Dakota Access Pipeline Debacle - and those Durned WHITE Men!

[rogue06]

I've seen extensive video of in-person interviews with people at the pipeline protest, as well as extensive video footage of their interactions with police forces there which has consistently contradicted the narrative being pushed by police and the governor, and extensive discussion of the facts surrounding the building of the pipeline.

All of which leads me to believe that every part of the email cited in the OP is likely factually false and a pack of lies.

So you found some YouTube videos where the rent-a-mob is characterized as the cavalry coming over the hill to rescue the Indians?

[robrecht]

In response to the thread title, it's also worth noting that there are murky legal issues regarding the legal status of the land in the area and who owns it.

In the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, the US government acknowledged Sioux ownership of the land in perpetuity. The treaty was subsequently broken by white colonists (like basically all other treaties made with natives in US history... ~sigh~), and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that YES, the US government hadrefused the settlement, saying they didn't want their land to be bought for that money, they wanted control of their land as guaranteed under the 1868 treaty as acknowledged by the court. To this day the US treasury is holding the money in an account, that is accruing interest and now valued at over $1 billion, waiting to be paid out to the Sioux tribes if they accept it, and to this day they insist they do not want the money, they want the land that is rightfully theirs under treaty as acknowledged by the Supreme Court.

So these people who value their ancestral land more than a billion dollars, are saying they don't want a pipeline going across their land that is historically theirs according to treaty. The pipeline company could potentially get a thousand permits from the states and the feds for all that it mattered, but it's clear that the Sioux people who have a serious and substantial unresolved legal claim to the land are not giving their approval. And evidence suggests that these Sioux tribes can not be bought-off for any amount of money.

But do tell me more, CP, about your view that they're just doing it for the money... because that's sooooo believable! (It strikes me that this is the Blue Bell story repeating itself... CP knows people who run a company who he assumes are amazingly good people, who turn out to be utter criminals who lie through their teeth about everything...)

This was indeed part of our unjust dealings with and horrible treatment of the native Americans and specifically these tribes, but it pertains to the Black Hills and not the specific land in question here.

The land contested here was given to the local tribes in the first treaty of Fort Laramie in 1851. Later, as we tried to force as many native Americans as we could onto ever shrinking reservations, the local tribes were no longer supposed to live on this particular part of their land, but they still possessed this land for hunting buffalo as long as the buffalo populated the land. That too was part of the second treaty of Fort Laramie in 1868. No sooner had General Sherman 'negotiated' this treaty then he and General Sheridan set about successfully encouraging the extermination of the buffalo on which the local tribes, both those who lived on this reservation and those who were still free, depended. This and other war crimes committed by the US government against the local peoples eventually led to other treaties and unilateral legislation that took this land from the native peoples. I would expect the local paramilitary groups to find common cause with the native Americans against the US federal government.

[Starlight]

Jaecp is currently on site at the pipeline protests, as part of a military veterans group that has gone there to support the Native Americans in defense of their water, and his response to me when I mentioned this thread to him on facebook was: "nobody is getting paid... these people all have personal reasons to be here. Do they think nobody authenticly protests? That's so dumb. The people here don't like the native American people getting [badly mistreated], again."

A few people in this thread are wondering about what the reasons for the Native Americans opposing this pipeline are. The primary reason is that the primary Native American reservation in the area uses Lake Oahe as its water source for drinking water and others uses. The pipeline is going to cross under the river a short distance upstream from the lake. Oil pipelines tend to leak and crack all the time, and in future if the pipeline leaks under the river, the oil will contaminate Lake Oahe. Any fix for it will likely be slow to non-existent, as the difficulty of accessing and fixing a pipe hundreds of feet under a river is prohibitive, and doubtless the company would fight it through the courts for years, arguing variously that the oil is coming from somewhere other than their pipe, that they cannot fix it, that they need to be paid to fix it, that the pipeline company is declaring bankruptcy rather than fixing it and the receivers aren't going to fix it, etc. The Native Americans could have the quite reasonable concern that their drinking water could become contaminated for decades on end with no practical redress available to them.

People in this thread have compared pipeline leaks to spills from trucks, however the two are not remotely similar - truck spills are a one-off event, of a relatively small amount of oil, the problem and the fault and responsibility for clean-up are instantly and abundantly clear and do not require years of environmental analysis to determine where the oil is coming from or who needs to fix it, the problem is short term not long term, and the oil is spilled at the surface at a location that is relatively easily accessible and cost-effective to reach unlike a pipeline that is hundreds of feet underground underneath a major river which is difficult/impossible to access. Whereas a pipeline leak could spill out huge volumes of oil over the course of decades, and leaks could be difficult or impossible to locate and fix.

[Starlight]

This was indeed part of our unjust dealings with and horrible treatment of the native Americans and specifically these tribes, but it pertains to the Black Hills and not the specific land in question here.

