# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
AJ+ - Trump's been compared to Andrew Jackson, a president... | Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trump's been compared to Andrew Jackson, a president infamous for brutality against Native Americans. And that's not good for Standing Rock.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
WATCH and SHARE: Robert Redford Urges... - The Redford Center | Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WATCH and SHARE: Robert Redford Urges Solidarity with Standing Rock Sioux to Stop the Dakota Access Pipeline. He asks Americans to call the White House today at 202-456-1111 or send a message to whitehouse.gov/contact. Ask President Obama to support the peaceful protest and act on behalf of the 17 million Americans who depend on the Missouri River for their clean water.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
No Spiritual Surrender. 268,598 likes · 36,536 talking about this. Formerly "Standing Rock Rising", No Spiritual Surrender is a small collective of Water Protectors rooted from the Standing Rock...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
President Barack Obama said Tuesday federal agencies are evaluating whether the $3.8-billion pipeline that has sparked months of massive Native American protests in North Dakota could be rerouted to address indigenous concerns of damage to sacred sites.

"As a general rule, my view is that there is way for us to accommodate sacred lands of Native Americans," Obama said in an interview with NowThis. He added that the Army Corps of Engineers "is examining whether there are ways to reroute this pipeline."

Obama's comments come less than a week after 141 people were arrested and dozens were injured when armed law enforcement used sirens, pepper spray, and bean bag shots to clear a protest camp on a site that Dakota Access, a subsidiary of Energy Transfer Partners, is putting the 1,172-mile oil pipeline. Tribes say the land is theirs by right of an 1800s treaty.

Also on Tuesday, it was revealed that the company failed to immediately notify state regulators about Native artifacts found during recent construction, the Bismarck Tribune reported. North Dakota is weighing whether to fine the company.

That revelation is likely to emboldened protesters who have long said the path hasn't been properly reviewed for sacred sites. The line, which is almost finished, has yet to receive the last permits it needs for full build out and cross the Missouri River, which is federal property.

Protesters and the tribe have questioned authorities' response to what demonstrators say are peaceful protests. Authorities dispute that protests were peaceful.

In the interview, Obama addressed that issue, too. "There is an obligation for protesters to be peaceful, and there is an obligation for authorities to show restraint," he said. "I want to make sure as everybody is exercising their constitutional rights to be heard, that both are refraining from situations that might result in people being hurt."

The tribe opposes the line saying a spill would poison the river, the tribe's sole water supply, and construction is poised to destroy sacred sites.

"We applaud President Obama's commitment to protect our sacred lands, our water, and the water of 17 million others," Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Chairman David Archambault II said in a statement. "While the Army Corps of Engineers is examining this issue we call on the administration and the Corps to issue an immediate "stop work order" on the Dakota Access pipeline ... we also urge the administration to call for a full environmental impact study. Aside from leading mass protests for months, the tribe has in the past called on Obama to reject the project as he did with the Keyston XL pipeline last year. The tribe has also filed a lawsuit while federal agencies are reviewing the permits and the Obama Administration asked the company to refrain from building near the area.

The company has declined to stop construction in permitted areas and is nearing the water, according to the tribe. The company and state regulators have said the pipeline is safe and the path has been properly reviewed.

"We are going to let it play out for several more weeks and determine whether this can be resolved in a way that I think is properly attentive to the traditions of the first Americans," Obama said.

Also on Tuesday, North Dakota state officials approved borrowing $4 million for costs linked to law enforcement's response to the protests.

Some are now calling on the federal government to pick up the tab. "This is really irritating. I can't tell you how disappointed I am ... on an issue that is clearly a federal issue," Rep. Al Carlson, R-Fargo, said. "This is 110 percent wrong that we have to do this."

Dakota Access did not respond to a ThinkProgress request for comment.
Update: This article was revised to include the statement of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Obama says Dakota Access pipeline could be rerouted to accommodate sacred land

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
President Barack Obama said Tuesday federal agencies are evaluating whether the $3.8-billion pipeline that has sparked months of massive Native American protests in North Dakota could be rerouted to address indigenous concerns of damage to sacred sites.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Maori just took Standing Rock solidarity up a notch with their viral war dance.

