Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
60 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
House Approves Bill to Give Apache Lands to Foreign Corporation (Original Post) Faux pas Dec 2014 OP
K & R! joshdawg Dec 2014 #1
Can they actually do that? nt justiceischeap Dec 2014 #2
Are you surprised? staggerleem Dec 2014 #34
I was asking from a legal standpoint justiceischeap Dec 2014 #50
It's currently Federally owned land in a National Forest, so legally "yes" Recursion Dec 2014 #57
Thank you justiceischeap Dec 2014 #59
This is infuriating !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SamKnause Dec 2014 #3
Starting to? It's long past time. tblue Dec 2014 #30
Hopefully the senate will stop it. A Little Weird Dec 2014 #4
Depends on how soon the Senate votes brush Dec 2014 #7
Follow the money. staggerleem Dec 2014 #45
Ok I might be wrong but.. KinMd Dec 2014 #5
Relax... ReRe Dec 2014 #6
Let's keep our fingers crossed. nt brush Dec 2014 #8
It's attached to the NDAA. Jim Lane Dec 2014 #20
Yes, this has been a way to get the junk through for many years. What we need to hope for is that jwirr Dec 2014 #40
Yeah... ReRe Dec 2014 #54
No need to thank me for deepening your melancholy. I'm a lawyer, it's what I do. (n/t) Jim Lane Dec 2014 #58
Please sign this petition denbot Dec 2014 #9
What petition? Omaha Steve Dec 2014 #10
Added a link to my post denbot Dec 2014 #13
Done! geardaddy Dec 2014 #24
Done. Thanks. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #37
done..tweeted and facebooked. . .n/t annabanana Dec 2014 #41
Done n/t iscooterliberally Dec 2014 #52
Done! dflprincess Dec 2014 #56
du rec. xchrom Dec 2014 #11
McCain underpants Dec 2014 #12
Not his first theft against natives in AZ... freshwest Dec 2014 #42
Are there any minority packman Dec 2014 #14
SOVEREIGNTY turbinetree Dec 2014 #15
+1 !! exactly You 'd think they would play by their own rules(not when it gets in the way of greed!) lunasun Dec 2014 #17
The land in question is not Apache sovereign land hack89 Dec 2014 #44
Um, how about the "foreign corporation" part of this?? beerandjesus Dec 2014 #16
Yeah, where are the Patriots©? Oh, wait. Native Americans aren't 'American enough' for 'em. freshwest Dec 2014 #43
Geronimo gordianot Dec 2014 #18
Looked it up, it's not Apache land but National Forest that is sacred to them. dilby Dec 2014 #19
We need to emphasize this - This Land is Our Land. Woodie had it right years ago. jwirr Dec 2014 #36
+1! Enthusiast Dec 2014 #38
Here is the Forest Service environmental impact study with lots of details hack89 Dec 2014 #21
to those who needed something to vote for is this enough? belzabubba333 Dec 2014 #22
Those fug'n Republic0ns can't seem to get enough communities in this country angry with them. Stellar Dec 2014 #23
The rich know we are helpless to fight back effectively. L0oniX Dec 2014 #25
and the beat goes on heaven05 Dec 2014 #26
What's worse than a casino? Baitball Blogger Dec 2014 #27
Not all tribes have casinos. Are you sure this one does? jwirr Dec 2014 #33
I'm thinking about the expected results of the legal action which is likely Baitball Blogger Dec 2014 #35
There's no casino involved. This is not land owned by the tribe. Jim Lane Dec 2014 #46
So, they're breaking the deal with the Indians to hand over the land to a private interest. Baitball Blogger Dec 2014 #48
I don't know whether there was any deal with the tribe. Jim Lane Dec 2014 #53
I have given up thinking that these monsters can reach the bottom of their hatred, greed, stupdity, niyad Dec 2014 #28
Two words: War paint. Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2014 #29
The title is misleading dbackjon Dec 2014 #31
John McCain the traitor. Do the natives at least get the profits from the copper mines? Silly jwirr Dec 2014 #32
McCain will be an asshole till his dying breath. Enthusiast Dec 2014 #39
It's one of this country's great traditions... joeybee12 Dec 2014 #47
Once again the corporate plutocracy rules all. Damn them to hell!! Initech Dec 2014 #49
Journalism fucking sucks anymore joeglow3 Dec 2014 #51
to a British-Australian multinational metals and mining corporation? progressoid Dec 2014 #55
Perhaps a little perspective? Indydem Dec 2014 #60
 

staggerleem

(469 posts)
34. Are you surprised?
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 12:27 PM
Dec 2014

Like they've never done anything like this before?

