Officer, Congress, CIA discussed on


Have in the military officers also serve him say in senior treasury positions or in senior doj positions would actually go against the very deep constitutional norm of civilian control the military and so the only time you can have a military officer who is also in a senior civilian position is when congress says that's totally okay congress hasn't done that that often i mean the only real examples are cia director nsa director and a handful of other positions national security adviser the really aren't that many other cases where a congress plus meltoff hold these jobs that's how we got to this case in this case we have the court of military commission review of this article one port congress created in two thousand nine to hear appeals from the guantanamo military commissions that you know sounds military issues it's about the military missions but an article one court and so the question is whether it's okay to have military officers certain on this specialized article one appeals court we say the answer is no um the court of appeals for the armed forces the top court in the court michael system set the answer is yes and that's the basic question the justices will be considering on january sixteen this sounds like it would be a very discreet issue how many cases would depend on the answered this question with all about the statute of four to store or produce virtually no litigation i mean even on two hundred forty eight years old there's never been a supreme court case about it there have been very few lower court cases because the government usually just polices that administratively this case arose because of a quirk in our fact pattern the military officers at issue in our case are currently serving as judges knocked on the specialized guantanamo court but also on the ordinary court martial appeals courts four air force service members for army service members and so all of the petitioners in these cases are service members who were convicted in a court martial and who had their appeal heard by these judges were the claim is that because of.

Coming up next