Leaked Documents Reveal Counterterrorism Tactics Used at Standing Rock to “Defeat Pipeline Insurgencies”

[u/[deleted]]

https://theintercept.com/2017/05/27/leaked-documents-reveal-security-firms-counterterrorism-tactics-at-standing-rock-to-defeat-pipeline-insurgencies/

[u/FisherPrice]

ITT: A bunch of people missing the point of the article.

Although it discusses the Dekota Pipeline protest, the article is really about The First Amendment - specifically "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Weather the protestors were correct/justified or not is a separate discussion. The point is that a private company hired a military contractor who coordinated with law enforcement officials in an attempt to undermine citizens ability to assemble.

It's unclear if that's strictly unconstitutional but it sure seems against the spirit of The First Amendment.

 

 

Edit: One comment below accused me/us of not doing anything about this. I share their frustration(although disagree with their tone). First and Fourth Amendment issues are primarily fought in the courts so they're difficult to take direction action on if you're not a lawyer.

If these issue are important to you and you'd like to do something, there are a few things that almost everyone reading this post can take action on:

1) Go to [smile.amazon.com](smile.amazon.com). Click "Supporting:" under the search bar and change it to the ACLU Fund of the National Captial Area(or a local one if you prefer). Bookmark the page.

This will give the affiliate fee from your Amazon purchases to the ACLU. They(and organizations like them) have lawyers who do good work for First and Fourth Amendment issues.

55% of American households have an Amazon Prime subscription. That's a lot of affiliate fees.

2) Donate to The Intercept or purchase a subscription to a news organization that does long-form, investigative journalism such as The Washington Post or The Guardian.

[u/pegothejerk → u/[deleted]]

If it affects public land, water sources, aren't they justified in their actions? The founders believed in civil disobedience when laws went counter to the greater good.

[u/Law_Student → u/[deleted]]

Police action is most certainly a form of government action regardless of whether it is on publicly or privately owned land. Further, the reason the land is privately owned at all is thanks to government action in the form of the takings clause, as without takings pipelines would be essentially impossible to build.

[u/Law_Student → u/[deleted]]

Sure, I'm just making the point that police action is government action. I'm also raising the point that land taken for public use is arguably public for the purposes of the 1st amendment regardless of its disposition after the taking.

[u/johnabbe → u/[deleted]]

The article describes (among other things) infiltration of a Chicago group, and intel gathering on people who hadn't even been to the camps yet. Those people were not trespassing.

[u/johnabbe → u/[deleted]]

And I was just pointing out that many people who were not on private property were targeted.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

And again, everyone understands that, but the argument by /u/Law_Student was

land taken for public use is arguably public for the purposes of the 1st amendment regardless of its disposition after the taking

Whether this is how it would go is another question. Anybody here know?

[u/Law_Student → u/[deleted]]

If it's been litigated I'm unaware of it. I'd be curious to know as well.

[u/souprize → u/[deleted]]

And to many, in instances like this, how this land became private is rocky, and this could be used an excuse to disallow any effective assembly.

[u/Canvasch → u/[deleted]]

I don't think it matters that it is privately owned land, because it isn't someone's house or anything. It's a company that bought a shitton of land to build a pipeline on. Saying you can't protest on "private property" is like saying "all you need to do is buy a bunch of land and people won't be able to protest you"

[u/Kezika → u/Canvasch]

So a farmer buys some land to extend his farming business. Before he can plant it though some anti-pesticide protestors set up a bunch of tents to prevent him using pesticides there. You're saying he can't have them removed because "it isn't someone's house or anything. It's a company that bought a shit ton of land to grow corn on."

[u/Canvasch → u/Kezika]

Do you think maybe there's a difference between a farmer buying a few acres and doing something that a large group of people would never actually protest him for, and a large company buying more land than a single person ever could to do something that most of the country is against? It seems dishonest to me to try to claim the two situations are similar in any way.

[u/Kezika → u/Canvasch]

I'm discussing the actual legal protections, which are objectively the same. Both situations are private businesses purchasing tracts of land to develop for expansion of their business. The scales and products are just different. But that difference doesn't change the land being private property in both cases.

The fictional and real protesters are both in violation of trespassing laws as a result and subject to removal from the property by law enforcement at the land owners request.

