This dissertation describes the ways in which the securitized secular laws of the state act to regulate and control Muslims and the practices of Islam through "terrorism" prosecutions in the United States. In order to eliminate terrorism violence, the security state has created an exception to regular legal norms by establishing a court within a court and a prison within a prison, where normal legal procedures are not followed for those Muslim immigrants and American Muslim citizens accused of "terrorism" related offenses. I address the ways in which Muslims have been conditioned and affected by the securitized secular laws that are applied in "terrorism" cases, and I also discuss how human-rights advocacy around the accused challenge and resist these discriminatory practices. Based on 24 months of ethnographic fieldwork; observations of federal terrorism trials; a review of prison writings; and interviews with families of the accused, activists, lawyers, and human-rights advocates, I address the legal practices of securitized laws concerned with preventing "terrorism," their impact both inside and outside of judicial institutions, and the power of these practices on the lived experiences of Muslim Americans. While some authorities claim that preventive "terrorism" prosecutions are necessary to eradicate violence, I suggest that the main concerns of the security state are really about eradicating religious thought and practices that contradict the secular definition of acceptable religion. -- Abstract.
Read
