Jack Gladney posted:

Is this facebook checkin thing something that will actually help? I don't want to bandwagon on something that will cause damage or gently caress up the public discussion.

quote:

Standing Rock took a different tack. The Tribe declined to participate in the surveys because of their limited scope. See Chieply Decl., ¶ 29. Instead, it urged the Corps to redefine the area of potential effect to include the entire pipeline and asserted that it would send no experts to help identify cultural resources until this occurred. Id. In a responsive email, the Corps expressed its regret that the Tribe would not participate and welcomed any knowledge or information regarding historic properties that it was still willing to provide.

mitztronic posted:

Seems pretty cut and dry to most reasonable people: this is wrong.

quote:

I don't give a poo poo if they avoided a survey, the onus isn't on them to prove that their land shouldn't be wrecked by large oil corporations. Native Americans already have almost no land, and you don't have to go too far back into our history to remember why.

CommieGIR posted:

Even worse, looking at that map: Why is the pipeline crossing the river. Twice, when it looks like it could have easily been routed around those cities to get to that exact location without crossing the river?

CommieGIR posted:

That's not what I implied either.

Dead Reckoning posted:

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.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

But seriously: the fact that attorneys are pursuing a motion in court doesn't indicate anything about how easy it would be for them to sue a rich firm.

quote:

Yeah, it has.

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

"“This is one of the most significant archeological finds in North Dakota in many years,” said Tim Mentz, a Standing Rock Sioux member and a longtime Native archeologist in the Great Plains. “[Dakota Access Pipeline] consultants would have had to literally walk directly over some of these features. However, reviewing DAPL’s survey work, it appears that they did not independently survey this area but relied on a 1985 survey.”

These newly discovered finds may no longer exist. The tribe and its legal team say that less than 24 hours after evidence of the new sacred sites were provided to the court, the Dakota Access company began construction on those same exact sites, perhaps destroying many of them forever. "

quote:

Dakota Access, not surprisingly, hotly contested Mentz’s version of events in its opposition to the TRO motion. In a map of the area, the company sought to demonstrate that many of the sites documented by Mentz were in fact well outside the pipeline route. See ECF No. 34 (Response to TRO) at 6-8. The rest, according to Dakota Access, were directly over the existing Northern Border Natural Gas Pipeline that runs through the area and thus could not have been historic artifacts. Id. at 6. The company instead alleges that the route of the pipeline in this area proves its point: it twists and turns to avoid the finds that Mentz documented adjacent to the pipeline and thus demonstrates that Dakota Access did purposefully shift the route to avoid any sites of cultural significance in its planning phase. Id. The Court acknowledges that the map provided by the company does seem to indicate that the pipeline curves to accommodate the cultural sites.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

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.

quote:

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?

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Okay, but why not? If they'll always be able to sue for any damages, and there's no risk of construction destroying artifacts, why should they care?

quote:

You clearly disagree with the Standing Rock on whether or not they have any cause to protest the pipeline. Do you know better than the Standing Rock about how this pipeline will affect their lives and sacred sites, or are the Standing Rock fighting - and suffering literal violence in the process - to prevent a pipeline that they actually wouldn't mind at all?

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.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

My understanding is that the Corps just contacted the tribes to try to accomplish this goal, the Standing Rock didn't respond back, and they assumed that was the end of it.

quote:

As a first cut, the Corps reviewed extensive existing cultural surveys both within and outside the Lake Oahe project area to determine whether the work might affect cultural resources.
[...]
Around the time of this meeting, the Corps also independently looked through these cultural surveys and other route maps to determine whether any additional DAPL crossings might have the potential to affect historic properties.
[...]
Perhaps most significantly, Morgan met with the Corps to express specific concerns about tribal burial sites at the James River crossing (PCN # 4). See Harnois Decl., ¶ 24. Based on the information she provided, the Corps verified the presence of cultural resources at the site and successfully instructed Dakota Access to move the pipeline alignment to avoid them.

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.