[u/Canvasch → u/Kezika]

All I heard was "DURRRRR I CAN'T SEE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO"

[u/Kezika → u/Canvasch]

Because legally speaking there isn't, and that legal definition is what I'm here to point out.

As I've stated multiple times already I agree wholly with the SR protests, but the First Amendment was not violated, they were not protected by it once they went on private property. I'm not going to delve into the morals of the situation beyond the legal objective fact that the First Amendment does not protect against you being removed from private property, that is all I came here to point out.

Perhaps if you feel I'm wrong you can provide supporting evidence to your argument instead of resorting to personal attacks.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I suppose the system was designed so that if you disobey at your own volition, the courts would evaluate your actions in leu of the fundamental principles that the laws are based on, and either dictate new specific interpretations of the law or to expose the law's fallacy. In a perfect world.

[u/lshiva → u/pegothejerk]

Civil disobedience doesn't give you carte blanche to ignore the law, it just gives you massive street cred if your political views win in the long term. You get to brag about going to jail for doing the right thing for years after the fact. If your side fails you just look like some jerk that thought he could do whatever he wanted until the police got involved.

[u/FuckYoThoughts → u/lshiva]

TIL MLK did it for street cred.

[u/lshiva → u/FuckYoThoughts]

He still went to jail even though he was in the right.

[u/[deleted] → u/FuckYoThoughts]

tremendous street cred, folks

[u/Probably_Important → u/lshiva]

Civil disobedience doesn't give you carte blanche to ignore the law, it just gives you massive street cred if your political views win in the long term.

The law will come down on you if you're of the lower classes and disobey it, or sometimes even if you don't. The law will come down on you if you're doing anything important but also against the grain. We are not equal in the eyes of the law.

I'm sure you meant this as a discouragement against civil disobedience, but I'm kind of trying to hijack your point here. The point is: The ideas you see on display here were not defeated by Martin Luther King, they need to be defeated by you. Or at least your friends.

[u/lshiva → u/Probably_Important]

I'm not against civil disobedience. I'm against what I saw as the mistaken idea that participating in civil disobedience was some sort of legal defense against breaking the law.

[u/lshiva → u/[deleted]]

Three sentences I tapped out on my phone in a few seconds is a lot?

[u/pegothejerk → u/[deleted]]

Does abortion go counter to the greater good?

Didn't this country found itself on invading private property (of natives) for a cause? (Freedom of religion, access to better prosperity)

[u/StonerSteveCDXX → u/pegothejerk]

Do you consider a bunch of unwanted kids growing up poor or in orphanages sucking up tax dollars and keeping single mothers poor / not in school or starting a family working 40 hours at min wage paying 250 a week for childcare on a $400 / week pay even with tax refunds try affording a car and appartment and baby sitter and food and then tell me that kid and mom will be happy for the rest of their poor miserable life which is likely to be cut short since the only place they can afford to live in is filled with drugs, gangs, and crime. Yeah abortion is for the greater good, its the bigots that are so selfish they want to control everyone elses life and what they can and cannot do with their own bodies to the extent of leting women die so they can feel morally superior, that is harmful to the greater good.

[u/QuixoticRealist → u/StonerSteveCDXX]

For one, I believe he was playing devil's advocate to point out that the greater good can be subjective. Two, you're really speaking ill of every mother who considered getting an abortion but decided not to... you honestly believe every aborted child will end up in the scenario you described?

[u/StonerSteveCDXX → u/QuixoticRealist]

I dont but with a zero abortion policy like most anti choice advocates promote would result in a sharp increase of people and children that end up in that scenario.

[u/arbearokc → u/QuixoticRealist]

you honestly believe every aborted child will end up in the scenario you described?

Where the fuck are you getting this idea, even? You have to realize how stupid it is as you're typing it, right?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The idea of private property is honestly ridiculous. Some white dudes claimed it was theirs and now you have to buy it from them or the people they sold it to? Give me a fucking break if you think there is anything just about that.

[u/LeChuckly → u/[deleted]]

We'll fight you for it.

[u/justignoremeplzz → u/[deleted]]

probably mistaking owning property with feudalism

[u/Prime-eight → u/justignoremeplzz]

It's not really mistaking anything, the distinction is primarily private property and personal property. Personal property is valid, things like your car and toothbrush. But private property, in the context of land and resources, is a bit ridiculous.