# data[].attributes.body
(1:47min)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
'The images are burned into my mind right now, of the sounds of my people screaming in horror.' - This woman spoke about the brutality of the DAPL arrests (Interview via Josh Fox)

# data[].attributes.body
(1:20min)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Oil Pipeline Company Destroying American Indian Burial

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Southern North Dakota Oil Pipeline Company

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Oil Pipeline Company Destroying American Indian Burial And Cultural Sites In Southern North Dakota

# data[].attributes.body
(7:45min)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
BREAKING: The Dakota Pipeline Protests Just Got A WHOLE Lot Crazier! - Redacted Tonight The controversy surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline has intensified. Construction has begun on Standing Rock Sioux burial land. Energy Transfer, the corporation financing the pipeline, hired a private security firm to combat protesters with dogs and pepper spray.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
I never thought I would see this on TV. - Patricio Dominguez | Facebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Tensions are rising in North Dakota as Standing Rock Sioux members, activists, and allies protest the construction of the Dakota Access Pipelin e, which could damage their water supply.

NBC News reported that at least 141 people were arrested on Thursday after protesters (who refer to themselves as protectors) were met with militarized police force.

In many ways, the story surrounding the 1,172-mile pipeline may seem familiar. Environmentalists have long criticized the US's dependence on oil, and the increasing reliance on fracking to satisfy it. Dakota Access LLC, the company behind the pipeline, says the project wouldcreate 8,000 to 12,000 jobs through construction (though Mother Jones reports that Iowa State University professor David Swenson disputes this figure). However, oil spills are fairly common and companies rarely catch them, leaving local communities to fend for themselves as corporate interests are prioritized over the environment.

But there's also another key issue at play: race, and the need to recognize indigenous tribes' right to self-determination.

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, located just South of the pipeline, has sued the federal government for failing to consult the tribe before the Army Corps of Engineers discreetly approved the pipeline in July. As the Washington Post reported, the pipeline will run under the Missouri River, the major natural water supply, and through sacred areas that aren't considered official parts of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation.

"#NoDAPL has made clear that climate change isn't up for debate for most indigenous peoples," Aura Bogado, a staff writer at Grist.org who focuses on environmental racism, told me in an email interview. "It's a real phenomenon that can mean the difference between life and death."

And while a federal judge has affirmed the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's concerns that corporate and government entities alike failed to consult them, American history shows there is a violent history of denying indigenous groups sovereignty over their own lives.

Bogadodiscussed what current protests can teach us about centering race in environmental journalism and the importance of amplifying indigenous people's stories.

The interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
Victoria Massie: T o begin, how did you get involved in covering environmental racism as a journalist?
Aura Bogado: I've covered racial justice for a while, and have always had a particular interest in climate and the environment - but it's really tough to write about this intersection. Although nonwhite people tend to live with more contaminated air, water, and soil, there remains a fundamental disengagement about this in both the mainstream environmental movement as well as in environmental journalism.

Pair this with the fact that I'm an indigenous woman who has a particular way of thinking about climate, and you get an idea of what I'm up against. Those challenges are changing and even decreasing, but not fast enough to catch up with the way the planet is warming. Nevertheless, I'm committed to writing about environmental racism.

VM: A major component of the Dakota Access Pipeline protests is the fact that the pipeline isn't just an environmental hazard; it's one that is being implemented with pretty much no regard for the Standing Rock Sioux. How does this fit into a broader discussion of tribal sovereignty?

AB: This is such a great question, because the issue of tribal sovereignty, which is just as important as the environmental hazard, is getting lost in the pipeline story.

Too many people tend to think of tribal sovereignty as something that's allocated, which can be given or taken away depending on the circumstance. But it's not. The Standing Rock Sioux Nation's tribal sovereignty, which essentially precedes colonization, is permanent, and it's recognized (as opposed to granted) by the federal government.