NewForumSoftware posted:

just lol at the idea that we can't respect the rights of native americans or they will take over denver

the mental gymnastics, it's amazing

edit. my apologies if you're being ironic it's hard to tell

NewForumSoftware posted:

as you've so cleverly illustrated by bringing up such shockers as "if we grant them these land rights, what's to stop them from taking denver"

really, glad we have someone like you asking the hard questions

Civilized Fishbot posted:

quote:

I don't know what the geographical layout of these territories would look like

NewForumSoftware posted:

Civilized Fishbot posted:

For example: some parts of Denver are occupied, which means that the Standing Rock can't have those. Other parts, the Standing Rock have never expressed any interest in, so they won't have those either.

NewForumSoftware posted:

I've lived in Denver and I'll save you some time, he's full of poo poo.

NewForumSoftware posted:

Old unincorporated denver, where the bears and elk run wild. Some of the greatest hiking west of the mississippi, come on down to the gold mine and grab some souvenirs for the kids!


Uhh no my stance is that Denver has no "unpopulated areas" feel free to look at a map if you want to check. Or you know, live there for five years like I did.

NewForumSoftware posted:

Enlighten us with an example oh wisdomful one

NewForumSoftware posted:

Ironically enough being one of the most popular places for the homeless to sleep. So actually you're wrong in this case. Really the suncor plant or the airport would be better bet if you want to double down on your autism.

No see guys if we let them not build this pipeline what's to stop the Sioux from claiming the Suncor plant in Denver as their own? Really makes you think

NewForumSoftware posted:

Man it's just amazing how much some people will flail to avoid just posting "you know what, that is kind of silly, maybe we shouldn't waste pages on this dumb idea that popped into my head"

Civilized Fishbot posted:

Well, I think we're getting to an issue here, which is that I privately believe that justice demands the Standing Rock should be able to hold a lot of land in Denver. But I'm not working to convince you of that, I'm working to convince you that the Standing Rock should be able to control whether a pipeline is built in this very small part of land. So let's add a fourth rule:

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
D. The land lays at most 15 miles from the current borders of the Standing Rock Reservation as it exists today in 2016.

Are you fine with these rules? Do they strike you as a reasonable compromise between restoring the impact of genocidal land theft and allowing modern-day occupiers of that land to live their lives uninterrupted?

NewForumSoftware posted:

alright maybe you're just a bot programmed to post autistically, either way not wasting any more time trying to explain to you why "but then they could take Denver!?!?!" is such a dumb thing for you to be posting about. have fun making a fool of yourself

Civilized Fishbot posted:

15 miles is an arbitrary figure I chose to include the disputed pipeline land while leaving out anything else of note.

quote:

As for the government paying them current market value: don't you think genocide victims should have the right to dictate the manner in which they're paid reparations?

quote:

The land has spiritual and sentimental value due to both elements of the Standing Rock faith and the fact that it was stolen from them in genocide; its absence from their administration is gaping wound. The government doesn't have to seize that land to return it; it can just buy it back from its private owners.

rudatron posted:

Isn't there's a compelling strategic & economic interest in something like a pipeline? Even if you grant native ownership, won't that just mean it gets eminent-domained? Though considering the impacts of something like a pipeline, you may have to compensate at an above market rate, for possible long term damage. I'm not sure what a reasonable dollar figure would be, per hectare.

RandomPauI posted:

I don't know about the original poster, but you and I will have to disagree on this being a reasonable interpretation.

If I opened fire on the police with rubber bullets they'd be in the right to open fire with live ammo because they were under fire. The investigation after the fact wouldn't suddenly penalize the cops because I didn't fire metal bullets. The act by and of itself would be sufficient.

Liquid Communism posted:

A paintball would be a different thing entirely. Rubber bullets are, like tasers, a less lethal option than normal firearms. Not a nonlethal option. So the point here is that potenilly lethal force was used on a reporter, either intentionally by an officer, or just because she was in the area and they didn't care what was beyond their target.

Liquid Communism posted:

Do you have a better word for 'propelled a projectile out of a firearm via expansion of gasses from a gunpowder explosion' than shoot? Because it's an accurate description here.

RandomPauI posted:

The cops can treat being shot at by something as if they were getting shot at. So why can't civilians say they were being shot at, implicitly by bullets, if a cop literally shot a bullet at them?

quote:

We're not going to agree on this and it's a derail to the main point that the police used force against someone who was not a threat to the police.

