Amazon tribe attacks oilfield in Ecuador

[Jarhyn]

Except that this is not what such people do, nor is it correct on it's face. Instead of doing the whole 'working to correct the law' thing, which is what you seem to think people have an obligation to do, you and others fight for the law as it is. There is a fight by conservatives for the status quo. Not only that the things done are legal, but no acknowledgement to state that such things SHOULD NOT be legal.

It was legal for many people to do many awful things throughout history and the only thing that changed that in the face of such 'slippery' assholes, crusading for the rule of law as a proxy for the rule of unjust law, was the wholesale and illegal and entirely justified revolution against those unjust laws.

Revolution and rebellion is just when the laws are not. Anyone supporting the injustice needs to be led, pulled, bent, or broken to follow what is right, and to call that is right 'the law'.

If a revolution or rebellion successfully brings about a different law, then that's all fine and well; that law, then, will mark the basis for accountability. If, however, the revolution or rebellion fails to alter the laws to which are demanded of us to obey, then I expect to be held accountable for my actions, and I expect anyone illegally leading, pulling, bending, or breaking another to be held accountable for their actions as well.

A judge once said he doesn't care about right and wrong; only about what is legal and what is not. So, fight for what's right, or fight to maintain a morally corrupt status quo ... either way, don't he dare hold one accountable for immoral yet legal deeds, and may the righteous lawbreaker suffer.

I expect for slippery assholes who legally act within the confines of the law to be held harmless, and I expect victims of immoral yet legal deeds to suffer the wrath and might of the prevailing legal system.

If someone kills my loved one, and if I'm sitting behind him in a courtroom, I will have no qualms being held accountable for my subsequent disobedience of the law, and when someone tresspasses because they have no where to go, I expect them to be held legally accountable.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like my view, but whether you're doing wrong under the cover of darkness or doing right in the bright of day, you're going to suffer the consequences if you get caught breaking the law, so so long as you and I are going to pay, and since the judge don't care about right and wrong, may as well enjoy the irony of the scum that win and the good folk that lose.

PS: don't hold me to all that; I'm just upset with a woman at the moment.

I'll respect you in any measure when you fight both for the rule of law and fight to change the law. Same as I will respect Derec or Dismal or Max. Until then, i can't respect them, because they care more for what is legal and convenient than what is right, but painful. 'Fuck you, I got mine'.

 

[fast]

If a revolution or rebellion successfully brings about a different law, then that's all fine and well; that law, then, will mark the basis for accountability. If, however, the revolution or rebellion fails to alter the laws to which are demanded of us to obey, then I expect to be held accountable for my actions, and I expect anyone illegally leading, pulling, bending, or breaking another to be held accountable for their actions as well.

A judge once said he doesn't care about right and wrong; only about what is legal and what is not. So, fight for what's right, or fight to maintain a morally corrupt status quo ... either way, don't he dare hold one accountable for immoral yet legal deeds, and may the righteous lawbreaker suffer.

I expect for slippery assholes who legally act within the confines of the law to be held harmless, and I expect victims of immoral yet legal deeds to suffer the wrath and might of the prevailing legal system.

If someone kills my loved one, and if I'm sitting behind him in a courtroom, I will have no qualms being held accountable for my subsequent disobedience of the law, and when someone tresspasses because they have no where to go, I expect them to be held legally accountable.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like my view, but whether you're doing wrong under the cover of darkness or doing right in the bright of day, you're going to suffer the consequences if you get caught breaking the law, so so long as you and I are going to pay, and since the judge don't care about right and wrong, may as well enjoy the irony of the scum that win and the good folk that lose.

PS: don't hold me to all that; I'm just upset with a woman at the moment.

I'll respect you in any measure when you fight both for the rule of law and fight to change the law. Same as I will respect Derec or Dismal or Max. Until then, i can't respect them, because they care more for what is legal and convenient than what is right, but painful. 'Fuck you, I got mine'.

