Readers write for Sept. 28, 2010

Given the information reported in the Sept. 25 front-page article "Terrorism probe prompts FBI raids," there seems to be a clear case of injustice.

A person's opposition to war is no grounds for suspecting them of having terrorism links.

Among the first rights guaranteed to us in our Constitution are freedom of speech, freedom to protest and freedom of assembly.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

If these no longer matter in the struggle to end terrorism, what law does apply?

HELEN RISSER, EDINA

• • •

Will any be arrested, much less convicted?

Or is this merely socialism's latest crime scene, a thinly veiled attempt to stifle what heretofore has been a right to dissent?

I hope the liberal media remembers to follow up on the "terrorism probe."

If the activists did, in fact, engage in illegal activity, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

On the other hand, if none is charged and convicted of criminal activity, then those responsible for the probe should be held accountable, complete with front-page coverage.

• • •

The article states that many items were taken as evidence.

One of the items allegedly confiscated was a picture of Martin Luther King Jr.

Is the memory of a man who preached only nonviolence considered subversive?

JIM DAHLGREN, Crystal

Ditching and pop-up drain tiles are very efficient at this. The field that has water standing in it this week will be dry in two weeks.

As for the cities that get flooded? Oh, well. The feds will pick up the tab.

MICHAEL N. FELIX, GRAND RAPIDS, MINN.

• • •

Considering the fact that Minnesota has experienced two "100-year" rains in 23 years, one might be led to believe that flood insurance might be a wise investment, unless you live on the top of the mountain.

• • •

I'm sure that Tea Party supporters have refused aid from FEMA.

They don't need government interference in their lives.

LINDA LARSON, Oakdale

I have two contradictory reactions to Karen Himle's near-censoring of the "Troubled Waters" documentary ("U-produced film is cleared for showing," Sept. 24). The first is to thank her. I probably would never have seen this film without all of the surrounding controversy. I can't wait to see it now.

Politically, this affair calls into question Independence Party gubernatorial endorsee Tom Horner's business connections. Is not Karen Himle the wife of Tom Horner's former business partner at Horner Himle public-relations firm? What behind the scenes bedfellows would Horner have as governor?

I agree with the Land Stewardship Project's executive director, George Boody, about Himle's fate. I think that public relations may not be her calling, given this fiasco. Plus, seeking her departure sends the right message: that this sort of thing will not be tolerated. But what scares me more are the financial pressures from the agriculture school that anyone who succeeds her will face.

GERRY TYRRELL, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

As a graduate and longtime supporter of the University of Minnesota, I was deeply disturbed and disappointed by the action of U Vice President Karen Himle in canceling the showing of the University-produced film "Troubled Waters: A Mississippi River Story."

I also believe that the immediate statement by President Robert Bruininks, whom I greatly admire, when asked to comment on this matter, that he has "every confidence in Vice President Himle and her integrity" was an insufficient response to the vice president's action, perhaps a result of his being in Morocco at the time of the incident.

I have always believed that a bedrock principle of a university is to further free speech and a robust exchange of ideas. I further believe our university in this instance has failed to uphold this principle.

The fact that the U has reversed its position and now will allow the film to be shown ameliorates the troubling initial censorship in part, but does not entirely resolve the matter.

Only when the U issues a statement fully explaining the basis for the decision to pull the film, and the reason for the reversal of this decision, will it have met its obligation to remedy its original error.

University of Minnesota students, faculty, alumni, and the general public are entitled to this information. The university can do no less.