Standing Rock

[redcairo]

This is truly mind-boggling.

 

What I don't get is where is the governor? Or the representative of that region? If actual legal authorities are being used where they have no jurisdiction, surely any decent attorney could file for injunction on those grounds alone?

 

RC

[zerostao]

Sacred Stone Camp

1 hr · 

"You may have seen graphic photos of this water protector's mutilated arm which was hit by an explosive projectile fired by law enforcement last night.
Sophia was one of 300 people injured at Standing Rock yesterday as Morton County Sheriff’s department deployed water cannons at people in temperatures of 22F and projectiles in the form of rubber bullets, concussion grenades, tear canisters. These violent policing methods against unarmed civilians led to numerous blunt force traumas including head wounds, lacerations, serious orthopedic injuries, eye trauma and internal bleeding. Please send prayers and support to them through this horrific trauma as they recover from amputation at a Minnesota hospital.
Please stand up against this injustice, our lives are at stake."

 

#NoDAPL

here is a photo that can be posted  of the water protector sophia wilansky who bravely went to the front lines to help with the Standing Rock struggle

Edited November 22, 2016 by zerostao

[Marblehead]

I am truly saddened.  All this being done to the people for a better bottom line profit by the oil industry.  To our own people!!!!!

 

This is the State of the Union that Obama has created.

 

Simple greed with no concern for the people.

[redcairo]

 

8. The oil isn't even for this country. It's getting exported to China.

 

Why are we drilling and shipping oil for China?

 

We have to pay to import oil from the other side of the planet sourced from whole continents of people who rabidly want us to die, and then we drill it here and instead of using it here, transport it far away then ship it China? WTH?

 

RC

[MooNiNite]

Why are we drilling and shipping oil for China?

 

We have to pay to import oil from the other side of the planet sourced from whole continents of people who rabidly want us to die, and then we drill it here and instead of using it here, transport it far away then ship it China? WTH?

 

RC

Iv heard this alot actually, that we will be sending it to china. So i think its true. . we do owe them quite a lot. 

[Brian]

They are also buying real estate and water rights...

[redcairo]

I just want to mention that water guns in sub-freezing temps are not like a water hose. They're like a giant gun for a high-powered stream of sharp rocks.

 

RC

Edited November 22, 2016 by redcairo

[zerostao]

This is truly mind-boggling.

 

What I don't get is where is the governor? Or the representative of that region? If actual legal authorities are being used where they have no jurisdiction, surely any decent attorney could file for injunction on those grounds alone?

 

RC

north dakota governor jack dalrymple is an investor of the piepline and stock holder of the company building the pipeline.

he is the one who gave the orders to attack the water protectors. no conflict of interest at all ?

 

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2016/09/08/north-dakota-governor-activates-national-guard-tribal-leaders-respond-165730

 

my question is where is the POTUS and USAG while violent atrocities are committed against peaceful people?

AWOL with gross negligence of duty, not to mention any sense of human decency

[MooNiNite]

It looks like the Pipeline just barely brushes the edge of the reservation. 

 

If you scrolll down, a little under half way down the article

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/us/dakota-access-pipeline-visual-guide/

Edited November 22, 2016 by MooNiNite

[redcairo]

I think the complaint is not just about it being on native land -- but rather, about the predictable (a given) leakage of a pipeline possibly affecting a river and groundwater supply once in place.

 

But I think it very quickly became more of a "moral of it" issue due to the pathetic management response.

 

RC

[Brian]

It looks like the Pipeline just barely brushes the edge of the reservation. 

 

If you scrolll down, a little under half way down the article

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/us/dakota-access-pipeline-visual-guide/

...and crossing the river immediately upstream of 7 Indian reservations.

[MooNiNite]

...and crossing the river immediately upstream of 7 Indian reservations.

 

well yes, but if it's not on there land... 

[Brian]

well yes, but if it's not on there land...

Treaty of Fort Laramie says otherwise...

