Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 6 submissions in the queue.
posted by on Sunday February 12 2017, @10:09AM   Printer-friendly
from the rebellion dept.

The Guardian reports that the U.S. Army sent a letter, dated 7 February, to member of Congress Raúl Grijalva, saying it would grant a permit for the construction of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. Work could resume as early as 8 February.

"I have determined that there is no cause for completing any additional environmental analysis," wrote Douglas W Lamon, the senior official performing the duties of assistant secretary of the army, wrote in a notice to the federal register.

More recent news in Standing Rock from Feb 9:

The restarting of the drilling operation, which a pipeline spokeswoman confirmed on Thursday morning, began soon after the US government gave the oil corporation the green light to proceed on Wednesday. The controversial pipeline could be transporting crude oil from North Dakota to Illinois within three months.

At the Standing Rock camps in Cannon Ball – where activists have been stationed since last spring to fight the project – indigenous and environmental organizers vowed to stay put and continue opposing the pipeline.

[Continues...]

And from Feb 11:

Army veterans from across the country have arrived in Cannon Ball, North Dakota, or are currently en route after the news that Donald Trump's administration has allowed the oil corporation to finish drilling across the Missouri river.

The growing group of military veterans could make it harder for police and government officials to try to remove hundreds of activists who remain camped near the construction site and, some hope, could limit use of excessive force by law enforcement during demonstrations.

"We are prepared to put our bodies between Native elders and a privatized military force," said Elizabeth Williams, a 34-year-old air force veteran, who arrived at Standing Rock with a group of vets late on Friday. "We've stood in the face of fire before. We feel a responsibility to use the skills we have."

Previous stories:

Army Corp [sic] of Engineers Now Accepting Public Comment on the Dakota Access Pipeline
Army Corps of Engineers Blocks the Dakota Access Pipeline and many others in the archives.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 12 2017, @02:32PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 12 2017, @02:32PM (#466153) Journal

    "I have determined that there is no cause for completing any additional environmental analysis," wrote Douglas W Lamon, the senior official performing the duties of assistant secretary of the army, wrote in a notice to the federal register.

    In a previous story on the subject, I pointed out [soylentnews.org] the importance of rule of law. Here's one of the observations I made:

    I did mention this as well as several, more substantive tactics of obstruction. Here, the pipeline company simply ignored [dailykos.com] the request as is their right (since it is voluntary and the company has no common cause in hindering its own project). Given that Trump won (the request was even made weeks after the election), it would be rather dumb to comply with a demand that's going to be outright tossed in a couple of months.

    Here, what one president can arbitrarily do, another can arbitrarily undo.

  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @04:50PM (#466200)

    Here, what one president can arbitrarily do, another can arbitrarily undo.

    Congrats. You've just argued away the existence of the office of the president.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 13 2017, @04:37AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 13 2017, @04:37AM (#466448) Journal

      Congrats. You've just argued away the existence of the office of the president.

      Just because the US President is subject to constraints doesn't mean that they don't exist. After all, the office exists in the first place despite your assertion otherwise.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @07:13AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @07:13AM (#466495)

        What you fail to understand, which is completely understandable since you are so ignorant of how the world works, is that the office of presidency has been guided by norms. One of those norms is that arbitrarily undoing the actions of a previous president is only done under exceptional circumstances. In other words, there is a huge difference between ability do something and actually doing it. The loser president's schtick has been to ignore norms, but his anti-social behavior is not valid grounds for eliminating traditions of respecting the actions of prior presidents. Slack is the lubricant that makes the world work, if we decide that rigid adherence to lowest common denominator rules is the best we can do then the operation of the government would grind to a halt.

        And now you may commence with the obvious idiocy of someone who himself is too rigid and callow to understand anything I just wrote.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 13 2017, @02:06PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 13 2017, @02:06PM (#466582) Journal

          What you fail to understand, which is completely understandable since you are so ignorant of how the world works, is that the office of presidency has been guided by norms. One of those norms is that arbitrarily undoing the actions of a previous president is only done under exceptional circumstances.

          Electing Trump satisfied your "exceptional circumstances". Check.

