Is what I am asking?

No, but they give up some. In the military, life and death are on the line. Strict discipline must be maintained, and that requires the loss of certain privileges enjoyed in other mean of employment. Not all constitutional rights are given up, nor most.

Like what? And if they break the rules, why does the justice have to be different?

I think the need for that is pretty obvious. You also give up some rights to sue the government.

it isn't all that different.

1. The military rules of evidence closely follow the federal rules of evidence...both in practice and by law.

2. The law also says that the military has to follow federal law where practicable.

The upshot is a person who practices in federal district court would do quite fine in a court-martial. Sure there would be a few areas where there would be differences, but nothing he couldn't wrap his head around rather quickly.

3. In many places, the military rules actually FAVOR the accused. Article 31 is a much broader application of Miranda that expand when a Soldier is required to be given rights and what those rights are, in part because of the concern that Soldiers are used to following orders and thus may not fully understand or feel free to remain silent in the face of questioning.

Their rights under a guilty plea are designed around this as well, to insure they truly believe they are guilty. Thus a military guilty plea is a much more extensive process than a civilian guilty plea.

There are other examples but what I find is that there are a host of civilian misconceptions about what the military justice system actually is and isn't.

He does not seem to be treated like an American?

his being held by the army was just fine.

His being held by the Marines was a godawful fuck up of tremendous proportions.

The problem there wasn't systemic, but individualized.

it doesn't mean that at all. There are plenty of acquittals at courts-martial. I know, I've gotten them as a defense counsel, and I've had them happen as a prosecutor.