This summer, we’ve seen the Bootleg fire rage through Oregon. East Coasters have been breathing West Coast smoke. Massive floods have slammed towns from Germany to China. The town of Lytton, British Columbia, burned to the ground.
These disasters give a new sense of urgency to transition away from the fossil fuels that are causing this climate chaos. That’s the good news. The bad news is that the movement fighting for this transition is running up against intense police repression — funded by private corporations as well as the federal government.
I saw some of this firsthand.
In June, I was one of the thousands who converged in northern Minnesota for the Treaty People Gathering to protest the Line 3 tar sands pipeline. Tar sands are one of the dirtiest and most carbon-intensive fuel sources on the planet. The pipeline also violates the treaty rights of the local Anishinaabe people, threatening their water supply and sacred wild rice beds.
The Treaty People Gathering kicked off a summer of protests against the pipeline. Unfortunately, these nonviolent protests have been brutally cracked down on. More than 500 protesters have been arrested or issued citations so far.
While I was there, demonstrators were hounded by a Border Patrol helicopter flying close to the ground, kicking up dust and disorienting protestors. Police attacked protesters with a Long-Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) and built a physical barricade outside a pipeline resistance camp on private property, preventing vehicle access.
Although the police claim to “protect and serve” the communities they work in, these confrontational, militarized responses would indicate the opposite. It’s disappointing, but not surprising — Enbridge, the pipeline operator, is directly funding many Minnesotan police departments.
The Line 3 construction permit requires Enbridge to create a “Public Safety Escrow Account” that allows Minnesota police to seek reimbursement for “services” including “maintaining the peace in and around the construction site.”
This incentivizes more arrests, as the police can bill Enbridge for any activity related to suppressing Line 3 resistance. The escrow account provides funding for police “personal protective equipment, ” which includes batons, shields, and gas masks. Police have also submitted invoices for tear gas grenades, tear gas projectiles, and bean bag rounds.
Funding police violence against nonviolent protests should cross a line. But it’s not just corporations — the federal government does it, too. The federal 1033 program transfers surplus military equipment to local police departments, free of charge.
This equipment has been repeatedly used by local police departments to violently suppress racial justice protests in places like Ferguson, Minneapolis, and Kenosha. The 1033 program also likely supplied the helicopters, assault rifles, excavators, and the mine-resistant armor-protected vehicle that violently suppressed the Standing Rock protests in 2016.
[image_caption]Shea Leibow[/image_caption]
The simultaneous occurrence of this summer’s intense climate-related weather events and this severe crackdown on anti-pipeline activists is deeply troubling.
The development of more fossil fuel infrastructure such as Line 3 will only worsen our climate catastrophe. But while the anti-pipeline movement is trying to save the planet, militarized, corporate-funded police forces are making that as difficult as possible.
In order to protect our environment, we must demilitarize the police. That means ending the 1033 program and getting corporate money out of police departments. The fate of our planet depends on it.
Shea Leibow is a Next Leader on the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies. This op-ed was distributed by OtherWords.org.
WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?
If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)
I don’t think this was the worst piece I have ever read on Minnpost, but its definitely up there.
Whether or not you support Line 3, it has obtained all of the regulatory approvals, beaten back the court challenges, and is now 2/3 done. It will get finished.
What exactly is the point of de-militarization of the police here? So that the protesters can stop the pipeline? So that they can trespass and break the law? If protesters chain themselves to construction equipment, should they not be arrested?
I am actually glad that Enbridge is paying for the security and not just leaving it to the taxpayers to foot the bill.
It is interesting to note the right side propaganda piece from Doug Loon at the MN C of C last week and now this one from the opposite end of the spectrum. All fine and dandy by me: Good for a lot of commenting opportunity. Ron, Dennis & Joe: Don’t you have a few fellow travellers you can entice to join in on the commenting? You guys are underrepresented.
MINN POST: Keep it up, a right / left balance is just fine. Just think of the commenting fun if a Katherine Kersten commentary made its way in here. As a sometimes visitor to the CAE and Powerline (well, not so much anymore as I have been banned for leftist extremism and improper respect for their founders) it is amazing the total echo chamber these folks live in: NO DISSENSION ALLOWED!
