Nevertheless, other legal scholars continued to raise questions about the appropriateness and constitutionality of some of these measures:

• The Center for Constitutional Rights and the Cato Institute, usually associated  discussed challenges to the executive order signed by President Bush on November 13, 2001, allowing special military tribunals to try non-citizens charged with terrorism.  People for the American Way Foundation raised the possibility of lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act to press for more disclosure by the government about the people it has detained.  Lawyers at the Center for Constitutional Rights focused on whether, by trying to limit appeals' rights, the president had effectively repealed the constitutional guarantee of the right to bring habeas corpus proceedings...continue.

·         The questioning of large numbers of Arab Americans led some experts to wonder whether Constitutional protections were being violated.  Part of the issue is whether interrogations are "voluntary" - brought into question by an Immigration and Naturalization Service memorandum stating that the men "are not suspected of any illegal activity" and that the interviews are "voluntary in nature," but also that some of the men could be held without bond on immigration charges if federal investigators requested it...continue.

• Others expressed concerns about due process in the military tribunals authorized by President Bush to deal with alleged terrorists.  Lawyers familiar with military courts-martial pointed out that the tribunals might not include safeguards that are normally part of the military justice system: defendants' right to select their own lawyers, rules of evidence similar to those in civilian courts, exclusion of hearsay evidence, full rights to appeal a conviction, requirement of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and requirement of a unanimous decision to impose the death penalty...continue. In a letter sent in early December to Senator Patrick J. Leahy, 300 law professors from around the country argued that civilian courts are a more appropriate way to deal with terrorists...continue.   However, draft rules for the tribunals made public at the end of December did include many of protections highlighted by critics, and attention centered on appeal rights...continue.