The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Metric Mouse on October 28, 2016, 12:15:07 AM
-
Anyone else been following this? It really feels like a massive civil rights' movement.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/27/us/dakota-access-pipeline-protests/index.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dakota-access-pipeline-authorities-start-arresting-protesters-new-camp-n674066
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/live-updates-from-the-dakota-access-pipeline-protests-oct-27/
TL;DR - A massive number (thousands?) of Native Americans have been camping out on Federal land for the past few months to stop the construction on a massive oil pipeline that runs from the Bakken oil fields of North Dakota to Illinois. Rev. Jesse Jackson, Mark Ruffalo and Shaliane Woodley and Green Party Presidental Candidate Jill Stein have all traveled to march with the "largest gathering of Native American people" of the century.
One of my friends raises some rare breed of horses in the area, so I've been perusing their Facebook posts for the past few months, but it seems like the national news has finally started to cover this. Things came to a head yesterday, complete with protestors shooting at law enforcement and hurling Molotov cocktails as others chained themselves to equipment.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/us/dakota-access-pipeline-protests/index.html
More updates. Protestors fired weapons at law enforcement. This is crazy!
-
I have been following this for quite a while. The behavior of the SD local and state government has been pretty appalling. Many racist overtones with references to the way it is treated, and also a good window into the pervasive militarization of our local police departments. Why the hell does a small town need that kind of hardware?
In addition to the recent arrests, it is worth noting the intimidation and blocking actions against journalists attempting to cover events. The highest profile is probably the warrant and arrest of Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. A judge threw it out, luckily.
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/17/breaking_riot_charges_against_amy_goodman
It is particularly galling that the mass arrests at DAPL were occurring the same day that the Bundy's and their crew were acquitted on a large number of the charges against them.
-
I have been following this for quite a while. The behavior of the SD local and state government has been pretty appalling. Many racist overtones with references to the way it is treated, and also a good window into the pervasive militarization of our local police departments. Why the hell does a small town need that kind of hardware?
Apparently they're pulling law enforcement from five states, so it may not be the locals bringing that much hardware.
-
I have been following this for quite a while. The behavior of the SD local and state government has been pretty appalling. Many racist overtones with references to the way it is treated, and also a good window into the pervasive militarization of our local police departments. Why the hell does a small town need that kind of hardware?
Apparently they're pulling law enforcement from five states, so it may not be the locals bringing that much hardware.
Thanks for that. I'd much rather believe that it is a compilation of hardware, though I'm still not sure why they would need even one Humvee.
-
I would suggest getting all sides of the story by also watching Unicorn Riot live feeds to supplement what you are being fed by mainstream news. I hadn't heard of Unicorn Riot before this year, but their live streams often offer much needed details that are left out of the snippets in the news.
For example, where were these major news outlets last month when the protesters were deliberately attacked by security dogs? There is plenty of video of unmarked security guards lunging into into crowds of protesters with attack dogs coming out of the crowd with their mouths bloody. Major news outlets didn't seem to have much to say about that.
I can't confirm of course (I'm not there) but I saw a video today where people were suggesting that authorities are now deliberately arresting medics that are clearly marked via their clothing and markings on their vehicles that they are there only to serve as medics, not protesters. The ethical ramifications of much of what I'm seeing on these live streams, including the intimidation tactics against journalists makes me very uneasy.
-
High Country News has had some decent coverage. This article in particular is worth a read because it places the current events in historical context, and highlights the relationship between state, federal and tribal law. Because of the role of treaties, there are some very important jurisdictional issues that are often unappreciated.
http://www.hcn.org/articles/Reckoning-at-Standing-Rock
-
"A people should know when they are conquered "
It's been covered pretty well here in the midwest. I wonder if the groups really expect to change something or not. There are lots of examples of it going both ways i guess. With the effort they are putting in, I'd think there would be some areas where they could really make some change that might even offset the risk of the pipeline.
-
I have been following this for quite a while. The behavior of the SD local and state government has been pretty appalling. Many racist overtones with references to the way it is treated, and also a good window into the pervasive militarization of our local police departments. Why the hell does a small town need that kind of hardware?
Apparently they're pulling law enforcement from five states, so it may not be the locals bringing that much hardware.
Thanks for that. I'd much rather believe that it is a compilation of hardware, though I'm still not sure why they would need even one Humvee.
I thought the same thing in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. Never in my life did I imagine seeing armored personnel carriers rolling through my hometown, but there it was right there on the TV. They brought out the full cavalry to catch those bastards. Now I'm even more convinced that the Boston police department has more "hardware" than some countries' armies do. Their argument seems to be that the nature of the enemy has changed, and that to keep current they need MRAP's.
All of the reporting I've seen on the DAPL protests makes it look like the SD gov't is mobilizing for war against the protestors, it's sickening. At least in our case everyone agreed on who the enemy was.
-
I would suggest getting all sides of the story by also watching Unicorn Riot live feeds to supplement what you are being fed by mainstream news. I hadn't heard of Unicorn Riot before this year, but their live streams often offer much needed details that are left out of the snippets in the news.
For example, where were these major news outlets last month when the protesters were deliberately attacked by security dogs? There is plenty of video of unmarked security guards lunging into into crowds of protesters with attack dogs coming out of the crowd with their mouths bloody. Major news outlets didn't seem to have much to say about that.
Interesting. The raw video feeds I've seen show protestors tearing down a fence to cross onto private property and into an active construction site. The bulldozers that were working immediately shut down, and the security staff step in to keep the protestors away from the operators. Protestors strike at the dogs and guards with flag poles. This could be where the dogs got blood on their face.
Rather aggressive actions from both sides, it seems.
-
I would suggest getting all sides of the story by also watching Unicorn Riot live feeds to supplement what you are being fed by mainstream news. I hadn't heard of Unicorn Riot before this year, but their live streams often offer much needed details that are left out of the snippets in the news.
For example, where were these major news outlets last month when the protesters were deliberately attacked by security dogs? There is plenty of video of unmarked security guards lunging into into crowds of protesters with attack dogs coming out of the crowd with their mouths bloody. Major news outlets didn't seem to have much to say about that.
Interesting. The raw video feeds I've seen show protestors tearing down a fence to cross onto private property and into an active construction site. The bulldozers that were working immediately shut down, and the security staff step in to keep the protestors away from the operators. Protestors strike at the dogs and guards with flag poles. This could be where the dogs got blood on their face.
Rather aggressive actions from both sides, it seems.
I am most definitely biased towards the side of the protesters, so it's hard for me to make a post that doesn't sound defensive. I would simply argue that if they were breaking the law by trespassing, they should have been arrested, not deliberately attacked by dogs. Many people went to the hospital with dog bites that day. It was rather convenient that protesters are met with immense police presence EVERYWHERE they go, yet there were no police anywhere to be seen on the site that day.
There are protesters that are acting aggressively. What I've seen is rocks being thrown after they've been pepper sprayed, rubber bulleted, etc., and there are also protesters yelling at the angry protesters to stop throwing things and putting them all in danger. I've seen rocks get hurled at cops and I've seen protesters form a line between cops and their own people to defend the cops. I see cops trying to handle people delicately and I see cops kicking people while they're down. I see good and bad happening on all sides.
There is also evidence that a DAPL employee sped towards their camp with guns in his vehicle this past week. He was ran off the road by camp security (ie, protesters) and later arrested, and they found the insurance for the vehicle he was driving registered to DAPL. So there are also agitators being thrown into the mix.
I really hate to see things escalating to such a dangerous level, for all sides, but I am definitely more concerned that protester and journalist rights are being violated.
The protests have spread to my city as well. We found out that a number of our police officers were dispatched to North Dakota to assist. Queue angry citizens lined up at our government center in opposition.
But at any rate, I am glad that folks are willing to watch the feeds. It's easier to form your own conclusions that way. You will not see most of that on CNN. It does give you a good perspective on what is going on without a major news corporation's filter.
-
Also, just for discussion, after months of silence on the issue here is HRC's statement on the DAPL protests.
"We received a letter today from representatives of the tribes protesting the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline. From the beginning of this campaign, Secretary Clinton has been clear that she thinks all voices should be heard and all views considered in federal infrastructure projects. Now, all of the parties involved—including the federal government, the pipeline company and contractors, the state of North Dakota, and the tribes—need to find a path forward that serves the broadest public interest. As that happens, it's important that on the ground in North Dakota, everyone respects demonstrators' rights to protest peacefully, and workers' rights to do their jobs safely."
All I can say is, wow, there are so many words there.
-
I thought the same thing in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing. Never in my life did I imagine seeing armored personnel carriers rolling through my hometown, but there it was right there on the TV. They brought out the full cavalry to catch those bastards. Now I'm even more convinced that the Boston police department has more "hardware" than some countries' armies do. Their argument seems to be that the nature of the enemy has changed, and that to keep current they need MRAP's.
