Prévenir ou punir ? Expertise et justice préventive dans la « guerre contre la terreur » aux États-Unis : l’affaire Mehanna
Résumé
Prevent or punish? Expertise and preventive justice in the ‘war on terror’ in the United States. The Mehanna trial
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.
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.
À partir de l’étude du procès de Tarek Mehanna, un jeune Américain d’origine égyptienne, condamné en avril 2012 à dix-sept ans de prison pour conspiration terroriste, cet article analyse le rôle des experts et des spécialistes de sciences sociales dans la construction juridique de la catégorie de terrorisme. Il ne s’agit pas de tenter de mesurer l’influence des témoins experts sur le droit, mais plutôt d’analyser la façon dont opère la logique politique de prévention du terrorisme, dès lors que celle-ci oriente aussi bien l’activité des spécialistes de sciences sociales, que celle des juges et des avocats. Cet article examine également les débats relatifs à l’interprétation du premier amendement dans le contexte de la guerre contre le terrorisme, et les luttes en cours pour établir des distinctions entre la libre expression et la pensée dangereuse, entre la pratique religieuse libre et la pratique radicale et suspecte.
Origine : Fichiers éditeurs autorisés sur une archive ouverte