WATCH: Pipeline Company Attacks Indigenous Protesters With Dogs And Pepper Spray
On Saturday, dozens of indigenous people were attacked by private security while protesting the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline. The Associated Press reports that at least 30 people were pepper-sprayed and six people had been bitten by dogs, including one child. There were no police officers on site.
The protestors broke through fencing and rushed towards construction crews, though none of them appear to have been acting violently. The construction crew was using bulldozers to remove top soil from the site of an ancient indigenous burial ground.
Standing Rock Sioux chairman David Archambault II said in a statement that:
“This demolition is devastating. These grounds are the resting places of our ancestors. The ancient cairns and stone prayer rings there cannot be replaced. In one day, our sacred land has been turned into hollow ground.”
Democracy Now! was on the ground at the time of the attack. Here are photos and video footage that shows the damage that was done to protestors.
This is just the latest incident to happen in a protest that has gone on for months. The Dakota Access pipeline once constructed would span four states. From an environmentalist’s standpoint—or anyone who is at least mildly concerned with combating climate change – we should be thankful that the demonstrations are taking place. The pipeline is expected to transport 570,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the Bakken region in North Dakota to Illinois.
Despite being sold to the public as a means of securing energy independence, recently revealed that at least some of the oil transported by the pipeline will be exported. How much exactly will be exported is unknown. However, recent changes in oil and gas export laws , as well as changes in the oil and gas market, have created conditions that make it far more profitable to export oil than to sell it domestically.
Tags
Who is online
444 visitors
However, recent changes in oil and gas export laws , as well as changes in the oil and gas market, have created conditions that make it far more profitable to export oil than to sell it domestically.
Marketing U.S. produced fossil fuel energy as a "national security" advancement is a very cynical ploy.
"The protestors broke through fencing and rushed towards construction crews." Sounds like they went looking for trouble and got what they were looking for.
Dean - the construction crews are on Indian land, given back to the tribes/nations through numerous treaties.
The burial grounds being bulldozed are considered sacred by Fed law, treaties and by Indian culture and traditions.
How do you think it would be if the Indian tribes/nations decided to build on non-Indian lands that contained cemeteries. When they take the bulldozers out, donchuno that "dominant society" would riot, burn and try to destroy the Indian "despoilers".
I have a feeling the construction workers are not breaking the law and the thugs that broke the fence and rushed them are. Why didn't the Indians have these construction workers removed legally?
The construction workers are violating a cease and desist order from a Fed judge issued three weeks ago. The ACLU and the Army Corp of Engineers and filing a joint law suit against DAPL - BUT - the governor of ND sez there is no violation as there is no need to file an Environmental Impact Statement 'cause "he" doesn't think there's much of an issue.
What he doesn't know is that ANYTIME a fed agency is involved in a development/construction project that "May have an impact" on the environment, an EIS is required. Who's the Fed agency involved?? Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, Army Corps of Engineers, so the governor just got caught with his pants down.
At the Public Service Commission meeting, 3 of the five commissioners voted against the project. However, the governor, seeing the money flowing into ND, overruled their objections and authorized the project.
Yes, there are a number of lawsuits coming - from the Feds, from the tribes/nations, from the individuals injured who now have standing, and from four major law firms.
Unfortunately it takes time for the paperwork to get through the system.
Good points.
Perfect 1st.
Personally, I can emphasize with the Indians in this situation. One treaty after another has been broken over the decades.
Bernie Sanders spoke out against this pipeline.
Obama rejected the Keystone XL pipeline and as you know we don't have the the Keystone XL pipeline at this time. Obama could reject this pipeline as well. Evidently Buffet Lines doesn't run through North Dakota or South Dakota. This is what I mean when I say remaining silent is just as important as speaking up when it comes to Obama.
The Clinton campaign has said they would be the champions of the Indians. CNN has reached out to the Clinton campaign but has not received a response. Of course it is my belief if it produced more votes than it took away, she would be for it until after the election, since she was for the Keystone XL pipeline before, when it didn't seem to matter.
I don't know if Trump has said anything about it, but before we start prejudging him, we need to know if anyone has reached out to his campaign and what he has said. I expect he will not wait to have that happen if he is against the pipeline. ʍɐʇɔɥ ǝʌǝɹʎouǝ ɐʇʇɐɔʞ ʇɥıs ouǝ sǝɔʇıou ɐup ıƃuoɹǝ ǝʌǝɹʎʇɥıuƃ ǝןsǝ˙
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe vs U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
I think we should know how both major candidates feel about this and how they would handle the situation.
