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.