"Ummm, when did an issue of morality become irrelevant because no punishment was possible. If I am on an island with only one other person- If I kill that person nobody is ever going to punish me. Isn't it still wrong? And then are I not still an immoral person?"

I wasn't addressing the moral question, merely the legal question.

"I agree with Rob L. here. If you put yourself in that position, as a non-military person, and you start shooting people up, then you are doing something indefensible and wrong. CNN had NO business of putting an unsanctioned shooter next to a journalist and driving into hostile territory looking for trouble and fighting it out with folks."

The problem is that the most dangerous element in Iraq at the moment is unlawful combatants (thugs). Normally speaking there is nothing immoral about hiring a security person (bodyguard). The moral question as far as the bodyguard is concerned is to use enough force to protect his client from unlawful violence (and avoiding situations in which the risk is too high). The problem was the risk of working in any war zone. Plus in this particular war zone there may have been unique risks- because the regime had hired unlawful combatant and invited other unlawful combatants into the war zone. And also some soldiers seemed to be encouraged not to follow the rules of war (or were merely poorly trained).
In this particular war there probably won't be a formal surrender. Generally speaking leaders of a country know the problems it causes not to give a formal surrender, therefore when it's obvious the war is over they negotiate a cease fire.
Saddam has never had a sense of responsibility for the people of Iraq, rather it's always been all about him. Any reasonable leader would not have even risked the thousands of lives and a certain defeat to the most powerful nation on the planet. Not to mention the host of other problems which directly led to this war. Saddam was not reasonable, nor did he have any desire to improve the life of the citizens of his nation. He was insane and criminal.

I will say that the CNN reporter *probably* took unneccessary risks. He was a vetern so really he should have being able to assess the risk better than most people (and certainly including myself). And because he was someone who was knowledgable this also carries with it a certain responsibility in regards to the rest of his crew. Now he did separate from the rest of his crew, and if the small team that went with him was comparably knowledgable about the risk and they were willing to take this, I don't see the problem in terms of morality.
With 20/20 hindsight it was obvious that the risk was too high. But then again if you want to avoid risks, you should not be a reporter in a war. [An interesting note is that the risks of being a reporter or a US soldier in this war, was somewhere around the risk of being a crew on the Shuttle.]