Robomatic:
As one who has experienced both military music (I like it as much as most other varieties) and military justice (I'm less enthralled with that), I believe that the lesson that the adage is trying to convey is simply that the things are the same and yet, different. Its like saying that while both a Chevy and a Toyota are automobiles, they are not the same thing.

Military justice, in particular, bears little resemblence to civilian proceedings, despite what Hollywood tells us. It has, admittedly, improved some from the time when I was in the service (the 60s), and a lot since times long gone by, but it has many curiosities of protocol and process that would leave a civilian defendant (or counsel) scratching their head in wonder. I can recall when a verdict in a military court was reviewable only by individual superior officers who may or may not have any legal training or experience whatsoever. In the rare case where a decision was allowed to be appealed to a higher court, it was a higher military court (that is, higher ranking officers on the panel). Until the late sixties, there was no instance of a military court decision being appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Stikll, Pvt. England's case serves a benefit to the public in that it will likely shine a light on the system for that part of the TV audience that has no idea what a court-martial is actually about or how it really works. I only hope that the networks get a current or former JAG officer (a real one, that is, not just some guy who "plays one on TV") to do their analysis. Even this may be flawed based on (gasp) a bias in favor of or opposition to the UCMJ and its application to this situation that has become perhaps more public than the military would have liked.