The nation is concerned that its waters would be contaminated and that its sacred sites will be desecrated by this pipeline project. On the surface, that claim can easily look like a specific racial group got together to lodge an environmental complaint, but there's a lot more than that: It's actually a tribal sovereign nation that's making an important claim about self-determination and its ability to survive and exist in the future.
VM: When we talk about environmentalism, we hear a lot about climate change, politicians, and CO2 emissions. These are all a part of the story, but as the #NoDAPL protests are showing, they're not the full story. Race is also a critical part of the issue. How have you seen race erased from the environmentalism story as a journalist, and how does #NoDAPL demonstrate the importance of foregrounding race in the conversation?
But this isn't just lost on journalists. It extends to the highest office in the federal government. During his trip to Laos this week, President Obama was asked about the pipeline. He issued, at best, a lackluster answer. Obama gave great lip service to his culturally appropriate communication with indigenous peoples, but he added that he couldn't even provide an answer "on this particular case."

Aside from asserting ignorance on a topic I can't help but think he's already been briefed on, Obama also missed an opportunity to publicly recognize the Standing Rock Sioux Nation's tribal sovereignty. That's a real shame, as is his decision to skirt the environmental and climate hazards the pipeline presents.

AB: Environmental racism is woven into our society's fabric. The very founding of this country was an environmental disaster, made possible through settler colonialism, and vice versa. The historical emissions produced by white colonists have greatly contributed to climate change, leaving indigenous peoples and people of color - that is, the very people who didn't contribute to global warming much at all - most vulnerable. I see a lot of stories that reference climate change without much of an understanding about who's responsible for creating it. It didn't appear out of nowhere; it was part of a larger violent process of theft and genocide, and it's stunning to me that most environmental journalists don't really seem to get that.

But it wasn't only in colonizing the land. It's also about the way cities were constructed. Racial housing covenants often segregated people of color into areas that had the most factories, oil refineries, heavy industry, and so forth. Although explicit racial segregation for housing is illegal today, the legacies of those neighborhoods, and who's affected by contamination and pollution, haven't changed much.

If you live in a city, look up your closest landfill. Chances are that landfill, and all the health and environmental concerns that stem from it, is in a neighborhood of color. These neighborhoods and sacrificial zones were literally designed to be that way, and not much has changed.

You're right that a lot of environmental and climate stories focus on science and policy - and too often, that casts people aside. As an environmental journalist, I understand and keep up with the science: We can nerd out on greenhouse gases, lead, and particulate matter for days. But I also pay attention to how much science matches up to experience.
VM: What questions do you find journalists aren't asking when it comes to covering the #NoDAPL protests?
The people I focus my stories on don't worry about the number of parts per million of carbon dioxide allowed in the Paris climate deal; they worry about the number of asthma inhalers they can afford to buy in order to survive.

#NoDAPL has made clear that climate change isn't up for debate for most indigenous peoples. It's a real phenomenon that can mean the difference between life and death.

AB: You asked a great question about tribal sovereignty - but few journalists even understand what that means. There are several Indian l aw scholars who'd like nothing better than to have a journalist call and ask them to explain what tribal sovereignty is. That attorney might not be quoted in a story, but that journalist will be armed with a crucial understanding moving forward with which to explain what's happening in Standing Rock and elsewhere.

I'm also surprised that reporters aren't pressing the two leading presidential candidates on the pipeline. I can image what Trump's answer might be, but what about Clinton? She's claimed she supports environmental justice - her claim could be buffered by issuing a simple statement, although it seems rather late for that now. Since she's failed to say anything about the pipeline, reporters might want to press her campaign on it.

Aside from what's not being asked, I also wonder who's being asked. I think it's great that more white folks are getting involved, and even heading to North Dakota, but I worry about the way that white voices are validating what indigenous peoples, and people of color who are in solidarity, can say for themselves. So I think it's incumbent upon reporters to get out of their comfort zones and talk to more than just white sources for this story.

VM: The Toronto chapter of Black Lives Matter just recently traveled down to stand with #NoDAPL protesters. Why are these kinds of alliances important for understanding the complexity of the problem?