I believe we have a 50/50 political divide in the US and even with that, getting to 70/30 support on most specific issues is readily attainable. Dedicated to stopping this at all costs are the 5% at each end of the political spectrum who will give their everything to stopping anything with a hint of compromise: Cue Ms. Leibow and the easily offended Powerline Poohbahs.
I would say that this piece and the Loon piece are equally dishonest and poorly written. I don’t know that publishing garbage from the left and the right is something to celebrate. Its still all garbage.
Aww, C’mon Pat: It’s just disagreeable (In the extreme, proportionate to the positions they are trying to justify).
It would be fun if these guest commenters were STRONGLY ENCOURAGED to engage with the MINN POST commentariat: We’ll give you a forum, but you can’t run and hide afterwards.
Just think how much fun would have been had with Mr. Loon and maybe he would have been forced to agree with common sense and backtrack a little here and there.
As I have said before, the ability of public officials to spout stupid stuff and never have to defend and account for it in an intelligent and challenging forum is one of the biggest problems we have. Listen to any Ron DeSantis or Greg Abbott interview for proof.
Ms. Leibow favors denying often struggling and underfunded tribal governments the ability to gain surplus rescue equipment free of charge from the US government.
The above statement is true and shows how the 1033 program can be painted a lot of different ways. There are many controls on what can and can’t be accessed. It is a throw the baby out with the bathwater argument from Ms. Leibow.
A factual summary of the program:
https://www.dla.mil/DispositionServices/Offers/Reutilization/LawEnforcement/ProgramFAQs.aspx#q10
But heavy armored vehicles and automatic weapons do not appear to be excluded.
Then let’s exclude them: the rules have been changed before and can be again.
“But while the anti-pipeline movement is trying to save the planet, militarized, corporate-funded police forces are making that as difficult as possible.” S.L.
One of the most amazing statements ever incorporated on the pages of MinnPost.
I love it when I can find full agreement with Ron. It makes me feel, well, fair and balanced.
Saving the planet from fixing a leaky, failing, 60 year old pipeline running right between Leech Lake and Lake Winnibigosh with a new, reliable one avoiding those lake jewels in our state by 60 miles.
Who is saving the planet again?
So, in case you were wondering, the general populous has access to militarized weapons, and they do use them to kill people and police. So the point is what, police should use Kumbaya incense and soft music? Sorry that other folks corporations etc. have rights you don’t agree with, go change the laws. Personally, its not a police issue, its how we run America issue. And no I don’t agree with how we run America, but I’m only 1 of > 159 M voters each having their own opinion.
She doesn’t want the law enforced. This really has nothing to do with military equipment or who is paying the police. She wants the protesters to be able to stop the project. She is mad that the cops are enforcing the law at all.
Wow, you just scratch the surface and you find how committed so-called liberals can be to the military industrial complex, oppressive police regimes, corporate hegemony’ and state violence.
The legal outcome of this saga has not yet completely determined and this wouldn’t be the first time big project halted in the 11th hour. The idea that we can’t provide necessary equipment to tribal governments without giving armored cars and personnel carriers to our police forces is just a little whacky. And the fact that we are in a climate crises isn’t exactly secret nor controversial.
This isn’t the first example of de facto privatization of law enforcement, we’ve seen it before, and as responsible citizens and adults we should obviously examine that trend. I don’t see anything even controversial about Ms. Leibow’s observations here. If you don’t know why our militarized police regime has become a threat to the public and communities they’re supposed to be serving and protecting, you’re not just paying attention for the last 20 years or so. There’s nothing weird about Ms. Leibow linking the equipment and tactics being used to suppress peaceful protest to the federal program that promotes those tactics and provides the equipment.
And I hate to say, but if you think you’re going to save taxpayer money by letting corporations foot the bill for suppressing demonstrators now, and then skip the bill for environmental contamination and cleanup in the future… you’re giving them a great deal. The ROI on THAT investment is a no brainer from the corporate perspective.
Again Paul, this article isn’t really about militarization or funding. Its about the fact that police won’t let protesters shut down the project. Even if there was still a legal basis to stop Line 3, arresting protesters is irrelevant to that.
