DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

800peepee51doodoo posted:

Its not really cut and dry. The pipeline is being built on private and federal land and isn't technically on tribal owned lands. However, a lot of that land is disputed by the tribe as being traditionally theirs by treaty, in particular the piece of land where most of the direct action is taking place.

So, not on tribal land then, at least legally speaking. Do the feds have a published survey map somewhere? Surely they must.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2016 22:24

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 06:44

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Nocts posted:

This is the exact document I posted about earlier in the thread. When you say the "dismissal is a pro click" you are taking it as being a 100% legitimate and honest document, and as Tias just posted there may be problems with that claim. Second, even if what's in the document is true, the DAPL people only gave the Standing Rock Sioux a few months to respond to a major project that could have huge impacts on their quality of life. Third,
Tias posted:
I see where you're coming from, but if they don't get approval from the tribe that actually lives on and uses the land, that's not a legitimate negotiation - and I maintain that the SR Lakota have full rights to the land - you know, like rich white people have over everywhere else and make loving stupid decisions about every day? It's theirs, they can take their ball home as much as they want to.

That's a DC district court judgement, so I think it is reasonable to assume that it is an accurate statement of the relevant law, and the relevant facts as they were presented to the court.

The tribe was seeking an emergency injunction to revoke the permits the ACE had granted, but failed because the legal theories they advanced were unlikely to succeed on the merits, and the tribe could not show any irreparable harm that would occur if the permits were not revoked. Although the tribe apparently also wishes to pursue claims under the National Environmental Policy Act and similar legislation, those claims were not part of this particular case.

The details are rather illuminating. Domestic oil pipelines, unlike natural-gas pipelines, require no general approval from the federal government. In fact, DAPL needs almost no federal permitting of any kind because 99% of its route traverses private land. (Pg 2) Apparently it is up to the states to regulate their construction. Interstate pipelines seem like an area where the Feds would easily be able to insert themselves due to the commerce clause, but apparently Congress has not passed legislation to that end. The ACE's involvement comes only with respect to the points where the pipeline crosses rivers and waterways of the United States. The construction on private land would fall under the regulation of the state's historical preservation office or similar body. On page 13, the court notes that Dakota Access had undertaken a diligent effort to avoid known historic sites and done additional archeological surveys along the proposed pipeline route (again, on private land) on their own dime in coordination with the states' historical preservation offices, and re-route around any new sites discovered. They also followed preexisting infrastructure whenever possible, which meant that any extant historic sites had already been disturbed.

On page 29, the court notes that other tribal governments had agreed to conduct cultural surveys on private land in conjunction with the company, and based on these surveys, the company had agreed to either re-route the pipeline, or bury it over 100 ft underground in order to avoid disturbing sensitive sites. The Standing Rock, on the other hand, declined to participate in the surveys unless the Army Corps of Engineers to redefined the area of potential effect they have jurisdiction over to include the entire pipeline, something that it appears they legally cannot do, as the construction on private land falls outside their jurisdiction. This is a bit more than "not filing paperwork on time."

Basically, the tribe sued the ACE to revoke the permits for the waterway crossing points of the pipeline, based on the possibility that other, already in progress pipeline construction on private land may harm some as-yet unidentified historic sites. There really isn't anything the ACE has authority to do here. Whether the construction on private land violated some state law is a different question, but I haven't seen any articulated legal claim that it did yet.

The argument that the Standing Rock have some nebulous and undefined "right to the land" isn't really workable argument.

RandomPauI posted:

If I understand this right the tribe says the land belongs to them by treaty but the Army Corp of Engineers says we don't recognize the treaties?

It seems there are a series of overlapping legal claims. The dismissal Nocts and DEM posted was specific to the claim that the Army Corps of Engineers failed to abide by their requirement to consult with native tribes prior any undertaking in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act. (Note that the Act does not require them to change the planned undertaking based on the concerns that the tribes raise.) Several people have claimed that the tribe either believes they own or have an interest in the private land that the pipeline is built on, due to "treaties," but I have been unable to find a citation of the specific treaties in question.

Tias posted:

it still doesn't solve the question of how and why the corps and the USACoE can poo poo all over the treaty.

Sorry, which treaty is this, specifically?

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Nov 2, 2016

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 20:01

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Tias posted:

That would be article 2 of the Treaty of Fort Laramie of April 29, 1868, it describes the boundaries of the Great Sioux Reservation, as commencing on the 46th parallel of north latitude to the east bank of Missouri River, south along the east bank to the Nebraska line, then west to the 104th parallel of west longitude. (15 stat. 635).

However, I have also been told that the federal government have unilaterally revoked the treaty several times, carving off culturally or logistically vital pieces of the domain( such as the Missouri river and the sacred Black Hills), so I guess you could argue that they just have the short end of the straw because uncle Sam said so.

Okay, but the crossing point on the Missouri river is about 26 minutes north of the 46th parallel, so I'm not seeing the relevance to a direct ownership claim.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Nov 2, 2016

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 21:20

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Civilized Fishbot posted:

In lieu of that, can we at least cut a tribe some slack on not attending the right bureaucratic meetings in the past and listen to them when they say they don't want to deal with this risk?