Now you're making me think. I'd have to occasionally set aside my own wants and fight for what I don't want--all to make this a better world to live in. I'd have to be less self-centered and care more about what I genuinely believe in heart of hearts to be the right thing. Who knows, maybe a few doses of compassion pills might even have me looking for leniency for those who acted wrongly when no reasonable alternative was present. I don't know. That's a bit much. They had and used guns. They hurt people. They can't get away scott free. Sympathetic, a wee bit, I guess, but we can't faulter too much just because they've been wronged ... If they have been--just assuming there a bit.

 

[Jarhyn]

I'll respect you in any measure when you fight both for the rule of law and fight to change the law. Same as I will respect Derec or Dismal or Max. Until then, i can't respect them, because they care more for what is legal and convenient than what is right, but painful. 'Fuck you, I got mine'.

Now you're making me think. I'd have to occasionally set aside my own wants and fight for what I don't want--all to make this a better world to live in. I'd have to be less self-centered and care more about what I genuinely believe in heart of hearts to be the right thing. Who knows, maybe a few doses of compassion pills might even have me looking for leniency for those who acted wrongly when no reasonable alternative was present. I don't know. That's a bit much. They had and used guns. They hurt people. They can't get away scott free. Sympathetic, a wee bit, I guess, but we can't faulter too much just because they've been wronged ... If they have been--just assuming there a bit.

Of course no faultering is allowed. Because non-adherence to strict rule of law and the status quo would be to admit that you are a terrible person, and that you need to change.

The use of guns is irrelevant though. It may be hard and make you sad and frustrated at times, but the bloodlust for 'justice' is just ape revenge instincts kicking in. When you learn to put that aside and think about other things like corrections and a better tomorrow, you start to be a genuinely happier person*.

Ps: don't hold me to the declaration that you yourself are terrible. I am both hung over AND sick. Hence me being so angry and acerbic. Also, why I have nothing better to do today.

*unless you're sick and hung over.

 

[arkirk]

I ain't dismal.

It looks like the only thing you regularly support is oil extraction...

In general.

even if it is done under a commie pinko government...as long as it isn't Venezuela.

I object to many things in Venezuela - currency controls, price controls, crackdown on dissenters and on free media. But I have never objected to them extracting oil. As a matter of fact, one thing where I criticized Venezuela is that they divert too much oil revenue toward the social programs leaving necessary investments unfunded which led to reduction of their oil production capacity. Which now bites them in the ass even more when they get far less money per barrel.

Fossil fuel extraction in Ecuador has created huge dead zones, polluted with crude oil where people can no longer live.

Citation needed.

Indigenous people are displaced with a paperwork fiction and at some point, when they get desperate enough they attack. I know you would not understand this because you refuse to consider other peoples' lifestyles and ways of life.

It's not that I do not consider other people's lifestyles, it's that I do not think certain kinds of lifestyles should be privileged over others just by calling them "indigenous".
Ecuador's Last Uncontacted Tribes Face the Familiar Promise of Jungle Oil
This is an article from last year on the issue of oil developments and the Hourani tribe. The author is opposed to oil developments and it shows, but what comes through is that most Hourani seem to have embraced the fruits of oil development. Parts of the article read like the "What have the Romans ever done for us" bit. The opposition seems to come as much from "traditionalists" detesting people embracing outside things than anything else.

The feeling isn't mutual. The next morning, an hour before I am set to leave Guiyero, Luis Ahua, and a group of older Huaorani pull me aside.

“You wanted to know about the violence?” he asks. “I’m ready to talk about the violence. I’m ready to talk about war.”

For months, he tells me, he and others in his tribe have been stockpiling spears and ammunition. They have been stockpiling oil. They’ve worked on a new formula for their blow darts that can kill a person in a matter of minutes. They are, he says, waiting for a time to use it.

“An attack,” he says. “On an oil rig.”

