|
Condiv posted:Thank Hopefully this blows up in DNB's collective faces and the execs who pushed it end up out on their asses. They should be pushing for a resolution that gets the project done and the bank paid rather than tilting at social justice windmills. What does it take to get infrastructure built these days?
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
rudatron posted:If DNB can strongarm the pipeline corp, into that suggestion I had before (about a liability insurance agreement in writing beforehand), they'll be the heroes of this thing (after the protestors of course). That's pretty much the optimal outcome here, practically, ethically and morally. It would also signal a positive turn in the relationship between native communities & resource extraction industries, that may help things later on. You can't put a price on trust, after all. I'm not sure that's true, or that a liability policy is even a thing that would satisfy the protesters. If it were, Dakota Access could fund that out of petty cash. For DNB, the execs involved are attempting to sabotage a project its investors have a stake in to no good purpose. Longer term, DNB is going to have a harder time getting in on infrastructure projects in the future for reasons that should be obvious. In a broader sense, DNB's actions - whether they succeed or not - could embolden protesters and make all sorts of projects more difficult.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Tias posted:Which is only a problem if you don't believe the protestors have a worthy cause. It's a problem if you live in society and benefit from infrastructure. =/ There were opportunities to be heard during the planning and permitting process, and plenty of groups took advantage of those opportunities. People have to work within the system - and be encouraged to work within the system - or the result is unmanagable chaos.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
Condiv posted:rudatron, usually you seem like a pretty good poster, which is why i'm not sure why you think forcefully building poo poo on native american lands will build trust. it seems they've made pretty clear they don't want the pipeline anywhere near them, not that they want some special assurance that they'll get a payout if damage occurs. especially since they're pretty used to getting dicked over on said assurances (hell, you're advocating for ignoring one and swapping it out for this other). Umm... read the article, I guess, and the linked letter. The site in question was identified, construction was routed around, the ND State Historic Preservation Office signed off on the changes... everything was done above board except that whoever was responsible for notifying the ND Public Service Comission dropped the ball (and I can only imagine how much they are hating life now) because that person was hand holding a bunch of VIPs visiting the site. A random protester quoted by the article posted:Cheryl Angel, a Sicangu Lakota tribe member who has been at the Standing Rock camps since April, said she has personally seen what appear to be indigenous artifacts in the line of construction and that she believes the pipeline operators have intentionally hidden discoveries of sacred sites and knowingly destroyed them. A random protester claimed to have seen something and believes the pipeline operators are evil. No follow up by the Guardian to verify whether the sites exist, whether the construction plan routes around them if they do, etc. Just really lovely clickbait reporting.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
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 Like... if the project had plowed over the site instead of documenting the heck out of it and getting approvals for route changes to preserve the site from the appropriate regulators before proceeding then I would be a lot harder on the company. But as it actually happened, what is there to make of it other than a paperwork error?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
Every detail in that letter is verifiable by the regulators themselves and (with more work but still possible) by third parties. Lying about events that can be verified in a public and written document that is guaranteed to be scrutinized would be a really dumb thing for a company to do. So yeah, I'm willing to take that account on face value since either the SHO, the comission, or a number of other parties with no reason to obfuscate could call it out as bullshit in about two minutes if bullshit it was. Combine that with the fact that the site in question was preserved and yeah, it really seems like it was just a paperwork error. Condiv posted:also what are you on about follow up? the guardian has contacted whoever they can. they attempted to contact the company and get their side of things, but got no comment and so had to rely on their lawyer's letter. they got the NDPSC's side, which is pissed off, and they got the protestors' side, which is also pissed off. the site is on private property and the guardian can't just go in there and start investigating without the permission of the company that refused to speak to them, so exactly what follow up did you expect them to do? Dude how can you be so uncritical? Regarding following up on the dispute between NDPSC and the company: They could have for instance, at minimum, contacted the SHO to verify the claims made in the letter. Then they could have reported "company's account of events is corroberated by x y z" or alternately "company's claims were bullshit". Or they could have printed "SHO refused to talk to us" if the SHO declined to comment for whatever reason. Regarding printing the unverified claims of a rando protester: At minimum, the reporter should have gotten specific locations and followed up with the two regulators on the scene. Maybe consulted the planned pipeline route to see if they were accounted for, or had already been surveyed, or whatever. The reporter could have gone with the protester at some point, since presumably she had some way to get into position to see the artifacts she claims to have seen, and verified that there were in fact artifacts there. The reporter could have flown a drone over the site. Or asked protesters more willing to risk a mild rebuke than he was to take pictures. Or basically anything other than uncritically accept the word of a protester. If it were actually true, a story about the pipeline company intentionally destroying historical sites would be really big news. News worth verifying. The fact that none of that work is referenced in the article suggests it's just clickbait. Like....read this. Just read it. The Guardian Article posted:Cheryl Angel, a Sicangu Lakota tribe member who has been at the Standing Rock camps since April, said she has personally seen what appear to be indigenous artifacts in the line of construction and that she believes the pipeline operators have intentionally hidden discoveries of sacred sites and knowingly destroyed them. This cries out for some kind of verification. There are facts to dig up here - facts that could confirm or deny a narrative that would be a really big deal if true. But there's no attempt by the reporter to do any of that. Why doesn't that raise a giant red flag for you?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2016 12:57
