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