AB: The enslavement of black people in the Americas complicates the settler colonial matter I talked about earlier. One legacy of enslavement is that black skin continues to be an indicator that marks one's place in a racial hierarchy. Black Lives Matter has built a worldwide movement and has also taken the time to work thoughtfully with indigenous peoples. There's probably an amazing story waiting to be told about the meetings, especially among women and gender nonconforming people, that have taken place behind the scenes before and after BLM arrived at Standing Rock.

BLM knows it has the media's attention, so it made a strategic decision to head to Standing Rock in order to get journalists to pay attention. It's also brought much-needed supplies there. And it's created some visibility for black indigenous folks to also be recognized. Every step of the fight against the pipeline has seemed historic to me. But this allegiance is toward the top of that list, and deserves more coverage.

VM: What can coverage (or lack thereof) of the #NoDAPL protests teach us about how indigenous communities stories are told?

AB: For the most part, stories about indigenous communities aren't being told. We have a way of relegating indigenous peoples to the past, so stories that are taking place today rarely resonate with mainstream journalists. There are, of course, indigenous reporters and reporters of color that write about this - but the system that keeps journalism so white tends to keep the publishing gate closed in terms of what we can cover and when.

Then again, I do think that #NoDAPL has revitalized the argument [that] it's important for journalists to pay attention to the fact that already marginalized communities are the ones on the front lines, fighting against environmental injustices. There's a great opportunity here created by indigenous peoples. I hope we don't miss it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
To understand the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, you need to understand tribal sovereignty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tensions are rising in North Dakota as Standing Rock Sioux members, activists, and allies protest the construction of the Dakota Access Pipelin e, which could damage their water supply. NBC News reported that at least 141 people were arrested on Thursday after protesters (who refer to themselves as protectors) were met with militarized police force.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For months, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North Dakota has been waging a pitched battle against a proposed oil pipeline that would run near their reservation - arguing that it would endanger both their water supplies and sacred sites.

These protests have become a huge, huge story. The fight over the Dakota Access Pipeline encompasses everything from the federal government's historically appalling treatment of Native Americans to broader debates about fracking and climate change. The cause has attracted an array of tribes, activists, and environmentalists around the country, and authorities have been clashing with protestors all summer.

On Sunday, these clashes turned violent when law-enforcement officials used water cannons on protesters in freezing weather - sending some 26 people to the hospital with bone fractures or hypothermia. This came after an earlier major confrontation on October 27, when activists occupied private land along the pipeline's proposed route, arguing that it actually belonged to the tribes under an 1851 treaty with the US government that hasn't been properly honored. In response, police used rubber bullets, pepper spray, and water cannons to disperse the protestors, arresting 141 people in all.

Opponents have also taken the fight to court, hoping to alter or block the pipeline. The DC Circuit Court is currently hearing a major legal challenge to the project, with the Standing Rock Sioux arguing that the Army Corps of Engineers did not properly consult them before green-lighting the section near their reservation.

The pipeline is now 75 percent complete, but it's hit some serious roadblocks. On September 9, the Obama administration ordered the Army Corps of Engineers to pause further permitting and revisit the controversial section nearest the reservation. Then, on November 2, President Obama said that officials are looking into possible ways to reroute the project, though a decision could take weeks. The pipeline company, for its part, is hoping Donald Trump will approve the project when he comes to office.

All the while, protests continue to grow. So here's a guide to how we got this point.

What is the Dakota Access Pipeline?

The pipeline in question was first proposed in 2014 by Dakota Access, a subsidiary of Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners. If built, it would carry some 450,000 barrels of crude per day from the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota down to a terminal in Illinois, where it could be shipped to refineries and turned into usable fuel.

The whole thing would stretch 1,134 miles underground and cost some $3.8 billion:

The rationale behind this project is straightforward. Since the late 2000s, drillers have been using fracking techniques to exploit vast new deposits of oil in the shale formations of North Dakota. Crude oil output has surged, and the state has become one of the epicenters of the recent US oil boom.

