|
CommieGIR posted:You realize this is a pretty poor example because of the number of cases where its become apparently that Prosecutors and Police regularly coerce admissions of guilt through unjust means in order to meet quotas and give the artificial feel of justice being done through quota rather than actual justice being meted out. quote:Because the point of highlighting the treaty was to demonstrate: Or, and I'm not sure this possibility has occured to you, one can have the view that the protestors are simply wrong.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:22
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
From what I'm seeing on Wiki, the tribes voted by a majority to accept the 1868 treaty + border revision after Uncle Sam plied them with (adjusted for inflation) millions of dollars. Some dude named Bozeman illegally built a popular trail that headed out west and went past what is Cannonball today. Tons of settlers started coming through without permission, much to the annoyance of the tribes. The army tried to force them to vacate that part of the land in Bozeman's war but the Sioux kicked their asses pretty badly. That drove the feds to the negotiating table and they essentially told the natives to name their price. The Black Hills clusterfuck came a decade later and is in a completely different part of the rez than the pipeline.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
blowfish posted:The protestors aren't just wrong legally but also morally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Or, and I'm not sure this possibility has occured to you, one can have the view that the protestors are simply wrong. You mean Native Americans right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
Buckwheat Sings posted:You mean Native Americans right? But yeah, I'd really like to hear how one can come to that conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:We're the Invaders. If you are going to be so daft as to use an Israeli/Palestinian comparison, the Palestinian's were the Natives. WE'RE the Israelis. Are you sure you are not the Eliza bot? Because you sure do enjoy making very broken comparisons. For fucks sake, we were responsible for the settlers. We were responsible for the seizure of territory. We're the invaders. To put a face on the 'we' specifically, the United States Government in the person of its agent Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer of the 7th Cavalry was responsible for the announcement of the find and beginning of the Black Hills gold rush.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:To put a face on the 'we' specifically, the United States Government in the person of its agent Lt. Col. George Armstrong Custer of the 7th Cavalry was responsible for the announcement of the find and beginning of the Black Hills gold rush. Custer really was a MONUMENTAL shitbag.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
I'd take a picture of what it's like outside, but it'd be easier just to imagine something out of the revenant. How are things down there, uglycat? I know earthen lodges are pretty toasty even with tons of snow, but I don't know about the rest of the structures. I would differentiate the protestors between two groups based on the news articles I've seen (maybe uglycat can offer a better grouping) but there's the older, more traditional, primarily native protestors who are going the route of peaceful protest, set up tents blocking construction of the pipeline, pray, get arrested, repeat. IMO, A good non-violent tactic, it makes your point, and makes it difficult to stop because essentially the only law being broken is trespassing, but it's also slow. On the other hand, you have what seems to be a younger, more non-native group that wants more provocative, aggressive protesting. I know there was an article somewhere where older Lakota were lamenting the tactics of the younger protestors because the older folks viewed it to be against the principals of a peaceful protest. Likewise, the younger protestors seemed to view the hesitancy of the older folks to be sabotaging the progress of the protest, and an ineffective long-term strategy. In terms of the whole law thing, I don't know what else to ultimately fall to, unless as has been stated, we rebuild the entire justice system. The feeling I get is everyone here believes the only way to close this is for the courts to decide one way or another on the whole thing, which courts are loathe to make sweeping judgements (see supreme court cases where they make their ruling as narrow as possible). The civil action, unless I am reading it wrong, just rules that the tribe could not prove the violations they sued under, though I think they mentioned it appeared ETP followed all the laws in the permitting process. I am not a lawyer or a tribal legal scholar, but if there is a specific law that is directly harming the tribe (if you know it please post it, I am too tired to try googling through legal documents right now), then that is what we should be protesting. If we do not hold the protest against the backdrop of US law, what do we hold it to then? I assume the Lakota/Dakota have some sort of traditional justice system, but can it handle something of this complexity? If what the Lakota view as the laws they feel should be the law of the land, does it take into account the other tribes interests, and does it account for what the other tribes have already done in complying with US law on the matter? US law has been broken, rewritten, and rebroken since it was first formed, but I don't know of what could replace it. It's not perfect, for example I hate it in general when laws have exceptions, because the law shouldn't have exceptions, it should be written better to avoid the need of exceptions. But, (and this is where I think the tribes could really stretch their legal might), laws can be revised into a form that is more fair and just to what we want our united states and domestic dependent nations of america to be. If we keep focusing on the fact that so much of this debate is rooted in ultimately flawed regulations, we're just spinning our wheels. It's flawed, we get that, now what? The only other option I see is to make all tribal nations 100% independent, foreign nations to choose their own destiny, which imo, most simply do not have the resources to do because of the damage they've suffered in the interim. Isn't "the sioux nation" it's own power in the Shadowrun universe? Someone find a sourcebook and use that as a template! coyo7e posted:Please elaborate. Do you really want blowfish to elaborate on morality? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
