{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024336283185840708, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011061946902654867, 'mean_word_length': 5.492822966507177, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Normalizing the Exception: Governmentality, Legal Discourse and Post-9/11 U.S. Security

U.S. leaders interpret the attacks on September 11, 2001 as acts of war against western civilization. They find that exceptional security measures are necessary to protect the liberal democratic way of life. In this paper, I develop a theoretical framework that places post-9/11 exceptionalism within a history of governmentality. Governmentality represents a strategy to provide security within a population. This strategy involves people in a war of movement, which determines who belongs in a society and the appropriate actions they can perform. The circulation of knowledge about individuals within and potential threats to society is integral. However, when the normal political, legal and ethical orders prevent leaders from obtaining this information, exceptionalism prevails. U.S. leaders regard the post-9/11 security environment in this light, and they harness legal expertise to redefine the appropriate means for identifying and eradicating dangers. These officials normalize exceptional security practices, by increasing the speed of politics and dissolving barriers to the collection of knowledge. Specifically, they utilize legal discourse to construct an institutional and ethical setting that permits unprecedented intelligence gathering techniques.