Not directly on point, but I did just post a short reading list on "the corporatization of higher education:" http://www.religiousleftlaw.com/2013/05/the-corporatization-of-higher-education-a-basic-reading-list.html

I recall learning about the "fusion of horizons" from reading Gadamer's Truth and Method (in English translation) for a graduate seminar several decades ago (debates on 'hermeneutics' were all the rage in the comparative study of religious worldviews in those days).

From today’s Los Angeles Times (by way of reinforcing several of my points above): “Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has told investigators that he and his older brother planned the Boston Marathon bombings only a week or so before the race, that they were operating alone, and that they received no training or support from outside terrorist groups, officials said Tuesday. His comments appear to support investigators’ theory that the attack was hastily conceived by two siblings who were self-radicalized. Writing answers from his hospital bed because he was shot in the throat, the 19-year-old accused bomber also said that his slain older brother, Tamerlan, was ‘upset’ by the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and that anger was the motivation to plant two crude homemade bombs along the crowded race route. A U.S. counter-terrorism official said Dzhokhar Tsarnaev mentioned the wars ‘as a general justification for what he did;’ a law enforcement official said he did not seem as bothered about America’s role in the Muslim world. The law enforcement official said authorities were developing a clearer picture from the suspect’s responses and from records of Internet activity that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was the driving force behind the April 15 bombings. [….] Officials said no evidence had emerged to indicate the brothers had co-conspirators, and despite U.S. fears of foreign involvement, investigators have tentatively concluded that Tamerlan did not meet with Islamist militants or attend a training camp during a visit to Russia last year. That trip was his only known foreign travel as an adult. A law enforcement official said investigators believed the Tsarnaevs built their bombs after consulting a how-to guide in Inspire, an online magazine published by the Al Qaeda franchise in Yemen. In a 2010 article, the English-language magazine urged would-be terrorists to build a crude bomb using a pressure cooker, gunpowder from shotgun shells or fireworks, and other easily obtainable items. Investigators say they have confirmed that Tamerlan Tsarnaev purchased fireworks in southern New Hampshire, just over the Massachusetts state line. On Feb. 6, they say, he walked into the Phantom Fireworks store in Seabrook, N.H., and asked the clerk, ‘What is the most powerful item you have?’”

Re: “a significant possibility that the killers received training or assistance from others,” and that “we are learning from the emerging press accounts that there is a significant international aspect to this crime.” There does not appear, to date, to be a “significant possibility that the killers received training or assistance from others,” particularly in the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, unless that training and assistance was “virtual.” It seems more likely that, as Atran notes below, and yet again, “the Internet and social media” have proven “sufficient for radicalization and even operational preparation.” There does not appear to be any concrete evidence that Tamerlan linked up with anyone while in Dagestan or presumably the Russian authorities would have notified the FBI of that fact (and may at least in part account for the fact that the FBI was not prompted to keep track of Tamerlan after Russian authorities conveyed their concerns about him) and some group would have claimed a connection to or responsibility for the bombing, for that is what usually occurs (thus not invariably, although it’s rare when organized groups are involved and they remain silent) in such cases owing to the desire to bring publicity to one’s aims or cause. So the “international aspect” may involve motivational (i.e., psychological), ideological, and geopolitical variables but only of the immaterial or intangible sort (clearly relevant to the mens rea element). The devices used, as oft-noted, were comparatively crude, their component parts easily available for purchase and the recipe for their construction into bombs readily available on the Internet. One can be a “follower of radical nationalist Islamists” without any significant personal or political connection to actual members of such movements. (The alleged influence of a mysterious ‘Misha’ on Tamerlan’s views on Islam and politics occurred here in the states.) As Scott Atran writes in the Foreign Policy article I linked to, the findings of his multidisciplinary, multinational research team “indicate that terrorist plotters against Western civilian populations tend not to be parts of sophisticated, foreign-based command-and-control organizations. Rather, they belong to loose, homegrown networks of family and friends who die not just for a cause, but for each other. Jihadists pretty much span the population’s normal distribution: There are very few psychopaths and sociopaths, few brilliant thinkers and strategists. Jihadi wannabes today are mostly emerging adults in transitional stages of their lives—students, immigrants, in search of jobs or companions—who are especially prone to movements that promise a meaningful cause, camaraderie, adventure, and glory. Most have a secular education, becoming ‘born again’ into the jihadi cause in their late teens or 20s. The path to radicalization can take years, months, or just days, depending on personal vulnerabilities and the influence of others. Occasionally there is a hookup with a relative, or a friend of a friend, who has some overseas connection to someone who can get them a bit of training and motivation to pack a bag of explosives or pull a trigger, but the Internet and social media are usually sufficient for radicalization and even operational preparation.” Finally, the most vociferous and visible political partisans in the media to date have been from the Right, not the Left, the former calling, as you point out, for “enemy combatant” status designation, often alongside hysterical cries about the obvious dangers of “radical Islam.” The Liberal and Left (and absent the shrill tone from the other side of the aisle) like Erwin Chemerinsky or the ACLU, appear more concerned to see that the remaining defendant’s rights are constitutionally protected, I have not noticed any high-profile figures from that side of the spectrum arguing that this is “an ordinary, garden-variety criminal act,” so it would be nice to see a few links showing otherwise.

