Whales vs. National Security

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...ws-environment

A judge has ruled that the navy cannot use sonar off the coast of California. Not even for its mission training exercises.

President Bush says that it is necessary for national security for the navy to have mission training exercises.

Whales vs. national security. What do you think?

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...ws-environment

Here's a longer article on all the legal ins-and-outs of the issue. I wish I could show you the print version which has boxes of the timeline and a summary of the points of contention, along with a map of the area.

The training missions are between the naval base in San Diego and the island of Catalina, and points beyond. My assumption is that being near the naval base and the unusal conditions of the island, etc. are why they want this particular bit of ocean.

I find it incredibly arrogant of Bush to think he can rush in at the last minute and suspend the rule of law that been worked out over time.

Oct. 30, 2006 Navy submits plans to California Coastal Commision.

Jan. 10, 2007 The CC instructs the Navy to take additional steps to protect marine mammals

Feb. 12, 2007 The Navy declines to take additional safeguards.

Mar. 22, 2007 The CC and environmental groups file lawsuits

Aug. 7, 2007 Preliminary injunction issued against Navy

Aug. 31, 2007 Appeals court sets aside injunction, pending appeal

Nov. 13, 2007 Appellate judges reinstate injunction but instruct judge to spell out specific measures the Navy must take so it can hold the exercises.

Jan. 3, 2008 Narrowed injunction bans sonar use within 12 nautical miles of the coast and requires extensive monitoring for marine mammals and prompt shutdown of sonar if whales or other mammals come with 2,200 yards.

Jan. 15, 2008 President Bush and the White House Council on Environmental Quality move to exempt the Navy's exercises from the Coastal Zone Management Act and the National Environmental Proection Act. Justice Department lawyers file an emergency motion with U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, asking it to lift the injunction against the Navy exercises.

Jan. 16 The appeals court sends case back to lower court.

http://www.vcreporter.com/article.ph...7&IssueNum=159

Showing his usual disdain for both the constitution and the environment, President issued an Executive Order exempting the Navy from some of the court injunctions meant to protect marine mammals during Naval training missions.

It was a U.S. Federal Court judge. The president is not an absolute ruler. We're supposed to be a nation rule by law not a king or dictator who can overrule law.

Which ones contravened the rule of law?

I guess I'm dumber than you think I am because I don't see the relevance of EOs relating to the Kosovo War and an Executive Order whose aim is to circumvent a Federal Court injunction meant to protect an endangered species.

The Federal Court Judge listed specific restrictions on the use of sonar during the training missions to protect the marine mammals, but the naval didn't want to stick to them. The restrictions applied to one set of training missions.

My thinking is that they must be infrequent since the navy has to apply for the right to hold them each time. The original navy application was filed in Oct. 2006.

Well, yeah, I usually don't like Bush with good reason.

Giving the Dalai Lama the Congressional Medal of Honor was good, but usually I can't stand him.

In this case, my objection is the way he's using an executive order to run roughshod over the Endangered Species Act and endangering the lives of the marine mammals that need that environment to live and breed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...,2744773.story

The courts reject Bush's move to ignore its orders to protect the whales during navy training exercises.

To me this is a simple issue of whether the Navy should follow the laws of the land -- in this case environmental laws protecting sea mammals that are endangered species. These are federal laws.

They have been given guidelines by the courts on how they can hold their training exercises and stay within the laws to protect the sea mammals. The environmental groups have accepted these compromises.

Why isn't the Navy willing to make these compromises, save the lives of the sea mammals depending on them, and carry out their exercises?

The courts are not an environmental group. They have attempted to work out a compromise based on law.

Are you just against any efforts to save wildlife? Or are you just being contrary?

The ruling only affects this particular training exercise which is proposed to be held between the naval bases near San Diego and Catalina Island and beyond. It is guidelines for the Navy to follow to protect the whales during the exercises. It is things like having people watching to make sure whales don't swim into the territory during the exercises. If they do swim in, there are guidelines for how close they can come to the sonar being used before it must be closed down. There's more, but I'd have to check the articles.

The law only affects U.S. territorial oceans.

BTW one of the laws is the National Endowment Policy Act of 1969 which means it was signed by Richard Nixon. Nixon seems to have been more praqmatic than ideological about the environment. The Environmental Protection Agency was created in 1970 under his administration.

If this is a matter of national security so important that the whales cannot be protected, the Navy has not presented that information to the courts.

Douglas comment sounds more exasperated than whiney to me. Maybe because he expresses my confusion too.

"I don't know what it's going to take for the Navy to get it," Douglas said. "The courts have said over and over the Navy must follow the law."

Thank you for considering the issue in a reasonable way.