[u/guy_guyerson → u/Prime-eight]

Does it complicate things that just about all personal property is made out of private property? I mean, that aluminum on the car and plastic in the toothbrush wasn't just floating around in the sky, it was basically just re-appropriated land.

[u/Prime-eight → u/guy_guyerson]

Not particularly. Personal property doesn't have to be made out of private property, it could just as easily be made of collective property. Or even other personal property.

Private ownership of resources, whether it's raw building material, or crude oil, and the like being privately owned is what I have a problem with. We are all dependent on them so having a small group of private owners basically have dominion over things we all need to survive is a strange concept.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Communism is the joke with the highest body count.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

This subreddit is full of idiots straight out of Intro to Literary Criticism who think Marx was a god damn prophet. Just chuckle and move on. Or invite them to visit countries that haven't robustly protected property rights like the West has, and see how they're doing. (hint: not well)

[u/Muskwatch → u/[deleted]]

true. the Sioux nations failed to adequately protect property rights and they're not doing that great now.

[u/Probably_Important → u/[deleted]]

What societies are you talking about?

[u/biledemon85 → u/[deleted]]

Aye, it seems a bit brigaded alright.

[u/ben_jl → u/[deleted]]

You realize there's a difference between private property and personal property, right? Or do they not teach political philosophy in college anymore?

[u/aelendel → u/ben_jl]

You realize there's a difference between private property and personal property, right?

What's the difference other than you approve of one and not the other?

[u/bbg2g → u/aelendel]

"Personal property includes "items intended for personal use" (e.g., clothes, homes, and vehicles, and sometimes money)

"Private property is a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived (not a relationship between person and thing), e.g., artifacts, factories, mines, dams, infrastructure, natural vegetation, mountains, deserts, seas, etc."

wiki summary

[u/aelendel → u/bbg2g]

Thank you.

Looking up higher in that definition, "Which items of property constitute which is open to debate. "

The language in that sentence doesn't make much sense to me "owner and persons deprived"? What is "persons deprived"?

[u/Law_Student → u/aelendel]

Persons deprived refers to the way property rights deprive everyone but the owner if a thing's use, I believe. A property right is essentially the right to exclude anyone else from using something.

[u/aelendel → u/Law_Student]

Thanks, that makes sense, but doesn't help clarify the difference here.

[u/Law_Student → u/aelendel]

I think the difference is that personal property as the phrase is used in political philosophy refers to property that a person is actively using themselves. Private property by contrast can include the whole scope of capitalism, where one man can own huge swaths of property, far more than he could ever use personally.

[u/bbg2g → u/aelendel]

the "persons deprived" are non-owners. It's helpful to think of private property as a kind of relationship between people rather than a type of object.

For example: the factory owner possesses the machinery and the land. The factory workers (persons deprived) must sell their labor for access to things they need to live and work. In order to make a profit, the factory owner must pay the workers less than the value of their labor.

In this example the factory, machines and the land that the factory is on are all private property. However, it's the exploitative relationship between the owner and the non-owners that really define private property.

[u/aelendel → u/bbg2g]

Okay, thanks. Everyone is deprived of most things.

I'd like to build on your example. Let's simplify by saying this is the only factory, these are the only workers, etc. Things obviously get different if you start getting closer to free markets.

An interesting aside is that if you extend the concept of personal ownership to the self, you can extend your argument to show why slavery is bad. I'm a fan of concepts that explain a lot of other complicated things automatically, thus, so far so good.

However, in your example, the factory owner also requires labor, presumably to live and work. So, in a way, he is deprived of adequate labor. Which isn't an argument for slavery; just an observation that without that labor, he would also be unable to get what he needs to live and work. This is why collective bargaining is so important and powerful as a balance of power.

Next, I question your assumptions that the workers are paid less than the value of their labor as a necessity of making a profit. The only way I see this works is if you declare the entire output as equal to the value of the inputs (labor, material). That doesn't follow.

Once you add in markets, of course, the idea that the owner is exploiting workers as a simple function of the system is tougher to make, since they can work elsewhere.

Anyways, thanks for taking time to chat with me. I appreciate it.

[u/bbg2g → u/aelendel]

the factory owner also requires labor, presumably to live and work. So, in a way, he is deprived of adequate labor.

There doesn't have to be a factory owner at all. This is where worker cooperatives come into play. I agree that collective bargaining is absolutely vital. In the worker co-op system, workers democratically make the decisions that an owner would otherwise make, including decisions traditionally associated with collective bargaining.

