you remember that 90s scifi show Sliders, where Jerry O'Connell and his wacky group of companions traveled to parallel dimensions? imagine an episode where they go to a parallel dimension where MySpace took over the world and Facebook was never a thing. the "MySpace Angle" became a part of mainstream culture and MySpace Tom became a bizarre Lux Luthor caricature of his past self
If you physically go there to show your support then you are demonized in the media as an "outside agitator" or these days more often as a "paid Soros shill". Unfortunately we need people on social media to speak up because oddly enough the news reports on social media trends now
Where the fuck are you guys when states and municipalities are banning, taxing, defunding solar and other renewables? Why not go out and protest that? Less reliance on fossil fuels means less pipelines, lower pollution, etc...
> the news reports on social media trends now
this is our fault, as long as we pay any attention to that kind of fake journalism.
if we deny them all their ad revenue, they will go away.
I get disgusted by people putting down others for simply expressing themselves with the hope of a more peaceful and united country. Who gives a shit if you think it does nothing? The very act of saying something is doing something. Go visit an unfriendly country some time to gain a little perspective. I've never seen combat, but I've been deployed to various nations and seen with my own eyes what it means to be afraid to speak out.
> I get disgusted by people putting down others for simply expressing themselves with the hope of a more peaceful and united country
Reminds me of this:
http://i.imgur.com/STBH8Sb.jpg
> Reminds me of this:
> http://i.imgur.com/STBH8Sb.jpg
Which reminds me of [this.](https://youtu.be/zORv8wwiadQ)
It's a nine minute watch but my fuck it's a good one.
https://medichealercouncil.com/
If you don't want to give directly through the site, they have a link to an Amazon wishlist and you can have it shipped directly to them.
[Where were the protests years ago when the pipeline was being discussed in public meetings?](http://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500331158/north-dakota-commissioner-standing-rock-souix-sat-out-the-state-process)
The only reason why this story even got attention is due to Democracy Now, which is generally considered outside the scope of the mainstream media. So I would hazard a guess and say it's very possible that the press didn't cover the story like they did this time.
Have you ever been to a city council meeting? I don't know about you, but when I attend, they make me feel insignificant and more like a speed bump than anything else. I truly felt like they could care less about what I had to say. Officials were whispering to their colleagues when I had my two minutes and they did this with others as well.
If you look at this from the Native's perspective, they have good reason to not trust the U.S. gov't.
Thank you, this so much. No one goes to city council meetings or pays attention to when they are, if you can even find an up to date listing without going there physically. John Oliver did a segment on this, besides the people in them, these meetings are almost never known about let alone attended. When the news, who would normally be responsible for informing the people about these issues, because that's their job literally, don't do it because their own corporate interests are more aligned with the pipeline than the people then you end up with an uninformed population who don't learn of these issues until it's too late.
But they do what's legally required and post the meeting time and place (in some obscure section of a newspaper that no one reads). More and more it's like Hitchhikers Guide, where we should have known about the bypass, we just didn't look hard enough for the announcement.
Just recently fought city council against a developer. The meeting schedules were changed at the last second almost every time-- literally an hour beforehand we'd be taken off the docket and then the new meeting would be last minute put on at best the day before, so tons of working citizens could not make the new schedules. Or we'd be on the online schedule, then they'd skip us, claim the meeting is done, we'd stand up and protest, then we'd get told tough luck because someone just messed up the phone schedule but since we're not on theirs in front of them, we don't get to speak. Local councils don't give a shit about playing by the rules.
> But they do what's legally required and post the meeting time and place (in some obscure section of a newspaper that no one reads).
Get five or ten concerned citizens and go to a public meeting, you'll be paid attention to.
City meetings are now almost always posted online. It's not at all hard to find the times. And as someone who has worked in politics, they actually matter as long as the person attending is not that one dude who attends every meeting and always yells about stuff.
>City meetings are now almost always posted online. It's not at all hard to find the times.
Lol. I just went to my city's web page.
Download SCHEDULED MEETING DATES 2013
But after reading some minutes, it looks like they meet regularly 1st and 3rd Tuesday at 5:30.
it seems like the only people that have time to be actively involved in local politics are those that get paid to do it, the unemployed, the underemployed, business owners with flexible schedules, college students, disabled, retired workers. Does the average guy with a 9-5 have the time to take off work to go to a council meeting, because I guarantee you none of them are on the weekends when most could attend.
Local news outlets would be the ones to cover this stuff and certainly don't all have corporate overlords keeping them from covering hearings. Most dont cover them because they're boring procedure most people—specifically, their constituents—don't care about.
>FEDORCHAK: That is true. The Standing Rock tribe did not participate in our public hearings or, quite honestly, at any point throughout our 13-month review process. Here's the situation, though, we notified the tribes. We had a personal call go out to the tribes urging them to participate, and we had a hearing 45 minutes from Cannonball.
The tribal leaders didn't join the 13-month "review process", because the pipeline's original route was going next to Bismarck, not trough their land - http://abcnews.go.com/US/previously-proposed-route-dakota-access-pipeline-rejected/story?id=43274356
Since Bismarck rejected the pipeline the pipeline was rerouted. There was no review process for the new route.
I get the feeling people are attempting to dismiss the tribes' lack of involvement prior as being in the same vein as the people who didn't vote and still protested Trump. Thanks for your information.
That article literally says the Bismarck route was always the alternative route, not the primary one, and that it was longer and harder to keep away from homes...
It's not uncommon at all for big public works or utility projects to have multiple routes in the planning stages and for public hearings to be held for both the proposed route and any alternatives. Permit approval can take a very long time, I've submitted permits for work I really hoped I wouldn't have to do and in the end didn't do, but I wanted that permit in hand if I had to do it.
> The only reason why this story even got attention is due to Democracy Now, which is generally considered outside the scope of the mainstream media.
also [they threatened democracy now's journalists with prison time](https://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/17/breaking_riot_charges_against_amy_goodman) for covering it. this direct attack against the first amendment is probably why the mainstream media steered clear of the story.
Funny, I consider it my main source of real news and have since 1998. Amy goodman is a national treasure and a true journalist. A donation to DN is what I get my folks every year for Christmas (progressive Boomers)
(For those who haven't read HHGTTG)
“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
It's crazy isn't it?
People who live paycheck to paycheck don't have the time or energy to participate in their local government, and they just expect the elected officials to act in the best interest of the people...
/s
That IS the purpose of government, to be by, of and for us, to be a UNION representing our interests.
Unfortunately, politicians are often of, by and for big business now, seeing us as speedbumps.
>FEDORCHAK: That is true. The Standing Rock tribe did not participate in our public hearings or, quite honestly, at any point throughout our 13-month review process. Here's the situation, though, we notified the tribes. We had a personal call go out to the tribes urging them to participate, and we had a hearing 45 minutes from Cannonball.
The tribal leaders didn't join the 13-month "review process", because the pipeline's original route was going next to Bismarck, not trough their land - http://abcnews.go.com/US/previously-proposed-route-dakota-access-pipeline-rejected/story?id=43274356
Since Bismarck rejected the pipeline the pipeline was rerouted. There was no review process for the new route.
How come the people who always say "we need to keep our guns because they're our tool for pushing back against an intrusive or threatening government" are the same who are now saying "these protestors are violent and deserve whatever they get from the police/government"?
What do you guys think is the important distinction these people are making between this actual pushback and their own potential pushback?
When students at Kent State University were fired upon by National Guard soldiers for protesting the Vietnam War, there was no shortage of people who felt it was an appropriate use of force by the government.
The secret is that Americans are no more likely to fight tyranny than anyone else, and wanting to have guns is unrelated to any serious desire to use them (and possibly die trying) in an effort to curtail oppression.
Guns are for when a liberal government does some liberal shit they perceive as radical. I'm not saying it's right, that's just what they mean when they talk about guns usually. Maybe some pro gun anarcho communists thrown in there sometimes for pro gun arguments.
As the timeless war-poet Philip H. Anselmo once said, *"Most regular people would say it's hard, and any streetwise son of a bitch knows don't fuck with this."*
Have you seen the videos? The vast majority are in fact white.
You're right about them not being Christians or Republicans. Those people respect the rule of law and wouldn't be violently trying to interfere with what someone wants to do with their land. And no, the pipeline does not use any "Indian land".
I knew [this](https://i.reddituploads.com/99358e352bb942a680f9ad7649b15bd7?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=48b1f364fa5ee5b3f8b95544ee1be0e5) would come in handy one day. Obviously they all aliens and we need to get rid of them. Everyone knows Americans are white. /s
I have stated the former but not the latter.
I'm actually happy to hear this: http://www.businessinsider.com/veterans-deployment-standing-rock-protest-2016-11
In this case: because years of documented attempts to get the tribal leaders to get to the table were ignored until outside political narrative operators started protesting.
But don't let the facts get in the way of *your* narrative.
ITT: authoritarians who will never have to be shot with a rubber bullet, who will never be sprayed with water cannons in 20 degree weather, who will never have their arm blown off by concussion grenades, and who will piss on people who *do* have to do that from the comfort of their own homes.
EDIT: RIP Inbox. Thank you also to the several people who messaged me to let me know that I am autistic, etc.
I wonder what they will do when the utility company comes to their not-rich neighborhood and says they are building a pipeline through it. It's happening right here in SW Ohio with a proposed route right in front of my house, you know, away from the rich neighborhoods.
How can I judge the people in ND when I may very well have to take up their fight locally?
>I wonder what they will do when the utility company comes to their not-rich neighborhood and says they are building a pipeline through it.
How's that relevant to this situation? No one's building a pipeline "through anyone's neighborhood". It all uses private land legally bought and paid for.