[MooNiNite]

Treaty of Fort Laramie says otherwise...

my point still stands

[Brian]

my point still stands

Ummm... No, I don't think it does -- unless your point is that the US defeated the Sioux in combat and can therefore do whatever it wishes. If that's your point, I would agree that this is an apt description of how this is playing out, as well as of the relationship between the two cultures for hundreds of years.

[MooNiNite]

Ummm... No, I don't think it does -- unless your point is that the US defeated the Sioux in combat and can therefore do whatever it wishes. If that's your point, I would agree that this is an apt description of how this is playing out, as well as of the relationship between the two cultures for hundreds of years

 

It's hard for them to have a protest if the pipeline isn't on their land, and it barely is.  The argument that it goes over a river that feeds into their territory isn't a strong one, considering there are oil pipelines all over the USA. The natives can win the fight, but the pipeline will only be minutely re-routed.

 

Obama halted the construction of the pipeline in the area of the protest. Do you really think he, or any president, is going to have that entire 1,000 mile pipeline built and then say no to it, just because a minor section wasn't constructed? They will at the very most, minorly re-route it off the native american land. 

[Brian]

It's hard for them to have a protest if the pipeline isn't on their land, and it barely is.  The argument that it goes over a river that feeds into their territory isn't a strong one, considering there are oil pipelines all over the USA. The natives can win the fight, but the pipeline will only be minutely re-routed.

 

Obama halted the construction of the pipeline in the area of the protest. Do you really think he, or any president, is going to have that entire 1,000 mile pipeline built and then say no to it, just because a minor section wasn't constructed? They will at the very most, minorly re-route it off the native american land.

You didn't bother to read about the treaty I referenced, I take it.

[redcairo]

Well eminent domain will kick in if it absolutely must go over or under a river or something, but at the least they can get it off their land, though I agree that is not going to solve the bulk of the complaint about its risk to the water supply. Still it shouldn't have been routed through their land, not even a little, to begin with.

[MooNiNite]

You didn't bother to read about the treaty I referenced, I take it.

 

I did actually, what did i miss?

[Brian]

I did actually, what did i miss?

See if this helps:

https://johnlaurits.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/dapl_routes_map_large-1.png?w=723&h=605

[Aetherous]

See if this helps:

https://johnlaurits.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/dapl_routes_map_large-1.png?w=723&h=605

 

Thank you...that along with this have helped me realize the problem here. Up until this point I honestly thought it was just a bunch of people whining. The fact that the Supreme Court ruled that it was Sioux land that was taken illegally should be enough for others to not cross into it.

[Marblehead]

... should be enough for others to not cross into it.

Sure should be, shouldn't it?  But lawmakers don't have to comply with the laws they write.  Business as usual.  Money talks.

[Stosh]

Property ownership in the US means one can use the land with exclusivity , but it doesn't mean that the US cannot override said ownership, just like you not having the right to exclude firefighters law enforcement officers and so forth. While within our own statutes the US can try to reimburse for this type of 'taking' it doesn't have to, for the general welfare.  To me that land is within the US protected by US military and is subject to the laws of the US. Just like my own home would be , or yours for that matter. There are those who feel the situation is special for people of certain skin colors families traditions etc. But I favor 'equal before the law' and think its problematic to discriminate whether a group wants to be discriminated about or not. 

[redcairo]

Native Americans actually have a different situation. As humans they are citizens just like the rest of us. But as far as their land goes it's actually sovereign within our territories -- much like a 'state' would be but a bit moreso.

 

RC

[redcairo]

Also, I think it should have to be demonstrated 'why' it 'had' to take the routing it did (the pipeline) since it sounds like the original plans had something different. Also, I think the fact that the legal authority in the state owns part of it is a conflict of interest given the situation. Also, I think the use of state law enforcement to support a corporate interest is an even more serious conflict of interest.

 

The latter issue is one that is growing more significant in many ways around the nation at this time including in many bills and laws, where basically the government is being co-opted as the armed security force of corporate interests.

 

RC