We already know how Obama feels.
''Evidently Buffet Lines doesn't run through North Dakota or South Dakota.''
Wrong again Six. The BNSF has lines running through all the states involved in the DAPL.
And Trump was for the XL Pipeline.
ʍɐʇɔɥ ǝʌǝɹʎouǝ ɐʇʇɐɔʞ ʇɥıs ouǝ sǝɔʇıou ɐup ıƃuoɹǝ ǝʌǝɹʎʇɥıuƃ ǝןsǝ˙
Bakken pipeline
It's interesting to note:
Pro-Clinton, Anti-Climate
Here’s an incomplete list of the fossil fuel financiers behind the Clinton campaign:
We already know what Obama's feelings are about this pipeline and I would imagine Hillary has the same feelings as well based on "Energy Transfer Equity" and if I had the time I would tie more of these together.
Trump was no different than Hillary on the Keystone XL pipeline evidently, but there is a lot more information in the comment than just that.
We know how Obama feels, since he is remaining silent and hasn't gotten out his pen to reject it.
More than likely both Hillary and Trump will be for this pipeline, but I would like to hear it from their very own mouths, wouldn't you?
I don't need anyone to tell me what rights I have to feel the way I do or do not feel and I would appreciate laying off now.
My feelings are the Indians have been taken advantage of over and over and the treaties have been broken one by one and I for one am tired of it.
Excellent site for current information.
Soooooo - the U. S. government and the Indian tribes/nations got together (somewhat of a forced meeting), hammered out some ideas and decided to write it all down in a contract (called a treaty). The result was to RETURN land to the tribes/nations that was unlawfully stolen by the state in the early 1900's. As such, the land that was returned is referred to as Treaty Land and, yes, it belongs to the Indian tribes/nations.
Sadly though, all lands that the tribes/nations are on or own actually belong to our most favorite and unbiased Great Father in Washington D.C - he is just letting us use the lands that have been taken from us since 1526 to the sum total of 2.3 billion square acres - just a tad over 3.806 billion square miles, leaving us with a measly 57 million acres - .0000026% of our true ancestral lands.
Simple answer - the lands the pipeline are attempting to transgress now are Treaty Lands - which "belongs" to the tribes/nations. They are NOT private lands.
So this is "Treaty" land that the pipeline is crossing.....
And don't just say it is, provide the name of the document that says it is, or a link to who holds title....
And I will research.
If it is treaty land, then the corps and the partners need to get the fuck off of it. if it isn't then the natives need to get off it.....
But I would really like to hear your opinion on blocking the safest way of transporting Krakken oil is causing a potential disaster everywhere and way else it is being sent.
For a little piece of safety or prevention here you willing to put millions of your fellow Americans at risk?
The reservation established in the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie “included extensive lands that would be crossed by the proposed pipeline.
In the summer of 2016, a group of young activists from Standing Rock ran from North Dakota to Washington, D.C., to present a petition in protest of the construction of Energy Transfer Partners ' Dakota Access Pipeline, which is part of the Bakken pipeline , and have launched an international campaign called ReZpect our Water. [11] The pipeline which goes from North Dakota to Illinois, the activists argue, would jeopardize the water source of the reservation, the Missouri River. [12] [13] The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has filed an injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to stop building the pipeline. [14] [15] In April 2016, three federal agencies -- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , U.S. Department of Interior , and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation —requested full Environmental Impact Statement of the pipeline. [16] In August 2016, protests were held, halting a portion of the pipeline near Cannon Ball, North Dakota . [17] -
My opinion on blocking the pipeline????? Outside of the fact that they have violated the many consultation laws and environmental laws, the tribes/nations don't want them there for all the reasons they have listed - and I concur.
I don't have a proposal - I'm not an engineer - don't wanna be one and don't plan on acting like one.
You should follow that guideline.
BTW - I don't just "say" things are there - and you know that very well
So what your talking about is Russell Means, and the Republic of Lakota.
What it is....
Russel Means, member if AIM, put forth a resolution declaring that the Lakota hereby removed themselves from all Indian treaties made with the US government and there by established the "Republic of Lakota" which consisted of the boundaries of the Sioux nation as was agreed to by the 1851 treaty of Fort Laramie.
That's the claim your making?
This resolution isn't recognized by any governmental organization, including all current tribal governments. The territory the legal native governments recognize as well as the US government is the boundaries set by the 1868 treaty of Fort Laramie. (which set the current res boundaries)
Which places the site CLEARLY outside Indian territory and definitely OFF the reservation.
