The case of Cpt Roger Hill (mentioned briefly by jmm99)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121203291.html

Short version:

Afghanistan - Hill had detainees he had to release. Before doing so he took three outside and fired a weapon into the ground some distance from where they stood.

Those remaining inside were told their three comrades had been shot. Would they be willing to share information to avoid the same fate?

Jump to the end: General (Under Honorable Conditions) discharge. (Respectfully correcting jmm: short of court martial, the threat of which was sufficient to compel the bargain. Is there an "irony" emoticon...?)

There are layers of complexity (the full story would make a fine case study and an outstanding feature film - I don't mean that in a negative way) but I offer this as stark a contrast to your original post - and support for what I believe is at least part of your point - "times have changed".

Hypothetical argument: I suspect even today a jury of twelve random Americans would have difficulty reaching a "guilty" verdict in Hill's case, while a Court Martial panel would do so rapidly and unanimously.

Disclosure: I've discussed this topic with Roger Hill.