Secret Service, Denver sued over convention plans
By Daniel J. Chacon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Originally published 11:57 a.m., May 2, 2008
Updated 11:46 p.m., May 2, 2008
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
The ACLU of Colorado filed a federal lawsuit Friday against the U.S. Secret Service and the city of Denver to ensure protesters can march and demonstrate within sight and hearing of delegates at the Democratic National Convention this August.
According to court documents and protest organizers, the city says it's been waiting on the Secret Service to disclose the security boundaries before it can act.
Protesters said the delay is hampering their planning efforts.
A spokesperson for the mayor's office disputed the assertions in the lawsuit.
"As we've promised all along, we will establish a parade route that will end within sight and sound of the convention," said Sue Cobb, the mayor's communications director. "There's a lot to take into account in planning that route, including coordination with safety and security planning and implications for transportation. "
In a statement, Denver City Attorney David Fine said no one has been denied a parade permit.
"No one has been denied the right to protest," Fine said. "In fact, you will see a vigorous exercise of free speech during the convention - in many ways and in many places."
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of a dozen national and state organizations, including Escuela Tlatelolco and the Recreate 68 Alliance.
Glenn Spagnuolo, a Recreate 68 organizer, said he is suspicious of the city and its motives.
"The city has employed a tactic that we like to call the 'scare them and un-prepare them' tactic, which is scare them that the protests are going to be violent, even though we've committed to nonviolence, and then make sure that we delay the process of giving permits out for the marches so they're unprepared," he said.
chacond@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5099
Comments
Posted by BirdonaWire on May 2, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Man was I ever stupid to have ever wanted this disastor to occur here in town. Every two-bit yahoo with an agenda thinks they have the right to stake a claim of our fair city. Recreate 68? Kiss my ass
Posted by Gene on May 2, 2008 at 12:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I never thought I would say; Thank you A.C.L.U..
Posted by rightwingnut on May 2, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gene,
Why?
Posted by SASQUATCH on May 2, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Break out the water cannons, tear gas, tazers, National Guard, hostage negotiators and arson supression specialists--here comes "R-68" and their jihadist insurgents. And just yesterday, the Florida insurgents promisted to "take it to the streets" if their Florida delegates are not seated in New Fallujah's Pepsi Center this August.
Burn, baby burn! Denver, August, 2008.
Posted by Scott on May 2, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Honey, break out the beer, popcorn and pretzels. The comedy show is about to start. It is being broadcast live from downtown Denver in August.
I agree with Gene. With the American Communist League United (ACLU) coming to the "rescue" of the loonies on the left we should have some circa 1968 DNC riots in downtown Denver. That will look really good for the general election.
Scott
Posted by Froward69 on May 2, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gene is one of those youlkals that is scared to death along with just about any right wing nutjob, that Democrats will pull off a successful nonviolent convention. as violence and rioting is their only hope to have any propaganda against the dems for the GE.
I for one hope NEITHER convention has any bloodshed, nor rioting.
The fascist neo-cons cannot say as much. they want to see riots to liven up their pathetic lives as American idol is boring this season.
Posted by freethought on May 2, 2008 at 1:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Scott, you need to live in a country with NO civil liberties. Seems that you like being told just exactly what to believe and what you can and cannot do. In fact, you had better check with your cable supplier to see if you can just pay for FOX network. "It's all the news you'll ever need."
Posted by NotChasB on May 2, 2008 at 1:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Does ACLU stand for All Crimminals Love Us or Anti Christian Litigation Unit? That atheistic and communist organization supports
any un-American behaviour that comes down the pike. They should be thrown in a Federal prison for treason and subversion of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Naturally they will defend the misfits and nuts in Re-create 68' and other leftwingnuts. After all they are the legal arm of the far left.
Posted by Scott on May 2, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
freethought,
I left the Navy after 5 years because I did not like anyone telling what to wear, when to get up, what to eat, etc.. In your little liberal head you need to realize that the ACLU only backs those that want to destroy the U.S. They have an aversion to people on both the left and the right (this excludes the wingnuts) that are trying to make/keep the U.S. as a free country. The American Communist League United (I love NotChasB's two names for it) is more akin to a left wing version of the Saudi religion police or the commie Chinese MSS. If you don't speak what they want you to speak you're thrown out.
Scott
Posted by Trythinking on May 2, 2008 at 1:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This just keeps getting better and better. At least they will all be in hybrids. Let's just hope that their Molotov Cocktails are made with renewable bio-fuels.
