The first shots of our next war have been fired.
The media and government claim they were non-lethal.

Now, while I am a peacenik hippie who would never take up a weapon again unless my life depended upon it, I do know quite a bit about the subject. Since I was 14, I've studied Military History. I started with WWII, specifically the Battle of Britain, and moved on to the classics of Von Clausewitz, Rommel, Patton and Grossman. I've read my Sun Tzu, and My Musashi, and I know the theories and practices. I also know when a war is happening.

Let's talk about war here. Specifically let's talk about Irregular Warfare.

An Irregular war differs from a regular war in that at least ONE side doesn't wear uniforms and has no easily identifiable chain of command. One side represents a nation state, and the other does not. They may represent an ethnic group, a community or an ideology, or even a non-governmental body, but they do not specifically represent a government that is recognized and a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

I will be referencing the Geneva Convention, because it is the touchstone for what governments currently consider "Legal" war.

What we have at this point is a governmental organization, attacking a non-governmental group, for the purposes of influencing their actions and resolving a conflict. This is quite nearly the textbook definition of an asymmetrical war. The fact that the water protectors are not fighting back is irrelevant and makes the state of war even more apparent. Asymmetrical war is NOT only exclusive to a guerilla force fighting against a government, and in fact is often referenced in history books as a government "Going to war against its own people."

The legal points of private property and minor points of disorderly conduct, etc., have been effectively put aside by the military actions of the government. Essentially, by ignoring and overriding all legal framework, the US government has declared a war against the people of the United States, enforced by the government, and supported by the government through their actions. It is no longer a matter of law enforcement, when the tactics currently in use are meant not to enforce laws, but to hurt, cripple and disperse the enemy in a disorderly manner. The ideal reaction to the Police tactics, to judge by the manner in which they are occurring, is that the protestors will flee the site, allowing the aggressors to occupy the territory. That is a military action. There is no emphasis on maintaining order, and the arrests that have occurred were carried out under the veneer of law, which have often been struck down. As a result arrests have been discontinued in favor of onsite Military justice. Namely: Defeating the enemy.

Now, let's be straightforward here. The Water Protectors DO fit the definition of a legal, irregular force. They do not attempt to hide or blend in with the populace at large. They do not engage in terror actions against the populace, since all of their actions have been direct. They simply have stated their opposition, and are being met with force. If the irregulars chose, they would be fully within their legal rights as an irregular force to respond to the military action in kind. The fact that they do not do this means that they are effectively showing that it is the US which is engaging in an illegal war against its own people. The actions used by the police include:

1. Use of Weapons which include weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering (Water cannons in subzero temperatures, Chemical weapons, LRAD devices which specifically are designed to cause suffering.)
2. Failure to Identify Oneself as a Legal Combatant. (By acting under the veneer of Law enforcement, the Police are committing a war crime, since they are operating in a military function.)
3. Terrorism. (Police actions against civilians not a part of the protest intended to cow and silence dissent)
4. Attack or Bombardment of Undefended Towns. (Water Protector settlement is an undefended non-military target.)
5. Seizure or Willful damage to Cultural Institutions. (Sacred Land. Seizure for a third party is still Seizure.)
6. Reprisals against Protected Persons. (Assassination falls under this category, as do attempts to target "Ringleaders" in order to end resistance.)
7. Breach of an Armistice. (Legal rulings against the aggressors have been ignored.)

Those are just the seven I came up with from a quick reread of the Geneva Convention.

Essentially, The Water Protectors would have more protections if they declared war against the United States, than the US will grant them under the 1st Amendment.

I find that absolutely horrifying.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJnVwAH-5K0]