          The loser president's schtick has been to ignore norms, but his anti-social behavior is not valid grounds for eliminating traditions of respecting the actions of prior presidents.

          Getting elected is valid grounds for eliminating the traditions of respecting the actions of prior presidents. Let us also recall that arbitrary actions are being undone here. Check.

          It should never be a norm to honor bad or inimical policies and corrupt decisions of previous administrations. It sounds to me like you will be glad that this norm doesn't exist when future presidents undo the harms created by a Trump presidency.

          Slack is the lubricant that makes the world work, if we decide that rigid adherence to lowest common denominator rules is the best we can do then the operation of the government would grind to a halt.

          Slack hasn't worked at the federal level for many decades. It's too easy to abuse. Here was a classic example. The pipeline owner jumped through all the hoops, yet still gets denied merely because the Obama administration has enough slack to get away with blocking construction for as long as they were in power.

          And a lot of slack has been abused heavily by the US intelligence community. Where's your talk of "norms" when it concerns wholesale surveillance, condoned torture and other lawbreaking, and over seventy years of meddling in the world at large?

          The obvious solution is to have the feds do far less than they currently do. Then you can have your slack without having your tyrannical government.

          And now you may commence with the obvious idiocy of someone who himself is too rigid and callow to understand anything I just wrote.

          Because lack of understanding has to be the only reason one would disagree. I can't help but notice how we've gone from a discussion of the rule of law to touchie feelie notions of political squatters' rights where things have to be honored indefinitely, merely because someone got elected in the past. Here's my view. If you don't have rule of law, you don't have such norms.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday February 26 2017, @11:43PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 26 2017, @11:43PM (#472037) Journal
          MY post is late and probably will be the very last posted to this topic, but I think it's worth mentioning a historical example to show just how hypocritical this discussion of "norms" actually is.

          The loser president's schtick has been to ignore norms, but his anti-social behavior is not valid grounds for eliminating traditions of respecting the actions of prior presidents.

          How about norms such as using the power of the office of president exploiting traditions topublicly humiliate [washingtonpost.com] rivals? Here, Trump was invited to the 2011 White House Correspondents' Association dinner and then publicly joked about by both President Obama and Seth Meyer at length. Then the media proceeded to speculate for years (up to the present day) as to how that made Trump feel. If we're going to speak of alleged norms, we should note the norm of ignoring norms when they don't suit previous holders of the office.

  • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:30PM

    by butthurt (6141) on Sunday February 12 2017, @06:30PM (#466239) Journal

    In a previous story on the subject, I pointed out the importance of rule of law.

    Opponents of the pipeline have the same concern:

    Protesters on [24 October 2016] said the land in question was theirs under the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851, which was signed by eight tribes and the U.S. government. Over the last century, tribes have challenged this treaty and others like it in court for not being honored or for taking their land.

    -- http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pipeline-dakotaaccess-idUSKCN12O2FN [reuters.com]

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 13 2017, @12:35AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 13 2017, @12:35AM (#466376) Journal
      And what was the result of these challenges? Doesn't sound like this tribe is getting any more land out of it.

      I'll note also that there have been two relevant treaties since, the Treaty of Fort Laramie of 1868 [wikipedia.org] and the Agreement of 1877 [wikipedia.org]. Why should the first treaty be counted, but not the subsequent two (the last in particular being what defines the current Standing Rock Reservation). I get that there's a lot of brutal history, oppression, and coercion behind all three of these treaties as well as a variety of parties that simply ignored these treaties outright (including at times portions of US government and military). What I think is notable about all but the third treaty, is the lack of ability by any of the signatories to enforce the treaties. There is certainly a great lack of rule of law.

      But now that's an excuse to interfere with this pipeline which had nothing to do with those old troubles. I just don't buy it.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @05:00AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 13 2017, @05:00AM (#466454)

        One might argue that the tribe never imagined a pipeline of potential poison being run directly over their primary source of water. Did you even read the second treaty? Sell or starve, the tribe lost a huge amount of hunting grounds and the US military comes in and blackmails them into signing a bad treaty. Then in the 1920s the tribe started attempting to reverse the treaty. Come on! This pipeline is just another incident in a long history of oppression, as you admit. But hey, can't let that get in the way of profits!!