What color is the sky on the planet you've been living on?

justiceischeap

(14,040 posts)
50. I was asking from a legal standpoint
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 04:30 PM
Dec 2014

I know the US government has historically screwed over the Native Americans.

There's this:

Federal Indian Trust
The federal Indian trust responsibility is a legal obligation under which the United States “has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest responsibility and trust” toward Indian tribes (Seminole Nation v. United States, 1942). This obligation was first discussed by Chief Justice John Marshall in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831). Over the years, the trust doctrine has been at the center of numerous other Supreme Court cases, thus making it one of the most important principles in federal Indian law.

The federal Indian trust responsibility is also a legally enforceable fiduciary obligation on the part of the United States to protect tribal treaty rights, lands, assets, and resources, as well as a duty to carry out the mandates of federal law with respect to American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages. In several cases discussing the trust responsibility, the Supreme Court has used language suggesting that it entails legal duties, moral obligations, and the fulfillment of understandings and expectations that have arisen over the entire course of the relationship between the United States and the federally recognized tribes.


Then this:

What is a federal Indian reservation?
In the United States there are three types of reserved federal lands: military, public, and Indian. A federal Indian reservation is an area of land reserved for a tribe or tribes under treaty or other agreement with the United States, executive order, or federal statute or administrative action as permanent tribal homelands, and where the federal government holds title to the land in trust on behalf of the tribe.


http://www.bia.gov/FAQs/

So my question is can the government legally do this? Is this land military, public or Indian?

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
57. It's currently Federally owned land in a National Forest, so legally "yes"
Wed Dec 10, 2014, 12:15 AM
Dec 2014

This strip is not part of an Apache reservation, though IIRC it abuts it (somebody closer to the ground can correct me on that).

SamKnause

(13,088 posts)
3. This is infuriating !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 10:22 AM
Dec 2014

I am really starting to hate our corrupt corporate owned government.

My country's government is an embarrassment.

The way my country's government bends over backwards for domestic and global corporations is criminal.

I have no respect for my country's government.

Will my country's government ever stop fucking over Native Americans ???



brush

(53,745 posts)
7. Depends on how soon the Senate votes
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 10:29 AM
Dec 2014

If it's after the new repug-run Senate takes over, fucking McCain and his bought-and-paid-for cronies will pass it.

 

staggerleem

(469 posts)
45. Follow the money.
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 02:35 PM
Dec 2014

I'm sure if one had access to a list of Granpappy McCain 's donors, one would find a substantial contribution from a certain British/Aussie copper mining company.

KinMd

(966 posts)
5. Ok I might be wrong but..
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 10:26 AM
Dec 2014

This Senate shouldn't pass it. I believe that since there's a new congress they'll have to do it over again. President Obama should veto it anyway.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
20. It's attached to the NDAA.
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 11:26 AM
Dec 2014

Whether or not Obama would veto a standalone bill, we see here the tactic that will be used over and over and over during the next two years. Some right-wing wishlist provision will be added as a rider to "must-pass" legislation. This will be done whether or not the rider is related to the subject of the bill.

Will Obama incur the bad press of vetoing the Defense Department authorization bill just because of some comparatively obscure provision that the vast majority of Americans don't care about? I've signed the petition but I'm not optimistic.

I'm even more pessimistic about what will happen on this and other issues down the road. It would be one thing for Obama to veto a defense bill because of extraneous stuff like this. It will be another thing if he's done it 37 times already. The Republicans will keep throwing this kind of thing at him, and if he keeps vetoing them all, then he'll painted as an irresponsible obstructionist. His position, a completely reasonable one, will be "Send me a clean bill and I'll sign it," but I don't know whether that will win the battle of public opinion.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
40. Yes, this has been a way to get the junk through for many years. What we need to hope for is that
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 12:39 PM
Dec 2014

it will not be just us libs that protest this but the people of this country. When Bundy was trying to steal our (WE the people) everyone got mad. Well John McCain and some foreign corporation are not trying the same play. We all need to stand up even if it means vetoing the must pass bill.

That senile old goat McCain needs to be voted out as soon as possible. In fact if he loves America at all he should resign.

ReRe

(10,597 posts)
54. Yeah...
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 10:24 PM
Dec 2014
Yeah, I forgot about stuff like that. The bad shit always comes thru via the backdoor, tacked on the tail end of bills that he "can't" veto. In that case, he still needs to veto it and stand up in front of the people and tell them exactly WHY he can't sign it. Yes, he needs to start asking for clean bills only. The past has to be dealt with. Just because it's the way corrupt Congressmen have written bills in the past, he has to stand up and say "No more unclean bills!"
But will he?
Thanks, Jim Lane, for reminding me. I'm half-melancholic at this point in or Corporate Police State.
 

packman

(16,296 posts)
14. Are there any minority
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 10:54 AM
Dec 2014

they (White, old men) won't screw over? Unbelievable. I sincerely hope the American Indian community and the American people rise up over this.

turbinetree

(24,685 posts)
15. SOVEREIGNTY
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 10:55 AM
Dec 2014

Maybe the right wing REPUBLICAN Congress had better re-learn and re-read the CONSTITUTION, they are so happy to invoke as there patriot dogma of hypocrisy since it is a continuation of there MANIFEST DESTINEY.


