Buried in this story is a detail which serves as a reminder that news stories should be read carefully. The article is headlined "Bombs, explosives caused most Pennsylvania deaths in Iraq," and it goes on to recite a list of Pennsylvania victims -- including Army Captain Christopher Seifert:

The war, which began March 20, 2003, has claimed more than 1,900 U.S. military lives. Pennsylvania has the third-highest casualty count, behind California and Texas. Ninety-nine of the Pennsylvania deaths occurred after President Bush declared an end to major combat on May 1, 2003.

Seventy-one of the state's dead were in their 20s.

The majority died in combat, including one woman. Two died of natural causes - one a stroke, the other cardiac arrest - while stationed in Iraq. One Pennsylvanian, Army Capt. Christopher Seifert, was killed in a grenade attack by another American soldier.

Nineteen have been members of the Pennsylvania National Guard, including five who died Wednesday, one of the costliest days of the war for Pennsylvania. The soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing in the Iraqi city of Ramadi.

Army Sgt. Andrew J. Baddick, 26, of Jim Thorpe, drowned on Sept. 29, 2003, while trying to save a fellow soldier whose vehicle plunged into a canal; Army Capt. Brian Faunce, 28, of Philadelphia, died Sept. 18, 2003, of injuries sustained from a shock while clearing low-hanging power lines.

Seifert, the first Pennsylvanian killed, died two days after the U.S. invaded Iraq.

Seifert, 27, of Easton, a member of the 101st Airborne Division, was killed in Kuwait in a grenade attack by a fellow soldier. Sgt. Hasan Akbar has been sentenced to death for killing Seifert and an Air Force major and wounding 14 others.

The youngest Pennsylvanians killed were 19; the oldest were 51.

"My life will not be complete unless America is destroyed," Akbar had written.

Sigh.

Not everyone completes his life the way he might have wanted. I hope Akbar doesn't.

The legal issue which interests me here is whether or not a cold-blooded murder (which this was) should be counted as a casualty. This was not the same thing as "friendly fire," because there was no battle at the time.

If a soldier goes out on the town, gets drunk, hires a prostitute and ends up getting shot by her pimp in a dispute over payment, is the soldier a war casualty?

I realize that a moral argument can be made that Akbar was part of the enemy* (which would support the argument that those he killed were casualties of war) but that's not really my question here.

Surely, if I were to go out and shoot a soldier, his death would not be counted as a war casualty. Why should it be any different if I joined the military and shot him while we were both in the service?

There must be a legal definition somewhere; I'm just not finding it. According to CBS News (hardly a reliable military source), the military only considers deaths and wounds received in combat to be casualties:

Today, Schneider walks with a limp, on his artificial leg. But even though he was injured while on a mission in a war zone – and even though he’ll receive the same benefits as a soldier who’d been shot - he is not included in the Pentagon’s casualty count. Their official tally shows only deaths and wounded in action. It doesn't include "non-combat" injured, those whose injuries were not the result of enemy fire.

But should Akbar's murder victims be counted as casualties?

* Bear in mind too that Akbar really can't be classified as an official enemy, because enemies are not tried and executed for murder.