Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

OgreChubbs wrote:
I looked it up and indeed you have your plot of land for 100 years. So unless they covered the land with dead every 99 years the land cant be called a cemetry.

So, only another 30 years before we can dig up those world war 2 cemeteries in France then.

Sometimes it is not about what is legal, but what is right. Legally they may not have a claim to that land any more. And really, do you think they were consulted when those laws were being written? How much of a say did the native americans have when it came to the laws which were applied to them and their historical graveyards and other places of spiritual importance?

Anyone have a link that shows the governing treaty over these lands?

I couldn't find it.

If it doesn't exist. That Natives don't have standing.

Well finding out who was has the ownership rights according to legal systems..

That could give them a stronger or weaker position.

Little things can change a alot.

 whembly wrote:
Anyone have a link that shows the governing treaty over these lands?

I couldn't find it.

If it doesn't exist. That Natives don't have standing.

Should be in Library of Congress. Original documents or copies of. We had this discussion when we had the Iroquois Lacross Team passport issue

Siding with the Native Americans on this.

 jasper76 wrote:
I'd like to know why private security companies have been empowered to deploy pepper spray and attack dogs on unarmed protestors.

Some more unbiased reporting tells the story about how hundreds of protesters stormed the work site, and was damaging property when the security responded.

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/06/north-dakota-oil-pipeline-protest-turns-violent/

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You know electricity has to be generated right? Right?

Ok lets take a refresher. A source of energy is something burned or used to generate energy. A Use of energy is something that takes that energy and converts it to mechanical effort. For example an electric car uses energy to convert it to movement. It does not generate the energy.

A tesla is a user of energy not a source of energy.

Yes Fraz. Hydro is a big thing where I come from. Pretty clean. Tidal and geo thermal are great ways to generate clean power. Solar is getting there, not yet though.

Coal fired plants need to feth right off though. When is this, 1886?

Hydroelectric is very region specific, as is tidal. Plus,tidal and geo-thermal are going to be a pipe dream for at least a few more decades, as far as serious contenders to replace fossil fuels go.



Solar power is a dead end. Wind power, like hydro-electric is very region specific.



If we have any "clean" sources of electrical generation within the next fifty years, it will be nuclear fusion. But as we found out with nuclear fission, getting it off the ground is going to be costly.


Petrochemicals as an energy source are going to be around for a while yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
I'd like to know why private security companies have been empowered to deploy pepper spray and attack dogs on unarmed protestors.

In many States, private security firms have arrest and police power on the properties they are contracted for, since they are required to meet those States' standards and regulations.


Don't know about North and South Dakota, though.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You know electricity has to be generated right? Right?

Ok lets take a refresher. A source of energy is something burned or used to generate energy. A Use of energy is something that takes that energy and converts it to mechanical effort. For example an electric car uses energy to convert it to movement. It does not generate the energy.

A tesla is a user of energy not a source of energy.

Yes Fraz. Hydro is a big thing where I come from. Pretty clean. Tidal and geo thermal are great ways to generate clean power. Solar is getting there, not yet though.

Coal fired plants need to feth right off though. When is this, 1886?

tidal and geo-thermal are going to be a pipe dream for at least a few more decades, as far as serious contenders to replace fossil fuels go.

Well, yeah, that's what I meant by "around the corner". Look at computer tech a couple decades ago vs now.

Solar power is a dead end.

How so? Tech gets better and more efficient with development.

If we have any "clean" sources of electrical generation within the next fifty years, it will be nuclear fusion. But as we found out with nuclear fission, getting it off the ground is going to be costly

Fusion would be great. It may be the Alchemy of our time, though.

Geothermal energy provides 25% of Icelands total power.

If you have the geography for it then it is very effective as an energy source.

 feeder wrote:


How so? Tech gets better and more efficient with development.

I dunno about Canada, but here in the States, the Federal Government and private industry has poured billions into solar power over the last forty years, and it hasn't evolved in practical use beyond a few solar farms, home use, and powering individual devices/power company access stations. Maybe one day it might amount to something. But as of right now, it's a dead end street. It's not as efficient as other sources of energy generation, both existing and projected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Geothermal energy provides 25% of Icelands total power.

If you have the geography for it then it is very effective as an energy source.

I stand corrected.


Like hydro and wind, it's a regional deal then.

Iceland is highly volcanic.

You need the right area to take full advantage.
A Nation like UK could get some serious tidal power though.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

In many States, private security firms have arrest and police power on the properties they are contracted for, since they are required to meet those States' standards and regulations.


Don't know about North and South Dakota, though.