I would suggest you get your tribal governments to recognize said territory before you start laying claim to it.
Linkage upon request.
Hate to say this to you Egilman, BUT - NWM, NWM, NWM, NWM - as has been stated and proven to you in the past (and probably will continue in the future), you really don't know enough about Federal Indian Law nor treaties nor the U. S. Constitution nor Native American culture, traditions, history, religions or the people to attempt to change mine or anyone else's minds.
You, apparently, instantly identify Native Americans based on your extreme disdain/dislike/repugnance of an organization named American Indian Movement. The original founders of AIM included Dennis Banks , George Mitchell, George Mellessey, Herb Powless, Clyde Bellecourt , Vernon Bellecourt , Harold Goodsky, Eddie Benton-Banai, and a number of others in the Minneapolis Native American community. Russell Means , born Oglala Lakota, was an early leader in 1970s protests. Any of those names draws condemnation of Native Americans from you - " So what your talking about is Russell Means, and the Republic of Lakota.
What it is....
Russel Means, member if AIM, put forth a resolution declaring that the Lakota hereby removed themselves from all Indian treaties made with the US government and there by established the "Republic of Lakota" which consisted of the boundaries of the Sioux nation as was agreed to by the 1851 treaty of Fort Laramie."
An extremely asinine position to take, don't you think?
So, let's do some Federal Indian Law, shall we?
U. S. Constitution became "official" in 1789, and in it, the following became standard - Treaties are not a grant of property or sovereignty to Indian tribes, but a cessation of those rights to the United States with a reservation of those rights not abandoned. (United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 381 (1905)) The Constitution also states that Article. VI.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
For Laramie Treaty of 1851 designated Sioux tribal lands -
The 1868 treaty gave the Sioux nations - which included the Black Hills - later taken away from them.
The term "recognized title" as a distinct term of art is of recent vintage. The term refers to tribal property that has been formally acknowledged by Congress through treaty or statute. The statute or treaty serves to define the boundaries of the land instead of proof of use or occupation (Strong v. United States, 518 F.2d 556, 563 (Ct. Cl. 1975).
" every single square inch of former native lands, not in possessions of the tribe, is sacred cultural lands and cannot be disturbed." - yes, that is so - Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 - ...to secure, for the present and future benefit of the American people, the protection of archaeological resources and sites which are on public lands and Indian lands , and to foster increased cooperation and exchange of information between governmental authorities, the professional archaeological community, and private individuals (Sec. 2(4)(b)).
" NO SMALL SINGULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE" - The original inhabitants of North America have a unique, legal position as a "singular group of people". They are, by law, a group of native people with whom the federal government has established some kind of political relationship or "recognition". Federal courts historically played a significant role in determining federally recognized tribal existence, relying heavily on the history of dealings by the political branches through treaties, statutes, executive orders, or agreements recognizing the tribe in question. No other ethnicity in the United States is treated as thus.
In a nutshell, DAPL has violated the law(s) of the United States by trespassing on Native American lands. As such, they have a price to pay - one of which is to cease and desist from their illegal operations.
As a personal note - please refrain from discussing Native American issues on NT. You have a very extreme bias that does not fit a meaningful discussion exchange.
As a personal note - please refrain from discussing Native American issues on NT. You have a very extreme bias that does not fit a meaningful discussion exchange.
So what your really saying is you do not like criticism of your positions, you have the only valid opinion and anyone that can raise valid issues like 12 million people, (only if you accept that ALL NA's agree with the stated position herein) have the absolute right to decide the risks that 300+ million other Native Americans have to endure only cause they arrived first.
Got it, you consider yourself right and everybody else as wrong. I know that the Carter Administration and congressional democrats gave your group the right to decide such for everyone else.
So it is yours and Kav's position that I know absolutely nothing in Native issues and should be held out of any discussion of said issues. You claim that I am too biased to represent any good discussion.
Yes I am biased, I freely admit such, but, I am only as biased that those that oppose free and open discussion.
So lets see how the rest of the site believes....
EVERYONE! ASKING A QUESTION HERE!
It is plain that 1st Warrior and Kavika think I should not be allowed to discuss native issues on the board simply cause I am too biased and they feel I cannot represent anything that would work towards a consensus with anyone.
In my words I think they would like me to go away cause they do not want to deal with the difficult questions that go against their special rights as Native Americans and would rather have a closed discussion with those sympathetic to their cause.
WHICH DO YOU ALL WANT?
Me to stay out of NA discussions? which they should probably keep these discussion off the FP.
