Those military tribunals, rightly denounced as kangaroo courts when President Bush first ordered them last November, have now been largely fixed up. But some serious problems remain.

The original order, drafted quickly by White House lawyers, provided for secret trials of accused foreign terrorists. A two-thirds vote of a judicial panel would be sufficient for a death-penalty sentence. No appeal to civil courts would be permitted. The president would have the final say as to conviction and punishment. The White House asserted, incorrectly, that the tribunals would contain the same human-rights protections as U.S. military courts martial.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has now consulted with eminent civilian lawyers and issued rules that repair much of the damage. Like the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, which covers members of the armed services and prisoners of war, the new rules require unanimity for a death sentence, permit press coverage of most proceedings, and allow defendants to choose a military defense lawyer and also pay for a civilian lawyer. The new rules reverse Mr. Bush’s original order declaring that prosecutions would end with “a final decision by me.” The new formulation states that a verdict of not guilty “shall not be changed.”

But, unlike the military code, the new rules permit hearsay evidence, as well as any evidence that would “have probative value to a reasonable person.” They also bar any appeal to civilian courts including the U.S. Supreme Court. The new rules are silent on the subject of indefinite detention, permitting the inference that accused terrorists may be held in jail for a long time without trial or even after being found not guilty.

The flawed procedures can cause problems for American service men and women who may be captured as the war against terrorism continues and expands. Hostile countries could claim justification for summary trials and minimum protection for the rights of American POWs.

By claiming to accept the protections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Bush administration has inadvertently triggered a long-delayed look at the code itself. The premier issue of a new legal journal, Legal Affairs, supported by the Yale Law School, contains an article questioning whether the U.S. court martial system is an adequate benchmark of due process and procedural justice.

Beth Hillman, an assistant professor at Rutgers School of Law, writes that, whether or not the court-martial model is suitable for the wartime prosecution of suspected terrorists, “it does not adequately protect the rights of the millions of active-duty service members, reservists, and military retirees who are subject to military law.” She notes that both Great Britain and Canada have reformed their military court systems after high courts ruled that their military trials were neither independent nor impartial.

Similar reforms are under way in South Africa, India, Australia and Mexico. The U.S. code, enacted in 1950, remedied many earlier abuses. But it left intact the primary role of military commanders, who decide whom to prosecute, prescribe what charges to file, and appoint the court-martial judges, who serve also as the juries.

Congress should have been involved in drafting the rules on military tribunals, which amount to a new, parallel judicial system. It also should take a close look at the Uniform Code of Military Justice, study its flaws, and enact reforms.