The primary purpose of a hearing should be, not to determine guilt or innocence, but to determine level of threat.
In a war, your enemy may or may not be guilty of a crime, what he has done may be in fact perfectly legal according to whatever law he was operating under, but that is not the issue. The issue is, or should be, very simply whether or not he represents a continuing threat.
If the answer is yes, then he needs to be held in a camp until the end of hostilities, or until the military considers him to be no longer a threat. If the military judges that he is not a threat, he can be released immediately.
And if he is a threat even while incarcerated, or if he will always be a threat even after the end of hostilities, then he needs to be executed.
Guilt or innocence in war is almost irrelevant. Level of threat is relevant, and its pretty subjective, and its a military decision. Hearings may help to clarify the issue, but it shouldn't be mistaken for a criminal trial.
That is what the Status Review Board does during the Annual Administrative Review.
Clive Stafford Smith what a peice of work this guy is!