SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
According to an article at Snopes.com:
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."
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday December 05 2016, @06:18PM
"+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
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
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.