Saturday, July 26, 2014
An unusually informative piece from a Miami newspaper, with new (to me) details about the murder and his acrimonious divorce. This bit, however, was rather surprising:
But Markel also had critics, including some conservative bloggers and law-school skeptics who complained PrawfsBlawg failed to challenge the legal establishment.
In 2012, Markel was the subject of an anonymous comment on the blog Inside the Law School Scam.
“Bullies like this need to be made radioactive,” the writer said, alleging Markel had deleted anonymous comments on PrawfsBlawg. “Their arrogance and imperiousness speaks for itself. All means necessary must be employed.”
A Florida State spokeswoman declined to say whether Markel had reported the incident to the university or had raised concerns about his safety.
That comment comes, of course, from the blog of Crazy Campos, who certainly did his best to incite hatred and calumny against many academics, including Dan Markel. But it seems a stretch to connect this blog comment with the heinous crime! One wonders how the reporter dug this up out of the bowels of cyberspace?
UPDATE: More gruesome details: the killer was waiting for him, shot him through the window of his car while he was talking on the phone. Earlier reports that he knew the killer seem to have been mistaken.
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
12 Israeli international law scholars weigh in on the legality of cutting off electricity and water to Gaza
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Saturday, July 19, 2014
I am very sorry to report the horrible news that Professor Markel, a well-known criminal law scholar and theorist at Florida State, has died, apparently murdered during an attempted robbery of his home in Tallahassee on Friday. (The details are unclear at this point, I will post more as soon as I know more.)
UPDATE: This news item confirms that he was shot and died of the gunshot wound. The circumstances of the shooting and the perpetrator remain unspecified.
ANOTHER: From what colleagues at FSU tell me, Prof. Markel was murdered after opening the door of his home, though whether as part of a robbery or something else is unclear. It's just ghastly.
AND ANOTHER: His colleagues at PrawfsBlog have posted a memorial notice, and the thread is open for remembrances and condolences.
MORE: Local police have confirmed they are investigating the crime as a homicide, without any mention of robbery, attempted or otherwise.
JULY 21: Local police now confirm that Prof. Markel's murder was "targetted," not a random act of violence. I would imagine there are a rather limited number of people with the requisite motive, so we may hope a perpetrator of this heinous crime will be apprehended soon.
ANOTHER UPDATE: I did not know Dan Markel nearly as well as many others who have written movingly about him (see, e.g., here, and here and here). We met a couple of times, I knew a bit about his criminal law scholarship, and we corresponded periodically, often about legal academia and "blog stuff." One thing I always liked about Dan was his forthright manner and his ethical standards, so rare in the blogosphere. During his years of running the successful Prawfs blog, he was always good about moderating comments and deleting nonsense, and never hesitated to identify, expose and, if necessary, ban cyber-miscreants; he succeeded in making Prawfs a place where a serious, adult discussion could actually sometimes take place in cyberspace! He was feisty and principled, and admirably so (I felt that way even when I disagreed with the principles!). In addition to his collegial and scholarly constrributions (to which the many on-line testimonials attest), he also made the "blawgosphere" a better and more interesting place. Like so many others, I deeply regret his passing and extend my deepest condolences to his colleagues, his family and his many close friends.
AND MORE: The FSU memorial notice is here.
A FINAL UPDATE: Based on the latest reports from police, it is clear that Prof. Markel was the victim of a pre-meditated murder. Who was behind it is still unknown, but I suspect there is quite a lot that is not yet known.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
More on a controversial legal opinion about Israel's options in Gaza: Professor Bell responds and corrects the record (UPDATED: Prof. Enoch replies)
Avi Bell (Bar-Ilan & San Diego) writes:
I saw your posting on my short paper on Israel’s legal duties to supply electricity to the Gaza Strip.
I understand that you have been in contact with David Enoch, who may not have fully appraised you of the facts.
I have written about the legal subject several times in past years: here http://jcpa.org/article/is-israel-bound-by-international-law-to-supply-utilities-goods-and-services-to-gaza/ and here http://kohelet.org.il/uploads/file/Israel%20May%20Stop%20%20Supplying%20Water%20and%20%20Electricity%20to%20Gaza%20-%20a%20Legal%20Opinion%20by%20Prof_%20Avi%20Bell.pdf, for example.
