You are really close.
As I understand, this matter had initially been intended to be dealt with in a non-judicial proceeding called an “Admiral’s Mast” — which, as I understand it, is something less serious in nature than a Court Martial. Its outcome is neither Acquittal nor Punishment in the legal sense of the term, tho’ it can result in further dealing under Courts Martial.
An "Admiral's Mast" is Navyspeak for punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (a portion of US law that is applicable to members of the military, whether they are stationed in the US or elsewhere in the world). It is non-judicial punishment. By that, I mean that no judgment is made as to the guilt or innocence of the individual. So, outside of the military, it is technically meaningless (there are some implications if a person goes into certain types of jobs, such as being a cop or a job involving a security clearance, but those are the exception, not the rule). However, while the individual remains in the military, there is a stigma that goes with it. A military member with an Article 15 (nonjudicial punishment) in his record may have a hard time re-enlisting, he may have a hard time getting or keeping a high security clearance, and promotions, for the rest of his career, will always be more difficult.
What happens is that a commander believes that one of his people did something in violation of part of the UCMJ. He does an investigation and, once he determines that there is enough evidence to support prosecution of the individual, he will either offer the individual concerned the opportunity to take care of the situation non-judicially (Article 15) or will decide to proceed with a court martial. If he decides to proceed with the Article 15, he will draw up the appropriate paperwork and then formally present it to the individual involved. If an individual decides to accept the Article 15 non-judicial punishment, he has to so indicate prior to anything proceeding further (i.e., he accepts nonjudicial punishment PRIOR TO being able to offer any evidence, statements, rationale, in his defense). Once the individual has accepted the Article 15, he's accepted it. There is no amount of exculpatory evidence that is presented that can change that fact. Exculpatory evidence might change the severity of the punishment, but it won't erase the Article 15. (Yes, I know a person can appeal, but that appeal is very limited and is up to the mercy of superior commanders, not up to evidence)
As I also understand, these US NAVY SEALS who have been accused have instead decided they’d prefer to be formally tried under Courts Martial — a significant escalation in the stakes and their personal risk, so to speak.
True. But keep in mind that they could be found innocent, as well. In which case, there is no penalty at all.
The other big thing is that with an Article 15, their commander is the prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. With a court martial, even the lowest level (called a summary court) that uses a military judge only, there is a separation that would allow for a bit more objectivity than they might receive from an Article 15.
Here are two other little tidbits. A military person is "Mirandized" ("You have the right to remain silent," etc) as part of the Article 15 process. Because an Article 15 is not a judicial proceeding, a person could, theoretically, go through the Article 15 process and then, afterward, still be court martialed. It isn't double jeopardy.
So, under normal circumstances, an Article 15 is an easy way to dispose of a minor crime, it is a big double edged sword. Particularly if the individuals involved believe that they are innocent.
If so, then I really don’t understand. Wouldn’t it make more sense to take the Non Judicial Proceeding and have an Admiral sort the matter out — and perhaps having nothing much happen to these SEALS as a result — rather than set the cat amongst the pigeons and risk significant and serious legal outcomes for these heroes?
Has anybody thought that this terrorist that they captured may have given HIMSELF a fat lip? (If he was to have forced his mouth down HARD on a corner of a table, he could do just that) Knowing how sensitive US forces were after Abu Graib and, especially, knowing how politically correct the Obama administration is (particularly how they would act toward allegations of maltreatment of prisoners), the guy may have been trained to do just that.
So you have a nervous commander, who doesn't want to end up to be the next Janis Karpinski (the BG in charge of Abu Graib), along with an Obama administration that has shown that it will show no restraint in proving to all of our enemies that we will not "torture." I can easily picture a commander going this route. He has to CYA. The Seals he is offering the Article 15 to, on the other hand, may feel like they are being scapegoated.
And, there's no guarantee that these guys would be done, even after an Article 15...particularly if Holder (the Attorney General of the US) found out about it. If, on the other hand, they are found innocent in a court martial, there is no way they could be court martialled again (double jeopardy rules apply). And if the court martial was sufficiently high profile (as evidenced by a leak to Fox News), Holder would have an extremely hard time charging them in a civilian court (even though, since the charges would be slightly different, it wouldn't technically be double jeopardy).
So, if these guys in fact didn't do anything wrong, it makes eminent sense to me for them to demand a court martial.
Thanks for the facts. See post # 316 to add political correctness to your scenerio.