All of the reporting I've seen on the DAPL protests makes it look like the SD gov't is mobilizing for war against the protestors, it's sickening. At least in our case everyone agreed on who the enemy was.
Some of that is on the DoD. They've been selling surplus vehicles (specifically, MRAPs) to local PDs for the cost of shipping them back from Iraq, which IIRC is less than $10k.
-
I am most definitely biased towards the side of the protesters, so it's hard for me to make a post that doesn't sound defensive. I would simply argue that if they were breaking the law by trespassing, they should have been arrested, not deliberately attacked by dogs. Many people went to the hospital with dog bites that day. It was rather convenient that protesters are met with immense police presence EVERYWHERE they go, yet there were no police anywhere to be seen on the site that day.
I agree the incident was unfortunate. The pipeline company was trying to protect its workers and equipment (and keep the protestors out of a dangerous construction site), and injuries resulted. It would have been better if one side or the other had completely backed off - no doubt. However, this was (I believe) the incident that began the 'immense police presence' and both sides have been safer since.
There are protesters that are acting aggressively. What I've seen is rocks being thrown after they've been pepper sprayed, rubber bulleted, etc., and there are also protesters yelling at the angry protesters to stop throwing things and putting them all in danger. I've seen rocks get hurled at cops and I've seen protesters form a line between cops and their own people to defend the cops. I see cops trying to handle people delicately and I see cops kicking people while they're down. I see good and bad happening on all sides.
There is so much misinformation out there. It's very difficult for me to put together a true line of events - seems every side has its slant. I can commend law enforcement for their restraint in some instances- Thursday a protestor drew a pistol and fired at the police. They did not return fire.
There is also evidence that a DAPL employee sped towards their camp with guns in his vehicle this past week. He was ran off the road by camp security (ie, protesters) and later arrested, and they found the insurance for the vehicle he was driving registered to DAPL. So there are also agitators being thrown into the mix.
Yes, this is an interesting incident. Doesn't do anyone any good to be inciting violence. It was amazing no one was killed in this instance - I saw pictures of the event; it looked pretty tense. (Getting run off the road and chased into a river, all with guns involved.)
I really hate to see things escalating to such a dangerous level, for all sides, but I am definitely more concerned that protester and journalist rights are being violated.
The protests have spread to my city as well. We found out that a number of our police officers were dispatched to North Dakota to assist. Queue angry citizens lined up at our government center in opposition.
But at any rate, I am glad that folks are willing to watch the feeds. It's easier to form your own conclusions that way. You will not see most of that on CNN. It does give you a good perspective on what is going on without a major news corporation's filter.
I guess I don't feel protestor rights are being violated (in a systemic way). The main camp has been on federal land for months; no movement has been made to evict them. Protestors have burned millions of dollars of equipment (In Iowa) and broken into valve sites to shut down pipelines (or try to kill themselves, which could have easily been the result). As far as I've read, the peaceful marches have not been hampered - the only incidents that have been forcefully acted upon are when protestors invade private property and create highway roadblocks that endanger the public.
Not to say that no law enforcement has acted inappropriately; it's a tough line to follow for either side, for sure, and with slanted coverage it's very difficult to get both sides of every incident.
-
..............meanwhile, the clowns who occupied the Klamath Wildlife Refuge for a month with rifles, intimidated federal employees, pulled down fences, disturbed a cultural resources site with a backhoe, rifled through work files, and generally made a mess of things for a month -- were acquitted.
Now imagine if this federal refuge was taken over by Native Americans or the Black Lives Matter group - how long do you think they would have been allowed to occupy the place?
-
At least in our case everyone agreed on who the enemy was.
Dakota Access has purchased voluntary easement agreements on 100% of the properties along the route in North Dakota. (http://www.daplpipelinefacts.com/docs-dapl/08092016/DAPL_ND_Progress_Report_8-09-16.pdf)
jussayin
-
At least in our case everyone agreed on who the enemy was.
Dakota Access has purchased voluntary easement agreements on 100% of the properties along the route in North Dakota. (http://www.daplpipelinefacts.com/docs-dapl/08092016/DAPL_ND_Progress_Report_8-09-16.pdf)
jussayin
http://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/Army-Corps-of-Engineers-confirms-there-is-no-written-easement-for-Dakota-Access-Pipeline-construction-391443731.html
jussayin
-
isn't the land covered by treaties w the sioux ppl? this was brought up to the un recently.
-
isn't the land covered by treaties w the sioux ppl? this was brought up to the un recently.
No. Where the pipeline crosses the river was originally part of the reservation in an 1851 treaty; in 1868, that treaty was replaced with a new one, shrinking the borders of the reservation. Of course, all treaties have contained language ensuring that public construction works would be allowed to cross reservation land unhindered.
http://standingrock.org/fort-laramie-treaty/
..............meanwhile, the clowns who occupied the Klamath Wildlife Refuge for a month with rifles, intimidated federal employees, pulled down fences, disturbed a cultural resources site with a backhoe, rifled through work files, and generally made a mess of things for a month -- were acquitted.
Now imagine if this federal refuge was taken over by Native Americans or the Black Lives Matter group - how long do you think they would have been allowed to occupy the place?
The main protest camp is on federal land. They've been camped there for months. And no protestors have been killed by law enforcement - looks like this protest is indeed being handled differently than the Oregon one, and the protestors have been allowed to camp on Army Corps. land for a different amount of time than other similar protests - longer, in fact. But yeah, riffling through work files is much worse than blocking state highways with flaming cars, shooting at law enforcement officers and lighting National Guard vehicles on fire...
-
I grew up in North Dakota. Wonder what these protesters plan is come mid December..... in NORTH DAKOTA
-
isn't the land covered by treaties w the sioux ppl? this was brought up to the un recently.
No. Where the pipeline crosses the river was originally part of the reservation in an 1851 treaty; in 1868, that treaty was replaced with a new one, shrinking the borders of the reservation. Of course, all treaties have contained language ensuring that public construction works would be allowed to cross reservation land unhindered.
http://standingrock.org/fort-laramie-treaty/
my understanding was that just bc it wasn't part of the reservation doesn't mean it's us territory, much less private property of the company.
yes, there were also disputes over whether the sioux were given enough input on the federal approval process. there was a burial ground and also cultural artifacts that were not properly charted and may be covered under indigenous rights not to be disturbed, even if on federal land.
it's such a complicated issue. i'm glad i don't live super close by bc i find it really hard to track all of this, esp since there seem to be so many conflicting interests: the wider native protesters, the liberal no-oil politics, the liberal pro-oil and conservative pro-oil, the residents of the reservation, the residents near the original routing, the federal agencies like the corp of engineers, the dapl private company, the dapl private police, the local police, the police brought in, the federal forces, and then probably some plethora of local politics.
-
isn't the land covered by treaties w the sioux ppl? this was brought up to the un recently.
No. Where the pipeline crosses the river was originally part of the reservation in an 1851 treaty; in 1868, that treaty was replaced with a new one, shrinking the borders of the reservation. Of course, all treaties have contained language ensuring that public construction works would be allowed to cross reservation land unhindered.
http://standingrock.org/fort-laramie-treaty/
my understanding was that just bc it wasn't part of the reservation doesn't mean it's us territory, much less private property of the company.
yes, there were also disputes over whether the sioux were given enough input on the federal approval process. there was a burial ground and also cultural artifacts that were not properly charted and may be covered under indigenous rights not to be disturbed, even if on federal land.
it's such a complicated issue. i'm glad i don't live super close by bc i find it really hard to track all of this, esp since there seem to be so many conflicting interests: the wider native protesters, the liberal no-oil politics, the liberal pro-oil and conservative pro-oil, the residents of the reservation, the residents near the original routing, the federal agencies like the corp of engineers, the dapl private company, the dapl private police, the local police, the police brought in, the federal forces, and then probably some plethora of local politics.
Not easy to parse through all of the misinformation. This is probably the best documented run down I have seen - lots and lots of sources in the article.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-gates/on-the-standing-rock-tribes-dakota-pipeline-protest-/10154529600627457
-
I would suggest getting all sides of the story by also watching Unicorn Riot live feeds to supplement what you are being fed by mainstream news. I hadn't heard of Unicorn Riot before this year, but their live streams often offer much needed details that are left out of the snippets in the news.
For example, where were these major news outlets last month when the protesters were deliberately attacked by security dogs? There is plenty of video of unmarked security guards lunging into into crowds of protesters with attack dogs coming out of the crowd with their mouths bloody. Major news outlets didn't seem to have much to say about that.
I can't confirm of course (I'm not there) but I saw a video today where people were suggesting that authorities are now deliberately arresting medics that are clearly marked via their clothing and markings on their vehicles that they are there only to serve as medics, not protesters. The ethical ramifications of much of what I'm seeing on these live streams, including the intimidation tactics against journalists makes me very uneasy.
Thank you for the information!
