Letters to the editor for Wednesday, Feb. 13

On Nov. 7, 2005, President Bush said, "We do not torture." On Feb. 7, 2008, we learned that terrorism suspects were subjected to waterboarding, a cruel procedure.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman need to make every effort to pass legislation that makes waterboarding illegal.

And I would like my Republican senator to explain how our president is different from vile tinhorn despots who also twist the truth and support waterboarding.

PAUL ABELN, BLOOMINGTON

Regarding the Feb. 9 article on the gun issue before the Supreme Court: I don't think it matters what the Supreme Court rules, because we already have an estimated 250 million guns in this country. We also have an abundance of shootings -- in malls (Omaha and Chicago), in schools (Columbine and Virginia Tech), in city halls (Kirkwood, Mo.), and ongoing gun violence in city neighborhoods.

CAROL HABSTRITT, BROOKLYN PARK

In her Feb. 11 commentary on health care reform, Julie Brunner, the executive director of the Minnesota Council of Health Plans, states, "It's fourth and inches" and the Legislature should "go for it."

However, in terms of our health-care system meeting the needs of our community, we're on our own 20-yard line, out of time outs and behind by six points with just a couple of seconds left on the clock. A play that gets us only a few inches and a first down will not be of much help.

What we need is something that gives us hope of actually winning the game. In the legislative huddle, it's time to be bold and go for the score. Now is the time to call for a Hail Mary play, like single-payer, that gives us a real chance of victory.

ED EHLINGER, MINNEAPOLIS

I have to throw in my 2 cents on a constitutional amendment to dedicate funding for natural resources and cultural heritage and arts.

I thought a constitution, whether state or federal, was supposed to be the legal document that defines the operating structure and principles of the particular body of government that enacts it. Such things as funding of particular needs (as prioritized by the elected officials), which can change over time and therefore must be flexible, are the subject matter of legislation regarding taxation and funding. These subjects are periodically addressed and re-adressed by the Legislature -- both House and Senate. That is how it is supposed to be.

I agree that natural resources, wildlife and the arts are important issues that may need funding to an extent by government agencies. However, just because a particular advocacy group wants its needs more permanently and stably funded, this does not mean we need to amend the Constitution.

DANA SMYSER, COON RAPIDS

I was surprised at your paper's glowing editorial about the city's WiFi system (Feb. 9). We were excited to sign up for the service in November, but, after numerous e-mails, phone calls, as well as missed and late service appointments, our household still cannot draw a signal that is any faster than dialup.

We live in the heart of south Minneapolis. If an emergency vehicle parked in front of our house, it likely wouldn't be able to access the critical information it needed to do its job.

We are grossly disappointed. The so called "citywide" system has not come close to meeting our most basic expectations.

JOHN A. ANDERSON, MINNEAPOLIS

A community asset Your editorial congratulating the new privately owned wireless network in Minneapolis for its economic viability misinterpreted the reason many of us opposed private ownership. It was and is not because the private sector is incapable of building a viable system, but rather because the infrastructure of the future should, like the infrastructure of the past (roads and the water pipes), be publicly owned.

This is especially important with information highways because of their crucial importance in a competitive global economy and because recent court and FCC decisions have significantly restricted the ability of cities like Minneapolis to regulate private networks in the public interest.

If the existing Minneapolis network proves economically profitable, it is largely because the city of Minneapolis signed a 10-year contract to purchase communications services from the private company, and paid $2.2 million up front on that contract. Without the city's money, this network was not financially viable.

Given that the Minneapolis taxpayers are, in effect, paying to build this system, many of us argued that the taxpayers should also own the system. The construction of the network and its operation could be contracted out to private firms. But control would remain in the hands of the public.

CHRIS MITCHELL AND David Morris,

Institute for Local Self-Reliance,

Minneapolis