That's exactly the problem. Ideology rarely plays well in the courtroom - especially not in the military courtroom. If your play is jury nullification, you will not get it in a military tribunal.
The better approach would be to find a retired JAG - someone who left for better pastures (e.g. an in-house counsel gig), and hire him to represent you. That way, you get someone who knows military law inside and out, but isn't blinded to the realities of your case by ideology.
Your milage may vary, of course. This is the tack I'd take.
I was a little surprised that the prosecution is starting with the highest rank. In the Hamdania and Iron Triangles, the lowest rank went first. Do you know if there's a standard?
Do you think there are many Marines who don't realize how this case has affected the ROE's currently being used in Iraq? Do you think there are many Marines who respect Murtha and don't realize his political impact on having these charges filed? And I don't mean just active duty types; even those stationed back at Camp Pendleton get the stories.
The actual facts relevant to the case are the top layer of defense, but these "ideologies" form the background that a panel of peers will be using in their judgement.
What should a defense lawyer base the case on?