-
I am most definitely biased towards the side of the protesters, so it's hard for me to make a post that doesn't sound defensive. I would simply argue that if they were breaking the law by trespassing, they should have been arrested, not deliberately attacked by dogs. Many people went to the hospital with dog bites that day. It was rather convenient that protesters are met with immense police presence EVERYWHERE they go, yet there were no police anywhere to be seen on the site that day.
I agree the incident was unfortunate. The pipeline company was trying to protect its workers and equipment (and keep the protestors out of a dangerous construction site), and injuries resulted. It would have been better if one side or the other had completely backed off - no doubt. However, this was (I believe) the incident that began the 'immense police presence' and both sides have been safer since.
There are protesters that are acting aggressively. What I've seen is rocks being thrown after they've been pepper sprayed, rubber bulleted, etc., and there are also protesters yelling at the angry protesters to stop throwing things and putting them all in danger. I've seen rocks get hurled at cops and I've seen protesters form a line between cops and their own people to defend the cops. I see cops trying to handle people delicately and I see cops kicking people while they're down. I see good and bad happening on all sides.
There is so much misinformation out there. It's very difficult for me to put together a true line of events - seems every side has its slant. I can commend law enforcement for their restraint in some instances- Thursday a protestor drew a pistol and fired at the police. They did not return fire.
There is also evidence that a DAPL employee sped towards their camp with guns in his vehicle this past week. He was ran off the road by camp security (ie, protesters) and later arrested, and they found the insurance for the vehicle he was driving registered to DAPL. So there are also agitators being thrown into the mix.
Yes, this is an interesting incident. Doesn't do anyone any good to be inciting violence. It was amazing no one was killed in this instance - I saw pictures of the event; it looked pretty tense. (Getting run off the road and chased into a river, all with guns involved.)
I really hate to see things escalating to such a dangerous level, for all sides, but I am definitely more concerned that protester and journalist rights are being violated.
The protests have spread to my city as well. We found out that a number of our police officers were dispatched to North Dakota to assist. Queue angry citizens lined up at our government center in opposition.
But at any rate, I am glad that folks are willing to watch the feeds. It's easier to form your own conclusions that way. You will not see most of that on CNN. It does give you a good perspective on what is going on without a major news corporation's filter.
I guess I don't feel protestor rights are being violated (in a systemic way). The main camp has been on federal land for months; no movement has been made to evict them. Protestors have burned millions of dollars of equipment (In Iowa) and broken into valve sites to shut down pipelines (or try to kill themselves, which could have easily been the result). As far as I've read, the peaceful marches have not been hampered - the only incidents that have been forcefully acted upon are when protestors invade private property and create highway roadblocks that endanger the public.
Not to say that no law enforcement has acted inappropriately; it's a tough line to follow for either side, for sure, and with slanted coverage it's very difficult to get both sides of every incident.
Why the reluctance to allow journalists to report the news? Someone mentioned the arrest of Amy Goodman. More dialogue should follow, not trying to repress the news.
-
Goodman's charges were thrown out of court - the judge was like WTF are you guys doing?
-
Interesting. The raw video feeds I've seen show protestors tearing down a fence to cross onto private property and into an active construction site. The bulldozers that were working immediately shut down, and the security staff step in to keep the protestors away from the operators. Protestors strike at the dogs and guards with flag poles. This could be where the dogs got blood on their face.
Rather aggressive actions from both sides, it seems.
Both sides? What you just stated shows deliberate attacks and law breaking by anarchists (real protesters don't attack people) by one side only while the other side went out of their way to defend themselves non-violently.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/us/dakota-access-pipeline-protests/index.html
More updates. Protestors fired weapons at law enforcement. This is crazy!
Real protesters protest, they don't fire weapons. Those firing weapons are hard left anarchists who use events like this to promote their hatred. You can see the same type of people inciting violence in the current election riots.
-
I grew up in North Dakota. Wonder what these protesters plan is come mid December..... in NORTH DAKOTA
Spent a couple winter's in the oilfield up there. The camp will disperse the first week the temperature doesn't get above -10.
"People splitting firewood...." http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/11/02/report-standing-rock-fierce-resilience-black-snake-approaches-river
They have no idea what they are in for.
-
I grew up in North Dakota. Wonder what these protesters plan is come mid December..... in NORTH DAKOTA
Spent a couple winter's in the oilfield up there. The camp will disperse the first week the temperature doesn't get above -10.
"People splitting firewood...." http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/11/02/report-standing-rock-fierce-resilience-black-snake-approaches-river
They have no idea what they are in for.
... except that many of them have lived there their whole lives.
-
I grew up in North Dakota. Wonder what these protesters plan is come mid December..... in NORTH DAKOTA
Spent a couple winter's in the oilfield up there. The camp will disperse the first week the temperature doesn't get above -10.
"People splitting firewood...." http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/11/02/report-standing-rock-fierce-resilience-black-snake-approaches-river
They have no idea what they are in for.
... except that many of them have lived there their whole lives.
Actually, according to this news report, less than 1 in 5 is from the state: http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/north-dakota/4139574-authorities-highlight-criminal-histories-some-pipeline-protesters
Not sure if that matters or not. I'm a bit more concerned about the protestors shooting at police officers, lighting vehicles on fire and damaging infrastructure such as bridges and highways.
-
Army Corps of Engineers orders DAPL Protest Camp Closed (http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/army-corps-engineers-orders-dakota-pipeline-protesters-abandon-camp-n688476)
Looks like the U.S. Gov. has decided to move the protestors out "For safety reasons". Interesting course of action - We'll see what develops.
-
Yeah, there have been quite a few developments out there. I believe that after the letter was issued, the Army Corps of Engineers released a separate statement they had "no plans for forcible removal," but in the same statement they also said specifically that "emergency, fire, medical, and law enforcement response cannot be adequately provided in these areas." On the one hand, I wonder how much of those services were being provided in the first place (so maybe that statement doesn't have as much gravity as it seems to me), but on the other hand there have already been incidents of mercenaries showing up to intimidate people, so I wonder if this will feel like an open invitation for more of that behavior. We'll see how things go. It unfortunately seems to be on a path towards escalation, whatever form that takes.
In another development, apparently 2,000 veterans plan on converging on the site in support of the protestors, from Dec 4 - 7. They've crowdfunded over a half a million dollars in 17 days, and are talking about planning a second trip a few weeks later because they've exceeded capacity.
-
Actually, according to this news report, less than 1 in 5 is from the state: http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/north-dakota/4139574-authorities-highlight-criminal-histories-some-pipeline-protesters
Not sure if that matters or not. I'm a bit more concerned about the protestors shooting at police officers, lighting vehicles on fire and damaging infrastructure such as bridges and highways.
I'm also concerned about egregious use of force against protesters.
http://www.thedickinsonpress.com/news/north-dakota/4168144-sheriff-morton-county-sued-excessive-force-protests
Many law enforcement agencies are politely declining to show up for Morton County's request for support in part because they believe that it is a misappropriation of the emergency management support, because their constituencies do not want them showing up there, etc.
I expect things to get much worse in December as ETP (company building DAPL) faces insolvency and contractual obligations. See the executive summary at (I tried to paste the text, but the formatting didn't work):
http://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/The-High-Risk-Financing-Behind-the-Dakota-Access-Pipeline_-NOV-2016.pdf
Based on past actions by ETP and local law enforcement, we can expect the insertion of agitators into the camps and use of private contractors (aka, mercenaries) against the protesters in addition to the continued use of water cannons in sub-freezing temperatures and indiscriminate use of other strongarm tactics.
Regardless of opinions on the pipeline, the actions of the local law enforcement against American citizens is deplorable.
-
One media source dug for some facts...most of the others have simply provided a soapbox for the protestors.
"Protesters claim that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers failed to consult tribal leaders as required by federal law. The record shows that the corps held 389 meetings with 55 tribes. Corps officials met many times with leaders of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, which initiated the lawsuit and the protests.
Protesters claim that the Standing Rock Sioux pursued meetings with an unresponsive Army Corps of Engineers. Court records show that the roles in that story were in fact reversed. The corps alerted the tribe to the pipeline permit application in the fall of 2014 and repeatedly requested comments from and meetings with tribal leaders, only to be rebuffed over and over. Tribal leaders ignored requests for comment and canceled meetings multiple times.
In September 2014 alone, the Corps made five unsuccessful attempts to meet with Standing Rock Sioux leaders. The next month, a meeting was arranged, but "when the Corps timely arrived for the meeting, Tribal Chairman David Archambault told them that the conclave had started earlier than planned and had already ended," according to a federal judge.
At a planned meeting the next month, the tribe took the pipeline off the agenda and refused to discuss it. This stonewalling by tribal leaders continued for a year and a half."
http://www.wdaz.com/news/4159502-column-what-dakota-access-pipeline-protesters-arent-telling-you
-
..............meanwhile, the clowns who occupied the Klamath Wildlife Refuge for a month with rifles, intimidated federal employees, pulled down fences, disturbed a cultural resources site with a backhoe, rifled through work files, and generally made a mess of things for a month -- were acquitted.
