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
- This New York Times ‘Hitler’ book review sure reads like a thinly veiled Trump comparison
- Chicago Tribune editorial: The government should release secret grand jury testimony about its 1942 scoop: "Jap Plan to Strike at Sea"
- US owes blacks reparations over slavery: UN experts
- Mali Islamist jailed for nine years for Timbuktu shrine attacks
- Poland wrestles with its past — and present
- What Historians Are Saying About the First Trump-Clinton Debate
- Princeton professor documents the movement that ended single-sex education at elite schools
- Annette Gordon-Reed tells historians the controversy over Harvard law school's shield is different from the fight over the Confederate flag
- Historian EP Thompson denounced Communist party chiefs, files show
- Voting opens soon for the leaders of the OAH in 2017