Reconciling Classified Evidence and a Petitioner\u27s Right to a Meaningful Review at Guantanamo Bay: A Legislative Solution

In Boumediene v. Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the detainees held at Guantánamo Bay have a constitutional right to a writ of habeas corpus and are entitled to a “meaningful review” of their habeas petitions. This Note attempts to reconcile the need for a “meaningful review” with the government’s reliance on classified evidence that is completely inaccessible to the detainee-petitioners. After examining three other contexts in which the reliance on classified evidence has been sanctioned—federal criminal courts, immigration cases, and the ongoing military commissions at Guantánamo—this Note concludes that a “meaningful review” of the Guantánamo habeas petitions requires that the detainees be provided with regulated access to the evidence against them. Specifically, this Note recommends that the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) or a CIPA-like statute be adapted to the habeas context so that detainees have, at a minimum, summaries of the key evidence against them

Reconciling Classified Evidence and a Petitioner\u27s Right to a Meaningful Review at Guantanamo Bay: A Legislative Solution

In Boumediene v. Bush, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the detainees held at Guantánamo Bay have a constitutional right to a writ of habeas corpus and are entitled to a “meaningful review” of their habeas petitions. This Note attempts to reconcile the need for a “meaningful review” with the government’s reliance on classified evidence that is completely inaccessible to the detainee-petitioners. After examining three other contexts in which the reliance on classified evidence has been sanctioned—federal criminal courts, immigration cases, and the ongoing military commissions at Guantánamo—this Note concludes that a “meaningful review” of the Guantánamo habeas petitions requires that the detainees be provided with regulated access to the evidence against them. Specifically, this Note recommends that the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA) or a CIPA-like statute be adapted to the habeas context so that detainees have, at a minimum, summaries of the key evidence against them

Virtual environment trajectory analysis:a basis for navigational assistance and scene adaptivity

This paper describes the analysis and clustering of motion trajectories obtained while users navigate within a virtual environment (VE). It presents a neural network simulation that produces a set of five clusters which help to differentiate users on the basis of efficient and inefficient navigational strategies. The accuracy of classification carried out with a self-organising map algorithm was tested and improved to in excess of 85% by using learning vector quantisation. This paper considers how such user classifications could be utilised in the delivery of intelligent navigational support and the dynamic reconfiguration of scenes within such VEs. We explore how such intelligent assistance and system adaptivity could be delivered within a Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) context

Getting to the heart of clinical supervision: a theoretical review of the role of emotions in professional development

Background The importance of supervision is increasingly recognized, yet it remains little understood, impairing research and practice. Specifically, the CBT supervision model provides a relatively “heartless” account of professional development, which may undermine its effectiveness. Method A theoretical review of emotions in supervision and learning is provided, to summarize relevant theoretical and empirical literature. The objectives are to clarify the role of emotions in CBT supervision, and to use this understanding to outline an emotionally-attuned model, illustrating its application to two critical aspects of CBT supervision (the development of a learning alliance and enhancing professional competence). Conclusion The reviewed literature (theory and research evidence) supports the explicit and systematic incorporation of emotions into CBT supervision. Conceptually, this can be achieved by integrating Lazarus's (1991) general theory of emotion with the CBT model. The illustrations of this augmented model indicate its value in understanding and managing both the “rupture-repair” cycle that can affect the supervisory alliance, and the “deskilling-development” pattern that appears to be necessary for the acquisition of competence. We propose that CBT supervision might usefully be guided by our expanded model, as this affords greater internal consistency and may be more effective educationally

Unaccommodated: How the ADA Fails Parents

In 1990, Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” Thirty years after this landmark law, discrimination and ingrained prejudices against individuals with intellectual disabilities—especially poor Black and Brown parents with disabilities—continue. This ongoing discrimination is on stark display in family courts across the country, with devastating consequences for parents with intellectual disabilities and their families. Children who have parents with intellectual disabilities are eighty percent more likely to be removed from their homes and placed in foster care than other children, and, once in care, courts are three times as likely to permanently sever the parent-child relationship. Although technical assistance from the U.S. Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services in 2015 offered some hope of redress for these families, the disparities have not dissipated.This Article makes a novel contribution to the literature by presenting a study of the treatment of ADA claims in both family and federal courts since the promulgation of the new technical assistance in 2015. It demonstrates that, despite promising federal intervention, both family and federal courts still fail to vindicate the rights of parents with disabilities by sidestepping responsibility for parents’ claims under the ADA. If family courts apply the ADA at all, they tend to offer a diluted application of the statute. Often, they disavow the applicability of the ADA to the family court proceedings or direct parents to federal courts or other ill-suited venues for relief. Families fair no better in federal courts, which often find that the ADA claims have already been decided in family court, sometimes even after the family court has specifically refused to consider an ADA-based claim. Placing these state and federal decisions side-by-side lays bare how ostensibly neutral principles of federalism have the effect of preventing any forum from applying federal anti-discrimination law to parents with disabilities, harming these parents in the family regulation system. This transforms the ADA into an empty vessel for parents with intellectual disabilities.For the ADA to fulfill its promise, parents with intellectual disabilities must have a viable legal avenue to enforce it. This Article offers concrete avenues to vindicate this promise of the ADA. In federal courts, parents with intellectual disabilities should be able to bring ADA-based claims without running afoul of federal doctrines that prevent review of state court decisions. And, in state courts, advocates and judges should either apply the ADA directly or use the ADA as the benchmark of what services and supports the state must offer to avoid discriminating against parents with disabilities. More broadly, this Article calls for an intersectional reimagining of the disability rights movement and is the first to apply the concept of DisCrit to family regulation.</p

Lived Experience and Disability Justice in the Family Regulation System

The public family regulation system fails to live up to its underlying laws and policies that purport to value family reunification as their primary goal. Despite the premise of equitable treatment of parents and families involved in the system, parents are often mislabeled, maltreated, and untrusted by actors within the system. This Article explores how ableism operates in the family regulation system to create an ongoing pathology of parents with disabilities and of parents who have been labeled as disabled by the system.&nbsp

Lived Experience and Disability Justice in the Family Regulation System

The public family regulation system fails to live up to its underlying laws and policies that purport to value family reunification as their primary goal. Despite the premise of equitable treatment of parents and families involved in the system, parents are often mislabeled, maltreated, and untrusted by actors within the system. This Article explores how ableism operates in the family regulation system to create an ongoing pathology of parents with disabilities and of parents who have been labeled as disabled by the system.