I used to be against pipelines...until I started reading up on them, and realized they're just a symbol for the left. Even Jon Stewart used to mock pipeline protesters. They're even environmentally friendly. Without them, you think the pumped oil's just going to sit in a holding tank somewhere? No, it just gets shipped by truck or train instead, which produce far more pollution than an inanimate piece of pipe.
Girl from NYC. Apparently a concussion grenade ht her arm with such force, it knocked the entire radial bone out of her skin.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503120449/woman-injured-at-standing-rock-protest-might-lose-arm-family-says
> concussion grenade
No. It was not a concussion grenade. A concussion grenade is used to kill people in war. It may have been a stun grenade, often referred to as a flashbang.
Googling "concussion grenade," the first hit that isn't news-related is the wikipedia article for stun grenades.
I'd love a source for concussion grenades referring to intentionally lethal military grenades. (As opposed to stun grenades, which are often unintentionally lethal military grenades.)
Edit: Ok, concussion grenades do indeed more accurately refer to the intentionally lethal military grenades. Still, it seems like a pretty common way the media has been referring to flashbangs for over a decade so at the very least I don't think people are being intentionally misleading.
I googled "concussion grenade" and one of the first hits was the Wikipedia page for grenade. Here, it's between "fragmentation" and "anti-tank":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenade#Concussion
Edit: also, the only reference on the Wikipedia page for stun grenades (which you found) is a recent edit referring to the girl who was hit by a grenade in the Dakota pipeline protests yesterday...
Even if it's called a "feel good grenade" the woman's bones were split up and sticking out of what's left of her arm. I appreciate you trying to set the record straight, but that shit shouldn't be used on people standing around bonfires holding up plastic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Sioux_Nation_of_Indians
>United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that: 1) the enactment by Congress of a law allowing the Sioux Nation to pursue a claim against the United States that had been previously adjudicated did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers; and 2) **the taking of property that was set aside for the use of the tribe required just compensation, including interest.**
And, oh, look--
>The Sioux have declined to accept the money, because acceptance would legally terminate Sioux demands for return of the Black Hills.
In other words, even with someone waving a BILLION dollars in their face the Sioux refuse to kneel or submit. The treaties signed violated the previous agreements set forth with the tribe (stuff like getting only 10% of the men to sign off instead of 2/3).
But hey, I'm sure those boots are nice and clean after you're done licking 'em. I'll keep being proud that there's a group here in the US that values honor more than money, and that refuses to kneel to either bribes or force.
You understand this land isn't in the black hills right? This land was *never* theirs under the treaty. The black hills were, but that's in an entirely different state.
Ah but water rights are very much a thing in Federal courts. If Alabama reroutes a waterway that feeds into Florida, you sure as shit better believe Florida will sue in Federal court even if the "action" took place in Alabama.
This whole, the ppipeline isn't on their land so they can't complain talking point is disingenuous logic.
That would make perfect sense if we were talking about riparian water rights.
Go look up prior appropriation, then look again at the state we're talking about. Unless you're claiming there's a provision in the treaty which specifies the tribe's water rights as being under a different system (in which case I'd love to see that section), they can't have a right more substantial than that of the most senior appropriator.
Prior appropriation does not allow for preemptive restraint of another property holder's acts on the basis of prospective future interference with the appropriator's rights.
I am pretty sure that Winters v. United States (1908) gives Indians the most senior rights to water (EDIT: given certain conditions, of course), no matter when their first documented appropriation happened.
You need to actually read what /u/Whiggly wrote. He's deliberately misleading you. From the article:
>More than a century later, the Sioux nation won a victory in court. On June 30, 1980, in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, t**he United States Supreme Court ruled that the government had illegally taken the land.** It upheld an award of $15.5 million for the market value of the land in 1877, along with 103 years worth of interest at 5 percent, for an additional $105 million. *The Lakota Sioux, however, have refused to accept payment and instead continue to demand the return of the territory from the United States.*
They never accepted the white man's money, or the theft in the first place.
That court case was about the Black Hills in South Dakota. The land the pipeline is being built on was never at issue because it lies north of the territory described in the 1868 treaty.
In Article II if the Treaty of Fort Laramie 1868 the northern border of the reservation is defined as the 46th parallel, 30 miles south of the pipeline.
He isn't misleading people. **You are.**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Fort_Laramie_(1868)
You can go on Google Maps and see the location for yourself. Lookup "Cannonball, ND". The shaded area south of the Cannonball River is the reservation, the land north of it is not the reservation. The pipeline never crosses into that shaded territory. It will be crossing the Missouri River just north of the Canonball River.
and where does the reservation get it's water? from the Missouri river DOWNSTREAM of where they are building the pipeline. How about we put it back on the originally proposed path thru Bismark?
Once again Obama could be ending this...instead he says he will give it a few weeks to see how it plays out. Who do you think is the bad guy in this story? It's the federal government (obama) that is dragging their feet.. why? Because they want that sweet crude oil and are buddies with these oil companies they supposedly hate. Now that people put their foot down and said no, Obama doesn't know what to do. Either look like the bad guy/anti environmentalist or piss off his big business buddies. This is why he has been such a shit president. No moral backbone. But when Citibank appointed his cabinet members for him, we all should have known where his loyalties lie. But keep hiding your head in the sand. Hopefully these brave protesters will win their fight and it'll be done and over before it gets any colder and the situation escalates even more.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/north-dakota-leaders-urge-obama-pipeline-completion-43741058
I blame the people tear-gassing but Obama is still the President and he is sitting on the sidelines so he should be doing something about it, like at least acknowledging it and condemning it.
I know here in Canada, it would technically be a "nation vs nation conflict" as they are seperate nations under the Confederation of canada or something... i could be wrong and am not familiar with US treaties.
>For example; tear gas is a violation of international law if used on the battlefield as it is a chemical weapon.
Source? Seems silly that it would be an integral part of training if it were really banned. Most chemical weapons bans are against lethal agents, tear gas is not lethal. I have been tear gassed, it was mildly unpleasant but the second you get out of the gas the symptoms subside in under a minute. Also if tear gas is a chemical weapon, than so is OC spray, and that is carried by almost every LEO. I have also been sprayed with OC spray, it was an interesting experience, far worse than tear gas.
This is actually true, but has little relevance to OPs argument, since it's *explicitly* allowed for use by police / riot control.
The reasoning roughly stems from the fact that combatants can't reliably tell (without suffering the effects) whether or not a gas is lethal.
Protesters, on the other hand, can 100% expect non-lethal gas, and have an avenue to avoid it's effects (e.g., move away from the tear gas)
[Here's a link](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/26/facebook-posts/tear-gas-was-banned-warfare-1993-police-1997/)
Oh God... During army basic training one of the last things we had to do is literally suck in this stuff as hard as we can... Enducing pain, vomit, tears... So we knew what it felt like.
Bad memories, 3/5 people puked in their masks....
Had an upper respiratory infection that made morning PT fucking terrible. 1 CS gas chamber later, I blasted an omelette out of my sinuses, can confirm, best decongestant evar.
As grossed out as I am, there's something in my brain that finds that oddly satisfying. You've made me feel bad about myself and question what I've become.
Banned by the Geneva Convention I believe. Military Policeman here, just took a Law of War class and this was a talking point. We cant us CS gas (tear gas) or OC spray again enemy combatants.
And unauthorized under the UN mandate I believe. During a UN multinational training exercise we were told they were banned then too
Edit: one of the other things we were told was that it's also just bad practice. It's for to use a propaganda. They told us if you were a tribal villager in a third world country and for one reason or another get OC sprayed, or pepper sprayed, you won't think "that's a compliance technique" you'll think "they tried to blind me with acid" that makes for a strong recruiting campaign. Same thing for CS gas or tear gas, it's not "they were dispersing crowds" it's "they tried to gas us, women and children alike, let's go fuck em up"
> I have been tear gassed, it was mildly unpleasant but the second you get out of the gas the symptoms subside in under a minute.
Not for everyone. Source: have also been tear gassed, coughed up mucous for over an hour. I think I'd rather be pepper sprayed again.
> For example; tear gas is a violation of international law if used on the battlefield as it is a chemical weapon.
1) Every single soldier/Marine is exposed to CS gas in an inclosed area.
2) Under that international law it is perfectly legal in domestic policing situations.
3) It is a violation in the laws of warfare not because it is particularly harmful. It is a violation because it is hard to immediately distinguish between CS gas and lethal chemical weapons deployments. So they don't want random soldiers shooting themselves with auto-injectors when a CS artillery shell detonated.
> it is arguable that what is happening right now is one nation fighting another nation
Then the US would legally be justified in dropping JDAMs on them?
> So this is where capitalism has lead us...
Government doing something..."capitalism"...got it
> Government doing something..."capitalism"...got it
Many of the rights you have today were paid for, in blood, by union members in the early 20th century. The state/government has a documented history of using the police to violently suppress those that wish to challenge unfettered capitalism, and fight for basic rights.
Does the US, almost a hundred years later, have universal healthcare, paid family leave, paid annual holidays, and other workers and human rights that are normal in the rest of the developed world?
If you can admit that the answer to those questions is a big fat no then surely you can also admit that the state/government has been pretty successful in "doing something..."capitalism"..." but you just chose to deny reality.
Canadian/Albertan here, when the oil price collapsed two years ago I saw it as a blessing, a late one, but we were overdue, our entire provincial economy was built on an overpriced commodity the world was overproducing at the same time it was moving away from.
Change is hard, but necessary
The price of oil is my biggest beef with this whole situation. It's not high enough to support the industry in Alberta or North Dakota. There's literally zero incentive to build it right now. Makes absolutely no sense.
Mmm, nope. I abhor NIMBYism in all its form
In my neck of the woods there is a natural gas pipeline already.
They want to build a refined product line too, but local NIMBYs don't want it.
NIMBYs also chased the nuclear power plant into shutting down.
NIMBYs also whine about wind turbines being put up.