That's the thing, though. This isn't a case where they were confused about what papers they needed to file, they appear to be in denial about what the law is. See: their refusal to cooperate with Dakota Access until the Corps of Engineers extended their jurisdiction on to private land. On purely historic & cultural preservation grounds, it's hard to make a claim that Dakota Access hasn't been making a good faith effort to avoid significant sites even on private land, if the court filings are at all accurate. There is certainly more to drill into (heh) on the environmental impact claims, but I haven't seen any sort of legal filing on that issue presented yet. The idea that the tribe should have a veto over construction on private land outside the borders of any current or previously recognized tribal territory based on free-floating ideas of historical connection and white guilt isn't really workable within a system of laws.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 22:03

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Civilized Fishbot posted:

What a reasonable government would do here is listen to the Sioux and work to put a price estimate on the damage that the pipeline would do to them (mainly from the potential risk of spillage, I imagine). And then charge Dakota Access, LLC exactly that much money if it chooses to go through with the pipeline, and redistribute the proceeds to the people/firms affected. If the pipeline goes through, then it must be more socially beneficial than its costs. If it doesn't, it wasn't worth the costs anyway. In other words, force Dakota Access, LLC to pay the costs that the tribe pays and see if it's still worthwhile

I'm fairly certain the company would be liable for any actual damages caused by their pipeline. The idea that they should have to pay now to offset hypothetical future damages as valued by the people hypothetically affected is nuts. The concept that a project must prove its "social benefit" as a dollar figure is unworkable, because it requires arbitrarily defining what constitutes "social benefit" and arbitrarily assigning a dollar figure to it. Can you provide any example of a system of building permits that works this way?

Civilized Fishbot posted:

True. Meaning that, if you wanted to get the construction prevented, you wouldn't be able to petition in court. You would have to obtain the attention of elected officials who actually do have the power to veto/alter/slow the construction of the pipeline. You would have to lead a campaign to attract public attention while simultaneously putting pressure on those elected officials. Which is literally exactly what the tribal protectors are doing.

If you want to say that the government should approve or disapprove building permits, or issue injunctions against construction it has no power to regulate, solely based on how popular or unpopular the construction is, rather than whether or not it complies with existing regulation... that isn't really workable. Unless you're a huge fan of NIMBYism and cronyism.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 22:16

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

coyo7e posted:

This is exactly how they determine whether you get a business or residential meter in your home when the utility provider comes and installs it. It's not literally, entirely based on zoning or permits but it is based on the intended purpose of the property, which nominally equates to its zoning. Shockingly, this means that business customers of a utlity providert pay more for their power than most residential customers.

"Should this customer pay for utilities based on the current rates for commercial or residential customers?" is not even remotely the same thing as "how much social benefit does this private construction project provide, numerically speaking?"

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Maybe don't be so certain. A lot of what the protesters are worried about is that the company won't be forced to fully confront its own liabilities at that time. They have good reason to think this, after BP avoided significant liability for the spill in the Gulf and how Native American communities are neglected across America especially when competing with rich private interests.

Reread my posts. That's what I'm saying! You and I agree on this. Only Dakota Access, LLC should have to determine how much it values the pipeline. So if you want to see if the costs outweigh the benefits, force it to pay the costs.

I repeat: ideally, the government shouldn't tell Dakota Access, LLC whether or not to build the pipeline. It should charge Dakota Access, LLC a tax in accordance with the costs of the pipeline, and then let Dakota Access, LLC decide whether or not to build it. All the social benefits belong to Dakota Access, so if you attach all the social costs to Dakota Access as well, their self interest will drive them to make a decision that benefits the whole public.

I'm not sure what you consider significant liability, but BP ended up settling to the tune of $20 billion, including a $5.5 billion in Clean Water Act penalties, the largest such penalty in U.S. history.

Dakota Access has already valued the pipeline and found it to be a positive, potential future liabilities and all. Otherwise they wouldn't be building it. You want to add an arbitrary additional tax to their activities based on an undefined concept of hypothetical future social harms. That's stupid.

# ¿ Nov 2, 2016 22:37

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Civilized Fishbot posted:

It took a long time for BP to pay out, a much longer time to distribute those funds to the affected populations and industries. Some people still had their lives ruined by the spill. BP had a team of incredible lawyers and the people affected by the spill had only unreliable and corrupt elected officials. And a lot of them where white - imagine trying to coordinate a fair settlement between a Native American tribe that's undergoing an emergency situation and a huge oil firm. It'd be almost impossible, and the tribe is understandably concerned about it! Also, the construction of the pipeline is going to at least temporarily disrupt the ability of these people to visit their sacred sites. These aren't potential costs to be handled in the case of a future emergency, they're 100% unavoidable costs that need to be addressed now (unless you think that the costs are equal to 0). Not all the liabilities are risks; the ones that aren't risks, at least, should be addressed prior to construction.