Now imagine if this federal refuge was taken over by Native Americans or the Black Lives Matter group - how long do you think they would have been allowed to occupy the place?
um...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Alcatraz#Collapse_and_removal
Not defending the KWR decision but Native Americans have mounted a ton of protests on federal land and while it sometimes does take force to ultimately disperse them, very few end up in prison. At this stage of the game, particularly way out in the middle of nowhere, both sides are willing participants. That has to temper the response from those of us viewing it from a distance. The people on the ground there will feel like they have no choice, govt employees, protesters, and pipeline employees. We will view their actions with the certain knowledge that they actually did, they could choose to leave.
-
I've been working on a travel contract since May in Bismarck, ND. It's about 30 miles away from the protest camps and the only population center nearby. My work has absolutely nothing to do with the pipeline or oil. I've tried very hard to stay neutral minded about the whole situation because the locals are upset and taking sides. This has exacerbated previously present racial tensions.
If anyone has specific questions about "on the ground" stuff locally, I'd be happy to answer to the best of my ability. I will say, my personality tends to be one that favors "the little guy", but I've tried to not let that taint my rather neutral stance, as I see both (or many) sides to this situation.
-
I've been working on a travel contract since May in Bismarck, ND. It's about 30 miles away from the protest camps and the only population center nearby. My work has absolutely nothing to do with the pipeline or oil. I've tried very hard to stay neutral minded about the whole situation because the locals are upset and taking sides. This has exacerbated previously present racial tensions.
If anyone has specific questions about "on the ground" stuff locally, I'd be happy to answer to the best of my ability. I will say, my personality tends to be one that favors "the little guy", but I've tried to not let that taint my rather neutral stance, as I see both (or many) sides to this situation.
What would be good local papers to read for info? (online, obviously)
-
What would be good local papers to read for info? (online, obviously)
http://bismarcktribune.com/ is the only major local paper (Bismarck is only about 60-70K in population).
It trends towards the position against the protesters, but does provide limited counterpoints.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/04/politics/dakota-access-pipeline/index.html?adkey=bn
Big movement on this front. ACOE reverses itself, and says pipeline will be re routed.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/04/politics/dakota-access-pipeline/index.html?adkey=bn
Big movement on this front. ACOE reverses itself, and says pipeline will be re routed.
Thanks for the info MM! Work will likely be interesting tomorrow, I'm going to practice silent meditation tonight.
-
I grew up in North Dakota. Wonder what these protesters plan is come mid December..... in NORTH DAKOTA
Spent a couple winter's in the oilfield up there. The camp will disperse the first week the temperature doesn't get above -10.
"People splitting firewood...." http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/11/02/report-standing-rock-fierce-resilience-black-snake-approaches-river
They have no idea what they are in for.
Much has happened since this was written, but as someone who consider North Dakota "down south" I wanted to comment on this. Those protesters included both local indigenous people (who have adapted to the climate for a few thousand years), and other indigenous people travelling from the south and north to support them. Some of those, like the Sami and Inuit, are used to winters colder than -40 F/C.
I hope we will get all of our money out of this before the entire project collapses. http://planetsave.com/2016/12/04/indigenous-norwegians-force-bank-withdraw-support-dakota-access/
-
https://www.wday.com/news/north-dakota/4188319-swat-team-called-dakota-access-pipeline-protests-5-arrested-trespassing
Looks like protestors are still there, despite some bad blizzards that have hit the area recently. Seems from my reading that since the ACOE decision, the tribe Chairman requested that protestors leave; many did, but the most militant ones seems to have stayed, and continue to cause issues for local law enforcement.
-
I grew up in North Dakota. Wonder what these protesters plan is come mid December..... in NORTH DAKOTA
Spent a couple winter's in the oilfield up there. The camp will disperse the first week the temperature doesn't get above -10.
"People splitting firewood...." http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/11/02/report-standing-rock-fierce-resilience-black-snake-approaches-river
They have no idea what they are in for.
Much has happened since this was written, but as someone who consider North Dakota "down south" I wanted to comment on this. Those protesters included both local indigenous people (who have adapted to the climate for a few thousand years), and other indigenous people travelling from the south and north to support them. Some of those, like the Sami and Inuit, are used to winters colder than -40 F/C.
I hope we will get all of our money out of this before the entire project collapses. http://planetsave.com/2016/12/04/indigenous-norwegians-force-bank-withdraw-support-dakota-access/
That article makes no sense. Why would you tamper with a bridge BEFORE you go over it? Honestly, unless the "authority" in question has evidence of this tampering I don't trust their statement. There have been so many incidences of false statements, I just can't trust them.
-
That article makes no sense. Why would you tamper with a bridge BEFORE you go over it? Honestly, unless the "authority" in question has evidence of this tampering I don't trust their statement. There have been so many incidences of false statements, I just can't trust them.
I'm not sure which article you're referring to? But I believe that the bridge you are referring to leads to the construction site - protestors have repeatedly 'tampered' with the bridge, parking vehicles across it and lighting them on fire, as well as detonating IEDs beneath it (with tragic consequences). This is intended to block the bridge for construction traffic - protestors are repeatedly attempting to cross it to damage construction equipment staged at the work site on the other side.
-
That article makes no sense. Why would you tamper with a bridge BEFORE you go over it? Honestly, unless the "authority" in question has evidence of this tampering I don't trust their statement. There have been so many incidences of false statements, I just can't trust them.
I'm not sure which article you're referring to? But I believe that the bridge you are referring to leads to the construction site - protestors have repeatedly 'tampered' with the bridge, parking vehicles across it and lighting them on fire, as well as detonating IEDs beneath it (with tragic consequences). This is intended to block the bridge for construction traffic - protestors are repeatedly attempting to cross it to damage construction equipment staged at the work site on the other side.
The article within the post I quoted. http://planetsave.com/2016/12/04/indigenous-norwegians-force-bank-withdraw-support-dakota-access/
And I stand by my statements, proof please. If they actually damaged something, don't you think they would have been arrested for something more than trespassing?
-
The article within the post I quoted. http://planetsave.com/2016/12/04/indigenous-norwegians-force-bank-withdraw-support-dakota-access/
And I stand by my statements, proof please. If they actually damaged something, don't you think they would have been arrested for something more than trespassing?
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/police-and-protesters-face-off-at-backwater-bridge/article_11111264-b9b3-5e7d-8ecc-40b17d324e7f.html
This article gives a rough coverage of both of the major protests at this site. It also clearly mentions the fires set by protestors.
-
The article within the post I quoted. http://planetsave.com/2016/12/04/indigenous-norwegians-force-bank-withdraw-support-dakota-access/
And I stand by my statements, proof please. If they actually damaged something, don't you think they would have been arrested for something more than trespassing?
http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-and-regional/police-and-protesters-face-off-at-backwater-bridge/article_11111264-b9b3-5e7d-8ecc-40b17d324e7f.html
This article gives a rough coverage of both of the major protests at this site. It also clearly mentions the fires set by protestors.
Again with no actual evidence, though I'll give that likely someone within the protesters may have burned some vehicles. The only evidence that it was protesters though AGAIN was a statement from police "Throughout the night, protesters started a dozen fires and tried to move north through a line of police, according to the sheriff's department, who reported that rocks and logs were thrown at officers, and one officer was struck in the head."
Which is funny because if you look at the article you posted the damage to the vehicles happen once and the protesters want access to the bridge but the police are keeping them off "Houska noted that police reinforced the roadblock of burned vehicles with barriers and wire behind the vehicles on the bridge after the October fires.
"This has been weeks and weeks of those vehicles on the road for no apparent reason, and it's a huge public safety risk. It's putting enormous pressure on the Standing Rock Sioux community and people who live and work in the area," she said."
It looks like to me, that the damage to the vehicles is benefiting the police, not protesters. Not saying that within a large group, you might not find people who doing things that are not benefiting the whole but again, to take the words of the police with no evidence, given the evidence of them lying seems foolish.
The protesters say they only started fires in response to the water canons being used against them "He said the fires reported by police were set in order to help people warm up who had been sprayed." The article over and over, shows that the protesters want access to bridge and the ones against it are police. The protesters attempted to remove the vehicle, the police did not want them to. So, it is rather convenient for the police to say that inspecting the bridge is not safe.
So again, I'll ask for actual evidence of damage caused by protesters, not statements from the police.
-
Again with no actual evidence, though I'll give that likely someone within the protesters may have burned some vehicles. The only evidence that it was protesters though AGAIN was a statement from police "Throughout the night, protesters started a dozen fires and tried to move north through a line of police, according to the sheriff's department, who reported that rocks and logs were thrown at officers, and one officer was struck in the head."
