Why Did a Private Security Contractor Treat Standing Rock Protesters Like ‘Jihadists’?
During my week-long visit to Standing Rock in January 2017, I listened to many water protectors speak about the shady tactics used against them by private security contractors and local law enforcement to undermine their protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
I heard stories about DAPL security companies trying to infiltrate protest camps and instigate rifts between activists. I heard about organizers being followed and indigenous activists seeing planes, helicopters, and drones above their camp, surveilling their protests and recording their movements and activities at all hours.
I heard indigenous people describing their home being turned into a war zone. Local law enforcement agencies, led by the Morton County Sheriff’s Department, aggressively deployed militarized gear and weapons — designed for use in war — to intimidate peaceful protesters and violently crack down on a historic indigenous-led movement.
Now, these stories and testimonies have been confirmed by newly released documents, some of which were leaked to the by a contractor from TigerSwan — the security agency hired by the pipeline company, Energy Transfer Partners — to suppress the protests.
TigerSwan operates worldwide and specializes in armed conflict zones. According to the new revelations, the company utilized against anti-DAPL protests not just in North Dakota but in several other states as well, including South Dakota, Illinois, Iowa, and Texas. The documents reveal a security force whose theories are as Islamophobic as they are absurd: In just two examples, TigerSwan compares water protectors to insurgents and “jihadists” and references a “.” One leaked communication notes “the presence of additional Palestinians in the camp,” and it says that “the movement’s involvement with Islamic individuals is a dynamic that requires further examination.”
The has long been a problem, even before the protests in when the issue captured . In these documents, we see irrefutable evidence of the deployment of private military contractors to suppress legitimate and peaceful protests and activities. While the new documents may not provide enough detail to determine whether TigerSwan , its operations and reports are ominous and should deeply trouble all Americans.
The First Amendment’s guarantee of the “right of the people peaceably to assemble” cannot be reconciled with private military contractors deploying against peaceful protesters on domestic soil with little or no oversight or accountability. Their collaboration with federal, state, and local governments requires a credible and independent investigation.
Unfortunately, the current Department of Justice and Civil Rights Division, under the direction of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has demonstrated a deep hostility towards police accountability and reform. Even the limited actions taken by the Obama administration to curtail the militarization of American policing are in real jeopardy. A May 2015 report by The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing that:
Law enforcement agencies should create policies and procedures for policing mass demonstrations that employ a continuum of managed tactical resources that are designed to minimize the appearance of a military operation and avoid using provocative tactics and equipment that undermine civilian trust.
That month, a federal interagency working group issued to demilitarize state and local law enforcement pursuant to President Obama’s Executive Order 13688. The working group called for a prohibition of state and local law enforcement agencies from acquiring certain offensive military equipment, like tanks and bayonets. It put policies in place that governed the use of things like drones and mine resistant ambush protected vehicles (MRAPs). With Jeff Sessions not wanting the federal government “ to local police how to do their jobs,” it’s likely these policies will be soon be eliminated.
The militarization of American policing has also been internationally condemned by human rights bodies. Next week in Geneva, the U.N. special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association will present a on his 2016 visit to the United States, which harshly criticizes the militarized response of police to legitimate protests:
The Special Rapporteur is also concerned that it has become commonplace for police to respond to peaceful demonstrations with military-style tactics, full body armour, and an arsenal of weaponry suited more to a battlefield than a protest. While the Special Rapporteur is sensitive to police concerns that they must be properly equipped to deal with potential unlawful activity, he is convinced that the widespread militarization of police needlessly escalates tensions and provokes equally aggressive reactions. Protesters are not war enemies and should never be treated as such. It is ill advised to use military equipment to manage activities so fundamental to democratic societies.
The proliferation of militarized policing and the use of private security and military contractors since 9/11 and in the wake of U.S. wars overseas have disproportionately impacted communities of color and indigenous peoples, as we have witnessed in Ferguson, , , and . But these new revelations on the deployment of private security contractors — mercenaries, essentially — to suppress peaceful assemblies and legitimate organizing are especially concerning. They should make us all concerned about the future of militarized and private policing and the serious threats they present to our most fundamental freedoms and human rights.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.