Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Secret Service, Denver sued over convention plans

By Daniel J. Chacon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published May 2, 2008 at 11:57 a.m.
Updated May 2, 2008 at 11:46 p.m.

Text size  

Related Stories

More Protests and Demonstrations

More stories »

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

  • May 2, 2008

    12:32 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    BirdonaWire writes:

    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

  • May 2, 2008

    12:40 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    rightwingnut writes:

    Gene,
    Why?

  • May 2, 2008

    1:19 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Scott writes:

    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

  • May 2, 2008

    1:44 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Scott writes:

    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

  • May 2, 2008

    1:45 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Newenergycommie writes:

    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.

  • May 2, 2008

    2:04 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Newenergycommie writes:

    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.

  • May 2, 2008

    2:29 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Scott writes:

    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

  • May 2, 2008

    2:31 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Newenergycommie writes:

    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.

  • May 2, 2008

    2:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Scott writes:

    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

  • May 2, 2008

    2:41 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    FlyfishDude52 writes:

    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?

  • May 2, 2008

    2:47 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Scott writes:

    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

  • May 2, 2008

    2:58 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Scott writes:

    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

  • May 2, 2008

    3:22 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    stuckiniowa writes:

    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.

  • May 2, 2008

    3:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    olsonmt writes:

    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!

  • May 2, 2008

    4:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    blacksho89 writes:

    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.

  • May 2, 2008

    4:02 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    olsonmt writes:

    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.

  • May 2, 2008

    4:13 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    olsonmt writes:

    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.

  • May 2, 2008

    4:36 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    frontpage writes:

    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.

  • May 2, 2008

    4:47 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    frontpage writes:

    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.

  • May 2, 2008

    5:26 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Seabreezes writes:

    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.

  • May 3, 2008

    1:50 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    kathyM writes:

    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.

  • May 4, 2008

    7:51 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    vudumom writes:

    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.