Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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) 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 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_ []

    • (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 []. 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 [] 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 [] 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.