But because this all happened so quickly, there weren't sufficient pipelines to carry all that new oil to market. Instead, North Dakota's drillers have been shipping thousands of barrels of crude each day by trains, which are costlier and also sometimes get derailed and explode. Oil companies would prefer a cheaper, quieter pipeline, especially now that crude prices have dropped and profits are thinner. Hence the proposal.

Why is the Dakota Access pipeline so controversial?

Although oil pipelines are less accident-prone than trains, they've certainly been known to leak, with destructive results. So there's been scattered complaints about the proposed route ever since late 2014, starting with farmers in Iowa.

But by far the biggestsource of opposition has been in North Dakota, around the portion of pipeline that would run just north of Sioux County and the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, home to 8,250 people. See the map below (which is based on Carl Sack's great map at the Huffington Post):

For months, members of the Standing Rock Sioux have raised two major concerns about the project:

First, the pipeline would cross right under the Missouri River at Lake Oahe, half a mile north of the reservation. A leak or spill could send oil directly into the tribe's main source of drinking water. The tribe points out that Dakota Access originally considered a route farther north, upstream of Bismarck, but the company rejected that route, in part, because of the close proximity to the state capital's drinking-water wells.

Second, the tribe argues that the pipeline would run through a stretch of land north of the reservation that contains recently discovered sacred sites and burial places. True, this land isn't part of the current reservation. But the Standing Rock Sioux argue that the land had been taken away from them unjustly over the past 150 years. And any bulldozing and construction work could damage these sites.

As such, the tribe has called on the pipeline to be rerouted or reconsidered altogether. (In response, Dakota Access has argued that it will employ "new advanced pipeline technology" to limit leaks - and that it will take care to protect any cultural sites.)

More to the point, the Standing Rock Sioux argue that under federal law, the US government should have consulted extensively with the tribe about these issues - and didn't. On July 27, the Standing Rock Sioux and the nonprofit Earthjustice sued the Army Corps of Engineers in federal court, arguing that the agency had wrongly approved the pipeline without adequate consultation.

As journalist Aura Bogado explains, at the core of this dispute is the concept of "tribal sovereignty." The US government is supposed to have a "government-to-government" relationship with native tribes - not run roughshod over them.

What are the Dakota Access pipeline protests?

Since March, thousands of Native Americans from across the country have come to Cannon Ball to camp out and protest the pipeline in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux.

The fight has attracted the interest of climate activists and environmentalists, who have been focused on blocking new fossil fuel infrastructure, particularly after their victory in stopping the Keystone XL pipeline last year. It's also pulled in politicians like Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein. (Hillary Clinton, by contrast, has avoided taking a stand.)

The last few months in particular have seen the battle intensify. This new phase began around August 24, after the Standing Rock Sioux asked the DC Circuit Court for an injunction to halt activity on the pipeline while their broader lawsuit against the project was resolved (a lawsuit that could take a year or more).

Then, on September 3, shortly after the injunction was requested, Dakota Access deployed bulldozers and began digging up the section of the pipeline route that contained possible native burial artifacts - widely viewed as an attempt to circumvent the lawsuit and make the pipeline inevitable. Protesters tried to stop the bulldozers, and there's video of private security responding with dogs and pepper spray.

Five days later, North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple activated the state National Guard "in the event they are needed to support law enforcement response efforts."

In October, protestors began occupying a portion of privately owned land just north of the reservation that lay directly in the pipeline's path. They've argued that this slice of land actually belongs to Native Americans under the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1851, signed between eight tribes and the US government - a treaty that was subsequently violated after Congress unilaterally took back territory over the years. "We have never ceded this land," said Joye Braun of the Indigenous Environmental Network in a statement.

The protestors on the private land say their demonstrations have been peaceful, featuring prayers and chants and drum circles. But local authorities have cracked down hard on these intrusions: On October 27, police used pepper spray, water cannons, and bean bags to push back the activists, arresting more than 141 people in all.

On November 21, the clashes took another violent turn as law enforcement officials used water cannons in subzero temperatures to beat back a crowd of 400 people. (The Morton County sheriff's office claimed that protestors had been setting fires.) According to the Guardian, at least 26 people were hospitalized - some with bone fractures, most with hypothermia.

