Again, not to quibble but all of these rights are contingent upon the Tribunal's view of "reasonable availability". Further, the right to review evidence is constrained both by "reasonable availability" and by security level. The Tribunal, however, is not constrained by these limits and can, in fact, use hearsay, classified materials, etc. against the detainee. As there are no standards of evidence for the tribunal and as they can consider their own evidence to be more accurate/worthy than the detainee's evidence (regardless of source, theoretically, government-provided hearsay weights more with the tribunal than detainee-provided sworn statements or testimony).

Further, there is nothing in the procedures that list standards for finding one either an enemy combatant or an alien; in the end the Tribunal has leave to decide as it sees fit. And finally, as Section J makes clear, even if these protocols are NOT followed, there is no recourse as this document is administrative rather than legislative. There are no rights given to the detainees even if these procedures are ignored or stretched.

I grant you that I'm indulging in some "worst case" thinking, but under this thinking a US citizen could be held to be an alien (to say nothing of an enemy combatant) and be essentially beyond recourse or appeal.

There is nothing wrong with "worst case" thinking. In fact, it is absolutely necessary when doing such tiny things as guaranteeing people their constitutional rights. Contrast the "no recourse" provisions the guarantess provided by our heralded system of justice in the civilian world, and you can easily see that the MCA is a sham, and a travesty.