Which is funny because if you look at the article you posted the damage to the vehicles happen once and the protesters want access to the bridge but the police are keeping them off "Houska noted that police reinforced the roadblock of burned vehicles with barriers and wire behind the vehicles on the bridge after the October fires.
"This has been weeks and weeks of those vehicles on the road for no apparent reason, and it's a huge public safety risk. It's putting enormous pressure on the Standing Rock Sioux community and people who live and work in the area," she said."
It looks like to me, that the damage to the vehicles is benefiting the police, not protesters. Not saying that within a large group, you might not find people who doing things that are not benefiting the whole but again, to take the words of the police with no evidence, given the evidence of them lying seems foolish.
The protesters say they only started fires in response to the water canons being used against them "He said the fires reported by police were set in order to help people warm up who had been sprayed." The article over and over, shows that the protesters want access to bridge and the ones against it are police. The protesters attempted to remove the vehicle, the police did not want them to. So, it is rather convenient for the police to say that inspecting the bridge is not safe.
So again, I'll ask for actual evidence of damage caused by protesters, not statements from the police.
I guess this is the post fact era..
Of course the protestors want the bridge cleared - it's the road leading to the construction site; they wish to go to protest, vandalize equipment, and harass workers as they did this summer.
It's not "likely" that some protestors burned vehicles - that is literally what happened. There is photographic evidence of the fires set by protesters.(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/a1abf56671d84a7a66239578c76ac8a2af5e954c/0_214_2016_1210/master/2016.jpg?w=780&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=03902598f47508f0360a312be662e008)
And yes, the police would probably not try too hard to unblock the road; it protects private property and makes it easier and safer for them to do their job. The protestors lit fires on the bridge to block it, and now are mad that it's blocked? And if this level of violence is occurring, with fires being lit and people tearing down barricades and shooting at police, who are then shooting rubber bullets back - how in the world would engineers get in to assess the bridge?
-
Metric Mouse, if you want to call this post-fact, you actually have to post facts. Not, the police said so or it is likely they did or of course they did it. Given that people have been safe within the protesters, including media, I do think engineers could check the bridge. I also think it is possible to clear the bridge without the engineers, let the protesters do it. They tried and the police stopped them. That begs the question of why.
No one is contesting the fires, they are contesting why the fires were lit and where. You may want to reread my statement where I said it was likely that someone within the protesters did light the fires past the statement by the protesters themselves, but the proof needs to be there, not just the statement of the police because they are not trustworthy. And a picture of a fire is not proof of who.
If you want to talk facts, you actually need facts. Try again.
-
how in the world would engineers get in to assess the bridge?
Plus, there is four-plus feet of snow on the ground. Half of the roads in the state have not been properly cleared in a month and looks like another streak of -40 windchills. No way anyones inspecting anything until spring.
-
Metric Mouse, if you want to call this post-fact, you actually have to post facts. Not, the police said so or it is likely they did or oh course they did it. Given that people have been safe within the protesters, including media, I do think engineers could check the bridge. I also think it is possible to clear the bridge without the engineers, let the protesters do it. They tried and the police stopped them. That begs the question of why.
No one is contesting the fires, they are contesting why the fires were lit and where. You may want to reread my statement where I said it was likely that someone within the protesters did light the fires past the statement by the protesters themselves, but the proof needs to be there, not just the statement of the police because they are not trustworthy. And a picture of a fire is not proof of who.
If you want to talk facts, you actually need facts. Try again.
I'm confused by your argument - are you claiming that the media reports can not be trusted, that police reports can not be trusted (while accepting they may be biased) but that unsubstantiated protester reports are factual? How do we know that they tried to remove the cars and were stopped? Do you have proof of this?
How can one contest where the fires were lit? There is photographic proof of the fires. I literally just posted one.
I'm not sure how you can claim 'people have been safe within the protesters' when there is clearly evidence (http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2016/oct/20/filmmaker-describes-frightening-assault-at-dapl-camp/) to the contrary (http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2016/oct/28/shootings-investigated-at-dapl-protest/)
Do you have sources for your claims?
-
Metric Mouse, if you want to call this post-fact, you actually have to post facts. Not, the police said so or it is likely they did or oh course they did it. Given that people have been safe within the protesters, including media, I do think engineers could check the bridge. I also think it is possible to clear the bridge without the engineers, let the protesters do it. They tried and the police stopped them. That begs the question of why.
No one is contesting the fires, they are contesting why the fires were lit and where. You may want to reread my statement where I said it was likely that someone within the protesters did light the fires past the statement by the protesters themselves, but the proof needs to be there, not just the statement of the police because they are not trustworthy. And a picture of a fire is not proof of who.
If you want to talk facts, you actually need facts. Try again.
I'm confused by your argument - are you claiming that the media reports can not be trusted, that police reports can not be trusted (while accepting they may be biased) but that unsubstantiated protester reports are factual? How do we know that they tried to remove the cars and were stopped? Do you have proof of this?
How can one contest where the fires were lit? There is photographic proof of the fires. I literally just posted one.
I'm not sure how you can claim 'people have been safe within the protesters' when there is clearly evidence (http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2016/oct/20/filmmaker-describes-frightening-assault-at-dapl-camp/) to the contrary (http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2016/oct/28/shootings-investigated-at-dapl-protest/)
Do you have sources for your claims?
The argument here seems to be semantic in nature.
There is clearly a burned vehicle and/or fire set at the front line between protestors and police. The photograph provides clear, indexical evidence that the fire is fact - nobody is denying that there is indeed a fire. Beyond this, it is unable to be independently verified who set the fire, and why they set the fire. There are several parties casting blame on other parties for having done so, and ascribing unto them motivations for having done so, but nobody outside this mess can independently confirm or refute the details that are being put forth.
What is being questioned is whether a statement by the police can be taken as fact - many people do not trust them as a source of information, and without witness testimony or other direct evidence that what the police have said is exactly the truth of what happened, that will continue to be a question mark. A picture of a fire leaves open the question of who set it and why - we can't prove it. Unless supported by direct evidence, either video or eyewitness testimony that is able to be independently confirmed, information put out about the conflict should be assumed to be incomplete, and possibly either conjecture or outright biased in nature.
-
Metric Mouse, if you want to call this post-fact, you actually have to post facts. Not, the police said so or it is likely they did or oh course they did it. Given that people have been safe within the protesters, including media, I do think engineers could check the bridge. I also think it is possible to clear the bridge without the engineers, let the protesters do it. They tried and the police stopped them. That begs the question of why.
No one is contesting the fires, they are contesting why the fires were lit and where. You may want to reread my statement where I said it was likely that someone within the protesters did light the fires past the statement by the protesters themselves, but the proof needs to be there, not just the statement of the police because they are not trustworthy. And a picture of a fire is not proof of who.
If you want to talk facts, you actually need facts. Try again.
I'm confused by your argument - are you claiming that the media reports can not be trusted, that police reports can not be trusted (while accepting they may be biased) but that unsubstantiated protester reports are factual? How do we know that they tried to remove the cars and were stopped? Do you have proof of this?
How can one contest where the fires were lit? There is photographic proof of the fires. I literally just posted one.
I'm not sure how you can claim 'people have been safe within the protesters' when there is clearly evidence (http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2016/oct/20/filmmaker-describes-frightening-assault-at-dapl-camp/) to the contrary (http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2016/oct/28/shootings-investigated-at-dapl-protest/)
Do you have sources for your claims?
The argument here seems to be semantic in nature.
There is clearly a burned vehicle and/or fire set at the front line between protestors and police. The photograph provides clear, indexical evidence that the fire is fact - nobody is denying that there is indeed a fire. Beyond this, it is unable to be independently verified who set the fire, and why they set the fire. There are several parties casting blame on other parties for having done so, and ascribing unto them motivations for having done so, but nobody outside this mess can independently confirm or refute the details that are being put forth.
What is being questioned is whether a statement by the police can be taken as fact - many people do not trust them as a source of information, and without witness testimony or other direct evidence that what the police have said is exactly the truth of what happened, that will continue to be a question mark. A picture of a fire leaves open the question of who set it and why - we can't prove it. Unless supported by direct evidence, either video or eyewitness testimony that is able to be independently confirmed, information put out about the conflict should be assumed to be incomplete, and possibly either conjecture or outright biased in nature.
I am not sure why you think my argument is about semantics. I'm pretty sure most people accused of something would not consider it semantics. But other yes, you summarized my issue well. The police have been shown to be no more honest than any other eye witness testimony and therefore their statements should not be taken as fact, any more than anyone else's uncollaborated word would be.
-
Metric Mouse, if you want to call this post-fact, you actually have to post facts. Not, the police said so or it is likely they did or oh course they did it. Given that people have been safe within the protesters, including media, I do think engineers could check the bridge. I also think it is possible to clear the bridge without the engineers, let the protesters do it. They tried and the police stopped them. That begs the question of why.
