Slash Boxes

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.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

    -- []

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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 [] and the Agreement of 1877 []. 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!!