Our local news just did a story on the danger many underground tunnels could pose for the Republican National Convention this fall. According to St. Paul employees, many tunnels lead downtown and touch the foundations of secured buildings. The fear is, if someone knew what they were doing, they could use the tunnels to pose an unusual kind of security threat to those at the convention.

Apparently Boston (site of the 2004 DNC) faced a similar problem. St. Paul Poice Assistant Chief Matt Bostrom looked at what they did to figure out what police should do here.

"It wasn't a surprise. We're not the first. We were able to look at what Boston did too, and secure those access points," Bostrom said. "Because the international media lens is on us, we cannot afford any missteps so from a security standpoint we really have to do our homework."

I'd honestly not thought of the threat of underground tunnels. That doesn't mean no one else had, but when I first saw the story, I wondered why they were giving so much attention to a place that was not yet secure. It's like those expose's on airport security. If it's true that some airports aren't secure, and now everyone knows about it because "Dateline" did a report, isn't that equivalent to giving a criminal a map that lays out how and where to commit his next crime?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think ignorance is bliss and I appreciate investigative reporting, but it should be done with some respect toward this country's security.

See the story here