In particular, it ruled that the Guantanamo captives were entitled to an opportunity to hear, and challenge, the allegations the DoD felt justified their continued extrajudicial detention.
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that the Department of Defense should convene tribunals similar to those described in Army Regulation 190-8.
Mark P. Denbeaux, a professor of law at Seton Hall University, who defended two Guantanamo captives, was the leader of a team of legal scholars who published twelve methodical, systematic analyses of the Guantanamo documents, noted several times other officers had criticized the tribunal presidents.
Andrew Cohen, writing in The Washington Post, wrote: [4] If a regular trial court proceeding were this shoddy, this unwilling to perform a truth-seeking function, this unable to achieve a fair process, the judge presiding over it would be impeached.Neil A. Lewis, after observing several Combatant Status Review Tribunals in November 2004, noted: "The hearings here have come under heavy criticism because they do not meet the traditional standards of court proceedings.
"[5] Lewis quoted an exchange between a Yemeni captive who asked for the proof that backed up the allegations against him, and the President's response: "We're not here to debate these points.