So I see we've moved from "BP avoided significant liability for the spill in the Gulf" to "OK, they paid one of the largest penalties in US history, but that took time to sort out." Quite the walk back there. The claim that "some people still had their lives ruined" is too vague to respond to.

Which corrupt and unreliable officials were these? The US Deptartment of Justice? Eric Holder? Their private attorneys? I don't think anyone in a position to sue BP had trouble finding a lawyer willing to take the case. Your argument that it would be impossible for the tribes to access the courts is belied by the fact that their attorneys are pursuing several motions right now to try to halt the pipeline construction.

The claim that construction would somehow unduly impede access to identified sacred sites on public or tribal land does not appear to have been substantiated, in court or otherwise.

Your belief about how things are is at odds with reality, and you aren't making and sort of coherent claim about how how things ought to be.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2016 17:20

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Civilized Fishbot posted:

I still think BP underpaid, (the liability was huge but the disaster moreso) but there's no point in overextending claims

Businesses collapsed, and others went on hiatus for years. People were unemployed for ages, some people still haven't rebuilt their businesses or gotten re-hired. Their lives were ruined.

Again, this is a free-floating assertion. Who are these people? Have they been compensated? Did they take the settlement? Are they still litigating against BP?

Civilized Fishbot posted:

You're right. It's not difficult for a bunch of poor people to sue a major company. Rich entities have no advantages in our courts over poorer ones. These cases are often resolved swiftly and efficiently in the plaintiff's favor. Thus, in a time when their food and water are poisoned, a bunch of poor native americans will have a really easy time acquiring the funds needed to swiftly fix the issue. Nobody would possibly fear that a large, rich firm could dominate all legal proceedings through seemingly endless capital and legal expertise. There have not been, like, a trillion movies about this that permeate the public consciousness

Are you seriously telling me that your whole opinion about how the legal system should operate is based on, "I saw Erin Brockovich once, and Julia Roberts was so brave"? Some times plaintiffs' cases fail, not through the machinations of soulless corp lawyers and an indifferent legal system, but because they fail on their merits.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Yeah, it has.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/09/dapl-dakota-sitting-rock-sioux/499178/

Given that the article contains several factual inaccuracies (the land the pipeline is on was not part of the Treaty of Laramie, it's 30 miles north; the ACE doesn't permit interstate pipelines except where they cross waterways) and credulously reports the tribe's claims with no rebuttal, I'd hardly consider that proven. Twodot already posted the company's response, which the courts acknowledged seems compelling.

CommieGIR posted:

At the end of the day: If you feel the need to defend a multi-billion dollar industry with a notoriety for lax safety, lackluster maintenance, and extremely poor environmental record, against a bunch of people that have been basically abused left and right by both said company and the government, I think you need to step back and look at yourself long and hard.

WTF is this. "Facts aren't really important here, maaan, because everyone knows the petroleum industry are some bad dudes."

Civilized Fishbot posted:

That's my point! It's an incredibly uphill battle and the tribe would rather fight it before a disaster than during one. Or at least see some assurances that the battle won't be so uphill if/when it has to be fought.

Yes, which is why we need a more-or-less impartial third party (the government seems like the best option) to carry out that substantiation. And, given the obvious risks of proceeding if the tribe is correct, pipeline construction should cease until that substantiation has been carried out.

Although consider this: what motive does the tribe have to lie about this? Do you think they're working incredibly hard, even to the point of lying about important archaeological sites, just to protect land they really don't care about at all?

"The tribe's hypothetical lawsuit might fail, so everyone should be required to act like they already won."

The Standing Rock already had a chance at to participate in additional surveys on private land with the cooperation of the company. Other tribes did. They declined to do so. They're trying to get a do-over now that their injunction was dismissed for lack of merit.

# ¿ Nov 3, 2016 18:32

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Civilized Fishbot posted:

I'm not interested in making this a thread about the BP oil spill. If you think that the BP oil spill has been completely fixed, that's weird, wrong, and irrelevant, because my point is that the tribe has concerns about how easy it is to sue a major company - and those concerns are rooted in very real realities about America's complex and expensive legal system! It's actually hard as hell to take on a major corporation and win. Sometimes meritorious cases win, but sometimes meritorious cases lose when they ought to win.

When people disagree on whether or not sacred artifacts are being destroyed, maybe we should wait until there's some certainty before we continue to maybe destroy them? "Seems compelling" isn't good enough here, you need "we got some independent factual confirmation that there are/aren't artifacts here"

No, the tribe should have a mechanism to ensure compensation relative to the risk involved in setting up the pipeline and the potential destruction of sacred artifacts.

