Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday November 23 2016, @03:48PM   Printer-friendly
from the as-not-seen-on-tv dept.

Authorities used rubber-coated steel bullets, concussion grenades, tear gas, and water cannons against unarmed protesters near the Dakota Access oil pipeline in 26°F (-3°C) temperatures over the weekend.

Indian Country Today reports

"We have seen four gunshot wounds, three of them to the face and head", said Leland Brenholt, a volunteer medic.

[...]400 protesters, or "water protectors", attempted to dismantle a police-enforced barricade on State Highway 1806.

[...]"Water protectors are done with the military-style barricades. We are done with the floodlights and the armored military trucks. We are are done with it!" declared organizer, Dallas Goldtooth in a mid-evening Facebook post.

Their action was met with the same militarized response that the Morton County Sheriff's Department has demonstrated on protesters for weeks: the use of armored trucks, less-than-lethal ammunition, tear-gas, mace, and on this below-freezing night, water cannons.

[...]Reports from a coalition of advocacy groups near Standing Rock report hundreds of water protectors were receiving treatment for contamination by tear gas, hypothermia, and blunt traumas as a result of rubber bullets. One person, an elder, was reportedly revived after suffering cardiac arrest, organizers said.

"As medical professionals, we are concerned for the real risk of loss of life due to severe hypothermia under these conditions," read a statement from the Standing Rock Medic and Healer Council.

A more measured take is available from the AP.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @04:44PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @04:44PM (#431904)

    "The government wants to steal your land"... It's not technically your land, It's the governments land and they can do anything they want with it. Your deed states the facts somewhere in the fine print. You also don't have ownership under the ground or the airspace above. The only way to truly own property is to buy an island from a country and start your own country, easier said than done though.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   0  
       Informative=1, Overrated=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:28PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:28PM (#431949)

    Yeah and it's not their polluted water that they aren't going to be able to drink safely.

    The Gov is answerable to the people. Of course these bunch are a minority but if enough people kick up a fuss then the Gov should listen whether from "airy fairy niceness" or from the harsh reality that the more people a politician keeps pissing off the higher the chance that someone would kill him/her. This is even true for dictatorships. That's why dictators who know how to stay in power don't like it when their crazy kids do over-the-top bad stuff (those kids can actually get in trouble as a result). The lion knows that the herd can actually kill him.

    Whether this standing rock stuff is important enough, that's up to you. I'd say the US people don't need that pipeline that much, but hey I don't even live in the USA.

  • (Score: 2) by jcross on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:30PM

    by jcross (4009) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @05:30PM (#431952)

    I'm not that informed on the issue but I thought the area in dispute was on a Native American reservation, which is supposed to be sovereign territory. Not that they haven't been screwed on just about every treaty ever, but aren't we supposed to be a little more enlightened now?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:00PM (#431977)

      I thought the area in dispute was on a Native American reservation, which is supposed to be sovereign territory. Not that they haven't been screwed on just about every treaty ever, but aren't we supposed to be a little more enlightened now?

      Did you climb under a rock during the last election season? Seriously, I wouldn't blame you if you had. It was absolutely toxic, and one of the ugly and persisting ramifications (besides having a monster in the white house) is that bigotry, racism, sexism, and generalized hate have become completely normalized. What was that about being "a little more enlightened now?" We've just proven to the world that a large chunk of our population is overtly racist, sexist beyond belief, does not believe in democracy, embraces foreign meddling in our affairs if it serves their short-sighted goals, and have absolutely no compunction about intimidating, assaulting, and even killing those they disagree with.

      We aren't more enlightened now. We're less enlightened, and becoming ever more so every day that goes by. The Republic is gone, now we are nothing more than a two-bit imperialistic banana republic AT BEST (and that is a generous reading of recent events). These people are fighting the good fight, but if even the Obama administration allows this sort of thing against them, I shudder at what they can expect once the racists moves into the west wing this January.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @07:03PM (#432013)

        The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851 was signed by USA.gov and defines what can be done with the land.
        It has not been superseded by a subsequent treaty.
        This attempted usage violates the treaty.

        Bulldozers on their burial grounds would need to be approved by the Lakota.
        That approval has NOT been given.
        Doing something that has the potential to poison their water supply has DEFINITELY not been given.

        These resident of the territory of USA are within their 1st Amendment rights to peacefully protest without being assaulted with weapons of war.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

        • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:39PM

          by Kromagv0 (1825) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:39PM (#432079) Homepage

          I would love to know exactly who owns the land as it is just some regular private citizen or is it part of the reservation. I have seen stories stating that the pipeline is not on the reservation and others that say it is. If it is on the reservation I say let the tribe set fire to machinery that crosses the boundary as it is trespassing and they are considered a sovereign nation and enjoy a lot of freedoms on their property not available to others [brainerddispatch.com]. If not they are going to have to go piss up a rope even if this does seem like a dick move. Considering that a river is involved there are likely additional considerations as water access and use is also negotiated in these treaties.

          --
          T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
          • (Score: 2) by jelizondo on Thursday November 24 2016, @12:22AM

            by jelizondo (653) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 24 2016, @12:22AM (#432218) Journal

            Wonder no more! See the map and read the history [ndstudies.gov] of the treaty the the U.S. signed.

            Of course, said treaty was promptly ignored by the U.S. government who allowed white people to exploit mines in the Black Hills and setttle ranchers in the area, resulting in a decision in 1980, which found the U.S. guilty and sentenced it to pay compensation to the indian tribes, money which was refused, as the tribes did not wish to sell their land.

            So technically, the land is indeed sovereign indian land.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:01AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24 2016, @08:01AM (#432322)

        I'm really confused. Are you trying to describe Trump supporters or Hillary supporters? Your complaints apply to both. The sad thing is each side only see the faults in the other and never looks closely at who they're supporting. Trump is at least starting to act more responsible. I don't think Hillary would have changed.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:34PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @06:34PM (#431994)

    This situation is different, because this is a Native nation's land, so they have substantial rights that an ordinary private citizen or organization wouldn't have. Of course, what often happened when Natives were given rights to land is that the US government takes it away whenever it's convenient. Which is precisely what happened here.

    And, I have to say, as much as I agree with the protesters in this case, they're absolutely screwed: All the public officials who could stop the pipeline have made it abundantly clear that they won't. And yes, that includes officials in both parties: Obama is noticeably silent about what's going on (ongoing and continuous use of force by police and private thugs^Wsecurity guards against people who aren't committing crimes, among other things), and Trump has made it clear he wants more pipelines and drilling.

    --
    Alcohol makes the world go round ... and round and round.
    • (Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:44PM

      by Kromagv0 (1825) on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:44PM (#432084) Homepage

      If it is true that the pipeline is going across the reservation then the tribe has every right to seize all equipment in use on the land if they haven't gotten permission. I'm not sure that is the case having seen stories stating that it is and isn't. to further muddy things there is the river and often in treaties access and usage of nearby water is also negotiated.

      --
      T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:36PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 23 2016, @08:36PM (#432078)

    And anywhere you can buy one has strict restrictions on what you can build there, taxes, and usually at most allow a 99 year lease.

    The only real way to have sovereign land is to have enough manpower willing to die, or pay someone else to die to hold onto it. Pretty sure nobody here has either the social or financial pull fo that.