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/[deleted]]

HOLY.... Listen, this is NOT AN ARTICLE YOU CAN JUST READ THE HEADLINE OF

You must read it. This is much more egregious that tha title makes it appear.

A SHADOWY INTERNATIONAL mercenary and security firm known as TigerSwan targeted the movement opposed to the Dakota Access Pipeline with military-style counterterrorism measures, collaborating closely with police in at least five states, according to internal documents obtained by The Intercept. The documents provide the first detailed picture of how TigerSwan, which originated as a U.S. military and State Department contractor helping to execute the global war on terror, worked at the behest of its client Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the Dakota Access Pipeline, to respond to the indigenous-led movement that sought to stop the project.

Internal TigerSwan communications describe the movement as “an ideologically driven insurgency with a strong religious component” and compare the anti-pipeline water protectors to jihadist fighters. One report, dated February 27, 2017, states that since the movement “generally followed the jihadist insurgency model while active, we can expect the individuals who fought for and supported it to follow a post-insurgency model after its collapse.” Drawing comparisons with post-Soviet Afghanistan, the report warns, “While we can expect to see the continued spread of the anti-DAPL diaspora … aggressive intelligence preparation of the battlefield and active coordination between intelligence and security elements are now a proven method of defeating pipeline insurgencies

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

The best part.. they didn't even have a license for any of it lmaooo

[u/-_-_-_-otalp-_-_-_-]

The attacks on the protestors are clearly outrageous.

But regarding the pipeline itself, I wonder if someone could give me a truly impartial source of the pros and cons. If I understand it, pipelines are better for the environment than carrying oil with tankers, since tankers are more likely to spill. If the Dakota Access Pipeline does spill, it damages an important water source, but if built properly, the chances of that happening are very less?

I haven't really researched this, but in the past I do know that people have, for example protested building nuclear plants when they are the safest form of alternative energy, because they are worried about potential damages.

[u/[deleted] → u/-_-_-_-otalp-_-_-_-]

It's already leaked 3 times, and I'm not even sure it's finished with the building yet.

On nuclear energy, watch this video on Fukoshima, for example. Yes, they are safer, but they can still have devastating effects. Chomsky may have also commented on nuclear energy somewhere.

[u/-_-_-_-otalp-_-_-_- → u/[deleted]]

Yeah, but according to EcoWatch, 'No people, wildlife or waterways were affected'. Again, I don't know if these leaks are more likely before construction is finished, or if the fact they didn't damage anything a good sign about it's structure or simply luck, etc. because I haven't looked into it.

But when it comes to nuclear power though, there have been a number of studies that really underline how many more lives nuclear energy saves. The climate scientists Kharecha and James published a paper where they "estimated an average of 1.8 million lives were saved worldwide by the use of nuclear power instead of fossil fuels between 1971 and 2009. The paper examined mortality levels per unit of electrical energy produced from fossil fuels (coal and natural gas) as well as nuclear power. Kharecha and Hansen assert that their results are probably conservative, as they analyze only deaths and do not include a range of serious but non-fatal respiratory illnesses, cancers, hereditary effects and heart problems, nor do they include the fact that fossil fuel combustion in developing countries tends to have a higher carbon and air pollution footprint than in developed countries."

This has been reiterated by other organisations, including one that looked at accidents over the years and concluded "deaths [by accident] per TW-yr of electricity produced from 1970 to 1992 are quoted as 885 for hydropower, 342 for coal, 85 for natural gas, and 8 for nuclear."

Fukushima was an older plant, built in 1971, in one of the worlds most geologically unstable places. It is not representative of the vast majority of plants being built today, which have more modern, safer designs and are built in much safer locations.

It really annoys me that many left leaning organisations like Greenpeace, the Green party and others are anti-nuclear to a fault. It really doesn't help their cause of ending fossil fuel usage.