What's the lawsuit over the pipeline all about?

While the protests rage on, there's also a court case winding through federal courts that could decide the ultimate fate of the pipeline. The case centers around the Army Corps of Engineers, the federal agency that typically approves interstate pipelines and provides permit for water crossings.

By law, any federal agency overseeing a construction project has to consult with native nations or tribes if there are places with "religious and cultural significance" nearby. (This is true even if those places are not explicitly part of a reservation - a recognition that many tribes have been forcibly relocated by the federal government and have had their lands taken over the years.)

In their complaint, filed on July 27, the Standing Rock Sioux argued that the Army Corps of Engineers handed out water permits too hastily and only consulted with the tribe on a narrow set of potential impacts. (The tribe ended up sitting out much of the consultation process in protest.) The tribe also argued that Dakota Access used out-of-state experts to survey the lands beforehand, and so missed a whole bunch of culturally significant archaeological discoveries along the pipeline's path.

You should read Robinson Meyer in the Atlantic for much more on the legal merits of the case. He argues that the Standing Rock Sioux have a reasonable case - the law is pretty clear that native nations or tribes need to be consulted extensively, in a "government-to-government" fashion. But it's far from clear they'll actually win.

This case is currently being heard by US District Judge James E. Boasberg, who was appointed to the federal bench by President Obama in 2011. It could take months to reach a resolution. So, in the meantime, the Standing Rock Sioux and the nonprofit Earthjustice had asked for an injunction to halt construction until a final decision.

On September 9, Boasberg denied that request for an injunction. You can read his reasoning here. He starts by setting the scene: "Since the founding of this nation, the United States' relationship with the Indian tribes has been contentious and tragic." But he then goes on to argue that the tribe "has not shown it will suffer injury that would be prevented by any injunction the Court could issue" and that the Army Corps "gave the Tribe a reasonable and good-faith opportunity to identify sites of importance to it."

Immediately after the injunction was denied, however, the Obama administration stepped in and ordered a stop to construction around Lake Oahe until the Army Corps of Engineers could revisit the disputes over this portion of the pipeline. "Furthermore," the Department of Justice, Department of Interior, and Department of the Army said in a letter, "this case has highlighted the need for a serious discussion on whether there should be nationwide reform with respect to considering tribes' views on these types of infrastructure projects."

What happens next for the pipeline?

On November 2, as protests continued, Obama issued another statement saying that the Army Corps "is examining whether there are ways to reroute this pipeline." He added: "[W]e're going to let it play out for several more weeks and determine whether or not this can be resolved in a way that I think is properly attentive to the traditions of the first Americans." (Here's a piece from E&E on whether rerouting the project is even possible - certainly it would cost developers millions of dollars.)

For now, the portion of the pipeline nearest the reservation remains in limbo and the legal battles will continue. As Earthjustice explains, the broader lawsuit against the pipeline is still moving forward - and may not get resolved before the end of 2016, at least. What's more, Dakota Access still must get one last bit of approval from the Army Corps of Engineers before digging on either side of Lake Oahe. On November 14, the Army Corps called for "additional discussion" with the Sioux before deciding to grant that final permit.

Looming over all of this, of course, is the specter of Donald Trump. The company behind the project, Energy Transfer Partners, has said that it fully expects Trump's administration to approve the pipeline come January. The company's CEO, Kelcy Warren, donated $100,000 to a Trump Victory Fund before the election. (Trump himself reportedly once held stock in Energy Transfer Partners worth over $500,000, though a spokesperson told the Washington Post he sold it off earlier this summer.)

Still, nothing's settled yet. And, in the meantime, protestors aren't backing down. Here's Dave Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux, in September: "We're going to continue to [fight this battle] as long as it takes to try and have this nation recognize the injustices that are being implemented on our nation."