No one is contesting the fires, they are contesting why the fires were lit and where. You may want to reread my statement where I said it was likely that someone within the protesters did light the fires past the statement by the protesters themselves, but the proof needs to be there, not just the statement of the police because they are not trustworthy. And a picture of a fire is not proof of who.
If you want to talk facts, you actually need facts. Try again.
I'm confused by your argument - are you claiming that the media reports can not be trusted, that police reports can not be trusted (while accepting they may be biased) but that unsubstantiated protester reports are factual? How do we know that they tried to remove the cars and were stopped? Do you have proof of this?
How can one contest where the fires were lit? There is photographic proof of the fires. I literally just posted one.
I'm not sure how you can claim 'people have been safe within the protesters' when there is clearly evidence (http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2016/oct/20/filmmaker-describes-frightening-assault-at-dapl-camp/) to the contrary (http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2016/oct/28/shootings-investigated-at-dapl-protest/)
Do you have sources for your claims?
The argument here seems to be semantic in nature.
There is clearly a burned vehicle and/or fire set at the front line between protestors and police. The photograph provides clear, indexical evidence that the fire is fact - nobody is denying that there is indeed a fire. Beyond this, it is unable to be independently verified who set the fire, and why they set the fire. There are several parties casting blame on other parties for having done so, and ascribing unto them motivations for having done so, but nobody outside this mess can independently confirm or refute the details that are being put forth.
What is being questioned is whether a statement by the police can be taken as fact - many people do not trust them as a source of information, and without witness testimony or other direct evidence that what the police have said is exactly the truth of what happened, that will continue to be a question mark. A picture of a fire leaves open the question of who set it and why - we can't prove it. Unless supported by direct evidence, either video or eyewitness testimony that is able to be independently confirmed, information put out about the conflict should be assumed to be incomplete, and possibly either conjecture or outright biased in nature.
I am not sure why you think my argument is about semantics. I'm pretty sure most people accused of something would not consider it semantics. But other yes, you summarized my issue well. The police have been shown to be no more honest than any other eye witness testimony and therefore their statements should not be taken as fact, any more than anyone else's uncollaborated word would be.
Sorry, what I meant to say was that it seemed like there was a misunderstanding between you and Metric Mouse about what you meant in your previous post, keying on what constitutes a "fact". I didn't think it was clear to Metric that you were questioning the nature of what "fact" meant, given the circumstances and potentially untrustworthy nature of those who happen to be in a position of authority.
Now, a debate over what a word means in a given context (meanings and relations) would be semantics, would it not? Do I misunderstand what "semantics" means? I thought your original points were well-taken and didn't mean to suggest that your whole argument should be in any way discounted, just that it seemed like you and MM were beginning your arguments from different definitions of what "fact" meant in this context.
-
Metric Mouse, if you want to call this post-fact, you actually have to post facts. Not, the police said so or it is likely they did or oh course they did it. Given that people have been safe within the protesters, including media, I do think engineers could check the bridge. I also think it is possible to clear the bridge without the engineers, let the protesters do it. They tried and the police stopped them. That begs the question of why.
No one is contesting the fires, they are contesting why the fires were lit and where. You may want to reread my statement where I said it was likely that someone within the protesters did light the fires past the statement by the protesters themselves, but the proof needs to be there, not just the statement of the police because they are not trustworthy. And a picture of a fire is not proof of who.
If you want to talk facts, you actually need facts. Try again.
I'm confused by your argument - are you claiming that the media reports can not be trusted, that police reports can not be trusted (while accepting they may be biased) but that unsubstantiated protester reports are factual? How do we know that they tried to remove the cars and were stopped? Do you have proof of this?
How can one contest where the fires were lit? There is photographic proof of the fires. I literally just posted one.
I'm not sure how you can claim 'people have been safe within the protesters' when there is clearly evidence (http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2016/oct/20/filmmaker-describes-frightening-assault-at-dapl-camp/) to the contrary (http://kfgo.com/news/articles/2016/oct/28/shootings-investigated-at-dapl-protest/)
Do you have sources for your claims?
The argument here seems to be semantic in nature.
There is clearly a burned vehicle and/or fire set at the front line between protestors and police. The photograph provides clear, indexical evidence that the fire is fact - nobody is denying that there is indeed a fire. Beyond this, it is unable to be independently verified who set the fire, and why they set the fire. There are several parties casting blame on other parties for having done so, and ascribing unto them motivations for having done so, but nobody outside this mess can independently confirm or refute the details that are being put forth.
What is being questioned is whether a statement by the police can be taken as fact - many people do not trust them as a source of information, and without witness testimony or other direct evidence that what the police have said is exactly the truth of what happened, that will continue to be a question mark. A picture of a fire leaves open the question of who set it and why - we can't prove it. Unless supported by direct evidence, either video or eyewitness testimony that is able to be independently confirmed, information put out about the conflict should be assumed to be incomplete, and possibly either conjecture or outright biased in nature.
I am not sure why you think my argument is about semantics. I'm pretty sure most people accused of something would not consider it semantics. But other yes, you summarized my issue well. The police have been shown to be no more honest than any other eye witness testimony and therefore their statements should not be taken as fact, any more than anyone else's uncollaborated word would be.
Sorry, what I meant to say was that it seemed like there was a misunderstanding between you and Metric Mouse about what you meant in your previous post, keying on what constitutes a "fact". I didn't think it was clear to Metric that you were questioning the nature of what "fact" meant, given the circumstances and potentially untrustworthy nature of those who happen to be in a position of authority.
Now, a debate over what a word means in a given context (meanings and relations) would be semantics, would it not? Do I misunderstand what "semantics" means? I thought your original points were well-taken and didn't mean to suggest that your whole argument should be in any way discounted, just that it seemed like you and MM were beginning your arguments from different definitions of what "fact" meant in this context.
No, you do understand. I honestly though did not think we were debating a word. Now that you wrote it that way, it is much clearer. If I had realized he considered the statement of someone to be a fact, I might have been clearer. Though maybe I would have gotten myself in trouble with the mods, had I understood better, lol, so maybe it was better for me and Metric not to understand each other.
-
The argument here seems to be semantic in nature.
There is clearly a burned vehicle and/or fire set at the front line between protestors and police. The photograph provides clear, indexical evidence that the fire is fact - nobody is denying that there is indeed a fire. Beyond this, it is unable to be independently verified who set the fire, and why they set the fire. There are several parties casting blame on other parties for having done so, and ascribing unto them motivations for having done so, but nobody outside this mess can independently confirm or refute the details that are being put forth.
What is being questioned is whether a statement by the police can be taken as fact - many people do not trust them as a source of information, and without witness testimony or other direct evidence that what the police have said is exactly the truth of what happened, that will continue to be a question mark. A picture of a fire leaves open the question of who set it and why - we can't prove it. Unless supported by direct evidence, either video or eyewitness testimony that is able to be independently confirmed, information put out about the conflict should be assumed to be incomplete, and possibly either conjecture or outright biased in nature.
I believe both sides admit that protestors lit the fires - are you suggesting that perhaps some other group started the fires on the bridge? While we can certainly agree that eyewitness accounts can not be fully trusted outside of other evidence, and that both sides of this conflict are motivated to skew the reporting towards their bias, in this particular situation I have not heard any other theories of what might have occurred to result in burning vehicles being parked upon the bridge.
-
Protesters hang NODAPL sign from roof of football stadium (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/01/us/dapl-protester-minnesota-vikings-chicago-bears-us-bank-stadium/index.html)
-
The argument here seems to be semantic in nature.
There is clearly a burned vehicle and/or fire set at the front line between protestors and police. The photograph provides clear, indexical evidence that the fire is fact - nobody is denying that there is indeed a fire. Beyond this, it is unable to be independently verified who set the fire, and why they set the fire. There are several parties casting blame on other parties for having done so, and ascribing unto them motivations for having done so, but nobody outside this mess can independently confirm or refute the details that are being put forth.
What is being questioned is whether a statement by the police can be taken as fact - many people do not trust them as a source of information, and without witness testimony or other direct evidence that what the police have said is exactly the truth of what happened, that will continue to be a question mark. A picture of a fire leaves open the question of who set it and why - we can't prove it. Unless supported by direct evidence, either video or eyewitness testimony that is able to be independently confirmed, information put out about the conflict should be assumed to be incomplete, and possibly either conjecture or outright biased in nature.
I believe both sides admit that protestors lit the fires - are you suggesting that perhaps some other group started the fires on the bridge? While we can certainly agree that eyewitness accounts can not be fully trusted outside of other evidence, and that both sides of this conflict are motivated to skew the reporting towards their bias, in this particular situation I have not heard any other theories of what might have occurred to result in burning vehicles being parked upon the bridge.
I am not suggesting that another group started the bridge fires, to do so would be speculation since I have no information on the matter that I deem trustworthy from a reliable source. I agree with your assessment that it is likely that it was the protestors, since I really can't imagine what law enforcement would stand to gain by doing so, but again I can't know that. Unless it was to give the appearance that the protestors were rowdier and more disorderly, fortifying the premise on which to crack down on them? The void of information is incredible.