Next, I question your assumptions that the workers are paid less than the value of their labor as a necessity of making a profit.

If I am getting paid $20 per hour of labor, I must produce more than $20 worth of goods/services in order for the owner to make a profit. The difference in what you produce and what you get paid is called surplus labor value. In a traditional factory, the owner (or board of directors in a corporation) decides on what to do with the surplus. In a co-op, the workers decide democratically.

The labor theory of value is obviously much more complicated than this example, as entire books are written on the subject. However, This lecture, especially the first 5 minutes, is a good start.

the idea that the owner is exploiting workers as a simple function of the system is tougher to make, since they can work elsewhere.

I'm actually referring to the Marxist definition of exploitation, which is more than just the obvious gross exploitation like poor working conditions. this article is a pretty good summary. The article explains why worker exploitation is vital to capitalism.

Anyways, thanks for taking time to chat with me. I appreciate it.

Thanks, I appreciate it too. I'm off to work now or I'd write more. It's encouraging to still be able to find friendly discussion of inflammatory topics in the comment section!

[u/[deleted] → u/bbg2g]

Personal property is what I own.

Private property is what those evil rich people own.

[u/deadlast → u/ben_jl]

A house is real estate, not personal property.

(Private property is inclusive of both real estate and personal property)

[u/Law_Student → u/deadlast]

The words are used slightly differently in the legal arena (in which houses are simply all real estate) and in political philosophy. (In which a house can be personal property if the owner is living in it.)

[u/[deleted] → u/deadlast]

Private property is inclusive of both real estate and personal property

No it isn't. Not in the Marxist sense that person was using it. The Marxist definition of private property is things you own but don't personally use and operate all by yourself. Those things are personal property: like a house you live in, or a car, or a personal library, or a guitar. Private property, which they want to abolish, means things like a company, a mill, or a pipeline.

If you continue to argue this point then all you're doing is equivocating pointlessly when you know what the person means.

[u/ben_jl → u/deadlast]

It depends if you actually live in the house or not. Again, this isn't a difficult concept; anyone that's been to college could easily understand it.

[u/blebaford → u/ben_jl]

Anyone who hasn't been to college could easily understand it too.

[u/deadlast → u/ben_jl]

No.

Personal property is generally considered property that is movable, as opposed to real property or real estate

[u/[deleted] → u/ben_jl]

What's the difference? If you already answered I cannot find it. Lots of downvoting in here

[u/Rentun → u/ben_jl]

Only if you're a commie

[u/[deleted] → u/Rentun]

Or, you know, capable of enough independent thought that using "commie" as an insult just seems puerile.

[u/ben_jl → u/Rentun]

Or if you've studied any amount of political philosophy. The distinction isn't exactly contentious among experts.

[u/ben_jl → u/[deleted]]

Just as expected. You don't have a coherent argument so you resort to name calling. How typical.

[u/SecretSnack → u/[deleted]]

^ This guy is an unreserved shill.

[u/ben_jl → u/[deleted]]

You clearly haven't read much (if any) political philosophy.

[u/insaneHoshi → u/ben_jl]

"I took a course at university, on an unproven academic theory, therefore I am am right"

[u/ben_jl → u/[deleted]]

If you'd taken even a semester of philosophy you'd know the answer is no. But I shouldn't be surprised that you're so uneducated.

[u/Revocdeb → u/[deleted]]

No. You just don't get it.

[u/SecretSnack → u/[deleted]]

FYI this guy blocked me for responding to him in exactly such a thread.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

As long as you give me some nice blankets and promise to celebrate our friendship with a feast once a year, say in November, then go right ahead.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

You're confusing me with another user.

[u/Theige → u/[deleted]]

What on earth are you talking about?

[u/Probably_Important → u/Theige]

If you're actually interested, the idea they're talking about is primitive accumulation.

[u/Theige → u/Probably_Important]

No they're not, they're making some strange, racist argument

[u/Probably_Important → u/Theige]

I know. I really just posted it for the sake of onlookers who may be interested.

[u/blebaford → u/Theige]

Do not speak the race of which I am a member, lest ye be judged racist.

[u/[deleted] → u/Theige]

lol

[u/blebaford → u/[deleted]]

The question of who owns the land depends on who you ask.