The Supreme Court Faces the Kangaroo Courts FindLaw columnist and human rights attorney Joanne Mariner discusses in detail one key issue that will be covered at Wednesday's historic U.S. Supreme Court oral argument regarding "war on terror" judicial review: whether Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) proceedings, the Bush Administration's proposed alternative to the federal courts, are in fact an "adequate substitute." Mariner raises issues such as CSRTs' reliance on secret evidence that is presumed, not proven, to be valid; and official language suggesting that CSRTs effectively put the burden of proof on the detainee, not the government. She also notes other serious procedural defects that suggest that CSRTs are, in fact, no substitute for the courts. Drawing on transcripts of CSRT proceedings, Mariner points to concrete illustrations of the Catch-22s detainees have faced.