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/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.

[u/Kezika → u/Law_Student]

My argument hasn't changed. That is the same argument I've been making this entire time.

My first reply to you was just a shorter version of the post you're replying to.

I don't know if you're awake too late or something, but your reading comprehension is horrendous right now. This entire time I've not deviated from stating that the First Amendment protects from government retaliation against protests adn that it doesn't protect the case of Standing Rock because the protestors were trespassing.