Posted by Froward69 on May 2, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ya know it would be interesting if say America adopted some laws restricting profit margins, religion, ANY Gun ownership, Fox news, and gas guzzling suvs.
watch as the Theocratic fascists run to the local ACLU office, to file litigation.
Posted by freethought on May 2, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Froward, do you mean restricting Republicans? The All-white Christian Lobbyist Union would be butting in the front of the line.
Posted by Trythinking on May 2, 2008 at 2:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Forward69,
You really don't get it do you. If America tried any of that the first response would be to grab a gun and defend it. You side runs to the ACLU every time someone puts up a nativity scene.
Posted by freethought on May 2, 2008 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Our side runs to the ACLU everytime "a government entity" puts up a nativity scene. You conservatives would not stand for Muslim displays of religion at your courthouse, now would you? When will you get it that you are not the only ones allowed to have freedom and choice?
Posted by Froward69 on May 2, 2008 at 2:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah Trythinking, and YOUR side resorts to violence to solve problems and wishes for riots at the Democratic convention.
Are we not a nation of Laws?
or unrestricted violence...
Posted by Scott on May 2, 2008 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
freethought,
This conservative has absolutely no problem if Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., wanted to put up their equivalent of a Nativity scene (or something that speaks of peace, brotherhood, etc.. NOT kill all of the non-believers) on the steps of City Hall.
Scott
Posted by Trythinking on May 2, 2008 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, I caught the you vs your as soon as I posted. Thanks. We are a nation of laws. Except of course immigration laws. But at some point people will push back and not through the ACLU.
Posted by Scott on May 2, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Froward69,
It's your side, R-68, etc., that is pushing to start the riots, etc.. Us conservatives are just going to sit back and watch the "show." So what's this about "Are we not a nation of Law?"? It seems that your fellow comrades in R-68, etc., want to riot to get their point across instead of using the rule of law.
Scott
Posted by freethought on May 2, 2008 at 2:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Scott, ha ha ha ha ha. Since when does the Nativity Scene depict peace or brotherhood? This pregnant woman was turned out at the inn and forced to stay with the animals while the king had set out to kill all of the little baby boys. Joyeux Noel!!! I am not sure if you would like to see my display of atheism, is that all of yours are torn down. Funny, but that is what freedom is all about. Am I wrong? Besides, where does the separation of Church and State fit in here? I am sure that it is one of those freedoms.
Posted by FlyfishDude52 on May 2, 2008 at 2:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I take real exception to the recreate 68 faction. To demonstrate is our constitutional right. That right does not extend to violence and vandalism. So what's the real problem?
Posted by Scott on May 2, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
freethought,
Try reading the entire story before you excrete your comments regarding a Nativity scene. For those of us who are Christians, we believe that Jesus was born to bring peace. Also, there is NO reference to "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. There are two clauses in it, one forbids the government from establishing a national religion (its call the establishment clause) and the other forbids the government from squelching religion (its call the freedom of clause). Again, you might try reading the entire Constitution instead of listening to MoveOn.org. So if each religion is allowed to put up a public display on public land, then the establishment clause is upheld. The government is not favoring one religion over another. If the government forbade all religions from putting up displays on public land then the government would be violating the freedom of clause.
Your comment about atheism reads as if you are calling atheism a ... gasp ... religion! If it is, then you are covered.
Scott
Posted by Scott on May 2, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
FlyfishDude52,
Two "real problems" here.
First is that R-68 is saying that they do not care what the laws are and that they want to recreate the mess that occurred in 1968, i.e. the riots in Chicago. If they were intent on peacefully demonstrating, then yes, they have the Constitutional right to demonstrate.
The second "real problem" with the City of Denver is that they want to (told to?) keep non-DNC sanctioned protests away from the Pepsi Center. We just can't have the political hacks (convention delegates) walk through a bunch of the fellow democrats who are protesting, now can we. The DNC wants to show party "unity" to everyone and protesters shatter that manufactured image. Similar to the May Day parades in Red Square. Other than the legitimate crowd control issues, like spilling over into the streets, the nuts that want to protest in front of the Pepsi Center should be allowed to do so.
Scott
Posted by freethought on May 2, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Scott,
1."The government is not favoring one religion over another." Since when?
2.Did I mention the Constitution when referring to separation of church/state?