Earlier in the day, a Huoarani woman named Weya Cahuiya, who is a representative with one of the tribe's few organized groups, the Nacionalidad Waorani de Ecuador, leaned against a concrete house and, with reggaeton blasting in the background, told me they’re fed up.
“We live in the jungle. We don’t need concrete houses, we need typical Huaorani houses. The government tells us we need education, but we need Huaorani education,” she said. “Before, we lived with clean trees, with clean air to breathe, with clean water. This is not our music, this is not our dance, this is not our language, this is not our food."

I wonder if this Louis fellow was among the attackers captured.

Expropriation of Indian lands for oil exploitation is a worldwide phenomenon...

Surely only the Americas and India, not worldwide.

just like the pollution and global warming it causes.

Well we still need the oil to run the global economy. Attacking a minor field is certainly not going to change the demand side.

This friction between the pumpers and the locals is in every country of any size. You are so quick to assume the oil guys are always right.

No, the "oil guys" are not always right. But armed bandits attacking an industrial facility are almost always wrong.
Besides, as can be seen in North America, Indians are always against projects like these. Canadian Indians are against tar sands projects. Sioux are against the Keystone XL. Shoshones are against gold mines. Apaches are against the Mt. Graham observatory even.

- - - Updated - - -

Didn't Derec make some sort of oil fortune at one point?

I wish!

Derek: Your posts generally are indistinguishable from those of Dismal. You apparently are unaware of all the troubles in the ME and Africa or you wouldn't deny that there is always friction between locals and the oil pumpers. The truth is they don't have to be indigenous to oppose big oil companies either.

For your information Equador just won a major lawsuit against Chevron for massive pollution in Equador.

You either should read or go on line or get out and about more and you would be aware of the worldwide problems caused by oil, coal, and natural gas exploitation. I do not feel I should do all your research for you, so just look and you won't have to look too far and you will see the fossil fuel industry and its greedy leaders are breeding all sorts long term problems for short term profits. Have a chat with the Pope about it.

As for the right to drill. There is no right to drill in a lot of the world, Derek. The permits various nations give for this activity are really fictitious claims of authority anyway. People who are raking in oil and coal profits really hate to let even a little bit of it go for human welfare and prefer to stick with the principles of "laws" that favor them, not wanting to modify them even when they obviously run afowl of human decency. The indigenous peoples are those people you feel free to discriminate against in favor of oil drillers.

Your remarks about the Shoshones is telling that you have no acquaintance with large scale strip mining and cyanide processing of low grade ores. The Shoshones and all sensible people understand that gold is not worth poisoning any more land.

 

[DBT]

Nope, they are violently attacking an oil field.
Do you think Indians in US should have the right to attack oil fields as well?

The oil fields are on their home ground, why should indigenous people not have the right to defend their own territory?....does America (or any national Gov.) not have the right, for instance, to defend US territory from foreigners who trespass into US territory?

 

[Derec]

The oil fields are on their home ground, why should indigenous people not have the right to defend their own territory?....does America (or any national Gov.) not have the right, for instance, to defend US territory from foreigners who trespass into US territory?

Except that the territory is a) part of Ecuador and b) this was done by 6 thugs and not by the tribal government even if you want to equate an Indian tribe with a "national government".

Do you think a small group of disgruntled Americans would be ok attacking foreign companies simply because they dislike them being there?

 

[DBT]

The oil fields are on their home ground, why should indigenous people not have the right to defend their own territory?....does America (or any national Gov.) not have the right, for instance, to defend US territory from foreigners who trespass into US territory?

Except that the territory is a) part of Ecuador and b) this was done by 6 thugs and not by the tribal government even if you want to equate an Indian tribe with a "national government".

Do you think a small group of disgruntled Americans would be ok attacking foreign companies simply because they dislike them being there?

