Readers Write (Dec. 13): The war on Christmas, suffering, torture, pension cuts, commentary choices

The Star Tribune's decision to publish the Reg Henry "Emperor Santa" column ("Such a bunch of belly-achers," Dec. 12), with its secular progressive slant on the Christian holy day of Christmas, more so evidences that the "Emperor Star Tribune" has no clothes in its attempts to secularize Christians' December Advent season and the religious celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ.

Merry Christmas to all!

• • •

You have got to kidding me! Was Reg Henry seriously comparing President Obama to Santa Claus? Well, he just ruined Christmas for me, but I suppose if you are on the receiving end of all Obama's freebies, he would appear that way!

On Dec. 11, the Star Tribune's "Readers Write" feature contained several letters supporting the CIA's use of torture; one was written by a defense contractor lobbyist. Another letter, from a frequent conservative contributor, demonized the Affordable Care Act.

On the surface, these seemed like two very different topics, but condoning criminal acts in secret Polish prisons and regressing health care standards back to where people are losing their homes or lives for lack of affordable insurance do indeed share a common theme. Both implore me as a reader to look away and let people suffer.

I wonder: While taking the time to write their opinions, did these writers bother to think beyond their vested interests, either financial or political, to consider the people most directly involved?

We expect that our leaders will experience the emotion of fear, as many of us did on 9/11, but that they will move beyond the pull of emotions in order to prepare a reasonable (albeit military) response. As described by Brennan, that fear persisted, and our leaders' response to the perceived enemy was cruel and indiscriminate. The subsequent documents of torture now have a lasting legacy, and will be detailed in our children's and grandchildren's U.S. history books.

In the writing of this history, two words must be weighed and understood. Appropriately, in my Webster's, the words are listed and defined on opposite sides of the same printed page. The first — courage — is "That quality of mind which meets danger … with calmness and firmness; the quality of being fearless." The second — cowardice — is "lack of courage, the state of being easily frightened."

Did the decision to torture our enemies evolve primarily from cowardice or courage?

• • •

The Star Tribune should be more careful with language.

Any reasonable person should know that the pilot's captors had no time for the niceties of civil society or international law. Surely what was done to him cannot fairly be called torture.

• • •

Michael Gerson, in his Dec. 11 column on the torture report, quotes a former intelligence officer: "If you have to worry about a new administration coming along 10 years down the road, making villains out of agency officials following the exact letter of the law, it is sobering. We think about it all the time."

1) If you fear you might be prosecuted for something in 10 years, that's generally a good indicator you might want to think it through and take full moral ownership of any actions you're contemplating.

2) This isn't about changing the rules 10 years down the road, it's about enforcing today's rules today. Torture is illegal under our Constitution and under the torture ban treaty we signed and ratified. As for the drone program's constitutionality: If executing unnamed civilians, with no charges, no trial, no due process, in secret, in any jurisdiction on the planet, on the president's whim alone, is not considered unconstitutional, we no longer take our Constitution seriously.

The reprinting of the Washington Post editorial ("A flawed spending bill from Congress," Dec. 12) does an injustice to those in multiemployer pension plans who are receiving retirement benefits.

I worked 26.5 years of hard labor at two different employers to earn my monthly benefit. Our contracts during many of those years had no wage increases in order to get the employers to agree to pay the pension increases. I also served as a trustee on that plan. We were 100 percent funded unless the stock market took a dive.

With the rule change going forward, past retirees will have to take a hit for the poor management of the plan or when the deregulation of the banks causes the economy to sour.

Multiemployer pension plans are first on the hit list, followed by government pensions and, finally, Social Security. I think the editors owe readers an apology.

It is mystifying to me that the editors of the Star Tribune saw fit to publish, in the opinion section no less, an article that seems more fantasy than reality ("Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow," Dec. 13). There must surely be more relevant topics more worthy of that space.