[Lurking Libertarian]

You may be assuming that reference means a regular civilian court in the US, or even some international court. If so, your assumption is dead wrong.

No, I understand that a military court will suffice. But, except in the heat of battle, something a bit more than a "drumhead" court is called for. The Nazi saboteurs in Quirin had a trial before a military court with appointed counsel, cross-examination of witnesses, and a right to testify in their own defense. I don't believe the prisoners in Gitmo have received that.

You could also look up the fact that, in the Japanese War Crimes trials after WWII, we tried and executed some Japanese officers for the "war crime" of convicting American POWs of being "unlawful combatants" without affording them sufficient due process.

[Congressman Billybob]

Okay, you are almost up to speed. The DoD has announced (about a year ago) that all the detainees at Gitmo will receive reviews by military tribunals. The delay in that is ACLU-types and some US courts in which the claims are made that civilian or criminal courts are required. The US SCt has already tentatively rejected the idea that anything more than military tribunals are required. The Padilla case should have put the final nail in the coffin of those arguments. But the SCt rejected that case, waiting for the Circuit Court to rule on the case. John / Billybob