Not participating in those surveys was a mistake. It's unreasonable and dumb to punish that mistake by destroying artifacts, especially considering past interactions between tribal governments like the Standing Rock and the government (genocide). They've earned a little slack, c'mon

Here's the thing: in terms of remedies that are available within the legal system as it exists, the BP oil spill case appears to be mostly resolved. There are no doubt a wide range of feelings about said resolution, but that doesn't matter. Every court case has a losing side that thinks they should have won, and in the case of a settlement, it's not uncommon for both sides to walk away feeling like they could have done better. Part of the purpose of the legal system is to bring cases to a definitive close, rather than leaving them open ended. That's why exhaustion of appeals for prisoners is a thing.

Dakota Access has their own obligations. They are contractually obligated to be operational in 2017. They have already moved the path of the pipeline several times, in large and small ways, in response to native concerns. It is not realistic to expect them to commit to an indefinite and open-ended planning process based on any novel, unverified claims that may arise. The tribe already has a remedy for actual damages caused by the pipeline. It's called a lawsuit, but you think that there needs to be some sort of additional, preemptive "remedy" for harms that have not been proven to have actually occurred, one which the tribe shouldn't have to litigate or prove in any sort of adversarial proceeding before a neutral party, because that might be difficult and expensive.

The hypothetical destruction of artifacts isn't a punishment. It isn't being imposed by the government, and Dakota Access isn't kicking over cairns around the state because the tribe didn't cooperate. They are proceeding with their jobs after what I think can be described as a good faith effort to avoid damage to archeological and cultural sites.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Has the government independently worked to verify the arguments made over the sacred sites, or just examined the legal arguments made by both parties? So far I see the government siding with the pipeline in a he-said she-said; I think it's fine to say that the government should do the work of actually carry out an independent fact-checking operation.

What government? The ACE doesn't, for the most part, have jurisdiction over construction on private land. The North Dakota State Historic Preservation Office appears to have been satisfied with DA's work, but I haven't seen any legislation to that end.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Nov 3, 2016

# ¿ Nov 3, 2016 19:33

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

You realize that the pipeline never crosses tribal land, and that the feds had literally zero input on its path, yes?

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 03:28

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

CommieGIR posted:

Bunch of white people raise a fuss, and everyone is okay. But people that live immediately south of a planned cross for the pipe and its bring out the MRAPS.

I don't think anyone in Bismark tried to enter private property and physically block work on the pipeline.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 04:15

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Goodpancakes posted:

I'm not sure what to tell you if you think the original Sioux land claim stopped mysteriously at the western edge of South Dakota, or the tribal diaspora and makeup of the current Native peoples of North Dakota.

If you're taking the expansive view that all land where the buffalo once roamed belonged to Native Americans, it begs the question of why they should get veto over this particular infrastructure project, and not every other one in the Great Plains. If you're taking the more narrow view that they had an articulated property right, which the Treaty of Ft. Laramie has been cited several times in support of, the land that the pipeline is built on is north of both their historic and current territorial claims.

CommieGIR posted:

Because it never started.

Do you realize how nonsensical it is to say, "huh, why did the local authorities react differently to people objecting during the planning phase and people attempting to physically block construction under way?"

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 04:41

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

CommieGIR posted:

I don't know what you're getting at. Your original post was, "why did they bring out the MRAPs for the Sioux, but not the white people (of Bismark)?" It seems like the trespassing is the rather obvious distinction.

Goodpancakes posted:

It is not an expansive view of all land where the buffalo roamed, nor is the Ft Laramie treaty an accurate depiction of the "territorial claims" of the Lakota. To suggest that is so is to strictly adopt wholesale the Western historians view.

I Killed GBS posted:

This is literally true, it's not an "expansive" view

Okay, but it's 2016 and the United States is pretty well established, and filled with non-native people, so there has to be some sort of formal delineation of which land the Sioux have a legal claim of ownership to and which land belongs to other people.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 04:59

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Based on what?

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 05:03

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

CommieGIR posted:

Its ironic because you're praising the people of Bismark for restraint over plans while tut-tutting the natives over carried out actions.
Also: They are protesting. Of course they are going to be trespassing.
"Why do all these people we're inconveniencing have to get in our way! Can't they find some non-interference way to protest our actions?"

Restraint isn't really a concept that applies when you get your way by asking. I'm not praising or condemning. I'm explaining why one group warranted a police response and one didn't: the trespassing.

CommieGIR posted:

South Dakota has a legacy of abusing the Natives. Hell, some of it is ongoing right now... And let's just pretend they didn't push this through as fast as loving possible without much recourse... Yeah, why would the Souix be upset? Obviously their concerns have been addressed

Goodpancakes posted:

Yeah, and weirdly that is an amorphous delineation dependent upon the whims of the US Government. You can look back to the Ft. Laramie treaty where they were promised the Black Hills of South Dakota, later discovered gold there, and now we carved our president's into their sacred mountains.

None of this is relevant to the claim that the Sioux have an ownership right to the land the pipeline runs on, or a veto on what the owners do there.

quote:

Alicia Garza, founder of the Black Lives Matter social movement, contrasted the aggressive police action with the treatment of the organizers of a standoff at an Oregon wildlife refuge (acquitted of federal charges on the same day as the police raid of the camp),[67] saying "If you're white, you can occupy federal property ... and get found not guilty. No teargas, no tanks, no rubber bullets ... If you're indigenous and fighting to protect our earth, and the water we depend on to survive, you get tear gassed, media blackouts, tanks and all that."