OR,
My right to join a discussion on the FP is sacrosanct, even if it is unpleasant for those that wish to dictate the discussion?
WHERE DO YOU, THE MEMBERS OF NEWSTALKERS STAND ON THIS ISSUE?
No snark please.
Honest opinions of which I will keep score and I will abide by the groups decision. This is not sponsored or authorized by NT or Perrie in any way, it is my decision, and I will abide by the groups wishes.
All your hyperbole aside NWM. Why is it that you called me out as a person that doesn't accept outside opinion? (I understand that it is a CoC violation to call out another member in a comment). Because I gave the comment a thumbs up. If that's the reason you certainly have a complete lack of understanding of the issue at hand, and completely missed the context of the comment that addressed your earlier comments.
Actually I could care less if you comment on my articles or not. Is that simple enough for you to understand?
Your straw man argument that stopping the pipeline is putting 300 million people in danger is bogus.
You are aware that there are numerous lawsuits against the DAPL by other than the Standing Rock Sioux aren't you. Yes, there are non Indians and actual land owners. Your comment that Indians are putting 300 million US citizen in danger is false.
The DAPL is scheduled to run through ND, SD, IA and ending in Illinois. That is south east from the Bakken oil fields. Seattle is west of the Bakken fields. The trains will keep running as long as there isn't a pipeline to the PNW, IMO.
Additionally DAPL was recently purchased by Enbridge, a name that you should be familiar with. They recently with drew their application for the Sandpiper pipe line running from Bakken fields to Lake Superior, crossing the northern part of MN. They tried the same thing that DAPL is trying, going forward without proper review...The good people of MN, both Indian and non Indian didn't appreciate the con that they were trying to pull and protested. Are they also responsible for putting 300 million US citizens at risk? I think not.
Enbridge is also have considerable other problems. Enbridge just lost big in Canada. On June 30, Canada's Federal Court of Appeals overturned approvals for Enbridge's $7.9 billion proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline, finding the government fell short in its obligations to consult with First Nations groups. That had to hurt. The July 6 announcement in the Canadian media that Enbridge purchased defective pipes and valves from a bankrupt Thai company (Canadaoil Asia) has caused more problems. After waiting eight years to sound the alarm, during which time at least one Canadian pipeline with defective parts blew up, the National Energy Board recently issued an emergency safety order that gives Enbridge six months to fix what industry insiders have described as a series of "ticking time bombs." The companies were not immediately able to say where they installed the defective parts, and Enbridge attorneys asked for an extension to find them.
It seems that the pipelines aren't as safe you seem to think they are, and proper reviews are a very necessary part of the procedure.
The reason you are named is cause everytime 1st brings up the issue of me staying out of NA discussions, you are the first in line to thumbs up that statement.
Which means your vote is covered and doesn't count, just as 1st's and mine do not count.
We represent the two sides of the issue.
It is the REST of NT whose opinions I'm looking for, Cause I WILL give you what you want, if that is what the rest of the group wants.
All it takes is one brave soul to cast a vote...
Important vote, lets see where the group really stands....
LOL, what a cop out NWM....
As stated in my comment I don't care if you comment on my articles or not. So it seems that you have a problem with understanding.
I understand perfectly well. If you did, you would understand what is happening here.
A lot more than just a difference of opinion.
I'm sure most others get it.
And no it is nothing personal against either of you, of which I hold very high respect for. (believe it or not)
I'm sure that I ''get it'' NWM. If you understood what I said you would ''get it''...
I'm sure that most others understood perfectly what I said, and the point.
Your point was that it is irrelevant, Hyperbolic ranting.
And I'm sure there are those that will agree with you.
As there are those that won't.
Anyone that understands the facts will, NWM.
If you want that vote, do your own thread. This thread is Blue's and I really don't think he wants an Urinary Olympics over the potential of someone's expanded ego for being asked to not participate in a specific ethnicity discussion.
Actually your probably right, I should do this open to everyone on the front page.
I should also probably put it in Meta, cause it is asking people opinions on participation.
Probably get more responses that way.
And it is a very important for a user moderated site to deal with.
Thank you for the suggestion....
I'm outta here.
Bue-bye.
Blue - I am really sorry your seed ran into this course. I personally do want to thank you for seeding it and sincerely appreciate your comments.
Clarification on what just happened here. Anyone can comment on any article. No one has the right to tell someone to get off an article. On the other hand, any one is free to vote up or down a comment. Grouping Kavika in because he voted on a comment is not quite a CoC violation, but also not fair. Please people keep within the CoC and calm yourself down.
