Prévenir ou punir ? Expertise et justice préventive dans la « guerre contre la terreur » aux États-Unis : l’affaire Mehanna

Based upon a study of the trial of Tarek Mehanna, a young American of Egyptian descent, who was convicted of terrorist conspiracy in April 2012 and sentenced to seventeen years and a half in prison, this article examines the role of experts and social scientists in the legal construction of the cate...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Nadia Marzouki
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Les Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme 2014-09-01
Series:Socio
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journals.openedition.org/socio/622
id doaj-f44b9dccf48344f1b432ee96adf09785
record_format Article
spelling doaj-f44b9dccf48344f1b432ee96adf097852020-11-25T02:49:13ZengLes Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’HommeSocio2266-31342425-21582014-09-01310313610.4000/socio.622Prévenir ou punir ? Expertise et justice préventive dans la « guerre contre la terreur » aux États-Unis : l’affaire MehannaNadia MarzoukiBased upon a study of the trial of Tarek Mehanna, a young American of Egyptian descent, who was convicted of terrorist conspiracy in April 2012 and sentenced to seventeen years and a half in prison, this article examines the role of experts and social scientists in the legal construction of the category of terrorism. The object of this paper is not to attempt to measure the influence of expert witnesses on law, but, rather, to understand how the political logic of preventing terrorism functions. This logic, I will argue, informs the practice of social scientists, judges and lawyers. This article also explores the debates about the interpretation of the First Amendment in the context of the War on Terror. It analyses the current struggles to establish distinctions between what counts as free speech and what is seen as constituting dangerous thought, or between free religious practice and practice that is deemed radical and suspect.http://journals.openedition.org/socio/622expertiseterrorism1st amendmentradicalisationfreedom of expressionsocial sciences
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Nadia Marzouki
spellingShingle Nadia Marzouki
Prévenir ou punir ? Expertise et justice préventive dans la « guerre contre la terreur » aux États-Unis : l’affaire Mehanna
Socio
expertise
terrorism
1st amendment
radicalisation
freedom of expression
social sciences
author_facet Nadia Marzouki
author_sort Nadia Marzouki
title Prévenir ou punir ? Expertise et justice préventive dans la « guerre contre la terreur » aux États-Unis : l’affaire Mehanna
title_short Prévenir ou punir ? Expertise et justice préventive dans la « guerre contre la terreur » aux États-Unis : l’affaire Mehanna
title_full Prévenir ou punir ? Expertise et justice préventive dans la « guerre contre la terreur » aux États-Unis : l’affaire Mehanna
title_fullStr Prévenir ou punir ? Expertise et justice préventive dans la « guerre contre la terreur » aux États-Unis : l’affaire Mehanna
title_full_unstemmed Prévenir ou punir ? Expertise et justice préventive dans la « guerre contre la terreur » aux États-Unis : l’affaire Mehanna
title_sort prévenir ou punir ? expertise et justice préventive dans la « guerre contre la terreur » aux états-unis : l’affaire mehanna
publisher Les Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme
series Socio
issn 2266-3134
2425-2158
publishDate 2014-09-01
description Based upon a study of the trial of Tarek Mehanna, a young American of Egyptian descent, who was convicted of terrorist conspiracy in April 2012 and sentenced to seventeen years and a half in prison, this article examines the role of experts and social scientists in the legal construction of the category of terrorism. The object of this paper is not to attempt to measure the influence of expert witnesses on law, but, rather, to understand how the political logic of preventing terrorism functions. This logic, I will argue, informs the practice of social scientists, judges and lawyers. This article also explores the debates about the interpretation of the First Amendment in the context of the War on Terror. It analyses the current struggles to establish distinctions between what counts as free speech and what is seen as constituting dangerous thought, or between free religious practice and practice that is deemed radical and suspect.
topic expertise
terrorism
1st amendment
radicalisation
freedom of expression
social sciences
url http://journals.openedition.org/socio/622
work_keys_str_mv AT nadiamarzouki preveniroupunirexpertiseetjusticepreventivedanslaguerrecontrelaterreurauxetatsunislaffairemehanna
_version_ 1724744946012913664