Further reading:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The battle over the Dakota Access Pipeline, explained

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For months, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in North Dakota has been waging a pitched battle against a proposed oil pipeline that would run near their reservation - arguing that it would endanger both their water supplies and sacred sites. These protests have become a huge, huge story.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Cannonball, North Dakota, over 100 police with military equipment are advancing on a resistance camp established by Native American water protectors in the path of the proposed $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline. Photos and multiple videos posted to Facebook Live depict over 100 officers in riot gear lined up across North Dakota's Highway 1806, flanked by multiple mine-resistant ambush protected military vehicles (MRAPs), a sound cannon, an armored truck and a bulldozer. There have also been reports from water protectors that the police presence includes multiple snipers. Police appear to be evicting the camp in order to clear the way for the Dakota Access pipeline company to continue construction - which was active at times on Thursday just behind the police line.

Police advance towards blockade on Hwy 1806 to evict #OcetiSakowin from 1851 treaty land and pave way for the #DakotaAccessPipeline. #NoDAPL pic.twitter.com/VRQAGRdN10

- Unicorn Riot (@UR_Ninja) October 27, 2016

Happening now: 100+ Police in ND approaching #NoDAPL frontline resistance camp with multiple MRAPs, sound cannon, armored truck, bulldozer pic.twitter.com/QzqEhO4Kgk

- Democracy Now! (@democracynow) October 27, 2016

Cody Hall of Red Warrior Camp told Democracy Now! that behind the line of police, the Dakota Access pipeline company is carrying out construction with cranes and bulldozers on the sacred tribal burial site where on September 3, unlicensed Dakota Access security guards unleashed dogs and pepper spray against Native Americans.

PHOTO: Just behind militarized police line on Highway 1806 in North Dakota, Dakota Access pipeline company actively continues construction pic.twitter.com/CQgYXV3JGn

- Democracy Now! (@democracynow) October 27, 2016

Water protectors have set up a blockade of the highway using cars, tires and fire. Elders are also leading prayer ceremonies.

Happening now: #NoDAPL water protectors blockading highway 1806 with cars, tires & fire amid fears 100+ police about to raid resistance camp pic.twitter.com/GGwD8IRAK5

- Democracy Now! (@democracynow) October 27, 2016

Dallas Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network reported in a Facebook Live video posted just before 2 p.m. local time that police have begun arresting water protectors in the ongoing standoff. Sacheen Seitcham of the West Coast Women Warrior Media Cooperative told Democracy Now! police have used tasers against water protectors, and that she was hit with a concussion grenade.

The frontline camp sits directly in the proposed path of the Dakota Access pipeline on private property purchased recently by the Dakota Access pipeline company for $18 million. In establishing this frontline camp, water protectors cited an 1851 treaty, which they say makes the entire area unceded sovereign land under the control of the Sioux. Over the weekend, police arrested more than 120 people in a peaceful march to this site during which police deployed tear gas and used rubber bullets to shoot down drones the water protectors were using to document police activity.

Ahead of today's apparent police raid, the Federal Aviation Administration also issued a temporary no-fly zone for the airspace above the resistance camps for all aircraft except for those used by law enforcement. This order means Native Americans can no longer fly drones to document police activity, but the police can continue to fly their surveillance drones and helicopters.

The apparent police raid of the resistance camp comes only minutes before Standing Rock Sioux youth flooded the Hillary Clinton campaign headquarters in New York City to demand Clinton oppose the Dakota Access pipeline.

As police in ND seem poised to raid #NoDAPL camp, Standing Rock youth flood Clinton campaign HQ to demand she oppose Dakota Access pipeline pic.twitter.com/4ixgjiuGpk

- Democracy Now! (@democracynow) October 27, 2016

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Developing: 100+ Militarized Police Raiding #NoDAPL Resistance Camp Blocking Pipeline's Path

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Cannonball, North Dakota, over 100 police with military equipment are advancing on a resistance camp established by Native American water protectors in the path of the proposed $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"There's people being really hurt there... It's very scary and these people are just like us. We can't forget our humanity in the face of these kinds of things." Actor Mark Ruffalo makes an emotional appeal about authorities' response to the North Dakota pipeline protests http://cnn.it/2eS0uFI