Standing Rock Protectors: Lawbreakers Or Heroes?

The term protesters is rejected by the Standing Rock activists who prefer to be called water protectors. They insist that they are protecting not only the Native people living near the Missouri River from potential contamination from the Dakota Access Pipeline but also non-Natives living in nearby towns. The protectors have been met with resistance from the police and security forces, who have used tactics such as attack dogs, pepper spray, and water cannons against them. The protectors have faced prosecution for criminal trespassing, rioting, and serious felonies, with some serving prison time. The protectors argue that the pipeline is on treaty land, and they have a right to be there.

Were Standing Rock activists within their rights to occupy the strip of land?

The Standing Rock activists, or "water protectors", occupied a strip of land that they claim is owned by the tribe, according to the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie. They were met with resistance from police and National Guard soldiers, who used tactics such as pepper spray, smoke bombs, sonic weapons, attack dogs, and water cannons to clear the camp.

The water protectors argue that they are protecting not only Native people living near the Missouri River from potential contamination from the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) but also non-Natives living in nearby towns. They insist that they are not protesters, but rather protectors, as the term "protester" is negative and makes Native people seem angry and violent.

The water protectors' occupation of the strip of land is a complex legal issue. While they claim the land as their own, the police and government insist that the pipeline is not located on treaty land. The land in question is considered treaty land by the water protectors, who argue that under treaty protections, indigenous people have the right to be in the pipeline area. Additionally, there is an argument that the camp, Oceti Sakowin, was made into an independent Indian community, making it immune from federal prosecution.

The water protectors have faced prosecution and have been charged with criminal trespassing, rioting, and a number of serious felonies. However, there is an ongoing legal battle, with water protectors filing lawsuits against the police, security forces, and the government, citing violations of their Constitutional rights and religious freedom.

The legality of the Standing Rock activists' occupation of the strip of land is a matter of dispute, with arguments and evidence presented by both sides. The outcome of the ongoing legal cases will determine whether the activists were within their rights to occupy the land.

Did law enforcement use excessive force?

The use of force by law enforcement against the Standing Rock activists, or "water protectors", has been described as "extraordinary" and "life-threatening". Police have used water cannons, rubber bullets, sponge rounds, bean bag rounds, stinger rounds, tear gas grenades, pepper spray, mace, tasers, and sound weapons against the activists. These weapons have resulted in serious injuries, including seizures, broken ligaments, loss of bowel control, and loss of consciousness. One elder went into cardiac arrest, and one woman's arm was nearly blown off.

The Morton County Sheriff's Department has justified their use of force by calling the protestors "very aggressive" and framing the demonstration as an "ongoing riot". However, the Standing Rock and Cheyenne Sioux Tribes, as well as several activist groups, have argued that the police response was excessive and violated the activists' constitutional rights.

A class-action lawsuit, Thunderhawk v. County of Morton, has been filed against Morton County, North Dakota, and various state officials and private security firms, alleging that the use of force was discriminatory and violated the activists' First Amendment rights. The suit also alleges that the defendants' closure of a nine-mile stretch of Highway 1806 was unconstitutional and violated the activists' freedom of speech.

The International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations and Physicians for Human Rights have characterized water cannons as particularly dangerous and life-threatening, noting that they can induce facial, skull, and rib fractures, brain trauma, prolonged nausea, and even blindness. The Standing Rock activists were sprayed with water cannons in freezing temperatures, putting them at risk of hypothermia and frostbite.

The increased law enforcement presence at Standing Rock has also raised concerns over police brutality and the militarization of police forces. An investigation by In These Times found that several police departments responding to the protests were among the largest recipients of military equipment transfers from the federal government.

While the specific incident of the road closure is set to go to trial, the broader question of whether law enforcement used excessive force during the Standing Rock protests is a matter of ongoing debate and legal proceedings.

Were the Standing Rock activists violent?

The Standing Rock activists, who referred to themselves as "water protectors", were largely non-violent. They were, however, met with violence from security workers and police.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe began protesting the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) in 2014. They argued that the pipeline would threaten sacred land and their water supply. Over time, the demonstrations drew thousands of supporters from across the United States.

The protests culminated in violence, but this was not initiated by the activists. Security workers used attack dogs on the demonstrators, and police shot them with rubber bullets, shocked them with tasers, and blasted them with water cannons. On October 27, 2016, police and private security forces used pepper spray, batons, and concussive devices to clear a camp near the construction site. More than 140 people were arrested, and many were charged with felony offenses.

