Col. Will Gunn, appointed to be chief defense counsel over future military tribunals, says he disagrees with some of the rules.

"It's critical that these trials be done right. It's critical that we hold true to fundamental American values," Gunn said in an interview with Reuters late on Friday. "As chief defense counsel, I have one fundamental goal: and that is responsibly to provide for zealous defense of any individuals who are brought before military commissions," the Harvard Law School graduate added.

What rules would Gunn have made differently?

Gunn singled out language permitting the Defense Department to monitor any conversations or communications between defense lawyers and defendants, which some critics have called a breach of customary attorney-client privilege.

"For instance, I would make it clear that no conversation between the defense counsel and a client can be monitored unless the government had a particularized reason for doing so ... a reason that can be clearly articulated," Gunn said.

Gunn also would have made for a fairer appeals system.

Gunn said the appeals process would be different if he had designed it. The rules do not allow for an independent judicial review of convictions or sentences. Appeals go to a military panel appointed by the Pentagon, and final review of convictions or sentences is made by Bush himself. Gunn said the traditional U.S. military justice system allows for some appeals to be heard by a civilian court.

Gunn won't be trying the cases but adminstering the system from the defense side. About ten lawyers have applied, but "no names that you would recognize."

He will assign each defendant a military defense lawyer. Defendants also have the right to hire a civilian lawyer who is a U.S. citizen, is deemed eligible to hear classified information, and agrees to conditions set by the Pentagon such as the monitoring of conversations.