|
|
|
Is there an unedited version of that vid? It might provide context that is missing from the clip like what happened leading up to the hose turning on.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 11:20
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:This is sickening. Especially since this may we'll be the only way to get anything resembling real journalism in the coming days if Trump has his way. What is all that debris up by the police line? Looks like two piles of it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 12:01
|
|
|
LiterallyTheWurst posted:http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-dakota-access-pipeline-protests-20161121-story.html drat, that's terrible. I hope she recovers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:I come down pretty firmly on the side of the protesters (though some good points have been made about the exact positions of the pipeline and the native american's poor efforts to engage with the pipeline people) but I am just curious as to why the gov't hasn't just handled it...I am sure most of the cops there would love to go full military. More than likely no one - cops included - really wants to be responsible for an action that results in casualties. Everyone in charge is probably hoping to maintain status quo and hold the line while the company quietly finishes the project so that everyone can go home and the company and any aggrieved parties can fight it out in court where no one is likely to get shot.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Gozinbulx posted:I have this feeling like getting hard, factual information about what is going on at DAPL is especially challenging. So many disparate, contradicting accounts. IIRC the only thing the Army Corps of Engineers has any say over is the water crossing, and the rest of the project is permitted.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
I don't think it is reasonable to expect that people who are engaged in violent protest won't sustain injuries or even casualties when clashing with police, or to expect police to abandon their posts rather than injure violent protesters. It sucks that people are getting hurt but they're putting themselves in harm's way and no one is forcing them to do that.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Tias posted:The protestors act only under orders from tribal elders IDK man. You don't have to go far back to find accounts of violence by protesters. For instance: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dakota-access-pipeline-protesters-removed_us_58123b0ee4b0990edc2fb009 It seems like a stretch to claim they have much cohesive leadership when tons of people are from out of state and/or not connected with the tribe at all.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:There's plenty of evidence of the police using less-lethal weapons on the protesters including rubber bullets, tear gas, and water cannons. There's been no physical or photographed evidence of the protestors using IED's. Hmm. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-uM_VWPW_w http://www.valleynewslive.com/content/news/Propane-cylinders-recovered-at-explosion-site-of-DAPL-protest-402544435.html From the story linked above posted:MORTON COUNTY, N.D. (Valley News Live) – Law enforcement say they are investigating the use of homemade explosives at a Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) protest. They have recovered weapons and are investigating whether or not they are related to injuries a female protester suffered.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Tias posted:Have you ever been charged with possession or use of molotov cocktails? I have. Because cops found empty wine bottles with wax candles in them. In the same building I had been in at one point. Police lying to cover their own ineptitude is the rule rather than the exception, so forgive me for not being convinced. So, in your opinion, in the video I linked, what is the bright flaming thing that arcs over the bridge from the protester side and seems to explode near the cops?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Tias posted:Most likely an incendiary device. I fail to see why this does not make Morton PDs claim to have "received information that protesters were using one-pound propane cylinders as explosives" anything other than a steaming pile of made-up poo poo. Video of protesters throwing homemade incendiary devices at police does honestly make it more believable that some protesters are doing dumb things with homemade explosives and molotov coctails and etc, yeah. Tias posted:In a media blackout environment like the one at the protest, the cops are going to manufacture intel and justification for their actions like crazy, or else they're going to break with time-honoured tradition. There seems to be a ton of media coverage of the protest...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Recoome posted:I am still glad that you are perfectly okay with gassing civilians If the cops can't let the protesters through, what is the alternative to what they're doing?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:Its gotta be "always let the protesters win and do whatever they want without resistance". A lot of people mistaking being passionate and committed for being in the right ITT, IMO.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Here's an easy one for you to parse: if we assume that police were justified in the use of less-lethal weaponry against protestors, how do you justify the lack of any significant number of arrests? Remember, this is a bunch of people in the middle of nowhere, so they aren't going to run six blocks then suddenly be normal pedestrians. Well. There have actually been quite a few arrests at various times. TLDR of the article - at least 141 protesters arrested in an action at the end of October. This Huffpo article from mid november cites about 40 people arrested in another incident. I'm sure there are more than that quick search turned up. So IDK what you'd consider a significant number of arrests, but there have been arrests. But that aside, there are at least a couple of things to keep in mind I think. 1) Until they tresspass / wreck things / assault the police line the protesters aren't legally speaking doing anything wrong. 2) It's a bunch of people in the middle of nowhere. If you arrest them you have to take them somewhere, then pay to hold them, pay to feed them, pay to process them, etc. If you TRY to arrest them you risk turning a clash into a battle. It's probably better from a law enforcement POV, where possible, to just keep them off the line until they go back to camp. Liquid Communism posted:Further, if propane tank based IEDS are in use as claimed by the local Sherrif's spokeswoman, why is the BATFE not crawling down their necks? This article I linked earlier mentions the BATF is out there investigating so idk, apparantly they are?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Basically this There has been a lot of documented violence by protesters, tho..