Pat, everything from the title of this article to the final paragraph is about military equipment and tactics being used to “protect” the pipeline project. There’s nothing controversial about this observation, we’ve seen this militarized response deployed against peaceful protesters countless times and routinely over the last couple of decades. All Ms. Leibow is doing here connecting that policy to environmental struggles and protests against this pipeline.
If you want defend the pipeline or it’s construction you’re free to do so, but you don’t get to mischaracterize Leibow’s article and then denounce an article she didn’t write.
Read this more carefully. She talks about the militarization, but its really just about stopping the pipeline. Its a really dishonest article.
If it was just taxpayer-funded cops using traditional tools, she still would be mad about the protesters being arrested.
I feel like something has been lost among protesters today. Civil rights protesters knew they were getting arrested and that was part of the deal. If you are going to block the work or chain yourself to equipment (which stretches the definition of peaceful protesting IMO) you should expect arrests, not be complaining about it.
Re: Mr Blaise: Indian tribes are not governed by state or local laws and are truly a different nation- we recognize that in the United States. Underfunding by casinos is yet another issue to look at and consider. Assuming the tribes contribute to the protest on one side and yet recognize they don’t pay state or local taxes- it’s complicated issue. One side of the coin is rights and the flip side is responsibility. He is right that we have serious limitations on the use of the military in a democracy. It is why Gov Walz can’t just send in army or guard forces without an invitation from local leaders.
I heard in June 2020 a police officer at Hamline Office say that the bulk of their “man-hours” were going to protests: to protect protesters, to protect anti-protesters, and to protect the community around them. I think protests can be an important constructive way to voice your opinion if nonviolent and perhaps they could put up a bond or hire their own protection as many of these organizations are VERY well funded. I get nervous every time I see protesters on our freeways fearing a tragedy and cringe at the safety for all involved- that takes a lot of resources from our community where we are severely short of officers. Crime in St Paul is off the charts vs just 4 years ago. It might be time to rethink funding of safety for protestors and the public- when it becomes violent the costs go up exponentially. Perhaps protesters need to have skin in the game to keep everyone safe?
How were the pipeline protesters funded? I didn’t see that in the article.
As the late Rep John Lewis said to the BLM folks in DC just prior to his death, violence will dilute your message. Stay nonviolent to be heard and to be relevant.
“Re: Mr Blaise: Indian tribes are not governed by state or local laws and are truly a different nation- we recognize that in the United States.”
They rightfully are allowed to participate in the 1033 program and eligible to request surplus items from the military. The point being it is a big list of stuff and to generalize it as all bad is backwards thinking. My comment of tribal governments being eligible for rescue equipment was correct.
Mr. Ratliff, tribes and tribal reservations are NOT completely sovereign nations. The US Supreme Court long ago established their status as “Dependent Sovereignty’s”. You can look that up on your own.
Sure, during periods of civil unrest a lot police resources are devoted to crowd control, but civil unrest happens for a reason. Common sense requires we examine the cause of civil unrest instead of merely reacting to it and complaining about the cost. This is one of prices we pay for living in a liberal democracy.
Having personally lived through the DAPL protests a few years ago, it is amazing to me how sophisticated and coordinated the efforts of the protestors can be. Between planned rushes on weak areas of protection, to sabotage of construction equipment. It appears that Law Enforcement learned from that experience and are being very proactive and not giving any ground on the line 3 project. Why shouldn’t law enforcement have the tools they need to do their job? In many cases the protestors are militarized in equipment and coordinated actions. The right to protests, does not imply in anyway that they can stop a project in its tracks. There is a legal system for that.
Actually a lot of the claims regarding organization and equipment emerged from sketchy police reports. For instance claims of “stashed” riot material turned out to be construction material and debris unrelated to the protests. Sure, cell phones provide some degree of coordination, but that skill set is typically exaggerated by police and government agents. You will note that police, and others continued to make fatuous claims that “Antifa” was organizing the riots, and before it was Antifa it was Anarchists. These claims have been thoroughly discredited for decades now. Law enforcements obsession with Anarchists and Antifa has been evidence driven.
Coordination and planning are nothing new to demonstrators, police don’t need military equipment to deal with it. It’s like anything else, you give someone equipment and they’ll use it, or make up reasons to use it. That doesn’t mean they have to have the equipment. And we can’t help but note that all that equipment didn’t keep the third precinct from being burnt down… a bunch of it ended up the hands of those who attacked the building.
