Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday December 05 2016, @01:13PM   Printer-friendly
from the embrace-extend-extinguish? dept.

According to an article at

The Army Corps of Engineers has denied the easement needed to complete the Dakota Access Pipeline, according Colonel Henderson, who notified Veterans for Standing Rock co-organizer Michael A. Wood Jr on 4 December 2016.

More than 3,000 veterans had converged at the Standing Rock camp to support the Sioux in their ongoing opposition to the building of a $3.7 billion pipeline that would cross through disputed land managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. Wood said upon learning of the move, "This is history."

From a report in Al Jazeera :

The US Army Corps of Engineers has turned down a permit for a controversial pipeline project running through North Dakota, in a victory for Native Americans and climate activists who have protested against the project for several months, according to a statement released.

The 1,885km Dakota Access Pipeline, owned by Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners LP, had been complete except for a segment planned to run under Lake Oahe, a reservoir formed by a dam on the Missouri River.

"The Army will not grant an easement to cross Lake Oahe at the proposed location based on the current record," a statement from the US Army said.

The Standing Rock Sioux tribe, along with climate activists, have been protesting the $3.8bn project, saying it could contaminate the water supply and damage sacred tribal lands.

[...] "Today, the US Army Corps of Engineers announced that it will not be granting the easement to cross Lake Oahe for the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline," said Standing Rock Chairman Dave Archambault II, in a statement.

"Instead, the Corps will be undertaking an environmental impact statement to look at possible alternative routes."

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This discussion has been archived.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 Monday December 05 2016, @05:43PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 05 2016, @05:43PM (#437272)

    "+1 Insightful" is not "+1 I totally agree with you!". You readily admit to abusing the moderation system.

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday December 05 2016, @05:48PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday December 05 2016, @05:48PM (#437275) Homepage Journal

    I have readily admitted - yes, I have - that mercenary sumbitches are mercenaries, no matter which side they are working for. You know what? Most people don't understand that. When two hippies meet, they recognize each other as kindred spirits. When two cops meet, they recognize each other. Neither pair understands that the other pair is very much like themselves.

    It is you who is lacking insight, and you refuse to understand insight when it is serve to you on a silver platter. Idiot.

    Through a Glass, Darkly -George Patton
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Monday December 05 2016, @07:51PM

      by Scruffy Beard 2 (6030) on Monday December 05 2016, @07:51PM (#437350)

      I attended an anti-white power rally to counter a white power rally many years ago.

      In reviewing the pictures, I noticed that both sides generally wore similar counter-culture clothing. Generally surplus military fatigues with various badges.

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @06:18PM

    by VLM (445) on Monday December 05 2016, @06:18PM (#437288)

    "+1 Insightful" is not "+1 I totally agree with you!".

    My original controversial point was all sides are dirtbags, to one level or another, and this was a crystal clear individual example of theoretically opposing sides unified as being outsiders only in it for themselves, in it for the money for example, or for social/street cred.

    I'm sitting here trying to think of a better compare and contrast example from the whole multi-party battle and not having much luck. It really is almost the perfect platonic form of what I don't like about the protests. If anyone can think of a better example then chime in with the actual example itself, not "ur mods sux".

    Apparently some folks have themed the protests as some kind of simplistic star wars good vs evil or Tolkien-esque story or the 60s civil rights movement part two, and there's lots of unhappiness when its pointed out that everyone in the battle on every side is at least somewhat dirty. There is no purely good side in this particular fight.

    • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Monday December 05 2016, @07:01PM

      by mhajicek (51) on Monday December 05 2016, @07:01PM (#437309)

      Perhaps there is no purely good side, but if you are willing to assault non-violent protesters you are definitely evil.

      The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday December 06 2016, @12:59PM

        by VLM (445) on Tuesday December 06 2016, @12:59PM (#437642)

        I came up with a good analogy last night that the whole thing is like personnel stationed on the Star Wars Death Star. Some folks did very little wrong, just signed a contract and took some probably minimal paycheck to mop the floors, and there's distinct levels of badness all the way up to Darth Vader and the Emperor. Or another way to put it is there are no good guys in this fight but there are better and worse guys.

        Probably I'd rate the engineers who routed the pipeline as most evil, followed by the attack troop guards.