from Red Rat
We therefore see a migration away from military terms to judicial and criminal terms.
which is not a good thing (IMO).

But, it could be worse. In Germany, you as a soldier (who survived the close encounter) would regularly be investigated for war crimes in that encounter - see sources here, Perhaps in part .... :

The previous approach of the German authorities was that Germany is not engaged in an “armed conflict” in Afghanistan, but rather in a stabilization mission. [7] Accordingly, the German soldiers’ right to use force was regulated by law enforcement rules and criminal law was applicable. According to the German Strafprozessordnung (StPO—Code of Criminal Procedure), §§ 152.2, 160.1 the public prosecutor has to start an investigation whenever he finds sufficient factual indications that a crime may hae been committed (Anfangsverdacht). Thus in every case where German soldiers resorted to the use of force and harmed civilians an investigation against the respective soldiers had to be performed. Because there is no special military prosecutor in Germany, the competent prosecutor is the prosecutor of the area where the soldier is stationed.[8] So far, investigations have been completed in 61 cases.[9]
Of course, we (US) have our own internal paperwork in such situations.

Say, Wilf, when you taught the GCs, were they the vanilla 1949 GCs, or did it include the 1977 Additional Protocols and "customary international humanitarian law" ? I am curious as to how corrupted your legal views became because of the teaching experience.

Anyone here voting for James Molony Spaight, War Rights on Land (1911), in lieu of what is in place now ?

Regards

Mike