Damn, I meant to say law enforcements obsession with Antifa an Anarchists has never been evidence driven. Sorry, I’m doing too many things at once.
“If it was just taxpayer-funded cops using traditional tools, she still would be mad about the protesters being arrested.”
Pat, mildly sophisticated conversations can have more than one subject matter. In this case the author is discussing a demonstration, and the police response to that demonstration. There’s nothing dishonest about that.
What is perhaps dishonest is you claiming to know what the author would or wouldn’t be “mad” about in a different scenario. Your psychic access to Ms. Leibow’s thoughts and emotions in a hypothetical alternate scenario hasn’t been established. Nowhere in this article does Ms. Leibow complain about simply being arrested, and your assumption those engaged in civil disobedience don’t accept or anticipate the possibility of arrest is a product of your own imagination or even hostility to their cause.
My experience with scenarios like this is that if police were simply arresting protestors, this article would be about the attempt to stop the pipeline, and the fact that people are willing to be arrested to stop it. Police tactics ONLY become an issue when they are unnecessarily violent or harmful. We’ve seen this everywhere from the Battle for Seattle to the Hiawatha Reroute, to Republican National Convention in St. Paul. I suspect many protestors here would tell you that they’d prefer arrest to being target by acoustic weapons or shot with tear gas canisters. It’s the militarized tactics, not merely the threat of arrest that form the basis of this article.
Well, she is talking about saving the world. And the threat to the world isn’t militarized privately funded cops. Its fossil fuels.
And if stopping tar sands were her priority she would be working to stop them in Fort MacMurray AL where they are extracted (and all the major oil companies have already given up) or working for Biden’s agenda that sticks billions of dollar into climate change measures and alternative energy. If supply is reduced and demand reduced, all Enbridge ends up with is a safe, unprofitable pipeline. If supply is increased and demand is increased and the new pipeline stopped, they push the old one to capacity, leading to more leaks and increase the number of oil trains.
But, going after supply and demand is nearly not as much fun as camping out in the Chippewa National Forest, wading in stream and rivers, singing songs around the campfire and hanging with friends. All the time being convinced that a 60 year old leaky pipeline in a more precarious route is more environmentally friendly than a shiny new one in a more environmentally friendly route.
Kum Bah Yah My Lord, Kum Bah Yah…
Edward, you do realize that there are climate and environmental activists all over the world, involved in multiple simultaneous demonstrations, law suits, and education campaigns right? You expect THIS woman to be everywhere doing everything… while you yourself do… what by the way?
YOUR solution is to compete with multinational oil companies in an attempt to manipulate supply and demand?
Look, if saving the planet is so easy why haven’t you guys done it?
Pat, if we assume that most of us are adults here, we can have a somewhat sophisticated conversation. We can talk about saving the planet AND talk about the tactics being used to marginalize and defeat those who are trying to save the planet. We can talk about fossil fuels, and talk about the pipelines we used to move fossil fuels around. If we talk about the massacre at Kent State for instance, that doesn’t mean we’re not or can’t be talking about the Viet Nam war.
This impulse to control the parameters of discourse and narrative is actually an expression of colonial and patriarchal mentalities. The idea that one is entitled to determine the “appropriate” content or subject matter being discussed reflects and impulse marginalize and restrict discourse. For instance, the idea that we can discuss global warming or fossil fuels but any discussion about how those subjects directly affect native people or their struggle to respond is beyond the bounds of conversation.
We’ve seen this a lot lately around here for some reason, from shoreline walking trails to police reform and rent control we’ve got these guys who keep telling us we’re off topic. It’s important to understand that this ISN’T literary criticism, it’s and expression of power and privilege. In each case we have people trying to suppress or marginalize conversations that are disruptive to a status quo that serves an elite. In this case we guys telling us that we can have one conversation but another, or we can talk about a subject, but only so long we talk about it the way they want to talk about it. Whatever.
I just think people should be honest about their arguments. This whole piece is based on conflating the idea of police militarization and stopping the construction. The lakeshore piece had a specious argument about racial covenants. My whole objection to rent control is that its actually harmful. These arguments don’t disturb the status quo or threaten the elites. They are just bad, ineffective arguments.