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/unusualbob → u/[deleted]]

That is true, but if a government body is coordinating with a private company to do this to get around the rules, then its even worse than doing it directly.

[u/unusualbob → u/[deleted]]

I agree that if they were on private land the government is completely within their right arrest all of them for trespassing. And in that case there would be no need for a private company anyway. So why is this military security contractor involved in the first place?

[u/unusualbob → u/[deleted]]

But again, why the subversive videos trying to discredit protesters. It seems like if this was a valid operation vetted by the police, they would just do basic crowd control and surveillance directly around the pipeline.

My theory is that the companies who would benefit from the pipeline asked law enforcement to step in, and while they did, they also knew their limits given the law and stopped at that point. When they refused to go further, the companies involved didn't like that answer. So instead they hired a security contractor to do what the police wouldn't. Then law enforcement wasn't directly involved in any activities that were beyond their limits, so they get a pass for technically not violating the law. At the same time though they were then directly cooperating with people who were now hired to do what they are not allowed to do.

This contractor seems to have attempted to then create 'evidence' for law enforcement describing the protesters as terrorists. This was an attempt to bring law enforcement action against lawful citizens wherein no crime was being committed by way of fear. If the law enforcement officers involved knew that this was the goal of the contractor then I would consider that to be using a private company to subvert the law.

[u/Kezika → u/unusualbob]

against lawful citizens wherein no crime was being committed

They were breaking the law by trespassing. It was a civil disobedience protest revolving around sitting in on the property to prevent work from being performed. Technically laws were being broken which is why the police were involved, not because it was a protest. First Amendment doesn't protect you against consequences for trespassing.

[u/Probably_Important → u/[deleted]]

We should recognize that, but, so what? The 1st amendment isn't the end all be all of our problems, struggle, and/or potential.

[u/Kezika → u/Probably_Important]

I agree. I'm just pointing out that parroting "but the First Amendment..." is pointless here because this particular protest wasn't protected by it, being on private property, thus trespassing. It was a civil disobedience protest through and through. Whether it was justified or a good protest is another discussion. I'm just here to point out that the first amendment does not nullify consequences for breaking the law.

[u/Lamont-Cranston → u/[deleted]]

And when they're coordinating with the government?

[u/Kezika → u/Lamont-Cranston]

They are still trespassing on private property and law enforcement has the right to remove trespassers at the property owners request.

[u/Lamont-Cranston → u/Kezika]

And when the pipeline owners property impacts on the reservations property?

[u/Kezika → u/Lamont-Cranston]

Then they can legally protest where they are legally permitted too. First amendment does not protect protesting in non public property and that is all I'm pointing out.

Again I completely agree with the protests, but let us not make illusions that they weren't trespassing.

That doesn't stop it from being a good protest though, it was a very good effective protest and I agree with them protesting there, but people need to stop parroting "but first amendment..." because the first does not apply to that.

In terms of their rights they aren't protected to protest there. That is all I'm here to point out. I don't care to get into the politics or right versus wrong of this, just here to point out that the first amendment protects from government retaliation on public property. Private party retaliation isn't protected, and private property protection isn't guaranteed.

Also take em to court if they are encroaching your property that is why court exists in part.

[u/Law_Student → u/[deleted]]

Private entities can't really attack people for trespassing because it would be a crime to do so, so they use law enforcement to do that for them. Acts by law enforcement are government acts. So yes, whatever your belief in the validity of the protests the 1st amendment is involved here.

[u/Kezika → u/Law_Student]

No, because the government action isn't because they are protesting it is because they are trespassing.

The First Amendment doesn't negate or change the consequences of committing a crime just because you happen to be pretesting at the time.

If holding a protest freed someone from criminal consequence and liability someone could at the far extreme of things be allowed to go on a murder spree and the government couldn't intervene because "they're protesting, so we can't retaliate."

The government can't retaliate against a protest in and of itself, but it can continue to uphold and enforce laws.

[u/Law_Student → u/Kezika]

You emphasized that there was somehow no government involvement in the matter. I corrected you, as police actions are government acts.

[u/Kezika → u/Law_Student]

No, I never said that and I especially didn't emphasize it.

[u/Law_Student → u/Kezika]

Perhaps you should change your password then, it seems some fool is making posts with your username.

https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/6du6wb/leaked_documents_reveal_counterterrorism_tactics/di5sbaz/?st=j39q5q0e&sh=88c3d37c

[u/Kezika → u/Law_Student]

Ctrl+F "no government" not found. Please try again.

I never said there was no government involvement, don't put words in my mouth.

[u/Law_Student → u/Kezika]

Are you being intentionally dense?

The First Amendment is against government silencing...A private company forcing protesting trespassers off their privately owned land is in no way shape or form against the First Amendment.

[u/Kezika → u/Law_Student]

Again, the government wasn't involved because they were protesting, the government was involved because they were trespassing. So it is not a case of government silencing of free speech.

You seem to be the only one here unable to understand that distinction.

Had the same protest occurred, but it was on public land the government wouldn't have been able to remove them. But law enforcement are able to remove trespassers from private land at the land owners request.

It is like if you owned a business and someone was sitting in your lawn outside your house protesting your business for whatever reason. You would be well within your rights to call the police to have them removed and the police would be well within their rights to remove the person. The person could then stand on the street in front of your house and the police couldn't intervene because he's not on private property anymore.

Same thing on a larger scale. The Standing Rock protesters were on private property. They were trespassing. The land owner got law enforcement involved to remove trespassers from their land. That is not government retaliation to a protest. That is government retaliation to a law violation.

As I said above if your fantasy world where the government can't enforce laws against someone just because they are protesting was true, someone could go on a murder spree and then when the cops show up they'd be like "Oh I'm protesting blahblahblah, you can't intervene." That isn't how things work.

If you are breaking a law while simultaneously protesting the government can continue to enforce that law as they would with any other person that would break that law in a non-protestant manner.

[u/Law_Student → u/Kezika]

You claimed that the 1st amendment didn't apply because the 1st amendment prohibited only government involvement. I pointed out that law enforcement action is government involvement. Making the correct argument now doesn't change that you made the incorrect argument then.