The land contested here was given to the local tribes in the first treaty of Fort Laramie in 1851. Later, as we tried to force as many native Americans as we could onto ever shrinking reservations, the local tribes were no longer supposed to live on this particular part of their land, but they still possessed this land for hunting buffalo as long as the buffalo populated the land. That too was part of the second treaty of Fort Laramie in 1868. No sooner had General Sherman 'negotiated' this treaty then he and General Sheridan set about successfully encouraging the extermination of the buffalo on which the local tribes, both those who lived on this reservation and those who were still free, depended. This and other war crimes committed by the US government against the local peoples eventually led to other treaties and unilateral legislation that took this land from the native peoples. I would expect the local paramilitary groups to find common cause with the native Americans against the US federal government.

Thanks for that clarification. I have heard the territory the pipeline is being built on described as "unceded Sioux Nation territory". I understand that to mean that the Sioux people have always claimed that land as their territory and never formally renounced such a claim despite it being taken from them by force. Would you characterize that as an accurate description?

[NorrinRadd]

In response to the thread title, it's also worth noting that there are murky legal issues regarding the legal status of the land in the area and who owns it.

In the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, the US government acknowledged Sioux ownership of the land in perpetuity. The treaty was subsequently broken by white colonists (like basically all other treaties made with natives in US history... ~sigh~), and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that YES, the US government hadrefused the settlement, saying they didn't want their land to be bought for that money, they wanted control of their land as guaranteed under the 1868 treaty as acknowledged by the court. To this day the US treasury is holding the money in an account, that is accruing interest and now valued at over $1 billion, waiting to be paid out to the Sioux tribes if they accept it, and to this day they insist they do not want the money, they want the land that is rightfully theirs under treaty as acknowledged by the Supreme Court.

So these people who value their ancestral land more than a billion dollars, are saying they don't want a pipeline going across their land that is historically theirs according to treaty. The pipeline company could potentially get a thousand permits from the states and the feds for all that it mattered, but it's clear that the Sioux people who have a serious and substantial unresolved legal claim to the land are not giving their approval. And evidence suggests that these Sioux tribes can not be bought-off for any amount of money.

But do tell me more, CP, about your view that they're just doing it for the money... because that's sooooo believable! (It strikes me that this is the Blue Bell story repeating itself... CP knows people who run a company who he assumes are amazingly good people, who turn out to be utter criminals who lie through their teeth about everything...)

Ok, so da gubmint screwed them, the highest court available agreed with that and prescribed a remedy, they rejected the remedy... in favor of what, insurrection? I mean really, what do they think they are going to do? There is no appeal from SCOTUS, and anyway, they'd be appealing to do what, overturn their own victory?

[Cow Poke]

Jaecp is currently on site at the pipeline protests, as part of a military veterans group that has gone there to support the Native Americans in defense of their water, and his response to me when I mentioned this thread to him on facebook was: "nobody is getting paid... these people all have personal reasons to be here....

Well, now that we have a totally unbiased testimony from an incredibly reliable and highly respectable source.... the debate is over!

[Starlight]

The native american protesters were suspicious at one point of a protester who was behaving oddly, and they ran him off. They believed he had been paid by the pipeline company to try to sabotage the protest from within (a tactic infamously used by the FBI in the awful COINTELPRO campaign of the 50s and 60s to sabotage protests and protesters). There's video of them chasing him off.

Apart from that... a cow you poked belched and you thought it sounded like evidence the protesters were disingenuous?

We variously have video footage of heavily militarized police using water-cannons in sub-zero temperatures against non-violent protesters, police arresting journalist Amy Goodman for documenting the situation, the state governor lying about the situation, drone footage showing that the pipeline building company has already built the pipeline closer to the river than is legally allowed prior to obtaining Army Corps permits (that have now been denied, pending environmental review), and audio showing the pipeline company lying about lack of native american objections to the pipeline. The existing video and audio evidence clearly shows that the pipeline company, the police, and the state governor are in the wrong and have been lying, doing illegal activities, and acting in bad faith. By contrast, I have seen zero evidence that would incriminate the protesters, or suggest they have told anything other than the truth, or have been acting in bad faith - and journalists that I trust have made more than half a dozen visits to the protests and talked extensively to protesters and not turned up a single shred of evidence that that protesters are doing anything wrong. Likewise Jaecp is currently there and has attested that the protesters are doing this in good faith.

So instead of slandering sincere protesters with your wild speculations, CP, and defending people who have been proven to be liars by video and audio evidence... why don't you do something useful like actually engaging your brain and heart and caring about the welfare of the people involved?

[Cow Poke]

Apart from that... a cow you poked belched and you thought it sounded like evidence the protesters were disingenuous?