Pretty messed up that people would grant private companies the power to sic attack dogs on themselves, but I suppose in a democracy you deserve what you get.

 jasper76 wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

In many States, private security firms have arrest and police power on the properties they are contracted for, since they are required to meet those States' standards and regulations.


Don't know about North and South Dakota, though.

Pretty messed up that people would grant private companies the power to sic attack dogs on themselves, but I suppose in a democracy you deserve what you get.

The attack dogs does seem atypical but I'm not familiar with North Dakota laws. Trespassing onto an active construction site, disrupting the work, damaging property and refusing to leave is going to get people pepper sprayed and arrested in pretty much any jurisdiction in America. The Sioux have a right to protest but they chose to exercise that right in an unlawful manner which is a poor choice on their part. They already succeeded in stopping the work via an injunction from a federal judge so they didn't need to break the law to halt the work on the disputed land. Hopefully they abstain from instigating violent confrontations in the future.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

In many States, private security firms have arrest and police power on the properties they are contracted for, since they are required to meet those States' standards and regulations.


Don't know about North and South Dakota, though.

Pretty messed up that people would grant private companies the power to sic attack dogs on themselves, but I suppose in a democracy you deserve what you get.

The attack dogs does seem atypical but I'm not familiar with North Dakota laws. Trespassing onto an active construction site, disrupting the work, damaging property and refusing to leave is going to get people pepper sprayed and arrested in pretty much any jurisdiction in America. The Sioux have a right to protest but they chose to exercise that right in an unlawful manner which is a poor choice on their part. They already succeeded in stopping the work via an injunction from a federal judge so they didn't need to break the law to halt the work on the disputed land. Hopefully they abstain from instigating violent confrontations in the future.

Significantly, no protestors have been arrested.

 jhe90 wrote:
Iceland is highly volcanic.

You need the right area to take full advantage.
A Nation like UK could get some serious tidal power though.

That is very much true. The US has some reasonably active volcanic areas, doesn't it? Yellowstone, for example. So there is probably the potential for Geothermal to play a larger part in US energy production, even if only in certain regions.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:
Iceland is highly volcanic.

You need the right area to take full advantage.
A Nation like UK could get some serious tidal power though.

That is very much true. The US has some reasonably active volcanic areas, doesn't it? Yellowstone, for example. So there is probably the potential for Geothermal to play a larger part in US energy production, even if only in certain regions.

No one really lives close enough to these Geothermal activities to make sense...

Except maybe Hawaii...

 jasper76 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

In many States, private security firms have arrest and police power on the properties they are contracted for, since they are required to meet those States' standards and regulations.


Don't know about North and South Dakota, though.

Pretty messed up that people would grant private companies the power to sic attack dogs on themselves, but I suppose in a democracy you deserve what you get.

The attack dogs does seem atypical but I'm not familiar with North Dakota laws. Trespassing onto an active construction site, disrupting the work, damaging property and refusing to leave is going to get people pepper sprayed and arrested in pretty much any jurisdiction in America. The Sioux have a right to protest but they chose to exercise that right in an unlawful manner which is a poor choice on their part. They already succeeded in stopping the work via an injunction from a federal judge so they didn't need to break the law to halt the work on the disputed land. Hopefully they abstain from instigating violent confrontations in the future.

Significantly, no protestors have been arrested.

Not everyone who commits an unlawful act gets arrested and you don't have to arrest somebody to be justified in using pepper spray against them. If neither the construction company nor the oil company chooses to press charges that doesn't really signify anything of importance.

 jasper76 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

In many States, private security firms have arrest and police power on the properties they are contracted for, since they are required to meet those States' standards and regulations.


Don't know about North and South Dakota, though.

Pretty messed up that people would grant private companies the power to sic attack dogs on themselves, but I suppose in a democracy you deserve what you get.

The attack dogs does seem atypical but I'm not familiar with North Dakota laws. Trespassing onto an active construction site, disrupting the work, damaging property and refusing to leave is going to get people pepper sprayed and arrested in pretty much any jurisdiction in America. The Sioux have a right to protest but they chose to exercise that right in an unlawful manner which is a poor choice on their part. They already succeeded in stopping the work via an injunction from a federal judge so they didn't need to break the law to halt the work on the disputed land. Hopefully they abstain from instigating violent confrontations in the future.

Significantly, no protestors have been arrested.

No police where on hand when the altercation occurred, and when they arrived, the crowd dispersed. They were not witness to any specific individuals committing a crime, so who were they to arrest?

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 feeder wrote:


How so? Tech gets better and more efficient with development.