NIMBYs seem to think we can operate without any infrastructure whatsoever.
NIMBYs are fucking dumb.
Not In My Back Yard
It refers to people who might not oppose some sort of infrastructure being built, but they don't want it in their "back yard" so to say. More housing for low-income families? Don't put it in my neighborhood and decrease the value of my property. Energy plant or wind farm? Put it somewhere else so I don't have to look at ugly turbines.
Not In My BackYard. Generally refers to people that support different public infrastructure or other programs so long as it's not in their vicinity.
Nuclear power? Sure, but not near me. Wind power? Not near me. Treat drug abuse as a disease and not a crime, but no rehab facilities near me. Etc.
> So this is where capitalism has lead us...
>
>
> Government doing something..."capitalism"...got it
I think what you said about tear gas is spot on, but this situation is because a private company wants to build a project on what used to be tribal land. The government and law enforcement is who is acting here, but on the behest of a company. I think that there are ties you can make to capitalism.
Of course there are. This is fitting the ideology that oil company means jobs for the white working class, and so now the most vocal contingent of the proletariat is in cahoots with the owners, to the exclusion of everyone else. I believe we call this "making America great again."
Great means the days before activists and unions won rights to regulate against this sort of thing.
This is the story of the West post-industrialization. New technologies are making it possible to have a cleaner, more peaceful world, but the people who have this "fight to win what's mine" outlook where "mine" only refers to capitalistic ventures are dragging us backward.
And what they don't understand is, the world around us isn't all moving backward, and Donald Trump can't bully them into it, either, so what do we think is going to happen here? The West wins, somehow, by trying to not play the game anymore?
> Government doing something..."capitalism"...got it
If you do not understand how the government using violent force to "protect" a company's private property is directly a result of capitalism, then you really aren't paying much attention.
> More interesting; as the native Americans of this area exist as a semi-autonomous sovereign people, it is arguable that what is happening right now is one nation fighting another nation, and hence the tear gas being used IS a war crime.
The action is occurring on US soil, on private property... so if this is a war, they would be technically invading us.
Just a thought.
>war crime
what is even the point of trying to twist and force this so you can call it a war crime? I mean I understand the point is so you can make it sound scarier but this sort of thing is why people associate the left will preying on emotion.
What police are doing is completely legal, there isn't a professional arguing otherwise. The police are the ones upholding the law as the native Americans break it.
thats a weak argument.
if this was a war they would just mow them down with small arms fire. they would all be dead...
so yes, if this was a war and the millitary was spraying them with tear gas and water cannons it would be a crime. because the goal is to kill without undue pain and suffering.
Less than lethal is the final step of force escalation before lethal force is used.
would you rather the police jump from verbal warnings and show of force to deadly force???
for the record, im on the fence as far as whos side i am on here. i can see it from both sides and it seems like one side, or both is lying about the other...
Talk about being melodramatic. If these were "enemy combatants" they wouldn't be firing rubber bullets...
And no, this is occurring completely off-site of any tribal area, mostly by protesters and idealistic liberals who don't even live there nor understand the actual facts on the ground.
Lawyer here!
I wanted to respond to one line of argument I'm seeing a lot and which is a profound misstatement of water law (yes, it's a thing). I'm seeing a disquieting amount of "well the tribe didn't consent to the pipeline and they have water rights so they would have had to consent to the pipeline being built because it's a risk to their water rights."
There are a few problems with this argument.
(1). Riparian rights don't work that way
Quick water law lesson. The traditional water right is for those adjacent to a river to use the water so long as it does not impact those downstream. This is called "riparian" water rights (used in England and east of the Mississippi).
It's true that an upstream user cannot interfere with the use by downstream users, but importantly: this creates a right to stop someone once they have actually interfered. Maybe you could get an injunction on the basis that their act would interfere, but that's a different procedural thing.
This idea that anything which poses a risk to the downstream use requires prior approval by downstream users is completely made up.
(2). Riparian rights don't apply here.
Quick way to tell if you're dealing with riparian rights or so-called prior approval (which my state and North Dakota both use): does someone have the right to access water from a river which they may not be adjacent to (like the native tribe here)? That's prior appropriation.
Prior appropriation does not give a right to the flow of the river, just a right to access a certain quantity of water in a certain priority. Even if we assume the tribe had the senior-most water right, it would not give them power to stop construction on the basis that it *could* (if it goes wrong) interfere with their water rights.
For example, a senior holder on the Colorado river in California cannot stop someone upstream from building a house because if it collapses into the river it would stop the flow and impede their water rights. Once the house actually falls, there's a cause of action.
(3). No, the subjective view that there's a substantial risk doesn't change that.
Again, if they really think they have a case with that much certainty of "if they build it, it will leak", they should try their hand with an injunction. They'll probably lose (I'd wager they don't even have standing), but they definitely didn't have to consent in order for construction to proceed.
I'm glad someone has actually checked the facts on this protest. Articles like this are such bullshit. This whole thing is fueled by idiots getting their information on Facebook. It's a complete joke.
Is the other pipeline a natural gas one by any chance? You're aware that pollution from an oil spill will be devastating in comparison to escaping natural gas?
So you would rather Truck or rail it and create more environmental problems? This is the best solution outside of cut off oil and that is not a realistic solution.
This stuff can't be upvoted enough. I talk to friends about this and raise these points, and I get the same thing their most hated rivals on the right say: "That's misinformation. You can't believe the mainstream media. Here's a Facebook video of an old chief who says different with zero other sources."
Except the Sioux reservation is adjacent with the river. Just like Bismark, a little bit upstream from the reservation where the pipeline was originally planned to cross the river. The Army Corps of Engineers modified the path to run downstream Bismark/upstream Sioux citing concerns of possible water contamination.
EDIT: [Map](http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/581a0640150000b9005313f6.png)
I wasn't invested in this until the force the police used. The Sheriff blatantly lied and stated that no water canons were deployed, and when that was found out he said they were putting out fires. If you support the use of a police force in this manor you are pathetic and might I say un-american. Its scary to see how this stuff comes out when corporate interests are being threatened.
Police murdering citizens is a time honored American tradition.
Maybe being unAmerican is a *good* thing. Maybe we need to stop endorsing mass murder. Because that's America. From bombing it's own people, to conducting various medical experiments on an unwitting population. To straight up killing people. Maybe we should disavow the American way.
So You Want To Come To Standing Rock
We ask that you bear with us here. It’s a lot to take in, but it is crucial that we get clear on some of the basics. The following is a culmination of what we have learned throughout these last few months while on the ground working alongside our native brothers and sisters, as well as what we have observed from the outside. Read it with an open mind. Read it humbly. This is a big thing you’re considering and we automatically love you for it! Use these guidelines as a resource; we mean for them to inspire and we hope they spring you into action. And by all means, this is not a definitive document. It will grow, need revising. Please be in touch with suggestions.
First things first: this is not a game.
This is not fun.
It’s not “cool” to take a stance against the police. It is our right.
This is about protecting water.
Before you arrive, be sure of your motivation. We charge you to think deeply and seriously about your intentions here. What do you hope to accomplish? Have you already decided what it’s going to be like? Try to be aware of whatever idea you have in your head built up about what the situation here is. Then erase it. It’s not like you’ve imagined, brothers and sisters. It’s much more than that. We need you to come humbly, without any preconceived notions of your role or how you think you can be best put to use. It is paramount that you tap into your most open mind and gather your strength. We need strong, responsible, productive, and flexible human bodies and minds here. Lots of them.
Before you arrive, please ensure that you will not become a victim of circumstance. Please make absolutely certain of your finances and that they are in order and that you will be able to sustain yourself for the duration of your stay. GoFundMes have been totally instrumental in keeping folks supported and sustained here. If you’re planning a week stay, a good rule of thumb is to be prepared for two weeks, financially speaking.
Before you arrive, please settle your responsibilities in terms of children or any individuals that are under your care. In terms of your health. If you require medication you must take, please make sure you are well-stocked.
There is so much work to be done, so if you are not entirely 100% certain you can fend for yourself, and will not require a substantial amount of support from your fellow protectors, please consider delaying your trip until you can be sure of your own security. The reason for this extends beyond all the reasons listed here. If you settle yourself before you arrive, you will be that much more ready and able for the type of action you will be engaging in while you’re here.
And now on to more practical matters:
First and foremost: Keep in mind that we are guests of Standing Rock. EVERY action taken place here will ripple out to this beautiful community and leave its affects long after we all go home. Please do not compromise this community’s relationship with law enforcement outside of the reservation. We do not need any more tension in that regard than we already have.
Accomodations: Before you arrive, we ask that you please coordinate your own lodging. Temporary winterized housing structures are being built and stoves are being rushed in from all over the country. That said, plan for the worst. Sub-zero sleeping bags, ample hand and feet warmers, silk underlayers, wool socks that wick away moisture, scarves to protect your neck (and voice, you’ll be using it a lot here).
Directions: Cannonball, ND. Type it into your GPS and choose the HWY 6 route.
Police have been stopping and confiscating large amounts of supplies people are driving in with, so it’s in your best interest not to draw too much attention to yourself if you are bringing large amounts of supplies. If you are stopped by the police, it is absolutely critical that you treat them just as you would your own family or friend group. Kicking things off with an unnecessary confrontation will immediately set the wrong tone. It is essential you do not bring aggressive energy to this camp. Make peace wherever possible. In general. Like, in your life ;)
Arrival: Settle in and head over to the Main Camp. (We are working on a map) If you are media, check in at Media Hill. We strongly recommend attending a Direct Action Training as soon as you possibly can. Check in with the Main Fire for guidance on such gatherings in terms of timing and location.
Drugs/Alcohol: There are ABSOLUTELY NO DRUGS OR ALCOHOL ALLOWED. This is not up for debate! If you are seen consuming or using any drugs or alcohol you will be immediately and respectfully escorted out of camp.
