Show me where in article 66 it says that all appeals are limited only to those that have plead “not guilty” and been convicted.
You should know better, the purpose of Article 66 is to protect members of the armed forces from being railroaded in kangeroo courts and or forced to plead guilty through any number of methods of subverting the legal processes.
Does the name Sgt. Lawrence Hutchins III ring a bell, he is perhaps a prefect example of a Service member that was railroaded and released under article 66.
Recall that the government would rather bury LTC Lakin on a bunch of piled on charges than address the issue of Obama’s ineligibility. In what can be termed as a little ‘divine intervention’ the fifth government witness actually stated the reason why LTC Lakin refused his orders–Obama’s eligibility. You should have seen the prosecution shut that lady down right away! ""
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2010/12/14/standing-with-lt-col-terry-lakin/
Where I have said such a thing? In fact, I have said EXACTLY the OPPOSITE.
Second, you do realize that you have to read a bit more than Art. 66 alone to fully understand the appellate rights of the convicted, right? There is the Manuel for Courts-Martial and decades of relevant case law to understand.
R.C.M. 910 might be instructive here, especially the part that says "which results in a finding of guilty waives any objection, whether or not previously raised, insofar as the objection relates to the factual issue of guilt". By entering a plea of guilty, the accused waives virtually all rights to appeal pretrial motions.
There are two ways to preserve such ruling for appeal. First, you may either plead "not-guilty", or you may enter what is known as as "conditional plea". Neither was done here.