The article suggests otherwise:

''However Franco Viteri, head of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon (CONAIE), is calling for the men to be released, arguing that they were defending their traditional territory from incursions by oil companies, which have caused substantial damage to forests and indigenous communities in eastern Ecuador in recent decades.

"For 40 years, oil companies, with the consent of the State, have been smashing, looting and sabotaging the good life of indigenous peoples, disrupting the lifestyle of the Waorani people, a situation that has... escalated conflicts," he said in a statement.''

 

[Derec]

Derek: Your posts generally are indistinguishable from those of Dismal.

I'll take that as a compliment. That said, you know what is not indistinguishable? Our handles - except for the first letter they are very different.

You apparently are unaware of all the troubles in the ME and Africa or you wouldn't deny that there is always friction between locals and the oil pumpers. The truth is they don't have to be indigenous to oppose big oil companies either.

I think it is very difficult not to have some friction. There are some people who will oppose development no matter what. So I wasn't denying that it happens at all - I just do not think that justifies attacking oil fields.

For your information Equador just won a major lawsuit against Chevron for massive pollution in Equador.

Since Ecuadoran government got 95% of the Lago Agrio revenues they should carry 95% of any cleanup responsibility. That said, this case has been going back and forth for a while now. You'll have to be more spefic what decision you are referencing here.
I do not think that that case has anything to do with the attacked oil field.

You either should read or go on line or get out and about more and you would be aware of the worldwide problems caused by oil, coal, and natural gas exploitation. I do not feel I should do all your research for you, so just look and you won't have to look too far and you will see the fossil fuel industry and its greedy leaders are breeding all sorts long term problems for short term profits. Have a chat with the Pope about it.

Sorry, but do you drive a car? Buy groceries delivered to the store by diesel burning trucks, cultivated by diesel burning farm equipment etc? Does your computer (not to mention all the network equipment between your ISP and talkfreethought.org servers) run on electricity generated by natural gas?
Yes, there are negatives associated with oil and gas production. And sometimes those negatives are more than necessary which should be rectified. But the tremendous benefits humanity gains from oil and gas in general outweighs the problems.

As for the right to drill. There is no right to drill in a lot of the world, Derek. The permits various nations give for this activity are really fictitious claims of authority anyway.

Huh?

People who are raking in oil and coal profits really hate to let even a little bit of it go for human welfare and prefer to stick with the principles of "laws" that favor them, not wanting to modify them even when they obviously run afowl of human decency. The indigenous peoples are those people you feel free to discriminate against in favor of oil drillers.

I do not want to discriminate against anyone. Saying that they do not have the right to attack oil fields is not "discriminating" against the so-called "indigenous" people.

Your remarks about the Shoshones is telling that you have no acquaintance with large scale strip mining and cyanide processing of low grade ores. The Shoshones and all sensible people understand that gold is not worth poisoning any more land.

Yeah, it's an industrial process but that doesn't in itself make it evil. All I see is a lot of hysteria just like with Keystone and Mt. Graham telescopes.

 

[Derec]

The article suggests otherwise:

''However Franco Viteri, head of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon (CONAIE), is calling for the men to be released, arguing that they were defending their traditional territory from '

He's an activist. What do you expect? I can't believe people on here are seriously defending thugs attacking oil fields just because they are Indian.

 

[Jarhyn]

The article suggests otherwise:

''However Franco Viteri, head of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon (CONAIE), is calling for the men to be released, arguing that they were defending their traditional territory from '

He's an activist. What do you expect? I can't believe people on here are seriously defending thugs attacking oil fields just because they are Indian.

No. We defend people defending their historic homes from being destroyed by a company and government that refuses to let them live in peace there. It has nothing to do with whether they are indigenous or not and everything to do with the fact that Ecuador is taking everything they have and giving them nothing back. They said 'no' to the development. I suppose you also support the trail of tears and the theft of New York?

 

[Axulus]

Except that the territory is a) part of Ecuador and b) this was done by 6 thugs and not by the tribal government even if you want to equate an Indian tribe with a "national government".