-
I am not suggesting that another group started the bridge fires, to do so would be speculation since I have no information on the matter that I deem trustworthy from a reliable source. I agree with your assessment that it is likely that it was the protestors, since I really can't imagine what law enforcement would stand to gain by doing so, but again I can't know that. Unless it was to give the appearance that the protestors were rowdier and more disorderly, fortifying the premise on which to crack down on them? The void of information is incredible.
There is a derth of information; though some is less reliable than others.
-
I am not suggesting that another group started the bridge fires, to do so would be speculation since I have no information on the matter that I deem trustworthy from a reliable source. I agree with your assessment that it is likely that it was the protestors, since I really can't imagine what law enforcement would stand to gain by doing so, but again I can't know that. Unless it was to give the appearance that the protestors were rowdier and more disorderly, fortifying the premise on which to crack down on them? The void of information is incredible.
There is a derth of information; though some is less reliable than others.
I'd really like your evidence for that because you seem to put the police/offical statements as fact See this article that shows officers don't lie less than the public: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1527&context=lawfaculty
-
I am not suggesting that another group started the bridge fires, to do so would be speculation since I have no information on the matter that I deem trustworthy from a reliable source. I agree with your assessment that it is likely that it was the protestors, since I really can't imagine what law enforcement would stand to gain by doing so, but again I can't know that. Unless it was to give the appearance that the protestors were rowdier and more disorderly, fortifying the premise on which to crack down on them? The void of information is incredible.
There is a derth of information; though some is less reliable than others.
I'd really like your evidence for that because you seem to put the police/offical statements as fact See this article that shows officers don't lie less than the public: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1527&context=lawfaculty
Actually, in the last few posts I have posted photographic evidence, an independent reporter's account (accompanied by video footage), local news coverage and national news media coverage. I'm not sure how many more sources I should explore? I've never stated a police report as 'fact', and have clearly admitted there is bias on both sides of the issue, which is why I offer several sources. No single source is intended to be all-encompassing; there is so much information out there on the subject it would be silly to take only one and assume that it is fully complete.
If you're hung up on the word 'fact', then that's a semantic argument that is not helpful in supporting the rights of people to be civilly disobedient. I can't prove for a 'fact' that a specific protester lit cars on fire at a specific time; it is not my intention to do so. The cars could have driven themselves onto the bridge before spontaneously combusting. The police could have stolen these cars, lit them on fire, and then rode through town arresting random people for the crime because their alien overlords told them to. I mean, we can't prove for a 'fact' that this didn't happen. Really, we can't 'know' that this didn't happen.
But it can be stated that the most likely scenario, based on many eye witness accounts, and not refuted by anyone who was there, is that protesters built barricades and lit the cars on fire on the bridge. I mean, the evidence clearly moves the discussion far past the level of 'speculation.' More photographic evidence here (http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/aerial-photos-of-the-dapl-protest/collection_d418974c-fc02-5988-8151-7a4e69b9fdc5.html#3)
-
I am not suggesting that another group started the bridge fires, to do so would be speculation since I have no information on the matter that I deem trustworthy from a reliable source. I agree with your assessment that it is likely that it was the protestors, since I really can't imagine what law enforcement would stand to gain by doing so, but again I can't know that. Unless it was to give the appearance that the protestors were rowdier and more disorderly, fortifying the premise on which to crack down on them? The void of information is incredible.
There is a derth of information; though some is less reliable than others.
I'd really like your evidence for that because you seem to put the police/offical statements as fact See this article that shows officers don't lie less than the public: http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1527&context=lawfaculty
Actually, in the last few posts I have posted photographic evidence, an independent reporter's account (accompanied by video footage), local news coverage and national news media coverage. I'm not sure how many more sources I should explore? I've never stated a police report as 'fact', and have clearly admitted there is bias on both sides of the issue, which is why I offer several sources. No single source is intended to be all-encompassing; there is so much information out there on the subject it would be silly to take only one and assume that it is fully complete.
If you're hung up on the word 'fact', then that's a semantic argument that is not helpful in supporting the rights of people to be civilly disobedient. I can't prove for a 'fact' that a specific protester lit cars on fire at a specific time; it is not my intention to do so. The cars could have driven themselves onto the bridge before spontaneously combusting. The police could have stolen these cars, lit them on fire, and then rode through town arresting random people for the crime because their alien overlords told them to. I mean, we can't prove for a 'fact' that this didn't happen. Really, we can't 'know' that this didn't happen.
But it can be stated that the most likely scenario, based on many eye witness accounts, and not refuted by anyone who was there, is that protesters built barricades and lit the cars on fire on the bridge. I mean, the evidence clearly moves the discussion far past the level of 'speculation.' More photographic evidence here (http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/aerial-photos-of-the-dapl-protest/collection_d418974c-fc02-5988-8151-7a4e69b9fdc5.html#3)
Actually your own post refuted the statements. Protesters said they lit fires after being attacked water cannons in freezing temps:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/dakota-pipeline-protesters-authorities-clash-temperatures-drop-n686581
You might not be as careful with a fire if you have soaked by water in temperatures as low as 23 degrees.
Now I am not saying, AGAIN, as I did on BOTH the 30th and 31st, that it is not likely that some members of the protesters used this as an opportunity to be violent and may have intentionally lit cars on fire. However, nothing you posted was evidence of that other than statements by police. The protesters have another side, saying they were trying to combat hypothermia after they were soaked by water in temperatures as low as 23 degrees. Neither the police nor the protesters are less bias or less likely to be lying.
You showed a picture of fire, no evidence of who or why. You posted a "news journalist" who has history of lying. Maybe if you actually posted someone without a history of lying or actual evidence, I would not be arguing. If you want someone to believe you, you need facts not supposition. Because when you look at supposition, I ask, who in benefiting from it and right now, it is not protesters. I also ask why the police have arrested journalists so that less biased information could come out and not just be from their statements? Who is benefiting from that?
Also, if you look at the news article I posted, the authorities whose statements you are taking as proof of action stated "Sheriff's spokesman Rob Keller told NBC News that no water cannon were deployed and that water was sprayed from a fire truck to control fires as they were being set by activists. However, video posted to Facebook by activists clearly showed authorities spray a continuous stream of water over demonstrators in areas where there were no fires." So please tell me why you seem to think their statements are actual proof?
-
Actually your own post refuted the statements. Protesters said they lit fires after being attacked water cannons in freezing temps:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/dakota-pipeline-protesters-authorities-clash-temperatures-drop-n686581
You might not be as careful with a fire if you have soaked by water in temperatures as low as 23 degrees.
Now I am not saying, AGAIN, as I did on BOTH the 30th and 31st, that it is not likely that some members of the protesters used this as an opportunity to be violent and may have intentionally lit cars on fire. However, nothing you posted was evidence of that other than statements by police. The protesters have another side, saying they were trying to combat hypothermia after they were soaked by water in temperatures as low as 23 degrees. Neither the police nor the protesters are less bias or less likely to be lying.
You showed a picture of fire, no evidence of who or why. You posted a "news journalist" who has history of lying. Maybe if you actually posted someone without a history of lying or actual evidence, I would not be arguing. If you want someone to believe you, you need facts not supposition. Because when you look at supposition, I ask, who in benefiting from it and right now, it is not protesters.
Also, if you look at the news article I posted, the authorities whose statements you are taking as proof of action stated "Sheriff's spokesman Rob Keller told NBC News that no water cannon were deployed and that water was sprayed from a fire truck to control fires as they were being set by activists. However, video posted to Facebook by activists clearly showed authorities spray a continuous stream of water over demonstrators in areas where there were no fires." so please tell me why you seem to think their statements are actual proof?
I understand now. You are confused; there were multiple encounters at this bridge between police and protesters, and you are reading accounts of (and we are discussing) different events and conflating them - which is why the facts do not line up. I really do understand - there is quite a lot of information out there and most of it has little context, which is why this thread is so useful on the subject.
Breakdown:
In October protesters blocked the bridge with barricades and burning cars, Police responded (no water cannons - LRADs and less-lethal munitions) and arrested 140+ protestors (out of several hundred) who were vandalizing construction equipment, blocking the highway and burning National Guard vehicles. - I was referring and posting pictures of this incident
In November, (the article you most recently posted) protesters once again returned to the bridge in an attempt to gain access to the construction site - the barricades and burned vehicles were still there (from where the protesters had left them) and the police had set up a further road block. Fire trucks were used to put out fires and keep protesters from crossing the police barricade and putting officers in danger. Fires were then set on the hillside - protesters claim it was to keep warm, Police state it was a fire hazard and a danger. 1 arrested. - You were posting articles of this incident.
As for the police statement - I can only imagine that a water cannon is different than a fire truck hose, and thus he was technically correct that a water cannon had not been used.