They were literally flying a Blackhawk around the Bundy occupation, and rolled up the leaders at gunpoint in a black SUV roadblock while a drone filmed everything. And shot one of them dead. It doesn't get a much more paramilitary than that.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

The Standing Rock don't want to own part of the Vegas Strip, they want some administrative power over some acres that directly border their own, acres they say contain priceless spiritual sites and relics, acres that were literally stolen from them as a critical component of centuries of organized slaughter and the attempted wholesale destruction of their culture and way of life
Regretting/criticizing that genocide, without listening to the Standing Rock on their terms and working to return at least some power over the land to them, is like mugging someone for their wallet, apologizing, and then keeping the wallet and using the money to buy a steak dinner for yourself while they watch

I see we're back to the "Standing Rock have a free-floating right to the land" argument. Show me. Get out a crayon and a map and show me the extent of Sioux territorial claims, the area that they feel they should be able to veto construction in. Show me what documentation it is based on. Then we can talk about abolishing the current system of property rights in the Dakotas. You have to actually make some sort of cognizable, bounded claim before we can realistically discuss anything.

CommieGIR posted:

The best part of this conversation is how its not on their land.

But this is really the only issue that matters. I'm sure the environmental impact claims have a bright, litigious future, but the ownership claims are irrelevant and the cultural/historic preservation claims appear to have been reasonably addressed.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Nov 4, 2016

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 06:32

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Civilized Fishbot posted:

My claim is that they deserve control over the land immediately adjacent to theirs which contains some of the proposed pipeline, the land on which they're seeking to prevent pipeline construction, and that doesn't require a position on whether they should have control over any other land as well

"I'm asserting that there is definitely a property right here, but I cannot comment on where it may be bounded or what it is based on." Come on, we've already started. You've established that granting the tribe sovereignty over Las Vegas would be ridiculous, but that the land ten miles north of their current reservation should definitely be theirs. Does it extend north to Bismarck? Let's work east from Vegas, too. What about Denver?

Civilized Fishbot posted:

But that's an uninteresting answer to your question, so I'll tell you that I'm leaning toward "convene a panel of historians, determine the extent of Standing Rock land that was stolen by genocidal US forces, give them all of that land that was taken from them and allow them to choose whether or not to sell any part of it back to anyone. Do the same with all other Native American tribes." As a non-historian I wouldn't be on that panel, but if the tribe feels really strongly about this patch of land, and it historically controlled this patch of land before being marched off at gunpoint, it obviously should be returned to their control

Okay, so your plan is to displace a large portion of the 1.6 million people in North and South Dakota (and presumably every other state in the Mississippi river basin as well) from their homes, presumably at gunpoint, if the native tribes decline to allow them the "opportunity" to purchase their homes again at full market value. That's a strange sense of justice you have there. I think I'm gonna take a pass on that, along with all the other not-crazy people

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 07:10

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Civilized Fishbot posted:

The tribe isn't expressing interest in any sort of control except over the lands they already own and the land 10 miles north where the pipeline will be, so obviously they shouldn't have Bismarck/Denver because they don't want it.

Ah, but if they did want Bismarck or Denver, would you think that they should have it? If not, why not? Your entire claim that they have a right turns pretty heavily on this.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Why do you think that the Standing Rock would be so cruel as to kick everyone off of the land? Because that's what was done to them? If any of the lives of those 1.6 million people are ruined, then create a robust social safety net so that they can still lead decent and comfortable lives. Doing the right thing is expensive sometimes

Well, you yourself said that the Standing Rock would have the option of deciding to sell. Declining to sell would be retaining the property right for themselves, and property rights are by definition the right to exclude. Would they be extracting rents from the people who previously thought they owned their homes outright? Your whole scenario depends on the Standing Rock either having a property right that they never exercise, or mass expulsion/extortion.

BTW, this is why, despite your moralizing, the entire "just give the land back to the natives" argument is retarded. This is the only logical endpoint. The argument boils down to, "the only moral property rights were those established in 1620 (was it 1620, by the way? The year matters a lot when you're carving up the United States to give back to the tribes, because they went to war and took territory from each other pretty frequently) and any coerced transfer after that point is immoral. So to rectify those people getting forced out of their homes, where some of them had lived for generations, at gunpoint in the 1800s... we're going to force a whole lot more people out of their homes, where some of them have lived for generations, at gunpoint today." There isn't even a lovely utilitarian argument to be made.

So you either parting shot the hero, or you argue long enough to see yourself propose something monstrous.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Nov 4, 2016

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 07:43

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Civilized Fishbot posted:

What if we agree that the Standing Rock should be able to decide whether pipelines are built or not built on land so long as:

A. It was seized from them during genocide
B. Nobody lives on it
C. They actively express interest in deciding whether pipelines should be built on it

So we don't have to worry about Denver or Bismarck or any other town where people live. Do you have any concerns with this policy? It seems to me like very literally the least that could be given to them - and, incidentally, all that they're asking for.