Do you think a small group of disgruntled Americans would be ok attacking foreign companies simply because they dislike them being there?

The article suggests otherwise:

''However Franco Viteri, head of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon (CONAIE), is calling for the men to be released, arguing that they were defending their traditional territory from incursions by oil companies, which have caused substantial damage to forests and indigenous communities in eastern Ecuador in recent decades.

"For 40 years, oil companies, with the consent of the State, have been smashing, looting and sabotaging the good life of indigenous peoples, disrupting the lifestyle of the Waorani people, a situation that has... escalated conflicts," he said in a statement.''

If the companies are violating some law, shouldn't this be grounds for a lawsuit? If this is not illegal, then the tribal governments are engaging in an act of war, and thus the prisoners are prisoners of war until the war is resolved.

- - - Updated - - -

He's an activist. What do you expect? I can't believe people on here are seriously defending thugs attacking oil fields just because they are Indian.

No. We defend people defending their historic homes from being destroyed by a company and government that refuses to let them live in peace there. It has nothing to do with whether they are indigenous or not and everything to do with the fact that Ecuador is taking everything they have and giving them nothing back. They said 'no' to the development. I suppose you also support the trail of tears and the theft of New York?

This is what a court system is designed to resolve, if there is in fact theft going on and property being destroyed as claimed.

 

[Axulus]

The article suggests otherwise:

''However Franco Viteri, head of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon (CONAIE), is calling for the men to be released, arguing that they were defending their traditional territory from '

He's an activist. What do you expect? I can't believe people on here are seriously defending thugs attacking oil fields just because they are Indian.

Don't forget that leftist morality revolves around oppressor/oppressed dynamics. One group is the oppressor (defined as the group with more power), one is the oppressed (defined as the group with less power). Anything the oppressed group does against the oppressor is by default fair game and to be supported.

 

[DBT]

The article suggests otherwise:

''However Franco Viteri, head of the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of the Ecuadorian Amazon (CONAIE), is calling for the men to be released, arguing that they were defending their traditional territory from incursions by oil companies, which have caused substantial damage to forests and indigenous communities in eastern Ecuador in recent decades.

"For 40 years, oil companies, with the consent of the State, have been smashing, looting and sabotaging the good life of indigenous peoples, disrupting the lifestyle of the Waorani people, a situation that has... escalated conflicts," he said in a statement.''

If the companies are violating some law, shouldn't this be grounds for a lawsuit? If this is not illegal, then the tribal governments are engaging in an act of war, and thus the prisoners are prisoners of war until the war is resolved.

My understanding is that governments tend to care more for the revenue they get from oil, timber and other natural resources, than they do for quality of life for indigenous people and their own control of traditional homeland.

 

[Axulus]

If the companies are violating some law, shouldn't this be grounds for a lawsuit? If this is not illegal, then the tribal governments are engaging in an act of war, and thus the prisoners are prisoners of war until the war is resolved.

My understanding is that governments tend to care more for the revenue they get from oil, timber and other natural resources, than they do for quality of life for indigenous people and their own control of traditional homeland.

Is there evidence that the court system is corrupt and not independent in Ecuador? If not, the courts are supposed to settle disputes in accordance with the law. What kind of agreement does the Ecuadorian government have with the indigenous people in regards to this case? I find it hard to believe that there is no prior case law or agreements to settle this matter.

 

[DBT]

My understanding is that governments tend to care more for the revenue they get from oil, timber and other natural resources, than they do for quality of life for indigenous people and their own control of traditional homeland.

Is there evidence that the court system is corrupt and not independent in Ecuador? If not, the courts are supposed to settle disputes in accordance with the law. What kind of agreement does the Ecuadorian government have with the indigenous people in regards to this case? I find it hard to believe that there is no prior case law or agreements to settle this matter.

Corrupt or simply acting in their own interest, the evidence is that indigenous people are marginalized by those in power. History proves that.