I don't believe anyone has mentioned this. I put it in a comment above. I think it is informative and gives numerous reasons why this pipeline shouldn't be built.
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe vs U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
And if you believe the positions on the law taken by the tribes, you can fully expect nothing of this nature and scope of ever being built in the United States ever again.
What they are arguing is that every single square inch of former native lands, not in possessions of the tribe, is sacred cultural lands and cannot be disturbed.
NO SMALL SINGULAR GROUP OF PEOPLE SHOULD EVER HAVE THIS MUCH POWER TO EFFECT THE OVERALL NATION AT THE GRAVEST RISKS TO THE REST OF THE NATION.
Particularly when the risks they face are 300 times smaller.
Yes their issues need a fair hearing, but they are not entitled to condemn the rest of the nation.
Way too much power in the hands of way to small a group.
MSNBC gives a great, great breakdown on the Standing Rock/DAPL situation.
This is a must watch.
Excellent video, 1st.
Construction of Dakota Access Pipeline Halted Again By Non-Violent Direct Action
Water protectors from the camps in Standing Rock, North Dakota, launched planned non-violent direct action at the site of Dakota Access pipeline construction early Tuesday.
“We are at site 21, and we shut down construction,” said one demonstrator while live streaming a video on Facebook.
At least one woman and one man were locked to machinery on Tuesday while dozens of others encircled the area singing Lakota prayer songs. Banners were strung across the machinery, one saying “Water is Our First Medicine.”
A small number police officers arrived onto the scene and monitored the non-violent direction action.
Meanwhile, hundreds tuned in and offer their support via live streaming video on Facebook.
“We are here,” Cody Hall, of the Red Warrior Camp, said to a crowd of supporters. “A brother and a sister that once again have locked down and put themselves on the frontlines, literally stopping construction.”
“We have to keep our heads up,” Hall added. “We are the protectors … We are going to win through peace. Standing vigilant, brothers.”
Non-violent direct action trainings are offered regularly at the camps at Standing Rock and are conducted by trained professionals.
ICTMN will continue to report on this story as it develops.
well I don't think there is any way I can say this without stepping on some toes , so I will just say it plainly.
first off and remember , I stand with the protesters , protecting , their water quality .
but I think what is going to have to happen , is the courts are going to have to determine exactly who or what entity has jurisdiction.
What else I think the courts are going to have to decide is once a treaty is broken , no matter who broke it , does it remain in effect. this is important because a number of different treaties have been mentioned , but the courts going to have to decide the validity , the treaty of the 1850s was broken and Red Clouds war raged for 2 years in the powder river area , a new treaty was struck to end the fighting as well as established the great Sioux nation and its boundaries . As can be seen in the graphic posted by First.
Here is what the court will have to decide , because in 1876 hostilities fired up again , this time because of gold being found in the Black hills region ,this was called the great Sioux war, many might remember it from the indian wars as the conflict that Custer became known as an bragadocious Idiot.
THIS war ended with the Agreement of 1877, some call it a treaty The Agreement of 1877 (19 Stat. 254 , enacted February 28, 1877) officially annexed Sioux land and permanently established Indian reservations.
On July 23, 1980, in United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians , the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Black Hills were illegally taken by the federal government and that remuneration of the initial offering price plus interest — nearly $106 million — be paid. The Lakota refused the settlement as they wanted the Black Hills returned to them. The money remains in an interest-bearing account, which as of 2015 amounts to over $1.2 billion, but the Lakota still refuse to take the money. They believe that accepting the settlement would allow the U.S. government to justify taking ownership of the Black Hills.
There is also a counter claim that some entities have taken payments of the above mentioned moneies , bringing the fears of government justification of claims to the lands contested to life.
the courts are going to have to decide the validity of each treaty if it is valid or null an void being replaced in succession by the next and ultimately which one it will follow. and I doubt they will follow the 1868 treaty and boundaries , because of the wars and losses the native signed in subsiquint treaties and agreements.
Mark - you're probably right and I'm waiting 'til Friday when Judge Boasberg makes his ruling on the temporary/permanent cease and desist.
Based on the number of incidents involving the transfer of oil from Canada through the U. S., I wouldn't be a bit surprised if one of these cases/incidents doesn't wind up in SCOTUS for a variety of reasons - failure to follow established environmental regulations, abuse of eminent domain seizures, trespassing on private/public/fed/tribal lands, physical harm to bystanders/interested parties.
For clarification from the tribal/nation perspective, this is a good link to look at -