• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Dakota Access Pipeline

TownieDeac

TownieDeac

words are futile devices
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
76,189
Reaction score
16,923
I sort of expected there would be a thread about this, but I guess national politics are *the* story right now. Here's a good review from the New Yorker, albeit almost 2 months old at this point.

Bullets:

-The pipeline was fast tracked, which is likely why it hasn't received as much attention as Keystone XL.
-The pipeline was originally supposed to go through Bismarck, but authorities warned a leak into the Missouri could wreck the capital's drinking water, so it was moved to 1/2 mile from a reservation, in territory taken from the Sioux in a 1958 dispute.
-The pipeline, protesters are arguing, will dig up burial sites and ancient sacred land.
-The company building the pipeline hired private security forces with dogs and pepper spray to disperse protesters.

Giant fucking pile of nothing with HRC's team's statement (I fucking hate liberalism most days):

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.
Click to expand...

Trump hasn't released a statement, likely because he's an investor in the pipeline and his probably Energy Secretary pick, Harold Hamm, is CEO of the largest group lobbying on its behalf.
 
Amnesty International USA to Monitor to North Dakota Pipeline Protests

Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chair: DOJ Must Investigate Use of Force Against #DAPL Resistance

Timeline from ABC

protectors.png


nat-41.jpg
 
avalon said:
nat-41.jpg
Click to expand...

Just to clarify: this is an image of policing of a peaceful protest in the United States of America and not Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Egypt or whatever repressive regime we're demonizing this month.
 
Strickland33 said:
Just to clarify: this is an image of policing of a peaceful protest in the United States of America and not Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Egypt or whatever repressive regime we're demonizing this month.
Click to expand...

It's particularly egregious when compared to the Bundy case. Armed militants can (apparently lawfully?) occupy federal land but peaceful protesters are attacked with private security forces with tasers, tear gas, and dogs on land in territorial dispute.

You have to think this story would be getting a lot more coverage if it wasn't happening to such an unbelievably disenfranchised group, or in an election year.

The lawsuit seems fairly clear cut though, that the tribal leaders were not properly consulted about the land use according to federal law. It's just terribly sad that the people of Bismarck were allowed to have their say and Native Americans weren't.
 
TownieDeac said:
It's particularly egregious when compared to the Bundy case. Armed militants can (apparently lawfully?) occupy federal land but peaceful protesters are attacked with private security forces with tasers, tear gas, and dogs on land in territorial dispute.

You have to think this story would be getting a lot more coverage if it wasn't happening to such an unbelievably disenfranchised group, or in an election year.

The lawsuit seems fairly clear cut though, that the tribal leaders were not properly consulted about the land use according to federal law. It's just terribly sad that the people of Bismarck were allowed to have their say and Native Americans weren't.
Click to expand...

Sad, but expected. Par for the course.
 
It is really encouraging to see all the support from the people who admonish Native Americans to "focus on real issues" in the mascot debate.

Does safe water count as a real issue? Is it high enough on the list?
 
The police brutality stuff is awful and rightly gets all the headlines this week. But, the government is definitely going to get sued over this, but it will be after the fact once the pipeline is up and running. I don't know much about Native American treaties and sovereign right, but, liberals all latched on to fighting the Keystone pipeline and meanwhile someone was sneaking this effort through the back door. Just for example, I can't imagine how they got this project past a legitimate endangered assessment for the Missouri river crossing. Several endangered species live near or down stream from the crossing site and any thorough assessment would have found this effort required strict permitting and monitoring, which it does not appear to have.
 
birdman said:
The police brutality stuff is awful and rightly gets all the headlines this week. But, the government is definitely going to get sued over this, but it will be after the fact once the pipeline is up and running. I don't know much about Native American treaties and sovereign right, but, liberals all latched on to fighting the Keystone pipeline and meanwhile someone was sneaking this effort through the back door. Just for example, I can't imagine how they got this project past a legitimate endangered assessment for the Missouri river crossing. Several endangered species live near or down stream from the crossing site and any thorough assessment would have found this effort required strict permitting and monitoring, which it does not appear to have.
Click to expand...

That damned Obama!
 
birdman said:
In the case of natural resource management and public lands you could be referring to the Bureau of Land Management, the original BLM.
Click to expand...

Ha - I've been reading so much on Cliven Bundy - that's the first thing that came to mind.
 
If the area in question is a reservation, how does anyone force them to accept the pipeline?
 
i think it's a little strange that the tribes stick with the whole sovereignty thing.
 
bym051d said:
If the area in question is a reservation, how does anyone force them to accept the pipeline?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that it was part of the reservation until 1958, but then we changed the treaty to moved the border and some of the residents are still not happy about it.
 
14595754_675389329302237_5304772304696243117_n.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top