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
- Snopes debunks slavery Internet meme
- Revamped Chinese History Journal Welcomes Hard-Line Writers
- Poll: 3 Out of 5 Texan Trump Supporters Want Secession if Hillary Clinton Is Elected
- The Psychiatric Question: Is It Fair to Analyze Donald Trump From Afar?
- Minorities still feel Eugene, Oregon’s historical link to the Ku Klux Klan
- Ernst Nolte, Historian Whose Views on Hitler Caused an Uproar, Dies at 93
- Japan should give formal apology for wartime aggression, says historian
- Kevin Baker says America needs to bring back political machines
- Covell Meyskens uses his blog to show what life was like under Mao. (Interview)