No, I want to talk about your "land reform" idea more. Are you still in favor of it? Do you still think displacing 1.6 million people is in the interests of justice? See, psychologists say that you're supposed to give people an "off ramp" to changing their minds, a way to save face and not look like they backed down. Otherwise they'll double down in order to save their ego. But what you said was so wrong headed that I want to see you either repudiate it or try to defend it.

Tias posted:

The SR Lakota have, like all the indian nations at the site, all but wiped out by a policy of extermination by the state that now tries to ram a big gently caress-off oil pipe through their water supply. On their site may be a lot of concerned citizens, but on the other you have the USA CoE, security companies and some extremely rich people who rarely have an qualms about buying off the justice system.�We're lucky things haven't gotten uglier, and should support their cause.

The federal government and the Corps of Engineers didn't have any input on the path of the pipeline. You're also insinuating that judges have been "bought off." Do you have any evidence of that whatsoever, other than the fact that the motion for an injunction didn't go the Standing Rock's way? Why should I unquestioningly support a cause because it's sympathetic?

Condiv posted:

i doubt the need of such a pipeline, and the people who refused to sell should not be forced to sell (especially at "fair market value") to suit the needs of private interests

Most utilities are semi or wholly privately owned these days, and eminent domain is more or less essential to having a functional utility infrastructure.

Stickarts posted:

Also, this thread taught me that, technically, the vast majority of any given city is unoccupied. Go to the window and look outside. Do you see people standing crammed shoulder to shoulder as far as the eye can see? If not, that land is unoccupied and subject to potential land claims and reparations.

Well, was literally what Civilized Fishbot was proposing. Or maybe not, he seems totally unwilling to actually clarify how he thinks the rules should work.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 20:54

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Condiv posted:

according to the achp the standing rock sioux did communicate with the corps and were ignored:

http://indigenousrising.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/nd-sd-ia-il-coe-r-dakota-access-pipeline-project-con-15mar16.pdf

Because they wanted the Corps to review construction outside of the river crossings, which is not their jurisdiction per the denial of their motion. The fact that the Corps has no basis for adjudicating their claims outside of areas identified by the Corps as being impacted by the river crossings is something the tribe seems unable to accept.

Condiv posted:

utilities are arguably a public good (though I still disagree wholly with eminent domain conducted in the name of economic interest). the dap will not serve any public good, it only exists to bolster profits for private entities.

You could say the same about any energy infrastructure project. Your distinction is arbitrary, and eminent domain has no bearing on the Sioux claim because the land adjacent to their reservation was sold willingly by the previous owners.

CommieGIR posted:

This brings up a good point because this is actually part of the problem.

Unfortunately, Full Communism Now isn't happening, so we need to address things as they happen in the real world under our extant structures and system of laws.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Nov 4, 2016

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 21:06

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Condiv posted:

the achp is a part of the federal government and not associated with the standing rock sioux, so would you kindly explain why they can't accept the corps' explanation instead of deflecting to "well the tribe is just wrong"?

CoE: "Our remit is to assess and permit places where the pipeline crosses waterways."
ACHP: "But the pipeline wouldn't be built without the 209 permitted crossings, so you should expand the scope of your remit to include the entire pipeline."
CoE: "No, because that isn't our jurisdiction."
ACHP: "But whhhhy? It would be so much easier to challenge in court if it was!"

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 21:30

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Condiv posted:

and this?

it seems to be their wheelhouse tbh, so I assume the achp knows what they're talking about here.

IANAL, but it appears that their objection again stems from the Corps determination of its own statutory authority, which is not something the Corps is required to consult with the tribe on. In the denial of the tribe's motion for an injunction, the CoE documented extensive attempts to contact the tribe, including attempts that had been rebuffed because the Corps would not unilaterally extend its authority to cover the pipeline. The judge found that the tribe's argument that the Corps had not met its obligation to consult with them was unlikely to succeed on its merits.

It's pretty clear the letter's author is in the tribe's corner, especially since he starts raising environmental impact concerns in what is ostensibly a letter from a historic preservation interest group, but I don't think it raises any reasonable or novel objections.

# ¿ Nov 4, 2016 22:26

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

You're kinda burying the lede when you don't mention that she allegedly got winged by a rubber bullet and is still walking, talking, and tweeting.

# ¿ Nov 5, 2016 08:07

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Civilized Fishbot posted:

If you're saying I over-sensationalized the story, that's the opposite of burying the lede. Burying the lede is focusing on so many unimportant details that it's impossible to make out what the story is actually about.

Well, I guess you can quibble about the exact terminology we should use for your blatant dishonesty, if you really want.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ¿ Nov 5, 2016 09:35

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

qkkl posted:

Why doesn't the company just sign a contract with the land owners stating that if an accident happens then the company will pay for all damages, such as the water being polluted?

