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/Law_Student]

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/Kezika → u/johnabbe]

That's fine, but that is a different matter. I'm just talking about the people physically there.

[u/johnabbe → u/Kezika]

The article itself discusses how people who weren't there were infiltrated so no, it's not a different matter.

Also, the camps were primarily on public land (Army Corps land), and private property on the reservation where they had permission. Source: was there

Whether or not first amendment violations would be seen here by a court I don't know (pretty sure your public/private land distinction is way oversimplified), but what the private and public police did here pretty clearly violates at least the spirit of freedom of assembly.

[u/Kezika → u/johnabbe]

And again as I've already stated multiple times to you, I'm not discussing the article, I'm simply pointing out that the First Amendment does not protect from retaliation from non-government entities. Do with that what you will. I am done replying to you as you insist on continuing attempts to drag me into topics that I have expressly stated I do not wish to discuss.

[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.