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
Avenging_Mikon posted:Show me a documented source with video or pictorial evidence that isn't "police say." I'll wait. I linked a video of protesters lobbing an incendiary at the police line this afternoon. There is tons of documentation of protester violence and I don't understand the kind of willfull ignorance required to just ignore it. RBC posted:Why don't you believe people have a right to protest People have a right to protest within the law but no right to break the law in order to protest, and certainly no right to expect the authorities to do nothing while they wreck a construction site. Like....you guys cannot possibly be serious.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Perhaps Uglycat could give you his honest evaluation, since he's there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
You could also apply similar skepticism to evidence you uncritically accept. Like, ask yourself, where is the drone footage of the beginning of the clash that prompted the water hose to come out?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
logger posted:How is it then that the same pipeline that is being protested against was first considered to be placed near Bismark until public outcry led to them moving the project into Sioux land? Silento Boborachi posted:Ya, once you dig down to it, with the mind of who each of these populations primarily are, I think the corps could of done a much better job describing it. This response from up thread was pretty on point.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
Tias posted:I don't know if this source is legit, but it would appear the ACoE has decided to evict the entire protest camp sometime this or next week: Alternately: Good on the US Government for doing its job despite the certainty of generating a shitstorm.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:See: Trail of Tears DAPL: Definitely equivalent to the Trail of Tears.  Tias posted:Do you agree or disagree with the senators statement that this pipeline is not worth a single protestors life? Participating in violent civil disobedience means you embrace the possibility that you may come to harm if you won't back down. Is it regrettable that anyone might get hurt? Yes. Would it be 100% the fault of the protesters for engaging in illegal activity and refusing to knock it off once they've lost? Yes. You are not in the right just because you're protesting. edit: If you're absolutely committed to sitting down in the path of a moving bulldozer, the operator is almost obligated to run you over or your gesture is for nothing. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Tias posted:They haven't lost if they can block the pipeline, which is why they attempt to block it. Can you please stop being dense and understand that your own government is ready to kill its citizens in order to build a dead object under them? Dude, that's pretty drat hyperbolic. Direct action is not going to block a pipeline that has gone through every permitting process, through the courts, through rounds of stakeholder consultations, and in general through every process society has deemed necessary for a project such as this one to be done. The Lakota have specifically been able to participate and make their voices heard in multiple steps of the process. Various protesters who have no stake in this at all, and are just out there to wank, have been able to make themselves heard. That some of them don't like the outcome (pipeline gets built) or dispute the basis of its validity (we should own ALL THE LAND THE BUFFALO ONCE ROAMED therefore this is subject to our own approval [lol]) doesn't change the fact that it was justly done and that ultimately, after all the appeals and processes, they are impotent before the law and the project is going to happen. So no, I don't have much sympathy for the protesters. That they put themselves in harm's way is their choice, and the consequences they reap from that are justly theirs as well. That is just the bargain you accept when you decide to step outside the law. All anyone has to do to avoid being removed from the area is go home.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
... so now we're at Opposing DAPL: Just Like The Civil Rights Movement?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Tias posted:So you value the letter of the law over the human rights of your fellow citizens, gotcha. In letter and spirit the law is fine in this case, is the thing. That the protesters won't get their way doesn't mean the process was unjust. edit: Pardon the double post. You don't get to claim "mah civil rights!!" if you're tresspassing and the police use necessary force to get you to move. That is just not how it works.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
botany posted:
Plenty, of course. And it wasn't unjust to arrest them for tresspassing. Why would you think it was? edit: How much do you think society should care, WRT not forcinbly removing you, about your reasons for something like setting up a roadblock to stall traffic or occupying university buildings to stop classes? What about the rights of the people who need to use the roads or go to class? wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 17:56
|
|
do you have any idea how many protestors in the civil rights movement were forcibly arrested for trespassing?
