Search

INTRODUCTION I. DETAINEES' PROCEDURAL DEMANDS AND THE GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE A. Pre-Hamdan Procedures for the Military Commissions B. Pre-Hamdan Demands for Self-Representation and/or Boycott C. Pre-Hamdan Responses to the Detainees' Procedural [...], A significant portion of the war on terror detainees who have been charged at Guantanamo have announced their intentions to dismiss their attorneys, to waive their right to be present at their trials, or to take both actions simultaneously so that their interests will not be represented. This Note demonstrates that strong justifications, rooted in international and domestic legal rules and precedent, support honoring the detainees' requests. Yet the military tribunal proceedings are designed to follow the adversarial model to achieve just outcomes; granting the detainees' procedural requests can, in certain situations, undermine the ability of the military commissions to reach just outcomes in favor of the personal whims of the detainees. When a detainee's procedural request threatens to undermine the adversarial model, I propose that military adjudicators appoint an amicus curiae counsel to provide sufficient process on behalf of the tribunal.

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I. BROADCAST REGULATION AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT II. THE CASE FOR ELIMINATING THE CABLE/BROADCAST DISTINCTION A. EXPLICATING THE CABLE/BROADCAST REGULATORY DISTINCTION B. CABLE AS A PERVASIVE [...]

Combining statistical information across studies (i.e., meta-analysis) is a standard research tool in applied psychology. The most common meta-analytic approach in applied psychology, the fixed effects approach, assumes that individual studies are homogeneous and are sampled from the same population. This model assumes that sampling error alone explains the majority of observed differences in study effect sizes and its use has lead some to challenge the notion of situational specificity in favor of validity generalization. We critique the fixed effects methodology and propose an advancement - the random effects model (RE) which provides estimates of how between-study differences influence the relationships under study. RE models assume that studies are heterogeneous since they are often conducted by different investigators under different settings. Parameter estimates of both models are compared and evidence in favor of the random effects approach is presented. We argue against use of the fixed effects model because it may lead to misleading conclusions about situational specificity. (Reprinted by permission of the publisher.)