None of the material I have written on the subject is classified, and it has always been open to all to read, and reflective of my opinion of the law.
Several days ago, an article appeared in Haaretz written by a reporter who had not contacted me that incorrectly reported that I had “authorized” steps by Israel in a report prepared for a classified Knesset committee on the subject (apparently the English translation of the article dropped the claim that the work was classified). I have not produced a classified report. I have no position in the Israeli government allowing me to authorize any steps; I work for the state of Israel only in the sense that I am a faculty member of a state school. I do not have the security classification to participate in classified Knesset committee hearings. I did not prepare any writing for a committee hearing on the subject. In fact, I did not know, and still do not know if there ever was a Knesset committee hearing on the subject, or if one was even planned.
I found out about the newspaper article by receiving a carbon copy of a posting David Enoch made in a Hebrew University listserv to which I have no access as I am not a member. In the posting, David criticized me for the content of the “classified report” (apparently, the reporter was referring to the second of the above short pieces) and, in the last part of his posting, addressed to me directly, demanded that I deny the content of the newspaper article (about which I had not known until receiving the copy from David), lest he be forced to respond, creating unspecified consequences in the international academic legal community.
I invited David several times to have a substantive discussion about the piece in a forum which was open to us, without the threats. Repeatedly, he did not assent. All our mails were addressed to each other and the listserv. After four rounds, the moderator of the listserv informed me that none of my mails had been or would be posted on the listserv. I forwarded that email to David. I did not hear from him thereafter.
I did not refuse to forward David any of my writings, and I presume he is sufficiently skilled in Google to find them on his own in any event.
I believe that the legal opinions I wrote are more reflective of mainstream thinking on the subject than David appears to think, though, of course, in the best spirit of academic exchange, I think there’s nothing wrong with us disagreeing about what the law says. Likewise, I don't think there's anything wrong with out-of-the-mainstream views. I welcome feedback on my legal analysis, and have received a number of interesting comments so far, some in agreement, and some not....
As a matter of policy, I would suspect that most people – including most Israelis – would oppose a policy of Israel suddenly cutting off Israeli-supplied electricity and water to the Gaza Strip (which, if memory serves, is about two-thirds of the electricity and one sixth of the water used by Gaza). In fact, I think many of the policy arguments against cutting off electricity and water have merit, but that, of course, is not the question I addressed in either of the pieces. In fact, several weeks ago, I was asked in an interview whether I support cutting off electricity to Gaza, and I unequivocally answered that I would not recommend doing it. The fighting, and its adverse effects on innocent civilians, is nothing less than a tragedy, and I am chary of recommending too strongly courses of action that seem likely, no matter what is done, to result in harming the innocent.
You can do with this information as you wish. On the one hand, I think it is important to protect my good name from David’s attacks. On the other hand, I...don’t want to get into a mud-slinging fight. I did feel it important to convey to you an accurate picture of events because your opinion is valuable to me, and I hold you in highest possible esteem, as I’m sure you know.
UPDATE: Professor Enoch writes in response:
Avi Bell denies many things – not the important ones, though, and mostly not anything I said. I did not, for instance, say that his opinion was classified, or that he holds governmental office, or that he has authorized such drastic measures, or that he supports it as a matter of policy. What he doesn’t deny – what he seems proud of – is that he’s written, on different occasions, that cutting off the water and electricity supply to Gaza is permissible as a matter of international law.
This is not just a matter of the quality of the legal analysis (though it is that too, of course, as people in the field who have read the text and are working on a response assure me). Bell knows what he’s doing – he’s making this point in public settings, as the issue is being debated, with the clear aim of increasing the likelihood of Israel taking these measures. His 3-page opinion has now been posted online here (published on the website of a forum in which he is a member, and so, I suspect, with his permission), and here you can see an interview on Israeli television where he’s making the same claims again (starting around minute 26). All of this is in Hebrew, I’m afraid, so here are my translations of some of the main points:
- The title reads: “Israel is permitted to stop supplying power and water to the Gaza Strip”.
