The man he murdered was a medic.
And Omar was not in uniform. He wasn't in uniform because Omar was not a soldier. He was also not a citizen of Afghanistan and was not a member of a military force established by and reponsible to a representative government, nor was he a member of a militia established according to the laws of a representative government. He wasn't even a member of a police force.
Instead he was a member of a family of outlaws whose patriarch defrauded Canadian taxpayers in taking money intended for humanitarian aid via CIDA to establish a terrorist recruitment center under the guise of caring for "orphans." Orphans he no doubt was literally raising up for the purposes of exploiting them not only for the cash of well-meaning westerners but for forced recruitment.
His family was involved in a number of terrorist attacks, on on an embassy in Pakistan, also a country in which they had no business. NOt to mention they lived in the same compound as bin Laden for a while, and he was certainly an outlaw with no authority as his own country had stripped him of citizenship. His dear sister was cought brining more bin Laden materials into Canada after 9/11. They are of Egyptian extraction and reside in Canada- neither nation granted them the authority to wage war, or to kill, therefore when they kill they commit "murder."
Strictly from a moral perspective it is "murder" to kill anyone when you have no legal authority to do so. Such "moral authority" is restricted to government, and no government here, in Canada or in Afghanistan had authorized him to kill or deputized him to enforce their laws. Had he and his family been innocent they would have at least had the moral authority to defend themselves after being fired upon but this is not the case [they most likely fired first]. Of course, had they been innocent they wouldn't have had special forces soldiers on their tail, and wouldn't have prepared an ambush for them by letting a 15 year old play with a live hand grenade.
I take aboard all that you say and appreciate the length of your post but I think we can be too precious about who does or does not constitute a lawful combatant. The rules were drawn up in a different time when two countries declared war on each other via their diplomatic representatives and then sent their clearly uniformed and identified armies to fight each other in set piece battles.
To the best of my knowledge the US has fought quite a number of wars in the past sixty years but the last time the US actually declared war was against Italy in December 1941. That being the case we need to accept that the old style of war is no longer always relevant and not to sit on our high moral perch about who does and who does not constitute a legitimate combatant. Is a US special forces soldier in plain clothes who draws down a missile strike against Al Queda troops in a civilian village perhaps killing innocent people in the process a “terrorist”? No of course not but if we stick to the rules you outline there could be a good case made against such a man.
If you stick to what you say then no one who takes up arms against what they regard as illegitimate invaders in their country (and no I do not say the Nato forces are illegitimate but there are many people in Afghanistan who do so) can be regarded as legitimate combatants unless they chip together to buy proper uniforms, insignia, and get permission from their government even supposing such a body existed. If the Russians had invaded the US and overthrown the US government would you and your neighbours have regarded yourselves as terrorists if you banded together to fight the Russians?
No I am not making some sort of moral equivalence argument. I am being a realist and no, anyone who deliberately targets unarmed civilians is a terrorist plain and simple. However anyone who, untrained, barely armed and with little more than raw guts decides to take his life in his hands and attack fully armed, trained, equipped and supplied professional soldiers who are backed up with airpower and artillery, well I don’t regard such man as a terrorist or murderer no matter how much I want him to lose (I accept that Omar did indeed murder the medic who was trying to help him so this doesn’t apply).
Let me draw an analogy, on August 27 1979 the Irish Republican Army carried out two spectacular attacks, in one in the Irish Republic they hid a bomb in a boat being used by the elderly Earl Mountbatten, an uncle of Queen Elizabeth, the bomb exploded at sea killing Mountbatten, an old woman and two young boys. Later in the same day in British ruled Northern Ireland the IRA exploded a landmine against a convoy of trucks carrying British paratroops killing six instantly, the paras took cover by a roadside wall and called in back up. A helicopter carrying reinforcements soon landed and the IRA exploded another bomb all the while engaging the British soldiers from across a river with gunfire. At the end of the ambush 18 British troops were dead, including a Lieutenant Colonel without any losses to the IRA.
Now for weeks after these events the British press was filled with outrage about these two “terrorist” incidents, but were they terrorism? The first one, an attack on defenceless, unarmed, innocent children and old age pensioners was undoubtedly terrorism but what about the second attack? A well planned ambush of fully armed British soldiers in territory which the IRA said was illegally occupied by the British? You don’t have to agree with the IRA’s aims, and I didn’t, to see that the second attack was hardly terrorism or murder, is it even physically possible to terrorise a platoon of armed British paratroopers?
I think if we start talking about the US fighting “terrorists”and “murderers”in Afghanistan we demean what the US forces are doing, we risk turning it into some sort of glorified police operation instead of the war that it clearly is.