea that we are a nation of laws, and the accompanying principle that no one is above the law, it greatly simplifies our task in deciding what should be done at this point: We must first understand the full letter and spirit of applicable law, and then we must INVESTIGATE to determine as thoroughly as possible the extent to which WHAT actually happened is within or outside those legal parameters. That seems to me a simple enough concept that properly avoids the pitfalls of getting prematurely bogged-down in all these extraneous secondary considerations.

A second vital point that Mr. Lava makes very well (and properly) is that any 'soldier' may be placed into a situation where he feels duty-bound to go against the established rules. If he does so, the morally correct course when caught is to explain himself as best he can, and hope for mercy based on extenuating circumstances, or on the tactical effectiveness of what he did (not an unreasonable prospect in these current difficulties). His PERSONAL fate in such a situation may have to take a backseat to what he perceives to be in the best interests of the country at a given point. What he does NOT do, is try to cobble the existing rules to his own advantage, and  accessorize the whole country in the lawbreaking by making a public political issue out of it as it is happening.