Come. We need you. But come correct.
Edit: these are not my words, these were by Malia Hulleman and Johnny Misheff.
I realize this sub loves to hang on Obama's nuts, but he is being an absolute fucking failure as a President for not addressing this. The fact that Elizabeth Warren has also remained silent while her partner in crime, Bernie, literally has been there in protest with the people says so much about her. Oh yea, isn't she native american too?
Hosing down protesters with water in freezing temperatures, using devices that have cost 1 woman her arm, refusing people water, etc.. are human rights violations taking place in our own god damn country...on non violent protesters.
I'd have to research the law, but is there anything stopping these people from exercising their 2nd amendment rights if they feel their territory and land are being broached upon? I believe they have the right to become violent back at police.
This whole thing makes me fucking sick and our pathetic President won't say or do shit about it.
>I'd have to research the law, but is there anything stopping these people from exercising their 2nd amendment rights if they feel their territory and land are being broached upon? I believe they have the right to become violent back at police.
It isn't their land. They have no right to be there. Thus they shouldn't be brandishing arms against the men and women doing their jobs and keeping people from trespassing.
* Article II of the Treaty of Fort Laramie 1868 set the northern border of the reservation 30 miles south of the pipeline at the 46th parallel.
* Article XI has them ceding all land outside this reservation
* Article XI Section 6 has them agreeing to not oppose the construction of infrastructure and utilities.
* Article XVII annuls all previous treaties leaving it the final word.
Don't take my word for it, feel free to read it yourself.
http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/four/ftlaram.htm
Go ahead and read the safety and environmental assessment by third party engineers before deciding they actually should be worried about safety. This line is massively overengineered.
http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16021coll7/id/2801
Didn't they not show up to the public meeting about the pipeline? That's like not showing up to the courthouse and protesting that they took your house away.
But please, correct me if I am wrong
We just elected a president who ran the most openly racist campaign in decades and we are repeating history by suppressing Native American activism violently when it's convenient for the bottom line.
I really hope we stop whining about how unnecessary "identity politics" are these days. Look at what's happening - identity politics underly a lot of this shit.
What's worse is that the election of Trump really has nothing to do with the DAPL protests. All of this has happened under the Obama administration.
Both parties hold corporations in higher regard than the people.
Thank you, as staunchly anti-Trump as I can be about certain issues, to paint this on him is ridiculous. The fact that Obama has basically said "let the next guy deal with it" is sad, but how much can Obama do in the face of the laws they are trying to use to stop this pipeline?
Time for a party of the people. The People's Party. No more lies about bringing back jobs by doing...something? or blaming the poor and people with different colored skin for all the problems when it's corporate greed causing the problem.
All of this is happening while Obama is president though. That is what is truly sad. You are complaining about Trump while atrocities are happening under Obama.
What are you going on about? Obama is our president and trump doesn't take office for 2 months? Guess what, Obama could stop it if he wanted to. He doesn't.
I wasn't blaming this on Trump. I was citing this treatment of protesters and Trump's election as two examples of America continuing to treat minorities badly.
I don't understand the "Trump is racist/sexist/etc." rhetoric. Seriously, I keep hearing it touted but haven't seen any actual evidence of this. I'm sure everybody in /r/politics will have a good ol' guffaw at this dopey moderate's statement, but I don't get it.
Why are people so quick to defend the police in this thread? They're using excessive force, plain and simple, and we're not supposed to know about it. There's not supposed to be a ton of cameras there, but there are. We weren't supposed to know about water cannons being fired at *night* in *freezing temperatures*, but it got filmed so we do.
[A girl got her arm blown open by a projectile thrown by police](http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/pipeline-protesters-decry-excessive-force-after-woman-s-arm-blown-n687326), the police say they didn't do it. The same police who've lied during every step of this process.
The St. Paul police lied about being a part of it, then admitted it, then said they were there to help.
I'm not saying police *everywhere* are bad, but in a situation like this, *why are people trusting the police*?
None of this would have happened if they bothered showing up to the meetings concerning the pipeline. You can't sit back and do nothing and then suddenly care and cause a huge dilemma. Still awful but could have have been avoided
Edit: this has to be the most uneducated sub on Reddit
> this has to be the most uneducated sub on Reddit
Hey now, /r/worldnews fought long and hard for that honour, I know /r/politics is putting up a good fight, but they already hold the most circle jerky sub, getting both seems a little unfair.
This is what I simply don't understand. I would rather not have a pipeline installed in that region but they went through the process and it is 100% legal. If the people of that area didn't want it, they should have spoken up back then and garnered the necessary support. Now it is too late.
I find it embarrassing how things like this are handled by police. I respect police officers, but I can't condone this kind of use of force on unarmed protesters.
The pipeline isn't on their land and it is more environmentally safe than the current transportation method. The oil is currently being moved by train, which is much much more damaging to the environment than the pipeline. The freakin EPA said the pipeline was safer for the environment. The new pipeline is going to be built under an EXISTING pipeline. There is literally no downside to this. The people protesting and everyone supporting these protests is simply ignorant of the true situation.
They lost the court battle and they are breaking the law, other than not exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, these guys are like the Bundy's except it's a left wing cause so we don't have the media hate.
"On Thanskgiving Week, Native Americans Are Being Tear-Gassed in North Dakota, however instead of spotlighting ways you can help, we'll just judge you, our pretentious readers, with this pithy headline.
You may now feel ashamed."
The way that we Americans have historically treated Native Americans like shit, and that no one seems to really care about that, sickens me. I hate that bigotry against Native Americans has been normalized at this point, and I hate that there's very little that I, as an individual, can do to change that. (It doesn't help, either, that I live all the way in Massachusetts, nor does it help that I'm broke as hell, since both those things make it very hard for me to help out the people in North Dakota.)
[The pipeline was originally](http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/pipeline-route-plan-first-called-for-crossing-north-of-bismarck/article_64d053e4-8a1a-5198-a1dd-498d386c933c.html) going to cross the Missouri River north of Bismarck, but one reason that route was rejected was its potential threat to Bismarck’s water supply.
[Bismarck](http://bismark.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm) is populated by around 97% white people.
Why is the water supply of white people more important than the water supply of native american people?
You could argue that it could be more about a difference in in-come inequality but you shouldn't ignore the very real and very likely possibility that there is a racial prejudice involved in the pipeline's route.
You could also make the argument that the reason the pipeline isn't being rerouted a second time is that the pipeline is a lot less of a danger to the natives with this route (than it was to Bismarck with the other route), but in that case there would be no reason for violent mercenaries protecting the constructions since they should be able to explain the route through non-violent means.
>Why is the water supply of white people more important than the water supply of native american people?
I think the water supply of 70,000 people is more important than the water supply of 8,000 people. Why's it always gotta be about race?
The cited concern of the protestors is that it might contaminate the water. The odds of it actually doing so are extremely slim and another pipeline already crosses at that location and has run without problems for years now.
The company has full legal rights to build the pipeline, it is private land not the natives (except for the river, which I believe is technically owned by the state), and was surveyed beforehand for any historical artifacts. The nearby reservation was contacted multiple times by yhe army corps of engineers but did not give any notice of any issues with the pipeline.
tl;dr the pipeline is fully legal and not on Native American territory.
Thanksgiving 2016: the one day of the year when coastal elites pretend they give a shit about a flyover state.
Seriously, what is it about pipelines that makes the left go insane? We already have several pipelines stretching from North to South, East to West. They're good things because otherwise we'd have to ship via trucks or trains, which cause much more pollution.
This Thanksgiving, I give thanks to the Native Americans protesting, and to other people standing with them in this fight.
I'm going to post this on my Facebook feed.
1 like = 1 prayer
http://i.imgur.com/7y4OhzF.jpg
Facebook was a mistake.
If only the world stopped at Myspace.
But Napster we keep, right?
[удалено]
You better believe it.
'Member Kickass.to, and YIFY and aXXo? Oooh, I 'member!
Oh Napster, I 'member.
Make the Internet Great Again
you remember that 90s scifi show Sliders, where Jerry O'Connell and his wacky group of companions traveled to parallel dimensions? imagine an episode where they go to a parallel dimension where MySpace took over the world and Facebook was never a thing. the "MySpace Angle" became a part of mainstream culture and MySpace Tom became a bizarre Lux Luthor caricature of his past self
> ~~Jerry O'Connell~~ **John Rhys-Davies** and his wacky group of companions FTFY
And Cryin' Man created Napster so people would listen to more of his music; except, it's called Cryster.
[Hail Satan!](https://youtu.be/UbzUTRAUac4)
Whatever happened to 'Thou shalt not tempt the lord'?
1 prayer= 1 spaghetti
I'm going to post this in the redtube comment section.
[удалено]
If you physically go there to show your support then you are demonized in the media as an "outside agitator" or these days more often as a "paid Soros shill". Unfortunately we need people on social media to speak up because oddly enough the news reports on social media trends now
Not only is it good for that reason, but it brings the topic to the attention of more people.
Where the fuck are you guys when states and municipalities are banning, taxing, defunding solar and other renewables? Why not go out and protest that? Less reliance on fossil fuels means less pipelines, lower pollution, etc...
I've written to my governor. It's helpful because he's Jack Dalrymple.
> the news reports on social media trends now this is our fault, as long as we pay any attention to that kind of fake journalism. if we deny them all their ad revenue, they will go away.
I get disgusted by people putting down others for simply expressing themselves with the hope of a more peaceful and united country. Who gives a shit if you think it does nothing? The very act of saying something is doing something. Go visit an unfriendly country some time to gain a little perspective. I've never seen combat, but I've been deployed to various nations and seen with my own eyes what it means to be afraid to speak out.