3.When will you get it that you are not the only ones allowed to have freedom and choice? (I did not receive an answer to this earlier)
Posted by Froward69 on May 2, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
scott, freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion.
also recreate 68 is using words to be heard. bait actually. as the right Wants to "sit back and see Denver burn" with rushes encouragement of course.
then
this article IS ABOUT R-68 holding Denver to the rule of law... "ACLU sues for DNC protesters". um Hellooooooo!!!! I hear an echo.
or are you of the comprehension level of george bush
"AL-Queda determined to strike inside the United States"(pre 9-11-01)... thats right he was "reading my pet goat" upside down!!!
Posted by stuckiniowa on May 2, 2008 at 3:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
NotChasB - what exactly makes behavior "un-american?" If it is performed by an American, then it would american behavior. If it is done IN America (which technically includes all major landmass in the western hemisphere) it is also American behavior.
What about violent protesting is "un-American?" The revolutionary war was started by violent protest. Violent protest is most certainly an aspect of our history - and virtually every other modern open society. That doesn't make it desirable -- just -- American.
Posted by olsonmt on May 2, 2008 at 3:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Freedom FROM religion!? I don't remember reading that anywhere in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or Federalist Papers. The intent was to avoid a state church NOT to eliminate religion from public life. Regardless, Froward"69" is an appropriate name as you can't seem to tell your head from your asz!
Posted by Froward69 on May 2, 2008 at 3:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
olsonmt,
ah read supreme court rulings on the subject... LEARN something.
yes freedom FROM religion. Keep your pamphlets and superstition away from me... I have the right to believe in Vishnew if I choose. or the flying spaghetti monster for that matter. his noodley appendages touch us all...
or NONE of the above!!
cannot wrap your head around that can you.
Posted by Froward69 on May 2, 2008 at 3:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
olsonmt,
can you accept your own mortality? as I do? or do you need to believe I will be punished for my non belief. as you live forever?
Posted by Froward69 on May 2, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Freedom FROM religion... takes away tons of self imposed guilt.
Posted by blacksho89 on May 2, 2008 at 4:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Stuck: The Constitution guarantees "the Right of the People to peacefully Assemble".
Therefor VIOLENT demonstration is not Constitutionally protected.
THIS Republican wants PEACEFUL demonstrators on the steps of the Pepsi Center (and the convention center in Minneapolis for the Republican convention). And if Re-Create 68 gets violent, jail time for them. They may shout and swear all they want, but may not touch another person or cause property damage.
Froward: Perhaps your argument could be taken more seriously if you could actually spell. Of course, you are still wrong, but you might be a bit more believable.
Posted by olsonmt on May 2, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Teach me oh wise one. Give me some of those rulings that support your position. I'll gladly read them.
Froward69, the fact is I have the right to offend you. I have the right to mock you. I even have the right to flaunt my religion in your face every moment you are in public if I so choose. Thus you have no real right of freedom FROM religion. Your right is to IGNORE religion. It is not your right to keep me or others from expressing a faith.
You have the right to be an atheist. You do not have the right to silence a mojority of varying faiths who happen to disagree with you. As such, if the majority's elected governemnt chooses to allow religious symbols on public property to honor the religous history of this county (as affirmed by your dear Supreme Court) then you have no complaint here.
You seem to advocate open and, if necessary, unlawful protest. Then you turn around and mock the open expression of religious faith. The only difference I can see is that you agree with one group but disagree with the other. Thankfully, my rights are not granted by you.
Posted by freethought on May 2, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You go, froward69. If a Christian were able to sit back and count the number of times that a reference is made to "god" in each day they would be amazed. I'm not just saying the Pledge of Allegiance or prayers used to open government meetings, but the "thank god"s, the "Oh, my god"s, the "god bless"s, the "god willing"s and "god damn"s. Let's mention also the "for christ's sake"s and "what would jesus do's. We (atheists) have to endure all the "angel" and "heaven" bullsh*t too. You pray before athletic events, play productions and graduations. You pray as you send young men and women to fight in wars, wheather they believe or not. I apoligize if my non-religion offends you, but deal with what I deal with daily. You, you and your majority!
Posted by olsonmt on May 2, 2008 at 4:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Those without morality have no guilt. I'll accept any guilt I have becasue I've probably earned it. I also accept my mortality, and I realize a religious faith is not for everyone. I see many problems with established religion, but on the whole, it makes for better people and communities. I don't trust people who are only concerned about themselves and only doing what feels good.