 

[Axulus]

Is there evidence that the court system is corrupt and not independent in Ecuador? If not, the courts are supposed to settle disputes in accordance with the law. What kind of agreement does the Ecuadorian government have with the indigenous people in regards to this case? I find it hard to believe that there is no prior case law or agreements to settle this matter.

Corrupt or simply acting in their own interest, the evidence is that indigenous people are marginalized by those in power. History proves that.

That they are many times marginalized. Not always. In the present day, the US has legally binding agreements with the Native Americans. Australia has legally binding agreements with its Aborigines. Canada has legally binding agreements with its First Nations tribes. While discrimination may still exist, there is legal recourse for these parties to remedy any laws broken against them. Is the same true in Ecuador?

 

[DBT]

Corrupt or simply acting in their own interest, the evidence is that indigenous people are marginalized by those in power. History proves that.

That they are many times marginalized. Not always. In the present day, the US has legally binding agreements with the Native Americans. Australia has legally binding agreements with its Aborigines. Canada has legally binding agreements with its First Nations tribes. While discrimination may still exist, there is legal recourse for these parties to remedy any laws broken against them. Is the same true in Ecuador?

Your examples are not comparable.

Ecuador

''On January 21, 2000, the international community was caught by surprise when Ecuador became the stage of the first Latin American coup-d'etat in over a decade. Many in Ecuador are calling the event a "levantamiento popular" (popular uprising) rather than a "coup," given it was led by a indigenous-military coalition with widespread popular support in the economically embattered nation.

Ecuador's indigenous population (over 4.5 million, or 45 percent of the country's total population) is made up of twelve nations, the Quichua being the largest. They have engaged in a very successful national movement with roots in a 1990 uprising, and are organized under the umbrella Indigenous Nationalities Confederation of Ecuador (CONAIE). The CONAIE has defined an economic and political plan that calls for the creation of a multinational state that recognizes the autonomy and rights of the twelve indigenous nations. They also demand the right to land ownership and agrarian reform.''

''January's uprising briefly toppled the government, replacing President Jamil Mahuad with a three-man junta. However, bowing to pressure from the U.S., after less than a day the junta handed power over to former vice president Gustavo Noboa Bejarano. Noboa quickly dismissed the uprising as "buffoonery," pledging to restore "law and order" and to continue the unpopular dollarization process of his country's currency.''

 

[Frikki]

He's an activist. What do you expect? I can't believe people on here are seriously defending thugs attacking oil fields just because they are Indian.

Don't forget that leftist morality revolves around oppressor/oppressed dynamics. One group is the oppressor (defined as the group with more power), one is the oppressed (defined as the group with less power). Anything the oppressed group does against the oppressor is by default fair game and to be supported.

Don´t forget rightists care for property rights unless property is being taken from brown people.

 

[tupac chopra]

3,200 bbl/day seems like a really low production oilfield unless it's a typo or something.
That said, I see no possible grounds for the "indigenous" leaders demanding those criminals' release. They are violent criminals and should go to prison for a long time.

There used to be a time when Americans believed in due process and that everyone deserved to be tried in a court. We all know that is no longer the case.
When did this change Derec?

 

[Derec]

There used to be a time when Americans believed in due process and that everyone deserved to be tried in a court. We all know that is no longer the case.
When did this change Derec?

Is there any doubt, much less reasonable doubt, as to their guilt? Of course they should be tried in a court and given due process. But given the fact that they were caught red-handed attacking an oil field any kimpartial court will find them guilty.
On the other hand, the pro-Indian side doesn't believe they should be tried in court and think they should be released no matter what they did. Does that seem more "American" to you?

- - - Updated - - -

Don´t forget rightists care for property rights unless property is being taken from brown people.

Evidence that any property was illegally taken from the six attackers? Much less because they are "brown people"? Or that the people taking it weren't "brown" also?