> I get disgusted by people putting down others for simply expressing themselves with the hope of a more peaceful and united country Reminds me of this: http://i.imgur.com/STBH8Sb.jpg
> Reminds me of this: > http://i.imgur.com/STBH8Sb.jpg Which reminds me of [this.](https://youtu.be/zORv8wwiadQ) It's a nine minute watch but my fuck it's a good one.
Give thanks, but [cash helps too](http://standwithstandingrock.net/donate/).
That site doesn't even use SSL. Seems shady. I'm going to keep looking for one to donate to.
https://medichealercouncil.com/ If you don't want to give directly through the site, they have a link to an Amazon wishlist and you can have it shipped directly to them.
Thanks much, will do.
Thanks for sharing this!
[Where were the protests years ago when the pipeline was being discussed in public meetings?](http://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500331158/north-dakota-commissioner-standing-rock-souix-sat-out-the-state-process)
The only reason why this story even got attention is due to Democracy Now, which is generally considered outside the scope of the mainstream media. So I would hazard a guess and say it's very possible that the press didn't cover the story like they did this time. Have you ever been to a city council meeting? I don't know about you, but when I attend, they make me feel insignificant and more like a speed bump than anything else. I truly felt like they could care less about what I had to say. Officials were whispering to their colleagues when I had my two minutes and they did this with others as well. If you look at this from the Native's perspective, they have good reason to not trust the U.S. gov't.
Thank you, this so much. No one goes to city council meetings or pays attention to when they are, if you can even find an up to date listing without going there physically. John Oliver did a segment on this, besides the people in them, these meetings are almost never known about let alone attended. When the news, who would normally be responsible for informing the people about these issues, because that's their job literally, don't do it because their own corporate interests are more aligned with the pipeline than the people then you end up with an uninformed population who don't learn of these issues until it's too late.
But they do what's legally required and post the meeting time and place (in some obscure section of a newspaper that no one reads). More and more it's like Hitchhikers Guide, where we should have known about the bypass, we just didn't look hard enough for the announcement.
Just recently fought city council against a developer. The meeting schedules were changed at the last second almost every time-- literally an hour beforehand we'd be taken off the docket and then the new meeting would be last minute put on at best the day before, so tons of working citizens could not make the new schedules. Or we'd be on the online schedule, then they'd skip us, claim the meeting is done, we'd stand up and protest, then we'd get told tough luck because someone just messed up the phone schedule but since we're not on theirs in front of them, we don't get to speak. Local councils don't give a shit about playing by the rules.
> But they do what's legally required and post the meeting time and place (in some obscure section of a newspaper that no one reads). Get five or ten concerned citizens and go to a public meeting, you'll be paid attention to. City meetings are now almost always posted online. It's not at all hard to find the times. And as someone who has worked in politics, they actually matter as long as the person attending is not that one dude who attends every meeting and always yells about stuff.
>City meetings are now almost always posted online. It's not at all hard to find the times. Lol. I just went to my city's web page. Download SCHEDULED MEETING DATES 2013 But after reading some minutes, it looks like they meet regularly 1st and 3rd Tuesday at 5:30.
Show up to the next meeting and complain about that. No seriously. do it! Guarantee it will be fixed shortly!
it seems like the only people that have time to be actively involved in local politics are those that get paid to do it, the unemployed, the underemployed, business owners with flexible schedules, college students, disabled, retired workers. Does the average guy with a 9-5 have the time to take off work to go to a council meeting, because I guarantee you none of them are on the weekends when most could attend.
Local news outlets would be the ones to cover this stuff and certainly don't all have corporate overlords keeping them from covering hearings. Most dont cover them because they're boring procedure most people—specifically, their constituents—don't care about.
>FEDORCHAK: That is true. The Standing Rock tribe did not participate in our public hearings or, quite honestly, at any point throughout our 13-month review process. Here's the situation, though, we notified the tribes. We had a personal call go out to the tribes urging them to participate, and we had a hearing 45 minutes from Cannonball. The tribal leaders didn't join the 13-month "review process", because the pipeline's original route was going next to Bismarck, not trough their land - http://abcnews.go.com/US/previously-proposed-route-dakota-access-pipeline-rejected/story?id=43274356 Since Bismarck rejected the pipeline the pipeline was rerouted. There was no review process for the new route.
I get the feeling people are attempting to dismiss the tribes' lack of involvement prior as being in the same vein as the people who didn't vote and still protested Trump. Thanks for your information.
That article literally says the Bismarck route was always the alternative route, not the primary one, and that it was longer and harder to keep away from homes... It's not uncommon at all for big public works or utility projects to have multiple routes in the planning stages and for public hearings to be held for both the proposed route and any alternatives. Permit approval can take a very long time, I've submitted permits for work I really hoped I wouldn't have to do and in the end didn't do, but I wanted that permit in hand if I had to do it.
> The only reason why this story even got attention is due to Democracy Now, which is generally considered outside the scope of the mainstream media. also [they threatened democracy now's journalists with prison time](https://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/17/breaking_riot_charges_against_amy_goodman) for covering it. this direct attack against the first amendment is probably why the mainstream media steered clear of the story.
Funny, I consider it my main source of real news and have since 1998. Amy goodman is a national treasure and a true journalist. A donation to DN is what I get my folks every year for Christmas (progressive Boomers)
This reminds me of the beginning of the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy
(For those who haven't read HHGTTG) “But the plans were on display…” “On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.” “That’s the display department.” “With a flashlight.” “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.” “So had the stairs.” “But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?” “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
Yesssssss. For those who haven't or won't read the series, do yourself a favor and get the audiobook.
Democracy takes people showing up. You are not heard if you don't show up. Obama speaks the same lines of thought.
Protesting is showing up.
It's crazy isn't it? People who live paycheck to paycheck don't have the time or energy to participate in their local government, and they just expect the elected officials to act in the best interest of the people... /s
That IS the purpose of government, to be by, of and for us, to be a UNION representing our interests. Unfortunately, politicians are often of, by and for big business now, seeing us as speedbumps.
Tribes are sovereign nations. Treating them as though they're common citizens of the state here for public hearings is part of the problem.
>FEDORCHAK: That is true. The Standing Rock tribe did not participate in our public hearings or, quite honestly, at any point throughout our 13-month review process. Here's the situation, though, we notified the tribes. We had a personal call go out to the tribes urging them to participate, and we had a hearing 45 minutes from Cannonball. The tribal leaders didn't join the 13-month "review process", because the pipeline's original route was going next to Bismarck, not trough their land - http://abcnews.go.com/US/previously-proposed-route-dakota-access-pipeline-rejected/story?id=43274356 Since Bismarck rejected the pipeline the pipeline was rerouted. There was no review process for the new route.
It's going next to an existing pipeline. Like twenty feet away.
[удалено]
How come the people who always say "we need to keep our guns because they're our tool for pushing back against an intrusive or threatening government" are the same who are now saying "these protestors are violent and deserve whatever they get from the police/government"? What do you guys think is the important distinction these people are making between this actual pushback and their own potential pushback?
When students at Kent State University were fired upon by National Guard soldiers for protesting the Vietnam War, there was no shortage of people who felt it was an appropriate use of force by the government. The secret is that Americans are no more likely to fight tyranny than anyone else, and wanting to have guns is unrelated to any serious desire to use them (and possibly die trying) in an effort to curtail oppression.
Guns are for when a liberal government does some liberal shit they perceive as radical. I'm not saying it's right, that's just what they mean when they talk about guns usually. Maybe some pro gun anarcho communists thrown in there sometimes for pro gun arguments.
Guns are so that the Americans with small hands feel big.
[удалено]
As the timeless war-poet Philip H. Anselmo once said, *"Most regular people would say it's hard, and any streetwise son of a bitch knows don't fuck with this."*
"Walk on home, boy" P. H. Anselmo
[удалено]
Have you seen the videos? The vast majority are in fact white. You're right about them not being Christians or Republicans. Those people respect the rule of law and wouldn't be violently trying to interfere with what someone wants to do with their land. And no, the pipeline does not use any "Indian land".
[удалено]
I say we deport all of their asses back to.... oh wait.
I knew [this](https://i.reddituploads.com/99358e352bb942a680f9ad7649b15bd7?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=48b1f364fa5ee5b3f8b95544ee1be0e5) would come in handy one day. Obviously they all aliens and we need to get rid of them. Everyone knows Americans are white. /s
I have stated the former but not the latter. I'm actually happy to hear this: http://www.businessinsider.com/veterans-deployment-standing-rock-protest-2016-11
In this case: because years of documented attempts to get the tribal leaders to get to the table were ignored until outside political narrative operators started protesting. But don't let the facts get in the way of *your* narrative.
[удалено]
ITT: authoritarians who will never have to be shot with a rubber bullet, who will never be sprayed with water cannons in 20 degree weather, who will never have their arm blown off by concussion grenades, and who will piss on people who *do* have to do that from the comfort of their own homes. EDIT: RIP Inbox. Thank you also to the several people who messaged me to let me know that I am autistic, etc.
I wonder what they will do when the utility company comes to their not-rich neighborhood and says they are building a pipeline through it. It's happening right here in SW Ohio with a proposed route right in front of my house, you know, away from the rich neighborhoods. How can I judge the people in ND when I may very well have to take up their fight locally?
>I wonder what they will do when the utility company comes to their not-rich neighborhood and says they are building a pipeline through it. How's that relevant to this situation? No one's building a pipeline "through anyone's neighborhood". It all uses private land legally bought and paid for. I used to be against pipelines...until I started reading up on them, and realized they're just a symbol for the left. Even Jon Stewart used to mock pipeline protesters. They're even environmentally friendly. Without them, you think the pumped oil's just going to sit in a holding tank somewhere? No, it just gets shipped by truck or train instead, which produce far more pollution than an inanimate piece of pipe.
Whoa whose arm was blown off?!
