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
- Smithsonian launches campaign to raise $10 million for women’s history initiative
- Trump Was Not Always So Linguistically Challenged
- 75th anniversary of the World War 2 black uprising that the American public never heard about
- Longest serving governor in U.S. history to resign after confirmation as Trump's ambassador to China
- Did the First Human Ancestor Emerge in Europe, Not Africa?
- Jill Lepore: Americans Aren't Just Divided Politically, They're Divided Over History Too
- AHA joins protest of Trump’s plan for drastic cuts to the NEH
- Diane Ravitch says the Democrats paved the way for the education secretary's efforts to privatize our public schools
- Mark Moyar explains why he came to believe the Vietnam War was winnable
- How should Texas high schoolers learn history?