Washington, May 16: When Spc. Jeremy Sivits faces a public court-martial in a Baghdad convention centre on Wednesday, Americans will get the kind of look into the military justice system they haven’t had since Army Lt William Calley was tried for his role in the 1968 My Lai massacre of civilians in Vietnam.

Like that landmark case, the trials of Sivits and other soldiers accused of abusing Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib prison hold the potential to calm — or further inflame — public opinion. But while courts-martial parallel civilian justice, they offer a peculiarly military brand of jurisprudence. Americans inundated with coverage of military justice on cable news channels might find that, as French statesman Georges Clemenceau famously put it, “military justice is to justice as military music is to music.”

The main thing in common between the coming military courts-martial in Iraq and high-profile civilian trials, such as those of celebrities and athletes, is likely to be the avalanche of publicity.

In military justice, there are no standard sentencing guidelines and defendants are not entitled to a jury of their peers. In a general court-martial, a jury of five or more service members can take notes and ask questions. Two-thirds of them can send the defendant to prison.

Courts-martial also hold a few advantages for the defendant. Jurors may decide that despite a conviction, no punishment is warranted. If jurors deadlock, the defendant is free and does not face retrial. The defendant’s military lawyer is provided without cost and the defendant can hire as many as he or she likes.

The trials scheduled to take place in Iraq are likely to produce some novel legal tactics. lawyers who specialize in courts-martial said. The army reservists accused of abusing Iraqi detainees could, for example, seek to move the trials from Iraq to the US. Defendants could use the statements by top Pentagon and Bush administration officials deploring prison abuses in their defence, to show an inability to gain a fair trial.