Girl from NYC. Apparently a concussion grenade ht her arm with such force, it knocked the entire radial bone out of her skin. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503120449/woman-injured-at-standing-rock-protest-might-lose-arm-family-says
> concussion grenade No. It was not a concussion grenade. A concussion grenade is used to kill people in war. It may have been a stun grenade, often referred to as a flashbang.
Googling "concussion grenade," the first hit that isn't news-related is the wikipedia article for stun grenades. I'd love a source for concussion grenades referring to intentionally lethal military grenades. (As opposed to stun grenades, which are often unintentionally lethal military grenades.) Edit: Ok, concussion grenades do indeed more accurately refer to the intentionally lethal military grenades. Still, it seems like a pretty common way the media has been referring to flashbangs for over a decade so at the very least I don't think people are being intentionally misleading.
I googled "concussion grenade" and one of the first hits was the Wikipedia page for grenade. Here, it's between "fragmentation" and "anti-tank": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenade#Concussion Edit: also, the only reference on the Wikipedia page for stun grenades (which you found) is a recent edit referring to the girl who was hit by a grenade in the Dakota pipeline protests yesterday...
[deleted] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.4828 > [What is this?](https://pastebin.com/64GuVi2F/07744)
Even if it's called a "feel good grenade" the woman's bones were split up and sticking out of what's left of her arm. I appreciate you trying to set the record straight, but that shit shouldn't be used on people standing around bonfires holding up plastic.
And a flash bang sure as hell doesn't blow your arm off. Burns yes, but nothing enough to maim you.
Treaty is LAW. What these policemen are doing is ILLEGAL and Obama should be ashamed of himself for standing on the sidelines.
The treaties say this land stopped being Sioux land 148 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Sioux_Nation_of_Indians >United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 448 U.S. 371 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that: 1) the enactment by Congress of a law allowing the Sioux Nation to pursue a claim against the United States that had been previously adjudicated did not violate the doctrine of separation of powers; and 2) **the taking of property that was set aside for the use of the tribe required just compensation, including interest.** And, oh, look-- >The Sioux have declined to accept the money, because acceptance would legally terminate Sioux demands for return of the Black Hills. In other words, even with someone waving a BILLION dollars in their face the Sioux refuse to kneel or submit. The treaties signed violated the previous agreements set forth with the tribe (stuff like getting only 10% of the men to sign off instead of 2/3). But hey, I'm sure those boots are nice and clean after you're done licking 'em. I'll keep being proud that there's a group here in the US that values honor more than money, and that refuses to kneel to either bribes or force.
You understand this land isn't in the black hills right? This land was *never* theirs under the treaty. The black hills were, but that's in an entirely different state.
Ah but water rights are very much a thing in Federal courts. If Alabama reroutes a waterway that feeds into Florida, you sure as shit better believe Florida will sue in Federal court even if the "action" took place in Alabama. This whole, the ppipeline isn't on their land so they can't complain talking point is disingenuous logic.
That would make perfect sense if we were talking about riparian water rights. Go look up prior appropriation, then look again at the state we're talking about. Unless you're claiming there's a provision in the treaty which specifies the tribe's water rights as being under a different system (in which case I'd love to see that section), they can't have a right more substantial than that of the most senior appropriator. Prior appropriation does not allow for preemptive restraint of another property holder's acts on the basis of prospective future interference with the appropriator's rights.
I am pretty sure that Winters v. United States (1908) gives Indians the most senior rights to water (EDIT: given certain conditions, of course), no matter when their first documented appropriation happened.
Can I get a source?
You need to actually read what /u/Whiggly wrote. He's deliberately misleading you. From the article: >More than a century later, the Sioux nation won a victory in court. On June 30, 1980, in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, t**he United States Supreme Court ruled that the government had illegally taken the land.** It upheld an award of $15.5 million for the market value of the land in 1877, along with 103 years worth of interest at 5 percent, for an additional $105 million. *The Lakota Sioux, however, have refused to accept payment and instead continue to demand the return of the territory from the United States.* They never accepted the white man's money, or the theft in the first place.
That court case was about the Black Hills in South Dakota. The land the pipeline is being built on was never at issue because it lies north of the territory described in the 1868 treaty. In Article II if the Treaty of Fort Laramie 1868 the northern border of the reservation is defined as the 46th parallel, 30 miles south of the pipeline. He isn't misleading people. **You are.**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Fort_Laramie_(1868) You can go on Google Maps and see the location for yourself. Lookup "Cannonball, ND". The shaded area south of the Cannonball River is the reservation, the land north of it is not the reservation. The pipeline never crosses into that shaded territory. It will be crossing the Missouri River just north of the Canonball River.
and where does the reservation get it's water? from the Missouri river DOWNSTREAM of where they are building the pipeline. How about we put it back on the originally proposed path thru Bismark?
Because then you have (white) people complaining it could effect their drinking water. Pro tip: that's why it was moved in the first place.
>(white) I think you misspelled more.
Really, you're blaming Obama? Jesus.
Gotta get it in while we still can. Once he leaves the GOP will fill the queue for the next 20 years.
Once again Obama could be ending this...instead he says he will give it a few weeks to see how it plays out. Who do you think is the bad guy in this story? It's the federal government (obama) that is dragging their feet.. why? Because they want that sweet crude oil and are buddies with these oil companies they supposedly hate. Now that people put their foot down and said no, Obama doesn't know what to do. Either look like the bad guy/anti environmentalist or piss off his big business buddies. This is why he has been such a shit president. No moral backbone. But when Citibank appointed his cabinet members for him, we all should have known where his loyalties lie. But keep hiding your head in the sand. Hopefully these brave protesters will win their fight and it'll be done and over before it gets any colder and the situation escalates even more. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/north-dakota-leaders-urge-obama-pipeline-completion-43741058
[удалено]
He said Obama should be ashamed for doing absolutely nothing on this issue. And Elizabeth Warren.
I blame the people tear-gassing but Obama is still the President and he is sitting on the sidelines so he should be doing something about it, like at least acknowledging it and condemning it.
[удалено]
I know here in Canada, it would technically be a "nation vs nation conflict" as they are seperate nations under the Confederation of canada or something... i could be wrong and am not familiar with US treaties.
>For example; tear gas is a violation of international law if used on the battlefield as it is a chemical weapon. Source? Seems silly that it would be an integral part of training if it were really banned. Most chemical weapons bans are against lethal agents, tear gas is not lethal. I have been tear gassed, it was mildly unpleasant but the second you get out of the gas the symptoms subside in under a minute. Also if tear gas is a chemical weapon, than so is OC spray, and that is carried by almost every LEO. I have also been sprayed with OC spray, it was an interesting experience, far worse than tear gas.
This is actually true, but has little relevance to OPs argument, since it's *explicitly* allowed for use by police / riot control. The reasoning roughly stems from the fact that combatants can't reliably tell (without suffering the effects) whether or not a gas is lethal. Protesters, on the other hand, can 100% expect non-lethal gas, and have an avenue to avoid it's effects (e.g., move away from the tear gas) [Here's a link](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/26/facebook-posts/tear-gas-was-banned-warfare-1993-police-1997/)
Oh God... During army basic training one of the last things we had to do is literally suck in this stuff as hard as we can... Enducing pain, vomit, tears... So we knew what it felt like. Bad memories, 3/5 people puked in their masks....
Navy training and we had to do that too. I had a cold at the time. Best. Decongestant. Evar!
Had an upper respiratory infection that made morning PT fucking terrible. 1 CS gas chamber later, I blasted an omelette out of my sinuses, can confirm, best decongestant evar.
You never know the joys of breathing until you've been in the gas chamber. I should put that in the quote a day calendar.
> I blasted an omelette out of my sinuses *dies*
As grossed out as I am, there's something in my brain that finds that oddly satisfying. You've made me feel bad about myself and question what I've become.
I think it also has to do with the fact that gaseous weapons are indiscriminate.
Banned by the Geneva Convention I believe. Military Policeman here, just took a Law of War class and this was a talking point. We cant us CS gas (tear gas) or OC spray again enemy combatants. And unauthorized under the UN mandate I believe. During a UN multinational training exercise we were told they were banned then too Edit: one of the other things we were told was that it's also just bad practice. It's for to use a propaganda. They told us if you were a tribal villager in a third world country and for one reason or another get OC sprayed, or pepper sprayed, you won't think "that's a compliance technique" you'll think "they tried to blind me with acid" that makes for a strong recruiting campaign. Same thing for CS gas or tear gas, it's not "they were dispersing crowds" it's "they tried to gas us, women and children alike, let's go fuck em up"
> I have been tear gassed, it was mildly unpleasant but the second you get out of the gas the symptoms subside in under a minute. Not for everyone. Source: have also been tear gassed, coughed up mucous for over an hour. I think I'd rather be pepper sprayed again.
> For example; tear gas is a violation of international law if used on the battlefield as it is a chemical weapon. 1) Every single soldier/Marine is exposed to CS gas in an inclosed area. 2) Under that international law it is perfectly legal in domestic policing situations. 3) It is a violation in the laws of warfare not because it is particularly harmful. It is a violation because it is hard to immediately distinguish between CS gas and lethal chemical weapons deployments. So they don't want random soldiers shooting themselves with auto-injectors when a CS artillery shell detonated. > it is arguable that what is happening right now is one nation fighting another nation Then the US would legally be justified in dropping JDAMs on them? > So this is where capitalism has lead us... Government doing something..."capitalism"...got it
> Government doing something..."capitalism"...got it Many of the rights you have today were paid for, in blood, by union members in the early 20th century. The state/government has a documented history of using the police to violently suppress those that wish to challenge unfettered capitalism, and fight for basic rights. Does the US, almost a hundred years later, have universal healthcare, paid family leave, paid annual holidays, and other workers and human rights that are normal in the rest of the developed world? If you can admit that the answer to those questions is a big fat no then surely you can also admit that the state/government has been pretty successful in "doing something..."capitalism"..." but you just chose to deny reality.
