I believe you're referring to the decision of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court did find that the procedures in place at the time were inadequate. This is, again, why I said this process is being worked out as a series of compromises--as the rule of law always is--between various branches of the United States government. But when the U.S. Supreme Court has found a procedure to be inadequate, the U.S. government--the executive branch in cooperation with the legislative branch--has come up with a solution to satisfy the Supreme Court. I think they have done that. The Supreme Court continues to hear appeals, and the process will be further refined. That's how the rule of law works in a country that is committed to the rule of law.
I wouldn't expect that of a country that holds kangaroo courts or show trials. They don't refine their procedure in response to a Supreme Court decision that tells them it's inadequate. But the U.S. has done that, and the procedures currently in place do satisfy the Geneva convention.
As I said, it's important to note that the procedures in place are modelled now on the rights that would be considered constitutional for a U.S. citizen, so I do think he is being provided with all the adequate protections of the Geneva convention.