Custer wasn't some out of the ordinary shitbag toward native peoples from what I've understood, he shared the same flawed beliefs pretty much all the whites had back then. Keep in mind there were natives that supported Custer, because Custer was primarily going against their joint enemy. Still makes him a shitbag, but an understandable one. I feel like making Custer out as "the guy" who was responsible for this, takes too much responsibility away from the federal government that sent him on his missions, the private entities that sought to capitalize on his missions, and the boots on the ground settlers and miners who followed him, willfully putting themselves and their families into harms way to exploit resources they viewed as solely theirs and then cried out when they came to harm.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Okay, first off, there is no basis for comparison between the courts in any modern, developed democracy and the courts of the last Stalinist single party tolitarian dictatorship. Just to get that out of the way. Also, what happens when instead of "setting foot in a country," you remained where you were while another country set food on your land and said that its laws superseded yours?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Silento Boborachi posted:Do you really want blowfish to elaborate on morality?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:We are the Palestinians and the Natives are the Israelis. Debate & Discussion > We are the Palestinians and the Natives are the Israelis
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
albany academy posted:Debate & Discussion > We are the Palestinians and the Natives are the Israelis It was literally the most backwards comparison he could make.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
Pretty peak d&d tbh
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
There were some low points in this thread, but I think that was the nadir.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
well you know those protestors throwing those mazel tov cocktails...
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:You realize this is a pretty poor example because of the number of cases where its become apparently that Prosecutors and Police regularly coerce admissions of guilt through unjust means in order to meet quotas and give the artificial feel of justice being done through quota rather than actual justice being meted out. CommieGIR posted:Because the point of highlighting the treaty was to demonstrate: Point 2 isn't relevant, unless you intend to propose that their history of getting screwed gives the natives some sort of free-floating right to ignore the laws everyone else follows. Point 3 is entirely nebulous as to what these "larger issues", apparently too large to be addressed by any court in the land, are. Wrapping up with your "no, I hold this court in contempt!" bit doesn't actually say anything concrete either. Are you upset that those with more money are able to afford more comprehensive legal representation? How would you propose to equalize this? What makes you think that the court cases surrounding the DAPL were unduly influenced by money, rather than the facts and the law? Is it because that is the only reason you can conceive of that various legal authorities did not agree with you? Really, what you are doing here is exactly what Jarmak said: trying to use legal concepts and language to argue a moral point. It doesn't work, both because the legal concepts in question don't support the outcome you think is morally correct, and because you retreat from discussing the legal concepts on their merits when pressed at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Wrapping up with your "no, I hold this court in contempt!" bit doesn't actually say anything concrete either. Are you upset that those with more money are able to afford more comprehensive legal representation? How would you propose to equalize this? What makes you think that the court cases surrounding the DAPL were unduly influenced by money, rather than the facts and the law? Is it because that is the only reason you can conceive of that various legal authorities did not agree with you? Got it. Being wealthy and and multi-billion dollar oil company makes you legally untouchable and boo-hoo if they jump all over your land. If only you were more wealthy you could fight them. ARE YOU SERIOUS?! Dead Reckoning posted:I... what? My point was that we accept a guilty man going free sometimes (an unjust outcome) because adhering to the rules about the admissibility of evidence prevents greater injustices. Your response to that is "Oh yeah, well law enforcement coerces confessions sometimes." That's not a rebuttal, it's a total non-sequitr. Oh c'mon now. The idea that we've positively identified flaws in the justice system does not mean we simply say "Oh well, those flaws are there but too bad". That is a really pathetic status quo argument. "Why change it? That's how its always been!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