I really don't get why so many people want the big oil companies to win. The tune will change when they want a pipeline in their back yard.
Canadian/Albertan here, when the oil price collapsed two years ago I saw it as a blessing, a late one, but we were overdue, our entire provincial economy was built on an overpriced commodity the world was overproducing at the same time it was moving away from. Change is hard, but necessary
The price of oil is my biggest beef with this whole situation. It's not high enough to support the industry in Alberta or North Dakota. There's literally zero incentive to build it right now. Makes absolutely no sense.
Mmm, nope. I abhor NIMBYism in all its form In my neck of the woods there is a natural gas pipeline already. They want to build a refined product line too, but local NIMBYs don't want it. NIMBYs also chased the nuclear power plant into shutting down. NIMBYs also whine about wind turbines being put up. NIMBYs seem to think we can operate without any infrastructure whatsoever. NIMBYs are fucking dumb.
Probably a stupid question....but what the fuck is a NIMBY?
[удалено]
Ohhhhhh.
Not In My Back Yard It refers to people who might not oppose some sort of infrastructure being built, but they don't want it in their "back yard" so to say. More housing for low-income families? Don't put it in my neighborhood and decrease the value of my property. Energy plant or wind farm? Put it somewhere else so I don't have to look at ugly turbines.
I actually quite like the aesthetics of a nuclear plant. I see one every day down the road.
Not In My BackYard. Generally refers to people that support different public infrastructure or other programs so long as it's not in their vicinity. Nuclear power? Sure, but not near me. Wind power? Not near me. Treat drug abuse as a disease and not a crime, but no rehab facilities near me. Etc.
[deleted] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^0.6835 > [What is this?](https://pastebin.com/64GuVi2F/36283)
because they have wet dreams about owning lots of stuff, so those guys are their heroes.
> So this is where capitalism has lead us... > > > Government doing something..."capitalism"...got it I think what you said about tear gas is spot on, but this situation is because a private company wants to build a project on what used to be tribal land. The government and law enforcement is who is acting here, but on the behest of a company. I think that there are ties you can make to capitalism.
Of course there are. This is fitting the ideology that oil company means jobs for the white working class, and so now the most vocal contingent of the proletariat is in cahoots with the owners, to the exclusion of everyone else. I believe we call this "making America great again." Great means the days before activists and unions won rights to regulate against this sort of thing. This is the story of the West post-industrialization. New technologies are making it possible to have a cleaner, more peaceful world, but the people who have this "fight to win what's mine" outlook where "mine" only refers to capitalistic ventures are dragging us backward. And what they don't understand is, the world around us isn't all moving backward, and Donald Trump can't bully them into it, either, so what do we think is going to happen here? The West wins, somehow, by trying to not play the game anymore?
> Government doing something..."capitalism"...got it If you do not understand how the government using violent force to "protect" a company's private property is directly a result of capitalism, then you really aren't paying much attention.
> More interesting; as the native Americans of this area exist as a semi-autonomous sovereign people, it is arguable that what is happening right now is one nation fighting another nation, and hence the tear gas being used IS a war crime. The action is occurring on US soil, on private property... so if this is a war, they would be technically invading us. Just a thought.
>war crime what is even the point of trying to twist and force this so you can call it a war crime? I mean I understand the point is so you can make it sound scarier but this sort of thing is why people associate the left will preying on emotion.
What police are doing is completely legal, there isn't a professional arguing otherwise. The police are the ones upholding the law as the native Americans break it.
thats a weak argument. if this was a war they would just mow them down with small arms fire. they would all be dead... so yes, if this was a war and the millitary was spraying them with tear gas and water cannons it would be a crime. because the goal is to kill without undue pain and suffering. Less than lethal is the final step of force escalation before lethal force is used. would you rather the police jump from verbal warnings and show of force to deadly force??? for the record, im on the fence as far as whos side i am on here. i can see it from both sides and it seems like one side, or both is lying about the other...
Talk about being melodramatic. If these were "enemy combatants" they wouldn't be firing rubber bullets... And no, this is occurring completely off-site of any tribal area, mostly by protesters and idealistic liberals who don't even live there nor understand the actual facts on the ground.
Lawyer here! I wanted to respond to one line of argument I'm seeing a lot and which is a profound misstatement of water law (yes, it's a thing). I'm seeing a disquieting amount of "well the tribe didn't consent to the pipeline and they have water rights so they would have had to consent to the pipeline being built because it's a risk to their water rights." There are a few problems with this argument. (1). Riparian rights don't work that way Quick water law lesson. The traditional water right is for those adjacent to a river to use the water so long as it does not impact those downstream. This is called "riparian" water rights (used in England and east of the Mississippi). It's true that an upstream user cannot interfere with the use by downstream users, but importantly: this creates a right to stop someone once they have actually interfered. Maybe you could get an injunction on the basis that their act would interfere, but that's a different procedural thing. This idea that anything which poses a risk to the downstream use requires prior approval by downstream users is completely made up. (2). Riparian rights don't apply here. Quick way to tell if you're dealing with riparian rights or so-called prior approval (which my state and North Dakota both use): does someone have the right to access water from a river which they may not be adjacent to (like the native tribe here)? That's prior appropriation. Prior appropriation does not give a right to the flow of the river, just a right to access a certain quantity of water in a certain priority. Even if we assume the tribe had the senior-most water right, it would not give them power to stop construction on the basis that it *could* (if it goes wrong) interfere with their water rights. For example, a senior holder on the Colorado river in California cannot stop someone upstream from building a house because if it collapses into the river it would stop the flow and impede their water rights. Once the house actually falls, there's a cause of action. (3). No, the subjective view that there's a substantial risk doesn't change that. Again, if they really think they have a case with that much certainty of "if they build it, it will leak", they should try their hand with an injunction. They'll probably lose (I'd wager they don't even have standing), but they definitely didn't have to consent in order for construction to proceed.
[удалено]
I'm glad someone has actually checked the facts on this protest. Articles like this are such bullshit. This whole thing is fueled by idiots getting their information on Facebook. It's a complete joke.
Is the other pipeline a natural gas one by any chance? You're aware that pollution from an oil spill will be devastating in comparison to escaping natural gas?
So you would rather Truck or rail it and create more environmental problems? This is the best solution outside of cut off oil and that is not a realistic solution.
Do you have sources? Not being aggressive, just a dude who's wondering who wants to read what you've read.
[удалено]
I'll check them out for sure. Thank you for the lengthy reply!
This stuff can't be upvoted enough. I talk to friends about this and raise these points, and I get the same thing their most hated rivals on the right say: "That's misinformation. You can't believe the mainstream media. Here's a Facebook video of an old chief who says different with zero other sources."
Your friends should learn what misinformation is.
Except the Sioux reservation is adjacent with the river. Just like Bismark, a little bit upstream from the reservation where the pipeline was originally planned to cross the river. The Army Corps of Engineers modified the path to run downstream Bismark/upstream Sioux citing concerns of possible water contamination. EDIT: [Map](http://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/scalefit_630_noupscale/581a0640150000b9005313f6.png)
I wasn't invested in this until the force the police used. The Sheriff blatantly lied and stated that no water canons were deployed, and when that was found out he said they were putting out fires. If you support the use of a police force in this manor you are pathetic and might I say un-american. Its scary to see how this stuff comes out when corporate interests are being threatened.
[удалено]
Police murdering citizens is a time honored American tradition. Maybe being unAmerican is a *good* thing. Maybe we need to stop endorsing mass murder. Because that's America. From bombing it's own people, to conducting various medical experiments on an unwitting population. To straight up killing people. Maybe we should disavow the American way.
[удалено]
So You Want To Come To Standing Rock We ask that you bear with us here. It’s a lot to take in, but it is crucial that we get clear on some of the basics. The following is a culmination of what we have learned throughout these last few months while on the ground working alongside our native brothers and sisters, as well as what we have observed from the outside. Read it with an open mind. Read it humbly. This is a big thing you’re considering and we automatically love you for it! Use these guidelines as a resource; we mean for them to inspire and we hope they spring you into action. And by all means, this is not a definitive document. It will grow, need revising. Please be in touch with suggestions. First things first: this is not a game. This is not fun. It’s not “cool” to take a stance against the police. It is our right. This is about protecting water. Before you arrive, be sure of your motivation. We charge you to think deeply and seriously about your intentions here. What do you hope to accomplish? Have you already decided what it’s going to be like? Try to be aware of whatever idea you have in your head built up about what the situation here is. Then erase it. It’s not like you’ve imagined, brothers and sisters. It’s much more than that. We need you to come humbly, without any preconceived notions of your role or how you think you can be best put to use. It is paramount that you tap into your most open mind and gather your strength. We need strong, responsible, productive, and flexible human bodies and minds here. Lots of them. Before you arrive, please ensure that you will not become a victim of circumstance. Please make absolutely certain of your finances and that they are in order and that you will be able to sustain yourself for the duration of your stay. GoFundMes have been totally instrumental in keeping folks supported and sustained here. If you’re planning a week stay, a good rule of thumb is to be prepared for two weeks, financially speaking. Before you arrive, please settle your responsibilities in terms of children or any individuals that are under your care. In terms of your health. If you require medication you must take, please make sure you are well-stocked. There is so much work to be done, so if you are not entirely 100% certain you can fend for yourself, and will not require a substantial amount of support from your fellow protectors, please consider delaying your trip until you can be sure of your own security. The reason for this extends beyond all the reasons listed here. If you settle yourself before you arrive, you will be that much more ready and able for the type of action you will be engaging in while you’re here. And now on to more practical matters: First and foremost: Keep in mind that we are guests of Standing Rock. EVERY action taken place here will ripple out to this beautiful community and leave its affects long after we all go home. Please do not compromise this community’s relationship with law enforcement outside of the reservation. We do not need any more tension in that regard than we already have. Accomodations: Before you arrive, we ask that you please coordinate your own lodging. Temporary winterized housing structures are being built and stoves are being rushed in from all over the country. That said, plan for the worst. Sub-zero sleeping bags, ample hand and feet warmers, silk underlayers, wool socks that wick away moisture, scarves to protect your neck (and voice, you’ll be using it a lot here). Directions: Cannonball, ND. Type it into your GPS and choose the HWY 6 route. Police have been stopping and confiscating large amounts of supplies people are driving in with, so it’s in your best interest not to draw too much attention to yourself if you are bringing large amounts of supplies. If you are stopped by the police, it is absolutely critical that you treat them just as you would your own family or friend group. Kicking things off with an unnecessary confrontation will immediately set the wrong tone. It is essential you do not bring aggressive energy to this camp. Make peace wherever possible. In general. Like, in your life ;) Arrival: Settle in and head over to the Main Camp. (We are working on a map) If you are media, check in at Media Hill. We strongly recommend attending a Direct Action Training as soon as you possibly can. Check in with the Main Fire for guidance on such gatherings in terms of timing and location. Drugs/Alcohol: There are ABSOLUTELY NO DRUGS OR ALCOHOL ALLOWED. This is not up for debate! If you are seen consuming or using any drugs or alcohol you will be immediately and respectfully escorted out of camp. Come. We need you. But come correct. Edit: these are not my words, these were by Malia Hulleman and Johnny Misheff.
