Final answer:
The military tribunals ordered by President Bush are inferred to operate outside of traditional military justice, lacking required protections by international and U.S. law, as found in 'Hamdan v. Rumsfeld'. These tribunals, along with subsequent legal challenges and legislation, highlight the tension between national security measures and constitutional rights.
Step-by-step explanation:
Since the military tribunals ordered by President Bush are not part of the military's courts-martial system, it can be inferred that they do not operate within the traditional military justice framework and are not subject to the same legal protections and rules.
The Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld found that these tribunals were illegal because they lacked the protections required by the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Further developments after the Hamdan ruling saw the Bush administration and Congress respond by attempting to limit judicial oversight and detainee rights, only for the Supreme Court to later assert the detainees' rights to habeas corpus in Boumediene v. Bush.