Just when you thought it was safe to think we'd hit rock bottom : http://www.reuters.com/article/us-north-dakota-pipeline-idUSKBN13O2FD North Dakota officials hope to quell pipeline protests with fines - Reuters North Dakota officials on Tuesday moved to block supplies from reaching oil pipeline protesters at a camp near the construction site, threatening to use hefty fines to keep demonstrators from receiving food, building materials and even portable bathrooms. Activists have spent months protesting plans to route the $3.8 billion Dakota Access Pipeline beneath a lake near the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, saying the project poses a threat to water resources and sacred Native American sites. State officials said on Tuesday they would fine anyone bringing prohibited items into the main protest camp following Governor Jack Dalrymple's "emergency evacuation" order on Monday. Earlier, officials had warned of a physical blockade, but the governor's office backed away from that. Law enforcement would take a more "passive role" than enforcing a blockade, said Maxine Herr, a spokeswoman for the Morton County Sheriff's Department. "The governor is more interested in public safety than setting up a road block and turning people away," Herr said by telephone. Officers will stop vehicles they believe are headed to the camp and inform drivers they are committing an infraction and could be fined $1,000. These penalties should serve as a hindrance, according to Cecily Fong, a spokeswoman for the North Dakota Department of Emergency Services. "So that effectively is going to block that stuff (supplies), but there is not going to be a hard road block," Fong said by telephone. A spokeswoman from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe was not immediately available for comment. North Dakota Governor-elect Doug Burgum, a Republican, declined to comment. So we've moved back into the default government strategy for dealing with uppity 'primitives', starve them out. Edit : BBCode doesn't seem to want to parse for me today. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 05:20 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
I love how the party line on this is "we're forcing them to leave because winter is dangerous" but they are doing this by starving them out via blocking access - oh wait why does this seem familiar? I don't recall the Malheur militiamen having their food and care packages stopped on the highway https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoTX5ff9Ze0
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Can supplies not come from the south? Fort Yates, mobridge, south dakota in general? I understand mandan and bismarck are larger and have more places to buy supplies, but the protestors have shown they know how to use side roads to get around the state roadblocks, and if the state is not actually making roadblocks and just "stopping vehicles they believe are headed to the camp" (which, you tell me how they can come to that belief, racial profiling or such wouldn't be the answer since so many of the protestors are white). Sounds like idle threats, which the state should not be doing in the first place. The protest is for the Lakota people, they're the ones to manage the camps as far as I understand it. Let the feds deal with the evacuation since they're on corps land, the state shouldn't be involved. Not like anyone's going to do anything for a few days with this snow making roads impassable anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
blowfish posted:So... the response to the justice system being abused is to do away with the justice system. You can't claim that the protesters must always respect the justice system, even when it's abusing them AND not argue that the justice system must be done away with. Otherwise you'd get a terroristic police state, which I guess you're fine with anyway because it doesn't affect people of your wealth or skin colour.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 07:51
|
|
|
Tias posted:You can't claim that the protesters must always respect the justice system, even when it's abusing them AND not argue that the justice system must be done away with. Otherwise you'd get a terroristic police state, which I guess you're fine with anyway because it doesn't affect people of your wealth or skin colour.   
coyo7e fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:40
|
|
|
Silento Boborachi posted:Can supplies not come from the south? Fort Yates, mobridge, south dakota in general? I understand mandan and bismarck are larger and have more places to buy supplies, but the protestors have shown they know how to use side roads to get around the state roadblocks, and if the state is not actually making roadblocks and just "stopping vehicles they believe are headed to the camp" (which, you tell me how they can come to that belief, racial profiling or such wouldn't be the answer since so many of the protestors are white). Sounds like idle threats, which the state should not be doing in the first place. The protest is for the Lakota people, they're the ones to manage the camps as far as I understand it. Let the feds deal with the evacuation since they're on corps land, the state shouldn't be involved. Not like anyone's going to do anything for a few days with this snow making roads impassable anyway. The ACoE came out yesterday and said they're not going to push for forceful removal of the camps after the 5th, either. Mind you, that doesn't stop the state cops who are already being incredibly aggressive from deciding that they need to go arrest everyone involved for trespassing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
I look away for a day and Blowfish says one of the stupidest things I've ever seen in my time on the forums. Look dude it's ok you don't have to own yourself while I'm gone, I release you! Anyway I found out my best friend from high school is/heading to there right now and I am super worried because I don't see this going well at all. Is there anything that can be done about it to at least ensure a non-violent solution is reached? People we can call? Anything? Edit: OK I know it looks kind of bad that the only idea I came up with was calling people but I wanna do SOMETHING to prevent a bloodbath
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:48
