Lethal force against the Dakota Access Pipeline protesters would be justified

Thank you, levi_smiles (Con), for your participation and rational contribution to an emotionalized zeitgeist. Con claims, "Let's note that Congress has only declared war 5 times during its 240 year history." Not so. According to his own source (#1), Congress declared war eleven times (albeit among five wars). Con writes as though a declaration of war is an action of extreme authoritarianism, but it is generally in the interests of the enemy individuals, as it binds the American military to domestic and international laws ensuring the humane treatment of prisoners or war, etc. The American history of fighting de facto wars without constitutionally declaring war follows from authoritarianism, as the President and military has far more leeway in a mere "military action." A congressional declaration of war against the DAPL insurgency would be a compromise. Instead, as of yesterday, the President effectively chose to surrender. Con argues, "Also, Pro may be unaware that the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids the use of the US Military to enforce law or domestic policy, or perhaps he is advocating for the repeal of that law." Con wrote as though he did not pay any attention to the text of the Act. It reads as follows, per his source #2: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." I place emphasis on "except in cases... expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress." A congressional declaration of war would fulfill this exception. It is a key exception for the federal government to defend the nation against large organized enemies, whether they break the law or not. That is not the only citation that Con presented but seemingly failed to pay any serious attention to. Con cited the law of CFR 1047.7, but Con failed to notice that it applied only to the Department of Energy(7), not the Department of Defense (of which the National Guard is a part). Were it to govern the DoD, it would be completely ridiculous. As a way to rebut the analogy of Native Americans invading an apartment building and declaring it their own, Con states, "Except, of course, history tells us that Whites invaded Sioux territory, not the other way around." This is less of a rebuttal and more of a concession: Con believes that non-Native-American residents do not have the legal right to their land, but he believes the land belongs to the Native Americans. Con's position therefore favors a complete handover of American land to the Native American race. If the DAPL protesters agree with him, and by all signs they do(8), then this would make the DAPL protesters enemies of the American colonies, and a declaration of war is justified. I would assume that Con means to cede ALL of the USA to the Native Americans, all such land being previously 100% Native American territory, except he clarified to limit his position to ceding only the land of the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie. It is hardly a compromise, as the land covers all of western South Dakota, most of the NW quadrant of Nebraska, most of the NE quadrant of Wyoming, and some of both Montana and North Dakota(1). Under Con's legal principle, any Native American sufficiently descended from tribes of that respective land would be free to take the possesson of any house otherwise belonging to a White, Black, Asian or Hispanic, on any property within that land, and to thus change the locks. Luckily for almost all residents of that region, an established legal principle exists to prevent such a thing: obsolescence. According to Black's Law Dictionary(3), "OBSOLETE" is defined as: "That which is no longer used... The term is applied to statutes which have become inoperative by large lapse of time, either because the reason for their enactment has passed away, or their subject-matter no longer exists, or they are not applicable to changed circumstances, or are tacitly disregarded by all men, yet without being expressly abrogated or repealed." The equivalent legal principle concerns treaties, termed, "Rebus Sic Stantibus," defined as, "A name given to a tacit condition, said to attach to all treaties, that they shall cease to be obligatory so soon as the state of facts and conditions upon which they were founded has substantially changed"(4). Such "changed circumstances" would include the establishment of five states of the USA without regard to the boundaries per that treaty, a treaty that was likewise seldom observed by the Native American party(2). Con's citation of the treaty is therefore absurd at best, but he is not alone. The DAPL protesters tend to share this argument from the 165-year-old treaty(5), as they seem to observe no limit to the level of absurdity in their racially motivated legal arguments. Con asserts: "The Supreme Court has already ruled that most of mineral rights of the Sioux Nation- the gold of the Black Hills, the oil of the Bakken Formation was obtained illegally." The argument is implicit: Ancestral Whites 50 to 150 years ago didn't follow the law, therefore the modern law governing their modern descendants is merely a "cruel facade." But, the argument is both a non-sequitur and a concession that Con has no respect for modern federal laws that are at the expense of Native American interests. If the DAPL protesters agree with Con (and, again, they seemingly do(6)), then it is a socially-systemic disregard of American colonial law, and the most appropriate response is enforcement through war. Sources: (1) http://www.ndstudies.org... (2) Ibid, "Ultimately, many Lakota and Dakota never knew of the existence of the 1851 Treaty and they continued their intertribal raiding." (3) Henry Campbell Black, Black's Law Dictionary, Revised Fourth Ed., West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN, 1968, p. 1227. (4) Ibid, p. 1432. (5) http://standingrock.org..., "The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe stands by its right to self-government as a sovereign nation, which includes taking a government-to-government stance with the states and federal government entities. Having signed treaties as equals with the United States Government in 1851 and in 1868, which established the original boundaries of the Great Sioux Nation. The tribe staunchly asserts these treaty rights to remain steadfast and just as applicable today as on the day they were made." (6) https://sierraclub.org..., '"There are two kinds of laws," Winona LaDuke (Ojibwe), an indigenous activist, said to campers during a concert at Oceti Sakowin Camp. "The white man's law and the Creator's law."' (7) https://www.law.cornell.edu... (8) http://www.cnbc.com..., '"We are wardens of this land. This is our land and they can't remove us," said protester Isaac Weston, who is an Oglala Sioux member from South Dakota. "We have every right to be here to protect our land and to protect our water."'