Hopefully this clears up some of the confusion?
-
Actually your own post refuted the statements. Protesters said they lit fires after being attacked water cannons in freezing temps:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/dakota-pipeline-protesters-authorities-clash-temperatures-drop-n686581
You might not be as careful with a fire if you have soaked by water in temperatures as low as 23 degrees.
Now I am not saying, AGAIN, as I did on BOTH the 30th and 31st, that it is not likely that some members of the protesters used this as an opportunity to be violent and may have intentionally lit cars on fire. However, nothing you posted was evidence of that other than statements by police. The protesters have another side, saying they were trying to combat hypothermia after they were soaked by water in temperatures as low as 23 degrees. Neither the police nor the protesters are less bias or less likely to be lying.
You showed a picture of fire, no evidence of who or why. You posted a "news journalist" who has history of lying. Maybe if you actually posted someone without a history of lying or actual evidence, I would not be arguing. If you want someone to believe you, you need facts not supposition. Because when you look at supposition, I ask, who in benefiting from it and right now, it is not protesters.
Also, if you look at the news article I posted, the authorities whose statements you are taking as proof of action stated "Sheriff's spokesman Rob Keller told NBC News that no water cannon were deployed and that water was sprayed from a fire truck to control fires as they were being set by activists. However, video posted to Facebook by activists clearly showed authorities spray a continuous stream of water over demonstrators in areas where there were no fires." so please tell me why you seem to think their statements are actual proof?
I understand now. You are confused; there were multiple encounters at this bridge between police and protesters, and you are reading accounts of (and we are discussing) different events and conflating them - which is why the facts do not line up. I really do understand - there is quite a lot of information out there and most of it has little context, which is why this thread is so useful on the subject.
Breakdown:
In October protesters blocked the bridge with barricades and burning cars, Police responded (no water cannons - LRADs and less-lethal munitions) and arrested 140+ protestors (out of several hundred) who were vandalizing construction equipment, blocking the highway and burning National Guard vehicles. - I was referring and posting pictures of this incident
In November, (the article you most recently posted) protesters once again returned to the bridge in an attempt to gain access to the construction site - the barricades and burned vehicles were still there (from where the protesters had left them) and the police had set up a further road block. Fire trucks were used to put out fires and keep protesters from crossing the police barricade and putting officers in danger. Fires were then set on the hillside - protesters claim it was to keep warm, Police state it was a fire hazard and a danger. 1 arrested. - You were posting articles of this incident.
As for the police statement - I can only imagine that a water cannon is different than a fire truck hose, and thus he was technically correct that a water cannon had not been used.
Hopefully this clears up some of the confusion?
According to wiki (not always accurate)- water cannon is a device that shoots a high-velocity stream of water. Typically, a water cannon can deliver a large volume of water, often over dozens of meters. They are used in firefighting, large vehicle washing and riot control. Most water cannons fall under the category of a fire monitor. So, I am still going with lying at that one.
I am still reading and will get back to you.
-
According to wiki (not always accurate)- water cannon is a device that shoots a high-velocity stream of water. Typically, a water cannon can deliver a large volume of water, often over dozens of meters. They are used in firefighting, large vehicle washing and riot control. Most water cannons fall under the category of a fire monitor. So, I am still going with lying at that one.
I am still reading and will get back to you.
Maybe NBC is lying?
Per the Washington Post: “There are multiple fires being set by protesters on the bridge and in the area of the bridge,” department spokeswoman Donnell Hushka told CNN. “We have firetrucks on the scene. They are using their fire hoses to put out the fires, wet the land around so fires don’t spread, and they are also using water as crowd control.”
Per the Guardian: link (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/21/dakota-access-pipeline-water-cannon-police-standing-rock-protest)
The Morton County sheriff, Kyle Kirchmaier, defended the use of the water cannons in a press conference today, though he objected to the terminology.
“We don’t have a water cannon,” he said. “I don’t know where the term water cannon comes from. This was basically just a fire hose.”
-
More Blackwater Bridge protests (http://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/More-arrests-made-at-DAPL-protest-site-near-Backwater-Bridge-410881005.html)
More arrests in the DAPL protests as protestors took down barricades, threw razor wire (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/us/dakota-access-pipeline-battle/index.html) at police and attempted to cross private property to gain access to the horizontal drill pad near the river.
In other news:
ACOE orders EIS of pipeline crossing (http://marketrealist.com/2017/01/us-army-begin-environmental-study-energy-transfers-dapl/)
Federal Judge declined to dismiss the environmental impact study of the Lake Oahe crossing, and the Army Corps of Engineers will begin re-assessing the crossing's impacts.
-
Souix Tribe votes to disband protest camps (http://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/standing-rock-tribe-eviction-30-days-1.3948587) for various reasons. Some people are saying they will leave, but many protestors vow to remain.
-
Trump moves to speed approval of DAPL (http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/24/politics/trump-keystone-xl-dakota-access-pipelines-executive-actions/index.html)
-
Peaceful compromise happens. Souix Tribe and contractors begin to clean up the protest camp (http://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/Cleanup-begins-at-DAPL-protest-camp-412218803.html) that seems to have been largely evacuated despite promises to stay, while Sherriff's office (http://www.kfyrtv.com/content/news/Law-enforcement-begins-removal-of-barricade-on-Highway-1806--412349973.html) follows through on promise to remove barricades from contested bridge.
Some protestors attempted to set up a 'rogue' protest camp (http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/dakota-access-pipeline-army-corps/) on private land, and were arrested. This comes after news that the ACOE will now greenlight the project 'imminently'.
-
ACOE and local law enforcement have officially closed the main protest camp. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/23/dakota-pipeline-camp-raided-after-protesters-defy-deadline-refuse-to-leave.html)
TL;DR - The federal government, local government and tribal government had become concerned that the debris left over from the camp would wash into the river during seasonal floods. Approximately 1,000 tons of human waste left over from the camps has already been removed. ND Gov. offered hotel stays and bus tickets to anywhere in the USA for any protestors that wished to leave ahead of the camp closing - the date and time of which was set by the federal government, and then extended another day due to weather conditions.
Water protectors lit several fires (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/22/us-shutting-down-dakota-access-oil-pipeline-protest-camp.html) as the camp was closed, injuring a 17 year old girl and a 7 year old boy. Both are hospitalized. A sad day for the victims, and the environment.
LA Times' coverage of the event: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-dakota-access-protest-camp-20170222-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-dakota-access-protest-camp-20170222-story.html)
-
Oil to begin flowing through DAPL as early as next week: http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/DAPL-Oil-To-Start-Flowing-By-March-20th.html
Following this court ruling: http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/sioux.pdf
-
Oil to begin flowing through DAPL as early as next week: http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/DAPL-Oil-To-Start-Flowing-By-March-20th.html
Following this court ruling: http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/sioux.pdf
Wonderful. I'm thrilled that thousands of rail cars won't be rattling around, and all the semi trucks that won't have to clog up our freeways to move the oil that was going to be drilled anyway.
-
Oil to begin flowing through DAPL as early as next week: http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/DAPL-Oil-To-Start-Flowing-By-March-20th.html
Following this court ruling: http://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/sioux.pdf
Wonderful. I'm thrilled that thousands of rail cars won't be rattling around, and all the semi trucks that won't have to clog up our freeways to move the oil that was going to be drilled anyway.
That is certainly the consensus of a lot of people.
-
And I am thrilled one of my pension funds finally has divested from the Dakota pipeline: http://english.klp.no/about-klp/press-room/klp-excludes-companies-involved-in-dakota-access-pipeline-1.35741 The national bank is also almost completely out. Unfortunately, our national pension fund is still invested in the pipeline.
-
And I am thrilled one of my pension funds finally has divested from the Dakota pipeline: http://english.klp.no/about-klp/press-room/klp-excludes-companies-involved-in-dakota-access-pipeline-1.35741 The national bank is also almost completely out. Unfortunately, our national pension fund is still invested in the pipeline.
Interesting. I'm glad this had a happy ending for you. Not so for many indigenous peoples who demonstrated against this project.
-
And I am thrilled one of my pension funds finally has divested from the Dakota pipeline: http://english.klp.no/about-klp/press-room/klp-excludes-companies-involved-in-dakota-access-pipeline-1.35741 The national bank is also almost completely out. Unfortunately, our national pension fund is still invested in the pipeline.
Interesting. I'm glad this had a happy ending for you. Not so for many indigenous peoples who demonstrated against this project.
Well, we might be a bit slow up here in the north, but we haven't really understood that this fight has ended yet. It was our indigenous people who managed to convince the pension fund and several banks to divest, and they are still fighting (with my whole heartedly support) to get everyone else here to do the same. For them this is part of the century old struggle to get influence over their land, and for their brothers and sisters in the US and other places to be listened too.
https://www.google.no/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/mar/17/sami-dakota-access-pipeline-norway-pension-fund-divest