5 ms·

FBI sent several informants to Standing Rock protests, court documents show

56 points by wahnfrieden 3y ago

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
defrost 3y ago
Speaking of Standing Rock... The only people here with guns are the police. https://youtu.be/QdeHUrL1FEM?t=117 https://youtu.be/QdeHUrL1FEM?t=117
1letterunixname 3y ago
Recall that the cops at #NoDAPL were effectively private pipeline security. They just had to use water cannons and flashbangs on unarmed elderly people who just didn't want their land and water dug up and ruined with oil spills.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  To serve and protect
  - eschaton 3y ago
    Capital.
- gruez 3y ago
  >They just had to use water cannons and flashbangs on unarmed elderly people who just didn't want their land and water dug up and ruined with oil spills. That's a very one-sided description of what's happening. So far as I can tell, they were blasted by water canons because they set up an illegal encampment in the way of an oil pipeline that was under construction.
  - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
    Demonstration is a human right. In Germany we have had people who glued their hands onto the Autobahn, big streets in cities and wherever. No one came to the idea of using water cannons. We have a lot of such actions in here. The only time bad thing happened in the last 15 years was using a water cannon on a very big group demonstrating against the "new" (its old when its finished) train station. I think, when someone is demonstrating, other should hear what is the reason for, not shoot water on them. No matter it's a camp, glued onto or big demonstrations - there is a reason for this.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >Demonstration is a human right 1. if you read my previous comment more carefully, my objection isn't against the fact that they're demonstrating at all, it's that the account you gave was very one-sided. It's possible to be for "Demonstration is a human right" but still acknowledge what exact activities they're engaging in and not rounding it off to just "demonstrating". Failing to do so is disingenuous and kills your credibility, ultimately hurting the cause you're trying to advocate for. 2. "Demonstration" might be a "human right", but it has limits. As (presumably) a German, you should know this given how many restrictions you have on free speech[1], another "human right". There's presumably complicated statutory and case law that determines exactly what constitutes as protected "demonstration", but I doubt that "unilaterally blocking a construction project that's already approved, by setting up an encampment" counts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#G...
      - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
        Of course there are rules. I think I read your comment carefully enough to make a statement, what I did. The people are demonstrating here before approval, after approval and even while the construction. It's all possible and is covered by our law. Actually: Tesla wants to extend its plant. The people living around that plant decided "no!" (Which I personally do not understand). There is a forest of monoculture trees beside that - the demonstrators have built tree houses and living now in it. They want to fight (and often did that already..). Extension of the plant is approved too.. The digging up of brown coal - the same. Here, it took like felt 5 years to remove all the demonstrators.. The pipelines, the power lines , the renewal wind energy generators - the people are demonstrating against all all the time. And it's approved too.. sometimes the projects are changed because of that, sometimes the police must regulate... But in the end, shot by water cannon is only possible if there is violance going of the demonstrators. If there's a possible solution for a change in project, then often the change is done. As I said. Demonstration is a human right and is also being written under the basic rights :) If you think, just because something got approved and because of this there shouldn't be any demonstrations or blocking anymore - I'll wait for the day a highway is built behind your house and then I remind you of your comment :) Peace.
  - mock-possum 3y ago
    Sounds kinda heartless when you put it that way doesn’t it?
    - gruez 3y ago
      Do you think that protesters should be able to veto any construction project? Or only in cases that you support?
      - ethanbond 3y ago
        I think the “does it pipe toxic spill-prone chemicals through your drinking water supply” question is at least relevant to the legitimacy of someone’s stake in the situation.
        gruez 3y ago
        In other words, "only in cases that you support".
        ethanbond 3y ago
        Uhh yeah, I don't think anyone should be able to veto anyone's construction project. I do think that people should be able to veto (or at least protest) construction projects like ones that pipe toxic chemicals through their drinking water. I mean, you can say that's "only in cases you support" dismissively, but I call it "dependent upon the facts of the situation."
        gruez 3y ago
        >I mean, you can say that's "only in cases you support" dismissively, but I call it "dependent upon the facts of the situation." I point out dismissively because clearly "right to protest" or whatever is only a marginal factor for opposing them getting kicked out. The real reason is that they supported the protesters, and because they support them, they can do no wrong, regardless of what the laws might be. Maybe this is painfully obvious to everyone already, but I want to point out that specifically.
  - defrost 3y ago
    In the way of an oil pipeline that posed a very real and not imagined threat to the water supply of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    Imagine how bad the headlines would be if the city of SF dealt with illegal encampments with flash bangs that can blind or deafen you and a hose that can send you off your feet 10 yards back. This is in no way a justification for that use of force that can leave people with lifelong injuries.
    - wahnfrieden 3y ago
      Their logic can be applied to all sorts of historical situations with repulsive consequence under the guise of law and order. Pure reactionism.
- yareal 3y ago
  Police forces, since their inception in the 1800s, have always been about protecting capital's interests on the tax payers dime. In the U.S. this started as warehouse protection, where rich merchants didn't want to hire their own security. They also, in parallel, grew from slave patrols (which were about protecting capital, back in the era when humans were considered a commodity).
DiabloD3 3y ago
[flagged]
ametrau 3y ago
Quite a crazy story. It reads like something from the 1920s with oil barons and Pinkertons. You wouldn’t expect naked corruption like this these days.
- DrDeadCrash 3y ago
  We should expect it.