Somewhat related, Muslim women lawyers from the ABA Journal: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/walking_the_tightrope_muslim_women/ And I wonder how many folks know about this group:* http://karamah.org/ * "KARAMAH, Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights, is a U.S.-based non profit organization that derives its name from the Arabic term “karamah”, which means dignity. KARAMAH’s vision and mission are informed by the view that a just society values the informed participation of its members through the pursuit of knowledge, access to opportunities, and equity among all “children of Adam”, regardless of gender or other differences."

While not directly on point, this piece by Scott Atran, one of the best students of the psychology and sociology of contemporary terrorism committed by non-state actors, should be essential reading: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/22/black_and_white_and_red_all_over_boston_bombing_terrorists_media?page=full

"I think the `T' word is what drives this. Those who would ordinarily embrace state sovereignty arguments are enamored of the federal charge because it is a capital offense." That seems absolutely correct. As to the "terrorist act" description, see this post from Kevin Jon Heller: http://opiniojuris.org/2013/04/22/yes-boston-was-an-act-of-terrorism-at-least-under-one-definition/ And, for what it's worth, I agree with Kevin's last comment: "I should add that, as a normative matter, we should restrict the term 'terrorism' to violent acts that are politically or ideologically motivated. I think it is precisely the presence of such a motivation that distinguishes terrorism from 'ordinary' criminality. Alas, the international community does not seem to agree, at least for certain kinds of weapons." (Not to mention the inordinate and, comparatively speaking, the morally misplaced attention accorded to non-state actors committing terrorist acts vis-a-vis State-initiated or -sponsored terrorism)

While I'm not an ethics maven and I just skimmed through the article for now, the author appears to be exploiting the fact that first, a cognitive bias is not NECESSARILY a bad thing, keeping in mind, for instance, that biases often attributed to mental heuristics are to some extent unavoidable given our reliance on mental heuristics generally. Secondly, what are called "informal fallacies" are just that, meaning NOT FORMAL, which means while they are presumptively or prima facie suspect, one must look at their particular rhetorical or dialogical use to determine whether or not they are being employed in a logically debilitating or fallacious manner (some ad hominem arguments, for example, are perfectly acceptable). Because they are "informal" the uses of such arguments requires some contextual examination of the sort not typically involved in formal logical errors. Perhaps I missed it, but I saw no reference to one of the foremost authorities on informal logical reasoning, Douglas Walton, who has a number of books examining the so-called informal fallacies (better: 'arguments presumptively fallacious' until proven otherwise). Secondly, he appears to be claiming that we argue this way routinely in any case and thus lawyers should do so in a more consciously or deliberate manner, countering a (subconscious, unintentional perhaps) rhetoric of persuasion with a lucid, deliberate rhetoric of persuasion. He is simply wrong to claim, as he does in the abstract, "that philosophers condemn and try to excise them from argumentation completely." Philosophers presume them to be rationally unavailing, and they often are, and thus they try to avoid them. However, sometimes, they are perfectly acceptable forms of argument, which they would never be were they to fall under the category of a formal fallacy. Perhaps I'll have more to say after a careful reading of the article.

Yes, this was something I too was interested in (although of course I'm not a lawyer) but the price is indeed prohibitive (that's more than 1/10th of my monthly income!), even for a 600 page book. It seems I'll have to wait until some much cheaper used copies begin to show up on Amazon a year or two from now. And I still hold out hope that at least some lawyers will come to see the relevance of philosophical literature on most of these topics (some if not most of which takes into account the literature from cognitive and social sciences), even if it may not always instantly or obviously reveal its practical applications, let alone make lawyers "more productive and successful" (understood in a conventional sense), although it might contribute to their being, eudaimonistically speaking, more "ethical" and "satisfied."

Jain Metaphysics & Epistemology for the Comparative Study of Worldviews: http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/kandinsky/kandinsky.comp-8.jpg

While there's much of value in this article, it strikes me that the claim of distortions that come with belief in a "highly problematic legal fiction" is rather a strawman, indeed, it is clearly contradicted by subsequent mention of the ample criminal law scholarship available on "overbroad laws, racial selectivity in policing, prosecutorial overcharging, judicial hostility to defendants, or harsh mandatory punishments and collateral consequences." In short, I doubt the burden of "curative weight" putatively placed on defense counsel is as heavy or wide in scope as claimed here and that the importance of "other legal actors and institutions" has been well recognized in recent scholarship. Again, there's much of value in the article that does not require assent to the prevalence of "a highly problematic legal fiction" to appreciate same.

Oh, you were aficianados of direct realism?!