Then why are the Administration's civilain lawyers ignoring military lawyers when rewriting military tribunal rules for detainees? It's not like this is the first time either.

From the Boston Globe: 

Despite assuring Congress that career military lawyers are helping design new trials for accused terrorists, the Bush administration has limited their input on their key request, that any tribunals must give detainees the right to see the evidence

After the Supreme Court struck down the White House's military tribunals system in June [Hamdan v. Rumsfeld] ... new guidelines are being drafted by Bush-appointed attorneys in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. 

This is another in a long effort by WH political appointees to exert greater control over career military lawyers:

November 2001

... presidential order authorizing an initial round of trials for accused terrorists, [JAGs] allowed to send one representative to look at the draft and then refused to let him take notes. The final order included none of the suggestions

Early 2003

... report on detainee interrogations said certain harsh interrogation techniques were legal, top top JAGs insisted that such a stance would undermine the Geneva Conventions and put interrogators at risk of prosecution for assault. The civilians ignored their views.

The Administration answers with the false issue: "I do not happen to believe that because you put a uniform on, you have more integrity than a civilian person put there by the president."  

Forget it!!! The issue is not integrity. Civilian lawyers are not trained to be military lawyers. It's simplistic, but kindergarten is not college.