The activists' non-violent approach is reflected in their preference for the term "water protector" over "protester". They insist that they are protecting not only Native people living near the Missouri River from potential contamination but also non-Natives living in nearby towns. One activist explains that the term "protester" is negative and makes Native people seem angry and violent for protecting their resources.

The Standing Rock activists' approach has been described as a new paradigm for civil disobedience in the modern corporate age.

Did law enforcement discriminate against the activists?

The treatment of activists at Standing Rock by law enforcement has been described as discriminatory. In 2020, a class-action lawsuit was filed against law enforcement and private security agencies, alleging that their use of attack dogs, pepper spray, and water cannons against the activists amounted to discrimination. The case, known as Thunderhawk v. County of Morton, specifically challenged the closure of Highway 1806, which was seen as a discriminatory act that severed the tribe and its supporters from essential services and restricted their right to assemble and speak freely.

The activists, who refer to themselves as "water protectors" instead of protesters, have also faced harsh treatment by law enforcement, including the use of life-threatening crowd-control weapons such as tear gas, rubber bullets, concussion grenades, and water cannons. The use of these weapons has resulted in serious injuries, hospitalizations, and arrests. Additionally, there have been reports of strip searches, being held in dog kennels, and the use of sound cannons against the activists.

The Standing Rock activists have also experienced racial profiling and targeting by local law enforcement and residents. One activist, Wasté Win Young, shared that she regularly faces racial profiling and targeting in the area due to her involvement in the protests. The bias and influence of the fossil fuel industry in the region have created a challenging environment for those associated with the demonstrations.

The private security firm TigerSwan has also been accused of using military-style counter-terrorism methods to target and infiltrate the protests, further contributing to the perception of discrimination and unfair treatment of the activists. TigerSwan allegedly collaborated with law enforcement and provided misleading intelligence that influenced the officials' perception of the movement and led to excessive measures being implemented.

Overall, the actions of law enforcement and private security agencies during the Standing Rock protests have been widely criticized and perceived as discriminatory, with activists facing harsh treatment, racial profiling, and excessive force. The legal system's response to the protests has also drawn attention, with concerns raised about the fairness of the trials and the potential impact on the activists' ability to continue their work and defend their rights.

Did the activists break any laws?

The Standing Rock activists, who refer to themselves as "water protectors", have been accused of breaking the law in several instances. However, the validity of these accusations is disputed.

In one instance, more than 140 people were arrested on the Standing Rock Sioux reservation near Cannon Ball, North Dakota. The activists had decided to occupy a strip of land they claim the tribe owns according to the 1851 Treaty of Fort Laramie. Police used pepper spray, smoke bombs, and sonic weapons to clear the camp, which was directly in the way of a pipeline construction project. The activists were charged with criminal trespassing, rioting, and other serious felonies. However, supporters of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe objected to the term "protesters" or "rioters", insisting that they were only protecting Native people living near the Missouri River, as well as non-Natives in nearby towns, from potential contamination by the pipeline.

In another incident, police used tear gas, rubber bullets, concussion grenades, mace, and water cannons against 400 peaceful protestors in North Dakota. The protestors were attempting to move two burned trucks off Backwater Bridge, which blocked the main route to Bismarck and delayed emergency services. Several demonstrators suffered seizures, broken ligaments, loss of bowel control, and loss of consciousness, and one elder went into cardiac arrest. The Morton County Sheriff's Department justified their use of force by calling the protestors "very aggressive" and framing the demonstration as an "ongoing riot". However, the ACLU and other groups warned against the abusive police practices, stating that the use of such force was unjustified and violated international human rights standards.

In addition to these instances, there have been numerous arrests and legal cases involving the Standing Rock activists. For example, in 2016, there were 126 arrests in a single day, including two juveniles. Overall, the state criminal cases against the activists, mostly indigenous people, included 835 cases in total, with 337 dismissed and 171 ongoing as of 2024. While prosecutors charged the activists with various crimes, the validity of these charges is questionable, as they have been described as "meritless" and a method to "chill or repress public dissent".

Furthermore, a class-action lawsuit filed by the activists against law enforcement and private security agencies is set for trial in August 2021. The lawsuit alleges that the closure of Highway 1806 during the protests was "discriminatory" and violated their Constitutional rights, including their First Amendment right to speak and assemble. The activists also argue that the closure of the highway was unnecessary and served to sever the tribe and its supporters from essential services and assembly points.

While the legal battle continues, the Standing Rock activists maintain that their actions are justified in defence of their land, traditions, heritage, and the environment. They argue that the pipeline construction poses a significant risk to their water supply, burial sites, and sacred sites, and that their right to religious freedom has been infringed upon.

Frequently asked questions