REFUSE TO BELIEVE WE ARE AT WAR
In the national anguish after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Congress rushed to enact a formidable antiterrorism law - the Patriot Act . . .
This is the way NYT editorial entitled The House's Abuse of Patriotism starts. It assumes that we needlessly over reacted after 9/11. Now, that we know there is nothing to worry about, we can go back to business as usual. This is written following the recent strings of bombings in Delhi, Bali, London and Hadera to name just a few. Britain is about to pass legislation enabling the police to hold a person without charges for 90 days and the NYT believes we need less not more stringent laws.
Similarly, Joel Mowbrey tells the story of a Florida judge who sided with the ACLU and issued a preliminary injunction to stop"pat-down" searches at Tampa Bay Bucs' home games--this less than a month after Hinrichs blew himself up just outside the packed Oklahoma football stadium.
For all our sakes, lets hope they'll not have to learn the truth the hard way. It argues for ending the provisions for the Patriot Act because they were conceived in
comments powered by Disqus
- In Trump’s America, is the Supreme Court still seen as legitimate?
- The Republican Plan to Repeal Obamacare for Everybody But Alaska Might Be Unconstitutional
- Parliament Square in London Is Closer to Having First Female Statue
- Battle Over Confederate Monuments Moves to the Cemeteries
- German WW1 U-boat found off Belgian coast
- Yale history department now emphasizing global history in undergraduate courses
- University of Utah appoints first Mormon Studies professor
- Eric Foner discusses the manipulation of history
- Male historian tapped to lead Department of Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies at the University of Kansas
- Decline in History Majors Continues, Departments Respond