Edited sentence: , and refused to interpret the Geneva Conventions to give new rights in civilian court against the government.Aside from the harsh criticism levied on the bill, there are those who view these complaints to be unfounded.Eisentrager, in which the court decided that it would not hear habeas claims brought by alien enemy prisoners held outside the U.Former Administration Justice department official and current professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, John Yoo, has also commented on the Act calling it a “stinging rebuke” of the Supreme Court overstepping its boundaries in Hamdan v.McCarthy also notes that the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, while not allowing a standard habeas corpus review, still allows an enemy combatant the right to challenge his or her detention under a modified legal framework.National Review columnist Andrew McCarthy argues that since the law applies to aliens with no immigration status they do not have a constitutional right to habeas corpus.Rumsfeld ruling, calling the ruling “an unprecedented attempt by the court to rewrite the law of war and intrude into war policy.The following rights are bestowed to enemy combatants:.access to interpreters as necessary to assist in understanding the proceedings.access to nonsecret evidence the prosecution intends to introduce and to any exculpatory evidence known to the prosecution.access to reasonably available evidence and witnesses, and to investigative resources as "necessary for a full and fair trial".elaborate sentencing procedures, and a multi-tiered post-trial review process.the free choice to testify or decline to do so, and the right against any negative inference from a refusal to testify.the presumption of innocence; burden of proof on the prosecution.the right to a trial presumptively open to the public (except for portions sealed for national defense or witness security purposes.the right to be presented with the nonclassified charges in advance of trial.the right to counsel--both to a military lawyer provided at the expense of the American taxpayer and to a private attorney if the combatant chose to retain one;.the right to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses.” Yoo goes on to cite Johnson v