I've mentioned a number of times that I don't believe - nor have I ever said - that all of the protesters were disingenuous. But, again, please continue with your drama, queen.

[Starlight]

I've mentioned a number of times that I don't believe - nor have I ever said - that all of the protesters were disingenuous. But, again, please continue with your drama, queen.

Your twisting my words is trying my patience, as are your bizarre statement of 'drama queen' that seems to be your go-to absurd accusation. You have made entirely unsubstantiated suggestions of people being paid to protest etc, which is what I was clearly referring to.

[MaxVel]

Your twisting my words is trying my patience, as are your bizarre statement of 'drama queen' that seems to be your go-to absurd accusation. You have made entirely unsubstantiated suggestions of people being paid to protest etc, which is what I was clearly referring to.

The existing video and audio evidence clearly shows that the pipeline company, the police, and the state governor are in the wrong and have been lying, doing illegal activities, and acting in bad faith.

Can you substantiate your accusations?

[Starlight]

Can you substantiate your accusations?

I linked earlier to an article about recent audio disproving the companies claims. Various video showing police and the governor engaging in various misrepresentations can be found here. You might want to start with the vids titled "EXCLUSIVE: Proof Oil Police Lying About Using Water Cannons", and "Governor DAPL LIES Through His Greedy Teeth" but there are plenty of others for your viewing pleasure.

[Spartacus]

For reference, forum policy on accusations of lying, which I suspect maxvel is trying to hint at (the use of the phrase "substantiate your accusations" is a bit of a tip-off)

We consider a lie to be a poster knowingly and willfully making a statement they know to be untrue. If you call someone a liar you need to substantiate it. In order to substantiate an accusation of lying, it must be shown that the poster in question is stating something they know to be untrue. Opinions or facts that are in dispute should never be referred to as lies. Someone's faith or beliefs should also never be referred to as lying. We will not allow repeated accusations of lying. We will moderate any tossing out the term "liar" - and similar charges - when it is used in place of a response or as a mere insult to denigrate the other person, as judged by the moderators. We will also not allow repeated posts calling someone a liar, accusing them of lying, or claiming their post is a lie. If you wish to challenge the truth of someone's statement, then do so ONLY ONCE in the thread, and substantiate your claim IN THE SAME POST. Further discussion of the matter will only be allowed in the Padded Room.

It's not clear on my reading whether it is against the rules to refer to someone who is not a participant on the forum as a liar, e.g. if I called either Clinton or Trump a pathological liar, it's not the same thing as calling Sparko a liar in the context of a forum discussion. If Starlight is accusing certain sources of lying, that's not the same as accusing Rogue or CP or maxvel themselves of lying.

This is, of course, a matter for the moderators, but weighing in on it makes me feel special and smart

[MaxVel]

For reference, forum policy on accusations of lying, which I suspect maxvel is trying to hint at (the use of the phrase "substantiate your accusations" is a bit of a tip-off)

Actually, that wasn't at all what I was trying to say. I used 'substantiate' because Starlight had earlier used it. The issue is what is actually going on, and what are the motivations of the protestors, the company, etc etc. So I was looking for some evidence to help clarify the basis of the two opposing positions in this thread.


If it helps, you are very smart, Spartacus.

[MaxVel]

So... I watched the video "Exclusive:Proof Oil police Lying About Using Water Cannons"

In that video, the governor says he wasn't present, and passes over to a police officer for detailed comment. The officer's comments are played in audio, with footage from the protest site.

{My rough transcript}

The officer says 'A fire struck was staged, and it started with fires that the protestors started, um, fires on the bridge'

'So yes, water was used. To not only put out fires, but to get protestors away from the bridge. (0:48) Away from, um, the dangers of being on the bridge'

'It was effective, but I would offer that everybody on the bridge had the opportunity to leave before water was used. They weren't trapped on the bridge, they were asked to leave numerous times. They chose to stay. (1:17)

Interspersed with those comments is video footage and commentary, by the reporter / added in later.



What we don't know: Did the police ask people to leave? How? When?

Were there fires on the bridge?

Was the brush fire shown started by a tear gas grenade?

Did the police officer have any other comments or explanation?


This video doesn't give us proof of the governor lying. If the police officer is lying or mistaken, it is (possibly) about there being fires on the bridge. The video doesn't show any such fires (which doesn't mean that there weren't any fires). He may also be lying or mistaken about protestors being asked to leave numerous times.



tl:dr

Video doesn't do what it claims. Inconclusive.

[Carrikature]

If you cannot bother to meet with the company in spite of multiple attempts on the company's part to do so complaining afterwards is a lot like complaining about the outcome of an election that you couldn't be bothered with voting in.

The picture painted in this thread is far more complex than dismissing it as 'cannot bother'. You don't change meeting times because you can't be bothered.