|
Jarmak posted:The point of those protests was to highlight unjust laws by forcing their enforcement in a very public was (i.e. getting arrested) Was going to post this, but was beaten like a protester. =(
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:They have every right to protest, and you're hilarious incompetent at hand-waving the rights or protesters where it suits you. ...within the law, sure. CommieGIR posted:Just stop. Not only is this so incredibly ironic, its even more ironic that you don't grasp just what the trespassing charges where about, and are aptly using what is largely considered a national embarrassment as justification for arresting protesters. Are you seriously so daft that you would argue that Jim Crow wasn't wrong, but that the protesters were wrong for not standing up to unjust laws? Do you have any clue who pathetically short sighted that makes you sound? Their direct protesting and the resulting violence against their protest helped lead directly to the Civil Rights Act being passed Dude, you're the one making analogies to the Civil Rights movement. Go ahead and tell me all about how stopping DAPL is just like ending Jim Crow. 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:...within the law, sure. edit to respond to your edit: quote:Again: Native American's have every right to protest this, considering how its been largely forced through the courts and considering our endlessly bad treatment of the Native Americans. I mean...not really, though? It's not on their land (no matter how much some would like to relitigate that issue), they were extensively consulted on the preservation of cultural sites through a process many other tribes found satisfactory, and even the water issue is moot considering the pipeline placement and the fact that the CoE is switching the intakes next year anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No. They were not. Specifically, the DPL construction group hid/delayed discover of multiple sites. That would sure be a thing if it were true. If you're talking about the kerfluffle linked upthread, that was them forgetting to CC one of several regulators but 1) getting approval from the State Historic Office and 2) preserving the site. CommieGIR posted:The sheer amount of bullshit we've pulled on the Native Americans makes it perfectly reasonable that they should take the protest to further ends, considering there was never any reasonable way for them to fight it in the court and the courts have never been very fair to the Natives regardless. If you mean the Lakota didn't have standing to challenge the pipeline's construction because the courts rejected the argument that "No see we really control the entire Great Plains area because back in the day the buffalo roamed..." then that's not a failing of the law. =P That's the Lakota advancing an unwinnable argument. Similar with them demanding the CoE do a review of the entire project despite it literally not being within the juristiction of the CoE. CommieGIR posted:That's where the Civil Rights analogy came in: The laws that the protesters broke during the Civil Rights era were unjust. They were always unjust. There was never a point where breaking said law should have been considered wrong, and the disgusting reaction of the South to those protesters directly lead to the passage of the Civil Rights act. What is the analog to, for instance, segregated buses in the DAPL situation? CommieGIR posted:Seriously: Protesting gets you nowhere unless you shake things up and bend some laws, and considering the level of Law Enforcement responds to the DPL protests, its still not making the US look very good. Yeah. You get arrested for breaking the law and that draws attention to the thing you're protesting and hopefully sways opinion makers your way once you have their attention. It's still not wrong to arrest you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Appealing to the legality of something does not inherently make it good or right. Its part of why Might Makes Right is bullshit, because it doesn't necessarily make something right, only makes something acceptable to the populous at large. And yet, being the scrappy underdog does not necessarily make your cause just. People can be sincere and passionate and still not have a case worth granting. IMO that is the case with the Lakota, who are wrong in their sincere belief they have rights to swaths of territory in the Great Plains beyond the borders of their reservation while law and custom for the last nearly 150 years disagrees with that notion.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted: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. Bismark didn't object. The Bismark route was one of three routes considered, of which the one chosen was the favorite for being shorter and having fewer water crossings, as well as potentially impacting far fewer people. You can read it in the CoE's actual environmental impact assessment if you want. The CoE is apparantly going to move the Reservation's water intakes next year in any case because the river isn't consistent enough to guaranteee their supply. When the reservation is supplied by underground aquafir instead of the river the pipeline issue will be largely moot, which maybe influenced their decision. But even granting it's a risk, isn't it a similar risk along every stretch of the pipeline and its various water crossings? If every local stakeholder group could straight up veto the whole project it would be impossible to build. Probably impossible to build any significant infrastructure.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Could we agree on a convention of making new posts instead of significant edits to prior posts? Big edits make things very difficult to follow.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
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. I didn't suggest either of those things, so idk? But yeah if there's a general Right to protest when you're Real Mad about something then the right of people to do that thing you suggested does not depend on the merits of the thing you're mad about. Them's just the philosophical breaks. edit: spelling.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
twodot posted:Yeah I never said otherwise, "a right to protest" is a legal concept, "a protest being right" is a just concept. If you want to talk about just and fair, use those words (or right in its adjective since, or layout how a hypothetical right to protest would actually work). 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?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 23:41 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I like that the moral realm has to play by the rules of gently caress the climate capitalism about the end of industrial society if you want, I guess, but a moral realm that doesn't itneract with reality isn't relevant to much.edit: Like... in no way does anyone involved in DAPL protesting or even DAPL construction have the power to change the global order so idk it seems pointless to consider it in this context. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 19:59
|
|