The Hill
Thursday, November 20, 2008
SEARCH
Home
HillTube
Mobile
White Papers Portal
New Member Guide
BLOGS
Pundits Blog
Congress Blog
Blog Briefing Room
NEWS
Leading The News
Business & Lobbying
K Street Insiders
John Breaux
John Engler
Vin Weber
Dave Wenhold
The Executive
Campaign 2008
Endorsements '08
COLUMNISTS
Dick Morris
A.B. Stoddard
Brent Budowsky
Ben Goddard
David Hill
David Keene
Josh Marshall
Mark Mellman
Jim Mills
Markos Moulitsas (Kos)
Byron York
COMMENT
Editorial
Letters
Op-eds
Weyant's World
CAPITAL LIVING
Today's Stories
50 Most Beautiful 2008
Other Features
In The Know
Bookshelf
Food & Drink
Onward and Upward
Hillscape
RESOURCES
Classifieds
Subscribe
Order Reprints
Last Six Issues
Useful Links
RSS


Home arrow Editorial arrow Denver gets ready
Editorial PDF Print E-mail
Denver gets ready
Posted: 06/17/08 04:59 PM [ET]

Police in Denver are laying in stocks of weaponry like pepper spray, assorted projectiles and other equipment to help them should they, as expected, need to disperse protesters this August in the streets outside the Democratic National Convention.

The security preparations, reported by the Rocky Mountain News, suggest that at least some in the city expect a torrid four days. Denver authorities, who received $50 million in federal money to pay for operations due to the convention, will not say what they are spending the money on, although Mayor John Hickenlooper says half the funds will go toward equipment.

Hickenlooper’s reticence is understandable. If security forces reveal how they are spending money to prevent disturbances, those people bent on creating disturbances will have a better idea of how to foil efforts to keep the peace. Municipal authorities say it would be “contrary to the public interest” to give out details of their preparations.

This seems so obvious that it should not need to be stated. But, naturally, the American Civil Liberties Union does not see it that way and is suing for greater disclosure under the Colorado Open Records Act. We’ll let the courts decide what the act does or does not require, but common sense (which is not necessarily the same thing) dictates that the police should not have to reveal operational details in advance.

It will doubtless be argued that the country’s citizenry is entitled to know how it is being policed. This is true. But it is humbug to deny that protesters do not frequently see themselves as pitted against the police, and it is therefore disingenuous to argue that disclosure of security preparations amounts to the minimum transparency required by an open and democratic society.

Modern political protest frequently devolves into a game of cat and mouse. Protesters bent on getting their point(s) across by being as disruptive as possible confer in advance to decide the best way to get around efforts to contain them. Security forces confer in advance — D.C.’s security forces are lending their expertise to Denver and to St. Paul, Minn., in preparation for the conventions — to try and make sure their efforts are not thwarted.

The police try to find out what the protesters are planning, and vice versa. Neither side can be expected to give its plans away. That is what used to be known as unilateral disarmament.

 

 
 
 
BLOGS
ADVERTISER
Home | Privacy Policy | Terms And Conditions
The Hill
1625 K Street, NW Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax

The contents of this site are © 2008 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc.