It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Louisiana Sheriff Shares Testimony from North Dakota [pipeline] Experience

page: 1
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I don't agree with all of this sheriff's impressions from his visit, but I think he provides some valuable insight into the situation nonetheless.

Louisiana sheriff shares testimony from North Dakota experience

St. Charles Parish Sheriff Greg Champagne, who is also the president of the Nation Sheriff's Association, visited Standing Rock Sioux Reservation to view how law enforcement agencies were working to protect area citizens and respond to protests.


His initial view -- prior to visiting personally -- changed quickly after he got there, and realized he had been misinformed about some key facts:

Based upon sensational news reports, I had the wrong impression that this pipeline was to run directly through the Standing Rock Reservation and would disturb ancient burial grounds of the Sioux Tribes. The argument has evolved now that this pipeline will jeopardize the water supply of the Missouri River (despite the fact that the pipeline will pass under other rivers including the Mississippi throughout its entire route).


The sheriff also notes that the protest/protesters are illegally occupying private property -- not just reservation land:

This past Thursday, October 27th, steps were taken the morning before I arrived which evicted protestors from private property directly in the path of the pipeline. This "northern" camp was erected just days before and the occupants had been warned repeatedly for several days that their presence there was unlawful and that eviction was imminent.


(More recently, we are hearing about imminent evictions on federal land as well: Army Corps issues eviction notice to Standing Rock protest camp)

He also refers to the violence of some protesters -- not all! -- and making clear distinctions between the two:

These warnings went unheeded. Despite the statements coming from the media and protesters that they were completely peaceful and prayerful, it has been a fact that [n]more militant protestors (terrorists) have destroyed property and physically beaten employees of the company in recent weeks. I personally witnessed and photographed what I estimate to be at least a half of a million dollars in damage to bulldozers and excavators.

I further learned that many protestors other than Native American groups have descended upon the area such as anarchists and eco-terrorists who are hell bent on committing violence and damage. The police presence in the area to protect farmers, ranchers and other private property interests have been costing the state of North Dakota millions of dollars.


And, of course, the mainstream media is oh so quick to hype the sensational, while leaving out key facts (fake news anyone???):

Many media sites reported only that "heavy-handed" police tactics were used upon the protestors who were only praying and "peacefully" protesting. These same outlets failed to mention the shooting, Molotov cocktails, and extensive property and equipment damage produced by some of the protestors. The protestors even cut fences and attempted to induce a domesticated buffalo herd to stampede through the area. The owners of the herd, whom I spoke with personally indicated that at least of dozen of their buffalo were killed by protestors.


Nor does the mainstream media make any distinction, much less that even the Standing Rock tribal leaders don't want them or their violence:

The next morning, I was present as law enforcement leaders including Sheriff Paul Laney met with leaders of the tribe. The tribal representatives lamented the violent and destructive behavior of "outsiders" who had come in only to commit violence. They indicated that they would encourage these violent agitators to leave the camp and protest.


This does not even take into account the possibility -- nay, probability of agent provocateurs, whether corporate and/or government sponsored, whose only purpose is to create violence and destruction to discredit the peaceful protesters and/or provoke a (violent) police response. Presumably to effectively end the protest.

As the sheriff also points out, it would seem that the pipeline has passed all legal requirements to be built, and is just about completed -- with this protest blocking the final construction steps. I'm not sure what legal recourse the tribe has at this point. But I'm most concerned with the rights and safety of the protesters, especially from government abuse of their rights (and therefore everyone's rights).

And I sure don't want the peaceful and non-violent protesters tarred with the same broad brush as the few violent and destructive outsiders who have crashed their protest.




posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I have a question;
This land that is owned by the ACOE, since it is Federal land does that not make the tax-payers the actual land owners?



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 11:44 AM
link   
From what I have read, they should have zero legal recourse. They were given time after time after time to respond to any letters sent and decided not to participate in anything related to this until it came time for the final steps. Seems to me, like this is more about money than the potential for disaster. Why are they not protesting the other lines, especially the one that nearly runs parallel to this one (Northern Border Pipeline)!?

I believe it is all about the money, only because they were given every opportunity to consult with and participate in the meetings associated with this, and decided not to.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy
I have a question;
This land that is owned by the ACOE, since it is Federal land does that not make the tax-payers the actual land owners?


I believe the answer to that would be a resounding YES!!!

Some would say that gives them every right to use that land, including for protests... others would say that makes them trespassers against the rest of us... at least that's what I was hearing when the Bundys et al were occupying the federal land in Oregon. I'm not sure what to think, though I tend to favor the former.

How about you?



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Some of us have known, despite the narrative pushed by some even on ATS, the reality of things at Standing Rock isn't quite what some would like us to believe for a while.

No, not all the protestors are violent.

But also no, not all the protestors are peaceful and praying and congregated in a lawful area and protesting without resorting to violence, nor are they all natives, nor are they all from the local/nearby areas.

Is law enforcement using harsh tactics? Seems kinda silly to blame them for using water when people are lighting fires (which are put out by water) and then complaining that people are getting sick because they were hit with water. Well, yea, that tends to happen when one goes out in North Dakota in November and does something that results in getting wet: you get sick.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

I understand how the agreement took place and everything looks legit...

What I don't understand is why are the protesters being met by 'guards of a corporation' whose salaries are paid by tax-payers?

What I meant was why doesn't the utility company provide their own security?

edit to remove emotional outburst


edit on (11/27/1616 by loveguy because: (no reason given)

edit on (11/27/1616 by loveguy because: sorry



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: superman2012

According to the state rep involved in all this, the tribe didn't participate at the state level. At all.

They chose to go through the federal level to voice their concerns during the entire process, which was over a year long, but never once worked with anybody at the state level.

Even at the federal level, that consisted of a couple of filings and then....nothing. At least nothing from the tribe's end, anyway. Multiple meetings were proposed by everybody but the tribe, and the tribe never showed up to any of them.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012
They were given time after time after time to respond to any letters sent and decided not to participate in anything related to this until it came time for the final steps.


That's not true. The following article has links to the pertinent docs and correspondence from the tribe. It also has links to the court cases filed in the matter.

A History of Native Americans Protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline


Seems to me, like this is more about money than the potential for disaster. Why are they not protesting the other lines, especially the one that nearly runs parallel to this one (Northern Border Pipeline)!?
]

I believe the Northern Border Pipeline is natural gas, not liquid oil.


I believe it is all about the money, only because they were given every opportunity to consult with and participate in the meetings associated with this, and decided not to.


Again, that's just not true. They did participate. They would also argue that they were not "given every opportunity" to participate in the entire process -- not just "meetings." Talk is cheap. There is a legal process.

I do, however, wonder why more focus is not paid to the legal process, and the problems/shortcomings of that process.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


No, not all the protestors are violent.

But also no, not all the protestors are peaceful and praying and congregated in a lawful area and protesting without resorting to violence, nor are they all natives, nor are they all from the local/nearby areas.


This seems to be the new normal -- at least within the protests receiving the greatest media attention.


Is law enforcement using harsh tactics? Seems kinda silly to blame them for using water when people are lighting fires (which are put out by water) and then complaining that people are getting sick because they were hit with water. Well, yea, that tends to happen when one goes out in North Dakota in November and does something that results in getting wet: you get sick.


True enough... but the officials also knew/know that using water in cold weather will make people sick. So is it "cruel and unusual punishment" as I've seen it called? Or just practical and effective on the part of law enforcement? Yes, it is temporarily problematic for the protesters, but it's also a deterrent from further violent protesting. Are there better options? I don't know. But would I prefer water to bullets? Hell yeah!



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

You and I must be on the same wavelength this morning, both of us doing some digging?
I just posted a thread with all the particulars found on a FB article by John Gates.

Not particularly happy his article wasn't reprinted in it's entirety so I could use a source everyone has access too.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy
a reply to: Boadicea

I understand how the agreement took place and everything looks legit...

What I don't understand is why are the protesters being met by 'guards of a corporation' whose salaries are paid by tax-payers?

What I meant was why doesn't the utility company provide their own security?


I think this is one of those underlying issues which is much of the problem but never addressed.

Just to clarify my understanding, there are both private security and government law enforcement agencies from many different jurisdictions there. The corporations would argue that they are entitled to police protection for their property and livelihood just as much as any business, and that they also have a right to their own security to protect their property rights. And I would agree... but I would probably also disagree on to what extent they can go to protect those rights.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


According to the state rep involved in all this, the tribe didn't participate at the state level. At all.

They chose to go through the federal level to voice their concerns during the entire process, which was over a year long, but never once worked with anybody at the state level.


I hadn't seen anything about all this. Did the tribe give a reason for refusing to work with the state? Were they standing on some sort of principle?

I'll look for more... but if you can provide any links or point me in the right direction, it'd be much appreciated!



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Caver78
a reply to: Boadicea

You and I must be on the same wavelength this morning, both of us doing some digging?
I just posted a thread with all the particulars found on a FB article by John Gates.


Thank you for the heads up! I just found it on the new topics page and will check it out. The reporting on this has been absolutely abysmal -- we've gotta dig just to kinda sorta understand what's going on.


Not particularly happy his article wasn't reprinted in it's entirety so I could use a source everyone has access too.