I dunno about Canada, but here in the States, the Federal Government and private industry has poured billions into solar power over the last forty years, and it hasn't evolved in practical use beyond a few solar farms, home use, and powering individual devices/power company access stations. Maybe one day it might amount to something. But as of right now, it's a dead end street. It's not as efficient as other sources of energy generation, both existing and projected.

Its not a dead end when you're raking in Federal tax dollars to install them everywhere.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

 feeder wrote:


How so? Tech gets better and more efficient with development.

I dunno about Canada, but here in the States, the Federal Government and private industry has poured billions into solar power over the last forty years, and it hasn't evolved in practical use beyond a few solar farms, home use, and powering individual devices/power company access stations. Maybe one day it might amount to something. But as of right now, it's a dead end street. It's not as efficient as other sources of energy generation, both existing and projected.

Its not a dead end when you're raking in Federal tax dollars to install them everywhere.

We have terms for that: "Pork Barrel" and "politics as usual". It isn't the first time worthless politicians lobbied for wasteful spending in their constituencies to buy votes. Or voting for spending measures to cater to special interest groups, lobbyists, and industry reps for votes and political donations.


The Feds sank a -ton of money into wind too. And it's still a region specific power source, nowhere the "oil killer" that some made it out to be back in the 1990's.


But I guess you are right insofar as solar not being a dead end to those getting paid.

 djones520 wrote:

No police where on hand when the altercation occurred, and when they arrived, the crowd dispersed. They were not witness to any specific individuals committing a crime, so who were they to arrest?

This begs the question, why weren't the police there to begin with. I heard news of this demonstration going down at least a week ago. Seems pretty derelict not to keep the peace in a situation of guaranteed tension, but rather leave it to companymen with German Shepherds and pepper spray.

 jasper76 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

No police where on hand when the altercation occurred, and when they arrived, the crowd dispersed. They were not witness to any specific individuals committing a crime, so who were they to arrest?

This begs the question, why weren't the police there to begin with. I heard news of this demonstration going down at least a week ago. Seems pretty derelict not to keep the peace in a situation of guaranteed tension, but rather leave it to companymen with German Shepherds and pepper spray.

If the work site is being actively guarded by a security company and dogs why push the protest onto the site and initiate a physical confrontation? Holding the protest directly adjacent to the work site gets the point across, provides for all of the visuals you need to disseminate to the media and social media and avoids anyone getting hurt or committing unlawful acts.

Prestor Jon wrote:

If the work site is being actively guarded by a security company and dogs why push the protest onto the site and initiate a physical confrontation? Holding the protest directly adjacent to the work site gets the point across, provides for all of the visuals you need to disseminate to the media and social media and avoids anyone getting hurt or committing unlawful acts.

These questions don't absolve the police of their duties.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

No police where on hand when the altercation occurred, and when they arrived, the crowd dispersed. They were not witness to any specific individuals committing a crime, so who were they to arrest?

This begs the question, why weren't the police there to begin with. I heard news of this demonstration going down at least a week ago. Seems pretty derelict not to keep the peace in a situation of guaranteed tension, but rather leave it to companymen with German Shepherds and pepper spray.

If the work site is being actively guarded by a security company and dogs why push the protest onto the site and initiate a physical confrontation? Holding the protest directly adjacent to the work site gets the point across, provides for all of the visuals you need to disseminate to the media and social media and avoids anyone getting hurt or committing unlawful acts.

And I'm sure that Black people protesting beside whites only establishments would have been just as effective as sit ins. Sometimes being on site and doing unlawful acts is necessary.

From what I understand of the situation, on Friday, the tribes said they were going to file court proceedings, so the oil company instantly started digging into the grave sites that weekend in response. It's almost like they did it to spite the tribes.

 jasper76 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

No police where on hand when the altercation occurred, and when they arrived, the crowd dispersed. They were not witness to any specific individuals committing a crime, so who were they to arrest?

This begs the question, why weren't the police there to begin with. I heard news of this demonstration going down at least a week ago. Seems pretty derelict not to keep the peace in a situation of guaranteed tension, but rather leave it to companymen with German Shepherds and pepper spray.

Because its North Dakota. North Dakota is bigger than where you are and has a population of less than 1mm people.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

No police where on hand when the altercation occurred, and when they arrived, the crowd dispersed. They were not witness to any specific individuals committing a crime, so who were they to arrest?

This begs the question, why weren't the police there to begin with. I heard news of this demonstration going down at least a week ago. Seems pretty derelict not to keep the peace in a situation of guaranteed tension, but rather leave it to companymen with German Shepherds and pepper spray.