That seems reasonable, but obviously the company is not just going to hand over bags of cash when someone says their tap water tastes funny. We would need some sort of independent arbitrator to determine whether the company is actually liable and what appropriate monetary compensation would be. We could call it a "Court", and maybe the company could take out an insurance policy against potential liability.

Seriously, in what way is what you propose different from civil court or binding arbitration?

# ¿ Nov 6, 2016 12:24

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

LeJackal posted:

And your alternative to allowing defendants in civil suits to hire lawyers, call witnesses, and pay experts to appear is..?

# ¿ Nov 6, 2016 16:11

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

EDIT: removed in compliance with mod direction

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Nov 7, 2016

# ¿ Nov 7, 2016 03:34

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

i am harry posted:

Cops with paintball guns that'd be something to see.

The balls the cops use are filled with pepper spray instead of paint.

# ¿ Nov 7, 2016 05:21

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Civilized Fishbot posted:

When an oil construction project fails to file the proper paperwork, upsetting regulators, everything's fine, someone just dropped the ball, it happens

When a Native American tribe fails to file the proper paperwork, they deserve no second chances, they have to learn to work within the system

The company is in line to eat a $100,000 fine, so it's not as though they're walking off scott free.

# ¿ Nov 8, 2016 20:08

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

CommieGIR posted:

Which isn't even pocket change for them. That's like pocket lint.

Its a price they would gladly pay because of the profits at stake for the pipe. They treat it as a cost of doing business.

If they're just assholes who decided to bulldoze a site and throw their money around like the bad guys in an after school special, why did they bother to notify the SOHP and re-route the pipeline?

What's your alternative? That the fine structure should be such that filing paperwork with the wrong office will put even the biggest company out of business?

# ¿ Nov 8, 2016 21:04

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

coyo7e posted:

Of course if it's sub-freezing temperatures, building a bonfire not near the lines of conflict is not exactly an offensive maneuver

If you are illegally occupying someone's land and setting fires, you don't get some kind of cold weather exception.

# ¿ Nov 22, 2016 05:37

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Alan Smithee posted:

I'm new to most of this, so why exactly isn't Obama doing anything? Is it a matter of not having executive power to do anything or is he still playing the centrist game

He's the President, not the President-for-Life. The oval office reaching down to a local field office in the federal bureaucracy and directing them to decide one way or the other on a permit for political reasons, rather than follow the agency's published guidance for adjudication, would be breathtakingly corrupt. I'm not sure it would technically be illegal, he is the head of the executive branch after all, but it would be against all the principles of good government he campaigned on and would probably result in a fully justified congressional inquiry.

# ¿ Nov 22, 2016 07:32

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Elendil004 posted:

They only have to clear them out so the pipeline can be completed, no? Just round everyone up and stick them in fenced off camps while the wheels of justice slowly turn.

Habeas Corpus still has some life left in 2016, despite being beaten and bloody on the floor, so the Gitmo-on-the-prarie idea is a non starter.

Tias posted:

The federal government is not 'someone', they're occupying their own ancestral land.

Also, is it an aggravating circumstance to have built a fire if you're charged with something in America( assuming you don't build the fire with, say, someones car or public dumpsters, natch)?

Which brings us back to the point that an expansive definition of "ancestral land" is an absurdity with no basis in law or precedent.

If you build a fire where you're not supposed to, the authorities can probably charge you with anything from camping without a permit to attempted arson, depending on how frisky they are feeling.

# ¿ Nov 22, 2016 19:35

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Conventional tear gas and smoke grenades don't detonate and don't contain explosives, so probably not that.

# ¿ Nov 22, 2016 21:44

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

xrunner posted:

Deferring to strict legalism is a great way to justify oppression without feeling like an rear end in a top hat. That law and precedent was brought in at gunpoint and maintained at gunpoint. At some point, while you can't undo the crimes that happened 150 years ago, you have to find a way forward that probably involves renegotiating the terms of the conquest in a way that is beneficial to the survivors of the conquest. Falling back on a strict reading of our laws and precedent isn't going to move anything forward.

Complaining about "legalism" is the last resort of people who have no legal argument for why their desires should prevail. There is no renegotiation to be had, because there are parties other than the tribe and the federal government with interests at stake. The only thing that those who support the tribe have offered is the idea that any native tribe should be able to demand to have input on any project on land that they deem they have an interest in.

Gozinbulx posted:

Can someone who feels more confident in the facts tell me: am I mistaken or does the company building the pipeline not have all the necessary permits to build, specifically from the army corp of engineers? If so, how are they allowed to build? What is the official line on why a project without the necessary permits is allowed to proceed, and vigorously protected while doing so, no less?

The majority of the pipeline is constructed on private lands and requires no federal permits. The ACoE has to approve construction at the 209 points where it crosses the waterways of the United States. The ACoE believes that they have met their obligation to review the environmental and cultural impacts of the project at these points. The ACoE also has to consult with affected native tribes. They are not required to act on the tribes' input. The Corps has demonstrated that they made a good faith effort to consult with the Standing Rock.