56 points by wahnfrieden 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

Speaking of Standing Rock... The only people here with guns are the police. https://youtu.be/QdeHUrL1FEM?t=117 https://youtu.be/QdeHUrL1FEM?t=117

1letterunixname 3y ago

Recall that the cops at #NoDAPL were effectively private pipeline security. They just had to use water cannons and flashbangs on unarmed elderly people who just didn't want their land and water dug up and ruined with oil spills.

wahnfrieden 3y ago
To serve and protect
- eschaton 3y ago
  Capital.
gruez 3y ago
>They just had to use water cannons and flashbangs on unarmed elderly people who just didn't want their land and water dug up and ruined with oil spills. That's a very one-sided description of what's happening. So far as I can tell, they were blasted by water canons because they set up an illegal encampment in the way of an oil pipeline that was under construction.
- theGeatZhopa 3y ago
  Demonstration is a human right. In Germany we have had people who glued their hands onto the Autobahn, big streets in cities and wherever. No one came to the idea of using water cannons. We have a lot of such actions in here. The only time bad thing happened in the last 15 years was using a water cannon on a very big group demonstrating against the "new" (its old when its finished) train station. I think, when someone is demonstrating, other should hear what is the reason for, not shoot water on them. No matter it's a camp, glued onto or big demonstrations - there is a reason for this.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >Demonstration is a human right 1. if you read my previous comment more carefully, my objection isn't against the fact that they're demonstrating at all, it's that the account you gave was very one-sided. It's possible to be for "Demonstration is a human right" but still acknowledge what exact activities they're engaging in and not rounding it off to just "demonstrating". Failing to do so is disingenuous and kills your credibility, ultimately hurting the cause you're trying to advocate for. 2. "Demonstration" might be a "human right", but it has limits. As (presumably) a German, you should know this given how many restrictions you have on free speech[1], another "human right". There's presumably complicated statutory and case law that determines exactly what constitutes as protected "demonstration", but I doubt that "unilaterally blocking a construction project that's already approved, by setting up an encampment" counts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#G...
    - theGeatZhopa 3y ago
      Of course there are rules. I think I read your comment carefully enough to make a statement, what I did. The people are demonstrating here before approval, after approval and even while the construction. It's all possible and is covered by our law. Actually: Tesla wants to extend its plant. The people living around that plant decided "no!" (Which I personally do not understand). There is a forest of monoculture trees beside that - the demonstrators have built tree houses and living now in it. They want to fight (and often did that already..). Extension of the plant is approved too.. The digging up of brown coal - the same. Here, it took like felt 5 years to remove all the demonstrators.. The pipelines, the power lines , the renewal wind energy generators - the people are demonstrating against all all the time. And it's approved too.. sometimes the projects are changed because of that, sometimes the police must regulate... But in the end, shot by water cannon is only possible if there is violance going of the demonstrators. If there's a possible solution for a change in project, then often the change is done. As I said. Demonstration is a human right and is also being written under the basic rights :) If you think, just because something got approved and because of this there shouldn't be any demonstrations or blocking anymore - I'll wait for the day a highway is built behind your house and then I remind you of your comment :) Peace.
- mock-possum 3y ago
  Sounds kinda heartless when you put it that way doesn’t it?
  - gruez 3y ago
    Do you think that protesters should be able to veto any construction project? Or only in cases that you support?
    - ethanbond 3y ago
      I think the “does it pipe toxic spill-prone chemicals through your drinking water supply” question is at least relevant to the legitimacy of someone’s stake in the situation.
      - gruez 3y ago
        In other words, "only in cases that you support".
        ethanbond 3y ago
        Uhh yeah, I don't think anyone should be able to veto anyone's construction project. I do think that people should be able to veto (or at least protest) construction projects like ones that pipe toxic chemicals through their drinking water. I mean, you can say that's "only in cases you support" dismissively, but I call it "dependent upon the facts of the situation."
        gruez 3y ago
        >I mean, you can say that's "only in cases you support" dismissively, but I call it "dependent upon the facts of the situation." I point out dismissively because clearly "right to protest" or whatever is only a marginal factor for opposing them getting kicked out. The real reason is that they supported the protesters, and because they support them, they can do no wrong, regardless of what the laws might be. Maybe this is painfully obvious to everyone already, but I want to point out that specifically.
- defrost 3y ago
  In the way of an oil pipeline that posed a very real and not imagined threat to the water supply of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  Imagine how bad the headlines would be if the city of SF dealt with illegal encampments with flash bangs that can blind or deafen you and a hose that can send you off your feet 10 yards back. This is in no way a justification for that use of force that can leave people with lifelong injuries.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Their logic can be applied to all sorts of historical situations with repulsive consequence under the guise of law and order. Pure reactionism.
yareal 3y ago
Police forces, since their inception in the 1800s, have always been about protecting capital's interests on the tax payers dime. In the U.S. this started as warehouse protection, where rich merchants didn't want to hire their own security. They also, in parallel, grew from slave patrols (which were about protecting capital, back in the era when humans were considered a commodity).

DiabloD3 3y ago

[flagged]

ametrau 3y ago

Quite a crazy story. It reads like something from the 1920s with oil barons and Pinkertons. You wouldn’t expect naked corruption like this these days.

DrDeadCrash 3y ago
We should expect it.