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
- Miami’s Watergate mystery man at heart of newly revealed CIA report
- The Anthropocene epoch: scientists declare dawn of human-influenced age
- ‘No Vacancies’ for Blacks: How Donald Trump Got His Start, and Was First Accused of Bias
- New Yorker profiles activist who's drawing attention to lynchings
- Wisconsin GOP senator wants to replace history professors with Ken Burns videos
- OAH President Nancy Cott says the Library of Congress is being politicized
- NYT publishes historians' plea for the revival of political history
- Some Ohio University professors ditch the textbooks, and the prices
- Renowned Israeli Holocaust Historian: ‘If I Were a British Jew, I’d Be Worried’
- Heather Ann Thompson pries loose the long-kept secrets of Attica in her new book