The following editorial appeared in Sunday's Washington Post: Mohammed al-Adahi left his wife and children in Yemen in the summer of 2001 for a six-month stay in Afghanistan. Once there, he met twice with Osama bin Laden, stayed at an al-Qaida guesthouse and attended the al-Farouq training camp, where many of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers received military training. Mr. Adahi was picked up by Pakistani authorities in late 2001 on a bus carrying injured Arab and Pakistani fighters. He was later transferred to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he has been held for eight years. In challenging his detention, Mr. Adahi argued that there were innocent explanations for his actions. His sister had married a close associate of Osama bin Laden, who hosted a male-only feast celebrating the arranged marriage. A trial court judge explained that after 'having attended his sister's wedding reception, and with time off from his job ... and having no particular plans about what to do next, he portrayed himself as being willing to explore the region and try something new.' This 'something new' turned out to be training at the notorious al-Qaida camp, which Mr. Adahi says he pursued to 'satisfy his `curiosity' about jihad, and because he found himself in Afghanistan with idle time.' These implausible explanations and the amount of intelligence against Mr. Adahi should have been enough to keep him behind bars. But that is not how Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia saw it. Last August, Judge Kessler issued a deeply flawed decision ordering Mr. Adahi's release. The judge evaluated each of Mr. Adahi's acts in isolation, rather than as pieces of a legal 'mosaic.' Using this approach, Judge Kessler concluded that Mr. Adahi's 'admission that he trained at Al-Farouq is not sufficient to carry the Government's burden of showing that he was a part, or substantial supporter, of enemy forces.' While judicial review of Guantanamo detentions is imperative to ensuring justice, this case illustrates the perils of allowing trial judges to assess intelligence information through the lens of conventional rules of evidence. Just as worrisome is a decision handed down this month that went too far in repudiating Judge Kessler's approach. A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit flirted with _ but stopped short of _ allowing the government to meet an even lower standard of proof than the already relaxed standard now commonly required. The judges built on a previous decision of the court to conclude that a stay at a guesthouse or training camp _ no matter the length of stay or context _ offered 'overwhelming' evidence of membership in al- Qaida. The two rulings prove once again the need for clear rules to govern the federal court process for challenging detentions. The Supreme Court, which ruled two years ago that detainees have the right to have their cases heard by federal judges, did not set standards, and Congress and the White House have been shamefully inactive in filling in the gaps. The end result is a kind of Guantanamo roulette, where the predilections of judges shape the rules and determine the outcomes. This serves no one well _ not the detainees, not the government and least of all the rule of law. 