The biggest difference is Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which does not include right to legal counsel, trial by peers, or review of evidence. This is a distinct Professional Code, and is presided over entirely by the Chain of Command. Depending on your branch, this would be called NJP, Article 15 or Mast. The penalties possible under UCMJ are not considered to meet the level of penalties awarded in a Criminal trial like civilians would be aware of. It is entirely at the discretion of the CO to find you guilty under UCMJ, and determine punishments. There is an automatic review process, and military lawyers are involved but its all inside the special UCMJ system.
Court Martial is a criminal trial, and includes the same rights as a civilian criminal trial. It also means the punishments can be more severe. But in this case, since he is receiving a Special CM which is a misdemeanor trial, the only punishment he can receive is a fine. This not a "military tribunal" ... he will get as fair a criminal trial as anyone else gets these days. It just occurred to me though, that if he's found guilty, even of a misdemeanor criminal charge, it may effect his ability to keep firearms under the current red flag system America has voted for.
As for Constitutional Rights applying to everyone, America gave that away for our military when it made it a crime to say fire in a theater, when it made speech a hate crime, when it voted for folks like Dan Crenshaw who recently sided with Democrats to take away the 2A rights of service members in the name of "safety." We don't have religious freedom in the Military - we have the right to wear a dogtag with whatever we want on it, but to practice our faith? No, not in public as most Americans do. Right to vote? They've lost my ballots so many times - folks may remember when crates of our votes coming back from OIF and OEF were inadvertently dumped in the ocean. Right to bear arms? Ha, what a joke. Freedom to assemble? They're investigating the Marine that saved a baby in Afghanistan because he attended a Trump rally in civilian clothes. No, in practice, our military doesn't enjoy the constitutional rights we swore to uphold and defend, and the reason for that falls right on the American Voter. Why serve? Well because our country matters, at least it did to me, and I always hoped that the American voter would make it right. I look at the current vax mandate ... we can't strike, we can't just not show up for work. We don't have a union to protect us, and congress sure isn't. The religious exemption requests are just an administrative exercise; no one is going to be granted an exemption, so in essence we have the right to practice our religion but only if we get out. We can't have scriptures on our desks, or stickers on our car. Our neighbor on base can fly the LGBTQ+ flag, but we can't fly a ProLife banner. The American Voter turned its back on the military a long time ago and alot has changed.
For example, LtCol Scheller is being charged with Article 88, which when established in the UCMJ, was to prevent the disruption of good order and discipline of the ranks if say a leader made personal and direct disparaging comments about the character of the Commander and Chief. You can disagree with their policy, with their decision, you can question their decision, but you cannot disparage the person and character. However, because the American voters in the name of keeping feelings safe voted in the congress we have now, its quite possible that LtCol Scheller's questioning of authority may be found to meet the level of Article 88 ... this will be a test case, and will be interesting to see what the 3 members of the jury determine. If they reinterpret Article 88 in a more progressive manner, then as irrational as it sounds, they may establish precedent that to have a healthy questioning attitude is a crime. used to be a sign of good leadership.
So Civilian vs Military Criminal law and trials ARE basically the same is what I'm understanding you to say.
I agree as far as Dan Crenshaws' voting habits, but do you really believe voters saw that coming given his "extensive military background" and experience? You would have thought he would have been more sensitive to the Constitution, and Bill of Rights wouldn't you? Hind site is 2020?
When you say the voters have betrayed the military, I'm assuming you're talking about elected officials in Congress, but in a prior post you indicated the Lt Colonels' error was taking his complaining "outside the family". Those two remarks seem a contradiction of each other.
I would think your mention of Dan Crenshaw, would be a perfect example of both military, and civilian betrayal of both the soldier, and the civilian, to you as well as myself.
True, the American voters have over the last 70 years screwed themselves by not paying attention to their representatives voting habits, but the military hierarchy has been equally explicit in its deception of its participation in these nation building exploits, and we as voters ARE NOT responsible for promotions within the military ranks.
That corruption falls within the military ranks themselves, in all branches.
Those weren't civilians in the Pentagon undermining President Trump, leaking to the press, talking to liberal political book authors, warning Chinese enemy generals.
Those were "military generals" that worked their way through "the military family", and promoted within "the family", by "the family".
Right is right, and wrong is wrong, whether civilian, or military.
As to your remarks of the military not having "religious freedom". As civilian I do have "religious freedom".
So I would say that "the family" has robbed the military service of its "religious freedom", and remind these repressed soldiers that military service is still on a voluntary basis.
No one that I know of is forced into military service since the Vietnam era.
If a soldier, whether private, or officer, feels religiously oppressed, the do not have to stay any longer than their last enlistment agreement.
There's plenty of guilt to go around, both civilian, and military, wouldn't you think?