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Got it. Being wealthy and and multi-billion dollar oil company makes you legally untouchable and boo-hoo if they jump all over your land. If only you were more wealthy you could fight them. CommieGIR posted:Oh c'mon now. The idea that we've positively identified flaws in the justice system does not mean we simply say "Oh well, those flaws are there but too bad". That is a really pathetic status quo argument. "Why change it? That's how its always been!" Second, my argument has never been from the status quo, but you continue to willfully misinterpret it. I believe that the law in many cases has arrived at its current state by elimination of worse alternatives. Not every law is the best possible law, but any change ought to be considered in light of potential repercussions and precedent it sets. The onus is on those who would change the law to propose a change and answer those questions. In many cases, it is not possible to change the law without setting precedent that would lead to greater injustices. In those cases, it is in fact better to accept the status quo because no viable alternatives exist. coyo7e posted:I don't recall the Malheur militiamen having their food and care packages stopped on the highway I get that people seem bound and determined to draw comparisons with the Malheur occupation, and imply a racial component to the situation, but it is a really bad comparison, because once the FBI paramilitaries decided to make their move, they shut down that little prorest/occupation with worrying efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 08:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I guess you missed the part at the end. The part right after the FBI arrested the leadership at gunpoint at a literal black SUV roadblock and killed the one that resisted. They gave the remaining people a brief window to vacate the refuge, then sealed the place off and allowed no one nor any supplies in, and only allowed those inside to leave by laying down their arms and submitting to detention and identification. I'd sure be interested to hear your discussion of why Malheur and DAPl are such disparate organisms, though! Black SUVs (at the end of the protest - your own words) vs MRAPs - discuss?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Yeah - that's not starvation tactics at all, you nincompoop It wasn't black SUVs at the end of the protest, it was black SUVs ending the protest, pretty big difference.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 09:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It is unfortunate that people with more money can hire more and better lawyers, but I do not see any solutions to this problem that do not cause even greater problems. I would note that you have yet to propose one. If you are unable to come up with a viable, better alternative to the current system, you are wrong to call the system unjust. Holy poo poo, I think we have a new contender for Blowfish's crown. Please, do name your terms for viability. I want to see how closely they correlate to 'would decide in the favor of the existing class in power'.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 09:58
|
|
|
coyo7e posted:Please elaborate. NIMBYs are bad. Infrastructure is good. NIMBYs who become super obstinate after failing to make a serious case during the planning process are super bad. Even when the infrastructure in this particular case is not useful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
This is not a NIMBY protest. It's a not in any backyard protest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Infrastructure is good. hmm
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I would note that you have yet to propose one. If you are unable to come up with a viable, better alternative to the current system, you are wrong to call the system unjust. Unjust - adj. not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair Funny, I don't see a prerequisite in that definition requiring a better solution. It is possible for something to be legal, yet unjust. For example: police violence against minorities, white male rapists receiving disproportionately short prison sentences, NSA wiretapping, need I continue? I feel like there might be a more fruitful discussion if you didn't try to redefine terms in the English language to mean things they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
I always love how Dead Reckoning's counter arguments can usually be summed up by "Don't love it? Leave it"
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:This is not a NIMBY protest. It's a not in any backyard protest. What does this mean?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:What does this mean? The protesters don't want the pipeline anywhere not just not in their backyard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I always love how Dead Reckoning's counter arguments can usually be summed up by "Don't love it? Leave it" Raerlynn posted:Unjust - adj. twodot fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Nov 30, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
twodot posted:It's more of a " Don't love it? Do you have any alternatives that would be net better than it? No? Well what the tuck do you expect to happen?". I have all sorts of alternatives that would be net better, mainly we can stop pretending that the exposed injustices are acceptable part of a functioning system, or that prosecutors/police should be above major abuses of suspects.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Rated PG-34 posted:The protesters don't want the pipeline anywhere not just not in their backyard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:56 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I have all sorts of alternatives that would be net better, mainly we can stop pretending that the exposed injustices are acceptable part of a functioning system, or that prosecutors/police should be above major abuses of suspects. Rated PG-34 posted:The protesters don't want the pipeline anywhere not just not in their backyard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2016 16:57
|
|