Turns out, the Supreme Court Don't Have No Army!

In response to the slap-down the Bush Administration at last got from the Supreme Court yesterday, in which (8-1) the Supreme's said "unlawful combatants" have a right to judicial review of their status, and that that review must come from Federal Courts (6-3) Scott McClellan says that administration officials were pleased that the court "recognized the authority of the president as commander in chief."

Huh? Um, the Constitution established 200 years ago the President is the commander-in-chief, and that wasn't what the Supreme Court said to you. What about the point of the ruling -- that you can't continue doing what you've been doing to people for the past 2 years?

"We also recognize that the court had some concerns, and we respect those concerns."

Huh? Dude, a ruling by the Supreme Court against you, requiring you to change your behavior, is not a "concern", it's an order to stop doing what you are doing.

It sounds almost as if the Administration likes to pretend that it may or may not adopt what the Supreme Court is teling it to do, at its option -- you know, like they were interior designors or sumfin. I'm guessing what's dawning on the Executive Branch right about now -- probably through Alberto Gonzales -- is that they could respond to the Supremes: "Hey, you don't have no fricken Army! So what are they going to do? Force us? You and what Army? No Army!"

If you think I'm kidding, here's the transcript, from www.whitehouse.gov. Note that McClellan talks only about a Defense Department process, not offering judicial review:


And with that, I'll be glad to go to your questions. Deb.

Q Since the Gitmo -- the Supreme Court ruling on Guantanamo detainees, is this going to speed up the process of the administration sorting these people out and figuring out who is going to be freed, and who is going to go before tribunals, and who is going to be held incognito for many more years, or whatever?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you actually brought up a very good point. If you recall, back in February Secretary Rumsfeld announced a process that he was putting in place to do an annual review of the status of those detainees at Guantanamo Bay. And the Department of Defense was moving forward on that process already.

Certainly, in terms of the Supreme Court decision, we're pleased that Supreme Court recognized the authority of the President, as Commander-in-Chief, to exercise his constitutional responsibility in a time of war. The President's most solemn obligation is to protect the American people. We also recognize that the court had some concerns, and we respect those concerns. So the National Security Council and the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice and others are discussing these issues. They're working expeditiously to move forward to put a process in place to address these concerns. And that is where things stand at this point.

Q Does the ruling speed it up even further? And how long are we talking about?

MR. McCLELLAN: They're moving expeditiously. Again, I don't want to put a time frame on it, but they're discussing these issues as we speak. They've already been under discussion since the court ruling on Monday, I believe it was. And we will have more to say soon. I expect that further announcements on this matter would probably come from the Department of Defense.

But we want to make sure that we put a process in place that respects the concerns that the Supreme Court raised and does so in a way that is consistent with the authority of the President to exercise his constitutional responsibility during at time of war. And the court recognized that authority, as well. The President's most important responsibility is the safety and security of the American people. We are a nation at war and the President does have the right to detain enemy combatants during this time of conflict and to hold them during that conflict. The court recognized that. But at the same time, they expressed some concerns. And we'll be putting a process in place to address those concerns.

Q Those concerns --

MR. McCLELLAN: To the former legal reporter.

Q Those -- and American citizen -- those concerns were the denial of habeas corpus to an American citizen, the denial of access to the courts indefinitely, forever, claimed by the Executive that the court slapped down. Those aren't minor concerns.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, there are two separate issues here. There are the American citizens who were picked up on the battlefield, and some of those individuals, we have already taken the step to provide them access to the courts. And then there are the non-American citizens who are picked up on the battlefield. And the court recognized that these are difficult issues to address. But they talked about the ability of those detainees to have notice and the opportunity to be heard. And so that's what we're working --

Q And I'm hearing, in your dismissal, it seems, of the court's --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I wouldn't look at it at that way at all, Terry.

Q -- concerns that that reflects somehow the administration's attitude about complying with the court's very clear command that the constitutional rights of American citizens like Mr. Hamdi and the human rights of the detainees in Guantanamo Bay must be honored by the Executive Branch.

MR. McCLELLAN: I wouldn't characterize it that way at all, the way you did, Terry. We respect the court's decision, and that's why we're moving forward quickly to put a process in place to address those concerns. But we want to do so in a way that is consistent with the constitutional responsibility of the President to exercise his authority during a time of war. And that's what we will do, because the President recognizes that his most important obligation to the American people is their safety and security.

We remain a nation at war; we remain a nation that is in a conflict. And the President has the right to detain enemy combatants during this time --

Q A nation under law.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- of conflict. And so we will move forward in waging this war and we will also move forward on addressing the concerns of the court.