Posted by Froward69 on May 2, 2008 at 4:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
well blacksho89, I agree peaceful demonstrations are preferred. thats been my stance all along. however to actively say one hopes to see riots is advocating violence. no matter what the reason.
It infuriates me to read about how someone "dreams" of seeing Denver burn. why? just to (hopefully) influence an election. If ones party cannot win without a riot... that party is not worth belonging to.
Posted by freethought on May 2, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Morality is not something strictly related to religion. I have seen many religious people who seem to have no marality and many atheists who have quite a lot. Again the idea that only the good know the good book and those that don't are bad. Many "moral" religious people see nothing wrong in torture, war, death penalty, funeral protest or hurting abortionists. Many atheists see these as being immoral.
Posted by frontpage on May 2, 2008 at 4:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wouldn't worry about any of these protest demonstrations. The demonstrater of 2008 is so very different that the activist of '68.
In 1968, the activist wasn't concerned about seein his mug on T.V. or his/her rants being published (read blogs), his or her future was important to them, but they didn't recognize the hurdles of saving enough retirement monies like todays kids recognize. today's activist's recognize (read intelligence) they can't screw up too much so as to get charged with felonies, or get brand themselves as unhireable in todays corpaorate ( read background check) world. Sure there are always the "live as I want", "no body is my master" enlighten ones, but even they gotta have bills to pay and a 6:00PM dinner reservation at the trendy local watering hole.
the 1968 activist got to Chicago in a VW bus for $50 and bag of weed. The 2008 activist already has his plane reservation, an SUV car rental, a night at the DIA Motel 6 and access to their favorite $4 prescription at the local Walmart.Heck, we just encouraged them more by letting the Koreans work 7 days a week selling them liquor too.
Posted by Froward69 on May 2, 2008 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
yes freethought, it astonishes me, as to just how immoral Born again Christians actually are. they feel that if they ask for forgiveness of Jesus every day, it becomes a free pass to walk all over others.
back to the article, this proves that R-'68 wants to be heard following the rule of law. not starting a riot just for propaganda purposes. or to discredit any political party.
truth is those kids are disenfranchised. Hopefully they will become positively active and included in the festivities. wouldn't that be fun watching Democrats close ranks (inclusively). thus watching rush squirm like he has run out of oxycontin?
Posted by frontpage on May 2, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Woops, sorry bout that last line quip about the liquor store owners. But it adds to my point that the activist of 2008 have so much more to be concerned with than 1968. Their lives, just are so much more structured than any us 40 years ago. They can talk a good role, but they can't play it out.
Posted by Seabreezes on May 2, 2008 at 5:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The only thing that saddens me is that we adults in Denver (more or less) cannot hold a real, intelligent conversation without resorting to vile attacks on one another. We expect from our elected leaders the respect we will readily deny each other. Come August, I think I'll stay home and hope my city doesn't burn down around me.
Posted by kathyM on May 3, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wonder what took the ACLU so long. I thought they'd be first on the whining bandwagon when everyone and his brother didn't get a permit.
Just because R68 asked the ACLU to sue doesn't mean it intends to "follow the rule of law"--they're just using it to further their own ends.
Posted by vudumom on May 4, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Your right kathyM, I was wondering what took them so long also. Isn't this the same group who held a press conference to tell the people and government of Denver that they were setting up a tent city in Civic Center Park? They were also inviting people to join them and have a love in followed by everyone getting nude to spell out the word Peace with their bodies? If they do those thing they are breaking a few laws of Denver and Colorado. So they are intent with or without the ACLU to start trouble. That is their main goal.I think they have rethought their position and want to get closer to the candidates so they can get closer to the national and world news organizations to get their love in and nude Peace symbol on TV around the world.
Posted by bropous on May 5, 2008 at 12:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"freethought", not an atheist, but an anti-religion bigot. Proof from his own words:
"I am not sure if you would like to see my display of atheism, is that all of yours are torn down. Funny, but that is what freedom is all about. Am I wrong?"
You ARE as wrong as the day is long. Freedom for you does NOT mean that you get to take away the freedom of the other guy, but in typical liberal fascist mindset, you can't be happy in your own expression unless you've limited the expression of those whom you hate.
As for Spagfonguolo and the Recreate 68'ers, I only hope that if they do riot, they get their skulls cracked open by the police before they can "riot, loot and resist".
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.