..... I disagree with your claim that the Bill of Rights does not include rights of individual citizens. It recites individual rights as well as setting out limitations on the part of the Federal Government. I urge you to read the language of the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Elements of each of those amendments are individual rights......
Each of those LIMITATIONS on the federal government in particular actions, addresses directly our right to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness". Those are our rights. When the founders were looking to ensure our rights were protected, they knew; from past experience; that if the government controlled your speech, your religion, your assembly, your ability to express grievance, etc... then they would be infringing on your right of liberty. Same with illegal search and seizure, etc... You can read these as individual rights if you want to, but our individual rights go WAY BEYOND what's written in the bill of rights. The bill of rights were written specifically to put LIMITATIONS on the federal government. Remember; our found fathers believed that our rights to be NATURAL. That these rights were self evident. They didn't need to be proven. That they were granted to us upon birth by our creator. That their rights were unalienable. That AMONG these, were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our founding fathers did not change their beliefs in what they believed rights were between the declaration of independence and the first 10 amendments of the constitution.
In order to maintain these unalienable rights, that our creator gave us, our founding fathers knew that they had to LIMIT government in the amount of power that they could have over the citizenry. That is what the bill of rights are. A set of limitations on the federal government. The first ten amendments are
actions that the founding fathers knew the government could take, which would in fact infringe on our rights. Honestly, I think they understood the potential for misunderstanding, and a judicial branch that could and would misinterpret the intent. So, they began to spell it out. In other words, the bill of rights is basically a GIANT E.G. I.e. "The government will not infringe on the people's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. E.G. They will not restrict what we say; they will not tell us what religion we must believe in; they will not stop us from assembling; they will not punish us for making a grievance; they will not come onto my property without cause; etc...
Now you don't have to read it that way. No problem. I am not accountable for how your civics, government, constitutional law classes, etc... taught you. But that is what the bill of rights are. A limitation on the federal government's power to infringe on our rights.
And sorry Mongo, but there are plenty of infringements on military member's constitutional rights. And that is ALLOWED according to the constitution. Do you believe you have the right to express yourself in the military like you do in the civilian world? Can you grow your hair long? It's not a safety issue, because girls can have longer hair. Are you allowed to call up your supervisor, commanding officer, etc... and simply say: "I quit. I'm leaving". And walk out the door? That's your liberty we're talking about. There is NOT another occupation in our country that doesn't allow you to simply say. "I QUIT". How about grievance??? Can you protest in the military??? Can you go on strike??? Can you form a union??? Sorry Mongo; but don't tell me that one of the primary concerns of the Court of Military Appeals to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary is that there is no infringement whatsoever on any constitutional rights of our sailors, soldiers, and airmen. That simply is not true. In order to maintain effective and efficient discipline and order, certain rights are expected to be abridged upon you entrance into military service. And because the military is "Voluntary", they can get away with it. Even in time of a draft. "Although some of these very concerns were brought up during the vietnam conflict."
You can believe that the constitutional rights of civilians and military are the same if you want. They aren't, but believe what you want.