I'm sorry if I come across as uptight but it just pains me to see people think a square peg goes into a round hole, is all. Civilians go into civilian tribunals, while military people go into military tribunals - the same way a square peg goes into a square hole and a round one into a round hole. Military and civilian tribunals are two separate entities with two separate roles.

If one would need to make a whole essay with links and sources just to clarify such basic laws, I'm afraid the whole endeavor would be moot to begin with, as it means people would simply not want to hear any of it, as it goes against what they desperately hope for. It implies people don't have a single clue about what are military tribunals to begin with, and by this point I honestly kind of fear they don't want to --- meaning I'd be called a shill or whatever latest insult people throw around, for poking a hole in the hopeful 'military tribunal' fantasy.

The one single hypothesis I can think of that involves a military tribunal handling a civilian defendant in such a specific fashion is if it happened after a literal military coup, with a full blown military government, the ones you would have in south american banana republics decades ago (or some recent shithole country etc). That, or after an actual literal war. And I obviously do not vouch for any of those 2 scenarios --- as per the rules of this very community which moderators have dutifully emphasized time and time again. As such, I'll refrain from commenting further on this topic.