Bringing suspected terrorists to justice? Revealing bias against Muslims in applied counter terrorism by the U.S

Carter, Brittnee

doi:10.1080/10282580.2020.1719363

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Carter (2020) identifies an intersectional bias against Muslim defendants in U.S. indictments for terrorism as a result of counter-terrorism policies. Where terrorism trials are concerned, social norms are assessed in the framework of political ideology and (support for) violence.…”

Section: Gaps In the Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Courtroom Ethnography in the Context of Terrorism: A Multi-Level Approach

Bögelein

Eppert

Roth

et al. 2022

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper addresses terrorism trials as sites of research and proposes an approach for the analysis of ethnographic data collected during these trials. The suggested approach offers multi-level analytical access, it centers around interactionist conceptions and knowledge discourses. The conceptual framework we suggest is spelled out in terms of how to observe and being sensitive of (re-)production of power structures inside the courtroom as well as in regard to relations imported into the courtroom. For this purpose, we integrate (i) the micro-level of courtroom interactions and (ii) (self-)presentation, (iii) the meso-level of knowledge (re)production and the establishment of knowledge orders and (iv) an intersectional perspective on gender, race, and class in knowledge discourses. By applying a multi-level approach, we open up new explanatory avenues to understand the constitution of terrorism as a socio-legal object. The methodical framework connects hitherto unconnected elements, that is, participants’ interactions and negotiation, their (self-)representations, ascriptions and narrative performances, and knowledge (re-)production in order to establish or maintain political and social orders.

show abstract

Section: Gaps In the Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%