The tribe has argued that, since the pipeline would not be built without the 209 crossings, the ACoE should do an environmental and cultural review of the entire pipeline, one during which they would be required to consult tribes again, rather than just reviewing the crossings. The courts have rejected this idea.

# ¿ Nov 23, 2016 21:11

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Owlofcreamcheese posted:

Using tear gas in a war is literally a war crime under the geneva convention. The geneva convention just doesn't ban what you can do to your own citizens.

Tear gas isn't addressed in the Geneva Conventions, it's covered under the Chemical Weapons Convention, which specifically allows the manufacture and domestic use of riot control agents, so maybe get your LOAC straight.

Using hollow points and not advancing prisoners their regular financial stipend are actually war crimes under the GC, but I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China, since police aren't soldiers and vice versa.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 04:44 on Dec 12, 2016

# ¿ Nov 24, 2016 00:15

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

botany posted:

I know you've been posting your drivel for years now and I'm unlikely to change that distorted version of reality you call your home, but for anyone else reading this: Complaining about legalism is an acknowledgement of the fact that there's a difference between morality and the law, and that the latter is supposed to encode the former. So when there's a conflict between morality and the law, it's supremely idiotic to accuse those on the side of morality of not having a legal argument for their position. That's entirely the point, you moron.

On the contrary, law and morality are orthogonal. The proper role of law is to define the relationship between citizens and the state/society, not to encode morality. Most people would agree that adultery is immoral, but far fewer think it should be illegal. Not everything immoral is illegal, and not every lawful action is moral. Complaining that the law does not prohibit someone from doing something you find morally objectionable is like complaining that you've been working out and eating right, but your car still doesn't go any faster.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Nov 24, 2016

# ¿ Nov 24, 2016 03:44

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

silence_kit posted:

What? Of course a major purpose of the law is to encode morality and to influence people's ethical beliefs. I always get annoyed when progressives whine about conservative Christians 'legislating morality' when they really are complaining about conservative Christians legislating the wrong morality, in their opinion.

That's kind of my point, really. I'm not denying that people have tried to use the law to push a moral agenda in the past, I'm saying that is a bad thing when people do, whether they are conservative Christians or hardcore leftists.

botany posted:

"Law encodes morality" doesn't mean "everything immoral must be illegal", since "this should be illegal" and "this is immoral but shouldn't be illegal" are both moral judgments. The fact that we don't make adultery illegal encodes our collective feeling that adultery is not bad enough to send somebody to jail for. Of course we still think it's largely immoral, which is why it's legally relevant in divorce proceedings and character assessments during witness questioning etc. The relationship between the citizenry and the state is defined by a hell of a lot more than just laws, though of course those are part of it as well since we have moral stances on what being a citizen/state entails.

You can't have it both ways. If you are defining morality as any preference for one policy or course of action over another, rather than judgements based on concepts moral good and bad like most people use the word, then you are redefining it beyond all usefulness. Unless you are saying that insistence of native peoples' right to their land has the same moral value as a local noise ordinance.

Jarmak posted:

Case in point: the use of hollow point bullets is banned under the geneva conventions. Why? Because they tend to maim rather than kill outright, which on the battlefield can lead unnecessarily long and agonizing deaths. Law enforcement on the other hand almost exclusively uses hollow point bullets. Why? because the tend to maim instead of outright kill, so they can take your rear end to the hospital and you might survive (they also tend to not overpenetrate and hit bystanders)

I am quite certain that none of this is true.

# ¿ Nov 24, 2016 18:53

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

RBC posted:

it is, that's not up for debate

Liquid Communism posted:

It's okay. Pretending the Treaty of Fort Laramie didn't happen is traditional at this point.

Okay, but the crossing point on the Missouri river is about 26 minutes north of the 46th parallel, the northernmost border of the territory addressed by the Treaty of Ft Laramie, so I'm wondering which treaty specifically you're referring to.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2016 06:10

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Liquid Communism posted:

You should check your treaty borders. Per the 1851 treaty, the Sioux claim goes north to the confluence of the Heart and Missouri rivers at Mandan, just across the river to the west of Bismarck. Of course, that got moved back a bit once the US decided to violate that treaty wholesale due to gold having been discovered in the Black Hills. Does the name George Armstrong Custer ring a bell?

It appears that claim was superseded by the 1868 treaty, which was prior to the 1877 Black Hills war and the seizure of the Black Hills. Interesting to note, it appears that during the prelude to the signing of both treaties, the Sioux/Lakota used the US Army as a lever to displace other tribes and claim their land, so if you are going with the argument that all land ceded under duress is invalid, the situation is a little more complicated.

# ¿ Nov 25, 2016 18:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 21, 2024 06:44

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

OTOH, I think it is possible for a decision that has negative consequences for natives or other minorities to be made for reasons other than sneering racism.

# ¿ Nov 26, 2016 17:43

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > DAPL: coward pipe defeats water protectors

«‹›4 »