The FIRST NATION people of the country are a SOVEREIGN NATION, and we are to BE TREATED AS SUCH NO if or ands about it, you have to negotiate with US and if not it can be construed as an act of aggression

It's just like everything these a***holes do, NOTHING except for greed and they say they read and understand the CONSTITUTION, might as well use it as toilet paper, in fact it is toilet paper. just like everything else in this country.

I think its time that our people sold off the District of Columbia to a Foreign corporation, and all of the corrupt states ------oops that's already been done

lunasun

(21,646 posts)
17. +1 !! exactly You 'd think they would play by their own rules(not when it gets in the way of greed!)
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 11:13 AM
Dec 2014

then the constitution is just in the way of $$$$$$$$$

dilby

(2,273 posts)
19. Looked it up, it's not Apache land but National Forest that is sacred to them.
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 11:24 AM
Dec 2014

This is still horrible and everyone should be pissed, this is not only sacred land but it's our land as well that is being given away to a foreign corporation who will destroy public land all for profit.

Stellar

(5,644 posts)
23. Those fug'n Republic0ns can't seem to get enough communities in this country angry with them.
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 11:29 AM
Dec 2014

It would appear that they hate EVERYBODY but their own kind.

 

heaven05

(18,124 posts)
26. and the beat goes on
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 11:59 AM
Dec 2014

how really, really infuriating. this is america at this current time in history

Baitball Blogger

(46,684 posts)
27. What's worse than a casino?
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 12:01 PM
Dec 2014

I'm sure that the terrific US legislation will come up with some other terrible idea to mitigate the damage.

Baitball Blogger

(46,684 posts)
35. I'm thinking about the expected results of the legal action which is likely
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 12:28 PM
Dec 2014

to come out of this move. It's obvious that the Apache tribe will suffer damages.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
46. There's no casino involved. This is not land owned by the tribe.
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 02:38 PM
Dec 2014

Land sacred to the tribe is currently protected as part of a national forest. They can go there for their rituals, which don't adversely affect the land.

The proposal is to trade that land to the corporation in exchange for some land somewhere else. The corporation will then use the newly acquired parcel for its sacred purposes, i.e. the pursuit of profit (in this case, through mining), which will exclude the Native Americans from the area and also wreak environmental harm.

Baitball Blogger

(46,684 posts)
48. So, they're breaking the deal with the Indians to hand over the land to a private interest.
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 04:13 PM
Dec 2014

Still stinks. I live in Florida where years back there was a controversy when the county, (controlled by good-ole boys and gals), attempted to swap public lands for private ones. The private ones were actually wetlands, where minimal construction or recreation would be allowed.

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
53. I don't know whether there was any deal with the tribe.
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 06:31 PM
Dec 2014

Whether there was a deal or not, however, the importance of public access to a particular parcel is certainly a factor to be considered, whether the access is used for scenic value or religious purposes or whatever.

niyad

(113,098 posts)
28. I have given up thinking that these monsters can reach the bottom of their hatred, greed, stupdity,
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 12:13 PM
Dec 2014

and crass ignorance. apparently, there is no bottom.

 

dbackjon

(6,578 posts)
31. The title is misleading
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 12:21 PM
Dec 2014

It is National Forest Land, that is close to a sacred spot of the Apaches.

No actual reservation land is being traded.



that being clarified, this is something that I have been fighting for years. Oak Flat is one of my favorite areas. To destroy it is criminal.


And to do it in this matter is treason.

jwirr

(39,215 posts)
32. John McCain the traitor. Do the natives at least get the profits from the copper mines? Silly
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 12:25 PM
Dec 2014

question. Of course not.

 

joeybee12

(56,177 posts)
47. It's one of this country's great traditions...
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 02:39 PM
Dec 2014

Screwing over Native Americans...so hey, why stop now?

 

joeglow3

(6,228 posts)
51. Journalism fucking sucks anymore
Tue Dec 9, 2014, 04:36 PM
Dec 2014

The title VERY clearly conveys the idea that the Federal government is seizing sovereign land handing it over (just look at the responses here). That is NOT the case.

Now, I agree we should be upset and the point of the article is valid, but I am sick and fucking tired of lazy "journalists" who just lie to make their agenda seem stronger.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»House Approves Bill to Gi...