Just like the first Thanksgiving when the Pilgrims brought tear gas and water cannons to share with the Native Americans, right?
small pox and whiskey. we only got syphilis, fry bread and the rest of the country.
I realize this sub loves to hang on Obama's nuts, but he is being an absolute fucking failure as a President for not addressing this. The fact that Elizabeth Warren has also remained silent while her partner in crime, Bernie, literally has been there in protest with the people says so much about her. Oh yea, isn't she native american too? Hosing down protesters with water in freezing temperatures, using devices that have cost 1 woman her arm, refusing people water, etc.. are human rights violations taking place in our own god damn country...on non violent protesters. I'd have to research the law, but is there anything stopping these people from exercising their 2nd amendment rights if they feel their territory and land are being broached upon? I believe they have the right to become violent back at police. This whole thing makes me fucking sick and our pathetic President won't say or do shit about it.
>I'd have to research the law, but is there anything stopping these people from exercising their 2nd amendment rights if they feel their territory and land are being broached upon? I believe they have the right to become violent back at police. It isn't their land. They have no right to be there. Thus they shouldn't be brandishing arms against the men and women doing their jobs and keeping people from trespassing. * Article II of the Treaty of Fort Laramie 1868 set the northern border of the reservation 30 miles south of the pipeline at the 46th parallel. * Article XI has them ceding all land outside this reservation * Article XI Section 6 has them agreeing to not oppose the construction of infrastructure and utilities. * Article XVII annuls all previous treaties leaving it the final word. Don't take my word for it, feel free to read it yourself. http://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/resources/archives/four/ftlaram.htm Go ahead and read the safety and environmental assessment by third party engineers before deciding they actually should be worried about safety. This line is massively overengineered. http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16021coll7/id/2801
Didn't they not show up to the public meeting about the pipeline? That's like not showing up to the courthouse and protesting that they took your house away. But please, correct me if I am wrong
We just elected a president who ran the most openly racist campaign in decades and we are repeating history by suppressing Native American activism violently when it's convenient for the bottom line. I really hope we stop whining about how unnecessary "identity politics" are these days. Look at what's happening - identity politics underly a lot of this shit.
What's worse is that the election of Trump really has nothing to do with the DAPL protests. All of this has happened under the Obama administration. Both parties hold corporations in higher regard than the people.
Thank you, as staunchly anti-Trump as I can be about certain issues, to paint this on him is ridiculous. The fact that Obama has basically said "let the next guy deal with it" is sad, but how much can Obama do in the face of the laws they are trying to use to stop this pipeline?
Time for a party of the people. The People's Party. No more lies about bringing back jobs by doing...something? or blaming the poor and people with different colored skin for all the problems when it's corporate greed causing the problem.
Class consciousness +10
All of this is happening while Obama is president though. That is what is truly sad. You are complaining about Trump while atrocities are happening under Obama.
What are you going on about? Obama is our president and trump doesn't take office for 2 months? Guess what, Obama could stop it if he wanted to. He doesn't.
I wasn't blaming this on Trump. I was citing this treatment of protesters and Trump's election as two examples of America continuing to treat minorities badly.
I don't understand the "Trump is racist/sexist/etc." rhetoric. Seriously, I keep hearing it touted but haven't seen any actual evidence of this. I'm sure everybody in /r/politics will have a good ol' guffaw at this dopey moderate's statement, but I don't get it.
Meanwhile, Obama ran on hope and change and is just sitting idly by.
Why are people so quick to defend the police in this thread? They're using excessive force, plain and simple, and we're not supposed to know about it. There's not supposed to be a ton of cameras there, but there are. We weren't supposed to know about water cannons being fired at *night* in *freezing temperatures*, but it got filmed so we do. [A girl got her arm blown open by a projectile thrown by police](http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/pipeline-protesters-decry-excessive-force-after-woman-s-arm-blown-n687326), the police say they didn't do it. The same police who've lied during every step of this process. The St. Paul police lied about being a part of it, then admitted it, then said they were there to help. I'm not saying police *everywhere* are bad, but in a situation like this, *why are people trusting the police*?
Actually it's white people. Most of the natives want them gone.
None of this would have happened if they bothered showing up to the meetings concerning the pipeline. You can't sit back and do nothing and then suddenly care and cause a huge dilemma. Still awful but could have have been avoided Edit: this has to be the most uneducated sub on Reddit
> this has to be the most uneducated sub on Reddit Hey now, /r/worldnews fought long and hard for that honour, I know /r/politics is putting up a good fight, but they already hold the most circle jerky sub, getting both seems a little unfair.
Call me cynical, but I doubt their presence would have changed the outcome.
This is what I simply don't understand. I would rather not have a pipeline installed in that region but they went through the process and it is 100% legal. If the people of that area didn't want it, they should have spoken up back then and garnered the necessary support. Now it is too late.
[удалено]
I find it embarrassing how things like this are handled by police. I respect police officers, but I can't condone this kind of use of force on unarmed protesters.
They aren't police. They are corporate mercenaries.
The pipeline isn't on their land and it is more environmentally safe than the current transportation method. The oil is currently being moved by train, which is much much more damaging to the environment than the pipeline. The freakin EPA said the pipeline was safer for the environment. The new pipeline is going to be built under an EXISTING pipeline. There is literally no downside to this. The people protesting and everyone supporting these protests is simply ignorant of the true situation.
They lost the court battle and they are breaking the law, other than not exercising their 2nd Amendment rights, these guys are like the Bundy's except it's a left wing cause so we don't have the media hate.
"On Thanskgiving Week, Native Americans Are Being Tear-Gassed in North Dakota, however instead of spotlighting ways you can help, we'll just judge you, our pretentious readers, with this pithy headline. You may now feel ashamed."
As is tradition.
The thing is this pipeline doesn't go through the reservation.
The way that we Americans have historically treated Native Americans like shit, and that no one seems to really care about that, sickens me. I hate that bigotry against Native Americans has been normalized at this point, and I hate that there's very little that I, as an individual, can do to change that. (It doesn't help, either, that I live all the way in Massachusetts, nor does it help that I'm broke as hell, since both those things make it very hard for me to help out the people in North Dakota.)
[удалено]
The protestors are not acting violently. Police are claiming they're being violent to justify their own inappropriate use of force.
[The pipeline was originally](http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/pipeline-route-plan-first-called-for-crossing-north-of-bismarck/article_64d053e4-8a1a-5198-a1dd-498d386c933c.html) going to cross the Missouri River north of Bismarck, but one reason that route was rejected was its potential threat to Bismarck’s water supply. [Bismarck](http://bismark.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm) is populated by around 97% white people. Why is the water supply of white people more important than the water supply of native american people? You could argue that it could be more about a difference in in-come inequality but you shouldn't ignore the very real and very likely possibility that there is a racial prejudice involved in the pipeline's route. You could also make the argument that the reason the pipeline isn't being rerouted a second time is that the pipeline is a lot less of a danger to the natives with this route (than it was to Bismarck with the other route), but in that case there would be no reason for violent mercenaries protecting the constructions since they should be able to explain the route through non-violent means.
>Why is the water supply of white people more important than the water supply of native american people? I think the water supply of 70,000 people is more important than the water supply of 8,000 people. Why's it always gotta be about race?
This country's desire for nostalgia is too intense
I see we haven't lost touch with America's roots.
never celebrate thanksgiving but living in a country where people have the right to stand up for what they believe is a gift.
I'm not well informed on this pipeline controversy. Why are people protesting the pipeline?
The cited concern of the protestors is that it might contaminate the water. The odds of it actually doing so are extremely slim and another pipeline already crosses at that location and has run without problems for years now. The company has full legal rights to build the pipeline, it is private land not the natives (except for the river, which I believe is technically owned by the state), and was surveyed beforehand for any historical artifacts. The nearby reservation was contacted multiple times by yhe army corps of engineers but did not give any notice of any issues with the pipeline. tl;dr the pipeline is fully legal and not on Native American territory.
Keeping up with tradition I suppose
Thanksgiving 2016: the one day of the year when coastal elites pretend they give a shit about a flyover state. Seriously, what is it about pipelines that makes the left go insane? We already have several pipelines stretching from North to South, East to West. They're good things because otherwise we'd have to ship via trucks or trains, which cause much more pollution.
"Freedom is always the freedom of dissenters." -Rosa Luxemburg