RandomPauI posted:

I don't recall saying people understand being shot at means with normal bullets. I did say that I'm applying the same standards to the police that the police would apply to themselves. And it's a derail because the bigger issue should be the police using force against someone who isn't threatening the police.

RandomPauI posted:

It means all bullets, full stop. The bullet part of a cartridge can be lead, rubber, plastic, depleted uranium. It is the part of a cartridge that's fired out of the gun.

CommieGIR posted:

Seriously, that's a pathetic comparison. Try again. That's not even barely worth addressing, comparing a multi-billion dollar for profit company's pet project to pump-and-dump as much oil on the market as they possibly can, to building a School for what is largely considered one of the poorest groups of people in the United States who have been time and again disenfranchised by the US Government.

Also: The school doesn't generally explode/fail and pollute when it breaks.

CommieGIR posted:

They have every right to protest, and you're hilarious incompetent at hand-waving the rights or protesters where it suits you.

silence_kit posted:

This type of argument doesn't work because although posters here use universal-sounding language and pay lip service to universal principles to describe their ideas, they really aren't universal at all and are really just a bunch of ends-justify-the-means type of arguments to benefit their cause.

CommieGIR posted:

They had every right to do it, as the ends (Civil Rights) justified their right to it, and the response against them specifically highlight why they needed those rights. Arguing that they had no right to do it ignores that they were specifically being denied rights given everyone else.

quote:

In the DPL case, the Native's are being denied rights to object to a project being run by a company with a poor pipeline safety record over water that directly impacts their well being, and the Pipeline was redirected by people whose only argument against it also reflected the argument the Native's have. Ironically, somehow, the Native's have no grounds but Bismark was well within their rights to object.

CommieGIR posted:

We had rights to throw Japanese Americans in Internment Camps. Didn't mean it was right that we did it, nor that those denial of rights was justified.

quote:

And the courts ruled in favor of Jim Crow laws multiple times. Again, legal precedent does not make something just, it just makes it legal.

CommieGIR posted:

And how does that compare to you suggesting that white construction workers have every right to protest the building of a Native American school to stop Sharia Law? Because I still can't grasp what level of madness you'd think that comparison was valid.

quote:

Two Dot knew I was using two different meanings of the word Right intentionally, and felt the need to lecture me on basic English which was frankly rather insulting. You don't get to pretend I was arguing in bad faith by saying "Oh look, you are using two different meanings of the word, you are obviously trying to obfuscate your point".

That is beyond contempt to make that sort of claim.

CommieGIR posted:

Again: One was based off objections over actual occurrences and risks. The other is a conspiracy theory. C'mon now, if you get to claim I'm obfuscating my arguing points, at least pretend that you guys are arguing in good faith and not pulling poo poo out of a hat and calling it gold.

quote:

Did it occur to you that was on purpose?

CommieGIR posted:

Instances of Pipelines blowing up in 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century#2016
Instances of Sharia Law taking over US in 2016: None.

quote:

Legal is not the end all do all for being Just and Fair. By that logic, Lynching was just fair game because lynch mobs were largely considered a legal affair. Don't pretend something being legal somehow implies its also Just.

wateroverfire posted:

Even in the moral realm...

Pipelines are remarkably safe. The US has only had a handful of incidents with something like 2.3 million KM of pipe. Crude is going to get transported some kind of way and the other methods are less safe. So what is the DAPL protest but NIMBYism, if pipeline safety is the justification?

Uglycat posted:

I'm sayin' if ten thousand people stand up and shout 'HEY! YOU! WHAT YOU'RE DOING! STOP!'... you might want to spend a /lot/ of time Listening.

Shooting Blanks posted:

Are you loving high? It makes sense to file those requests/complaints if for no other reason than to avoid accusations that they failed to use the system in place.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Entering into a court proceeding implies that you consent to abide by the court's decision, or at the very least to only contest it to the extent that the legal system allows, especially when you are the one initiating the court proceeding.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Before I respond, did you mean North Korea?

Dead Reckoning posted:

If you get arrested in Germany for doing something that is legal in America, Delta Force is not coming to get you, and all the Embassy will do is try to ensure you have access to adequate legal counsel. Saying that you would prefer to be tried in American courts will get you laughed at.

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.
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.

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.