- “Electric power does not count as a basic humanitarian need and therefore Israel is permitted to stop supplying it.” And later on “There is good reason to believe that unlike food and medications, electricity does not count as a humanitarian need according to the laws of war, and that therefore Israel is not even under an obligation to allow third parties to supply electric power to the Gaza Strip.”
- “Still, several legal arguments have been voiced against the implementation of these sanctions by Israel. Subjecting them to scrutiny shows that none of them is valid.”
- “Although international law forbids ‘collective punishment’, the denial of access to water and electricity does not constitute such punishment.”
[English version here.]
I have no interest in conducting a civilized, academic discussion with Bell, or in reading his “scholarship” on the matter. Life’s too short (it tends to be shorter, by the way, with no water and electricity). What I have an interest in is exposing the moral horror (and with the help of experts in the field, the legal incompetence) of his relevant texts, thereby minimizing to the extent possible the chance of the implementation of the measures he deems permissible.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Controversy over an Israeli scholar's "legal opinion" justifying cutting off water and electricity to Gaza
David Enoch, the leading legal philosopher in Israel, who teaches on both the law and philosophy faculties at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, writes:
Apparently, one of the measures considered by the Israeli government against the Hamas in Gaza is to cut off Israeli supply of water and electric power to Gaza (which pretty much consists of all of the supply of water and power to Gaza). Israeli government lawyers are apparently opposed to such measures.
Here ends the good news, though, because right-wing members of the Israeli Knesset have found the legal scholar who would write an opinion permitting such practices: Professor Avi Bell, from Bar Ilan University and the University of San Diego School of Law, has written such an opinion. (Though he refused to share it with me, I now have a copy, and I’ll be happy to share it with anyone who may be interested; I should say, though, that it’s in Hebrew). An item about this appeared in the daily Haaretz.
Israeli academics working in international humanitarian law are working, of course, on detailed documents refuting the legal technical claims made in Bell’s opinion. But I don’t think this is enough. I think that the legal academic community should do what it can to make it clear that there are consequences of such abuse of legal pseudo-scholarship and status in the service of gross immoralities – if nothing else, in terms of reputation.
UPDATE: Prof. Bell replies.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
...are BS. The main problem, unnoted by Prof. Hasen, is that they don't incorporate reader IQ, which would push InstaIgnorance, Outhouse and some of the others way down. (GoogleAnalytics hasn't figure that out yet, I'm told.) Nonetheless, we love Blog Emperor Caron because he figured out how to turn LawProf pontificating into dollars. Long live the Blog Emperor!
Monday, July 14, 2014
Professors Rostron & Levit asked me to share the following:
We just updated our charts about law journal submissions, expedites, and rankings from different sources for the Fall 2014 submission season covering the 203 main journals of each law school.
A couple of the highlight from this round of revisions are:
First, the chart now includes as much information as possible about what law reviews are not accepting submissions right now and what dates they say they'll resume accepting submissions. Most of this is not specific dates, because the journals tend to post only imprecise statements about how the journal is not currently accepting submissions but will start doing so at some point in August, at some time in the Spring 2015, or that the “submissions will close no later than September 15, and may close earlier, depending on acceptances,” etc.
Second, a couple of schools have had name changes (for instance, Phoenix Law Review is now Arizona Summit Law Review, and Texas Wesleyan Law Review is now Texas A&M Law Review), and the charts reflect these changes.
Third, there is a gradual increase in the number that are using Scholastica instead of ExpressO or accepting emails, but it is still a minority of the total: eight school list Scholastica as the exclusive method of submission, eighteen strongly prefer it, and seven more list it as one of the alternative acceptable avenues of submission.
The first chart contains information about each journal’s preferences about methods for submitting articles (e.g., e-mail, ExpressO, Scholastica, or regular mail), as well as special formatting requirements and how to request an expedited review. The second chart contains rankings information from U.S. News and World Report as well as data from Washington & Lee’s law review website.
Information for Submitting Articles to Law Reviews and Journals: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1019029
We’d welcome you to forward the link to anyone whom you think might find it useful.
We appreciate any feedback you might have.
All the best,
Allen and Nancy
Professor Allen Rostron
William R. Jacques Constitutional Law Scholar and Professor of Law
Professor Nancy Levit
Curators' and Edward D. Ellison Professor of Law
Sunday, July 13, 2014