That's so frustrating and annoying, ain't it? I'll look around and see if I can find it too.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Thanks.
I'll be following behind to see what Shamrock has for us.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Shamrock6


According to the state rep involved in all this, the tribe didn't participate at the state level. At all.

They chose to go through the federal level to voice their concerns during the entire process, which was over a year long, but never once worked with anybody at the state level.


I hadn't seen anything about all this. Did the tribe give a reason for refusing to work with the state? Were they standing on some sort of principle?

I'll look for more... but if you can provide any links or point me in the right direction, it'd be much appreciated!

edit on (11/27/1616 by loveguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Shamrock6


According to the state rep involved in all this, the tribe didn't participate at the state level. At all.

They chose to go through the federal level to voice their concerns during the entire process, which was over a year long, but never once worked with anybody at the state level.


I hadn't seen anything about all this. Did the tribe give a reason for refusing to work with the state? Were they standing on some sort of principle?

I'll look for more... but if you can provide any links or point me in the right direction, it'd be much appreciated!


I caught that on an NPR interview with somebody from the state's land management office. She made it clear that the state attempted, more than once, to engage with the tribe and got nowhere, and that she felt (on a personal level) that it would've been helpful if the tribe had engaged with the state. According to her, the state had people literally walking the pipeline routes.

She went on to say that the tribe certainly didn't have any obligation to work with the state in lieu of working with the feds, just that she felt it would've been better if they'd done both.

I'm not sure if the audio on this works or not, but here's a transcript of NPR's interview with her: www.npr.org...



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


I caught that on an NPR interview with somebody from the state's land management office. She made it clear that the state attempted, more than once, to engage with the tribe and got nowhere... [snip]... She went on to say that the tribe certainly didn't have any obligation to work with the state in lieu of working with the feds, just that she felt it would've been better if they'd done both.


It certainly seems that they have been less than fully cooperative. I don't like the way this has played out and continues to play out. But what? Who? To wit: qui bono?


I'm not sure if the audio on this works or not, but here's a transcript of NPR's interview with her: www.npr.org...


Thanks for the link! (I love transcripts -- much better than videos or audios)



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Who benefits?

The tribe.

This is nothing more than anecdotal evidence and opinion, but based off my own experience, I strongly doubt there'd be any protests if the pipeline was offering up money or contracts of some sort. For some reason, getting transportation contracts offering drivers in excess of $90k a year seems to quell "environmental concerns" in and around other reservations.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Gotcha.

And, of course, the tribal leader selling fuel to those trucks at his oh-so-conveniently located store...

It makes me sad and angry if so many people have been so shamelessly used and exploited for the benefit of a few. Both the protesters and the law enforcement who must deal with the violent outsiders along with the nonviolent. Some people just don't care who gets hurt if they make a few bucks.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I wasn't going to go "there" yet anyways, altho it's been true in the past as some Nations have no other source of revenue available to them.

In a spot of good news back on Nov 1st the Standing Rock Tribal Council took a vote and it was decided to ask the Red Warrior Camp to vacate. They had some of the most militant minded protestors camping there and it's of concern. It's good to see that everything that can be done is to keep this peaceful.



The Standing Rock Sioux tribal council has voted to ask a camp known for its militant anti-pipeline protesters to pack their bags while also preparing for a possible lawsuit against law enforcement.
The minutes from the council’s Nov. 1 meeting posted online this week show that the panel voted 10-0 “to ask Red Warrior Camp to leave,” an apparent sign of the tribe’s uneasiness with the increasingly aggressive tactics used by some activists fighting the Dakota Access pipeline.
At the same time, the council voted to set aside $200,000 for a “possible class action lawsuit” and raise funds with the Oneida tribe for “possible civil litigation stemming from alleged law enforcement civil rights violations.”
SEE ALSO: Company asks judge to stop Obama’s ‘political interference’ in delaying Dakota Access pipeline
Not known is whether the council has contacted the Red Warrior Camp, which has a reputation as the most confrontational of the four large makeshift gatherings of tents and tipis set up near Cannon Ball, North Dakota.


www.washingtontimes.com...

Haven't seen any news yet on how the news was received by the camp, or exactly how the Nation can make them move since they aren't on tribal lands.



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Caver78

Thanks for the link. There seems to be several agendas at work here -- and at odds with each other. I think that explains why it has been so difficult to find any comprehensive and extensive explanation of it all.

And I can't help wondering if the violent escalation isn't a distraction from other issues. Or worse.

ETA: From your link, it's also apparently quite profitable:

The camp’s official GoFundMe page had raised about $192,000 as of late Tuesday, including contributions within the previous 24 hours from about 40 donors.

edit on 27-11-2016 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2 >>

log in

join