Because its North Dakota. North Dakota is bigger than where you are and has a population of less than 1mm people.

I don't mean to be hyper-critical, but it's probably a good idea to have a police presence when you know there will be a sizeable demonstration of people who are pissed off. There seems to be a decent level of support for private companies exercising police powers...this to me, as someone from West Virginia, which has a storied and unfortunate history of companies behaving like governments and exercising police powers with impunity, this is very alarming, especially the attack dogs.

 jasper76 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

If the work site is being actively guarded by a security company and dogs why push the protest onto the site and initiate a physical confrontation? Holding the protest directly adjacent to the work site gets the point across, provides for all of the visuals you need to disseminate to the media and social media and avoids anyone getting hurt or committing unlawful acts.

These questions don't absolve the police of their duties.

You realize there is a total of 1,300 police officers in the entire state right? 1,300 police officers to cover a land mass about the same size and England and Scotland.

In contrast, Rhode Island, the smallest state in our nation, has TWICE AS MANY police officers.

So, sure. The police officers of North Dakota were completely negligent in their duties, because internet keyboard commando's say so.

If we're going to go this route though, here is my question. Why wasn't the Standing Rock Souix Police Department on hand. You may not know this, but the various Indian nations have their own police forces. This said group of Souix have their own, yet curiously they weren't present, even though this took place in the largest population center of their tribe.

 djones520 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

If the work site is being actively guarded by a security company and dogs why push the protest onto the site and initiate a physical confrontation? Holding the protest directly adjacent to the work site gets the point across, provides for all of the visuals you need to disseminate to the media and social media and avoids anyone getting hurt or committing unlawful acts.

These questions don't absolve the police of their duties.

You realize there is a total of 1,300 police officers in the entire state right? 1,300 police officers to cover a land mass about the same size and England and Scotland.

In contrast, Rhode Island, the smallest state in our nation, has TWICE AS MANY police officers.

So, sure. The police officers of North Dakota were completely negligent in their duties, because internet keyboard commando's say so.

If we're going to go this route though, here is my question. Why wasn't the Standing Rock Souix Police Department on hand. You may not know this, but the various Indian nations have their own police forces. This said group of Souix have their own, yet curiously they weren't present, even though this took place in the largest population center of their tribe.

The police should have pulled themselves to that construction side with their bootstraps.

 djones520 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

If the work site is being actively guarded by a security company and dogs why push the protest onto the site and initiate a physical confrontation? Holding the protest directly adjacent to the work site gets the point across, provides for all of the visuals you need to disseminate to the media and social media and avoids anyone getting hurt or committing unlawful acts.

These questions don't absolve the police of their duties.

You realize there is a total of 1,300 police officers in the entire state right? 1,300 police officers to cover a land mass about the same size and England and Scotland.

In contrast, Rhode Island, the smallest state in our nation, has TWICE AS MANY police officers.

So, sure. The police officers of North Dakota were completely negligent in their duties, because internet keyboard commando's say so.

If we're going to go this route though, here is my question. Why wasn't the Standing Rock Souix Police Department on hand. You may not know this, but the various Indian nations have their own police forces. This said group of Souix have their own, yet curiously they weren't present, even though this took place in the largest population center of their tribe.

Exactly. When one thinks of distances in the West vs. East its like different worlds.

 djones520 wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

If the work site is being actively guarded by a security company and dogs why push the protest onto the site and initiate a physical confrontation? Holding the protest directly adjacent to the work site gets the point across, provides for all of the visuals you need to disseminate to the media and social media and avoids anyone getting hurt or committing unlawful acts.

These questions don't absolve the police of their duties.

You realize there is a total of 1,300 police officers in the entire state right? 1,300 police officers to cover a land mass about the same size and England and Scotland.

In contrast, Rhode Island, the smallest state in our nation, has TWICE AS MANY police officers.

So, sure. The police officers of North Dakota were completely negligent in their duties, because internet keyboard commando's say so.

If we're going to go this route though, here is my question. Why wasn't the Standing Rock Souix Police Department on hand. You may not know this, but the various Indian nations have their own police forces. This said group of Souix have their own, yet curiously they weren't present, even though this took place in the largest population center of their tribe.

Thousands of people coming into your state from all ovver the country to a demonstrate against highly politicized construction project = common sense need for a police presence. Insults like "keyboard commando" also don't absolve the police of their duties.

If the Standing Rock Sioux PD had jurisdiction then yes, they should have provided LOE to keep the peace and protect workers and demonstrators.