Lethal force against the Dakota Access Pipeline protesters would be justified

Thanks, Pro- Pro's proposal is short-sighted, historically ignorant, radically unconstitutional, and profoundly anti-democratic. WAR Let's note that Congress has only declared war 5 times during its 240 year history.[1]. Throughout all the many years of battle with hundreds of Indian nations, Congress never once saw fit to declare war. We didn't declare war when the 7th Calvary got slaughtered at Little Big Horn. We didn't declare war when Pancho Villa invaded or when Iran took Americans hostage. We didn't declare war after 9/11. If Lincoln could refrain from declaring war on the Sucessionist States believing such a formal declaration against his fellow Americans unconstitutional, I think we can maintain our composure when a few people decide to oppose a pipeline. 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, [2] or perhaps he is advocating for the repeal of that law. LETHAL FORCE Since 1985, the Federal Code authorizes the use of lethal force under the following circumstances: " 1047.7 Use of deadly force. (a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists: (1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. (2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives). (3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device. (4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present. (5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay. 1 These offenses are considered by the Department of Energy to pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm. (b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed: (1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired. (2) Warning shots shall not be fired. [3] Pro's arguments suggest that the code should be amended to remove any extreme necessity and applied to the standard of "persistent lawbreaker." That is, absent any Sixth Ammendment protection, absent the counsel of a defense lawyer, review of witness testimony, trial by jury, judicial findings or review, officers of the law should be authorized to apply deadly force in any circumstance meeting that officer's determination of persistent lawbreaking. Pro doesn't state the nature or degree of the infractions warranting summary execution but does include misdemeanors like trespassing, obstruction of a right-of-way, and criminal threat alongside assault, which is at least sometimes a felony. What about traffic violations, I wonder? If, for example, a highway patrolman were to pull over the same driver speeding both to and from the grocery store; to the mind of some law enforcement officers, such conduct might be fairly characterized as "persistent lawbreaking." Would Pro's new code authorize that patrolman to apply lethal force? If not, Pro has failed thus far to dustinguish where the line should be drawn when applying lethal force against persistent lawbreakers. Pro concedes that there are circumstances when civil disobedience is tolerable, "Sometimes laws are broken for the sake of a greater good," so we should make a point of telling police officers that they should refrain from killing people with "good causes," the determination of which will apparently be refereed by Pro. That's too bad in the case of the DAPL protests, since Pro demonstrates an inadequate command of the facts and history impelling events. HISTORY Pro employed a metaphor to justify proclamations of war: thousands of Native Americans invade an apartment deluded that the property is theirs. Except, of course, history tells us that Whites invaded Sioux territory, not the other way around. And census data tells us that in every conflict between the two, Whites greatly outnumbered Indians- so let's ammend that thousands against one ratio. Pro dismisses Sioux property rights as mere " ideology," but it is more than that. The 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie gave the Sioux explicit property rights to much of the Northern Great Plains, including the land west of Missouri River and south of the Heart River- including the historic Cannonball Ranchlands where today's NODAPL dispute takes place. In exchange for a peaceful westward expansion, the US was to pay $50,000/yr for 50 years. The US Senate ratified the treaty but limited the annuity to 10 years. In practice, the US Govt only made one payment while the Sioux kept up their end of the bargain for another decade. [4]. In 1980, the Supreme Court upheld earlier decisions that the US Govt had taken Sioux property unfairly and dishonorably and ordered compensatory judgement now exceeding $1 billion, which the Sioux Nations refuse to accept, demanding instead the return of their wrongfully swindled lands. [5] Pro uses the phrase "Rule of Law" pretty heavily in R1, but the rule of law is a cruel facade for govt. corruption if it only applies to one side of a dispute. 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. It may be unrealistic or idealistic to demand the return of trillions of dollars worth of property from a wealthier, better-armed majority but historically speaking, the "Rule of Law" that Pro waves about is overwhelmingly on the side of Sioux. Space won't allow a fair chronicle of every ethnic cleansing and promise broken by the US (Dee Brown's "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" is one well-researched survey) but we should take into account: *The Sioux Treaty of 1868 which halved the Sioux's land and was instantly violated by gold mining in the Black Hills. [6] *The 1877 Agreement that annexed the Black Hills, the richest and most sacred third of Sioux land. [7] *The 1889 Partition which removed more arable center of Sioux territory for white settlement, halving Sioux territory again and breaking the tribes up into 5 reservations on the residual high plains. This act of Congress also removed Sioux children from their homes by force to be placed in boarding schools. These children were forced to adopt Christian beliefs and speak only English - any expression of Native culture was strictly punished. [8] *The 1910 Pine Ridge Act appropriated half the Pine Ridge reservation for sale to White farmers. [9] * In 1960, most Sioux living along the Missouri River, including the majority of Standing Rock's population were forcibly relocated west to accommodate the flooding 5 new dams and reservoirs along a 230 mile stretch of the river. The Sioux lost almost all of the fertile land remaining to them- 90% of Sioux timber and 75% of all wildlife were lost to the reservoir. [9] The majority of homes and villages on Standing Rock Reservation were inundated. Although the Sioux were promised 100,000 acres of irrigable land as compensation the US Govt has still not delivered. Although the US Govt estimates that the Oahe Resevoir generates $150,000 in annual benefits for local economies, none of which is allocated to compensate Standing Rock. We should note that the destruction of the Reservation's home town was only 56 years ago. When big floods disturb the bottom of the Oahe Resevoir, as happened in 2011, flotsam is knocked loose- doors, furniture, occasional bones and skulls, and often come to rest on the beaches at the top of Oahe- where the Cannonball River meets the Missouri: the very place where Standing Rock Protests are camped today. If Pro wonders why govt assurances that DAPL won't contaminate the water and soil of Standing Rock are met with anger and disbelief, Pro should recall how few promises made to these people have ever been honored. Much more to say re: pipeline failures, archeology & more in R2. I look forward to Pro's response to the above. [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [2]https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [3]https://www.law.cornell.edu... [4]https://www.nps.gov... [5]https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [6]https://en.m.wikipedia.org...(1868) [7]https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [8]https://en.m.wikipedia.org... [9]https://en.m.wikipedia.org...