It's bound to be overlooked by the media at-large in large part due to the Iowa caucuses, but a court ruling that burdens the U.S. Navy with yet another environmentally-driven restriction was handed down from a federal district court judge yesterday. That judge, the Hon. Florence-Marie Cooper, is a Clinton appointee, a fact unreported by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Robert McClure (emphasis mine):
A federal judge forbade the Navy on Thursday from using a powerful form of sonar within 12 miles of the California coast and slapped other restrictions on naval war exercises in a ruling that could have repercussions in the Pacific Northwest.
U.S. District Judge Florence Marie-Cooper [sic] said noise from the Navy's midfrequency sonar far outstrips levels at which federal rules require ear protection for humans on the job. Whales' hearing is extremely sensitive.
"The court is persuaded that the (protection) scheme proposed by the Navy is grossly inadequate to protect marine mammals from debilitating levels of sonar exposure," Marie-Cooper wrote in her ruling.
The Navy offered to reduce the sonar's intensity when whales approached within about 1,100 yards and power down further before shutting the sonar off when the creatures got within 200 yards. The judge ordered sonar shut off when marine mammals are within 2,200 yards.
By the Navy's own estimate, it would harass or harm marine mammals, as prohibited by the Endangered Species Act, about 170,000 times, the judge said. The Navy said the series of 14 exercises would temporarily deafen whales 8,000 times and cause permanent injuries in more than 400 cases.
Environmental groups, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, brought suit as part of a campaign to rein in sonar use, which they contend violates several federal laws. They had sought a ban on naval exercises out to 25 miles from shore.
The Navy argued that it must train sailors against a new generation of quiet submarines that can't be detected by traditional "passive" sonar, but are picked up by the midfrequency version.
The service said exercises off Southern California are important because they give sailors training around undersea mountain ranges like those where they might chase subs elsewhere in the world.
[end excerpt]
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Judge Florence
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 10:08 ET by allanfSo let me understand this. According to Judge Florence, the Navy cannot use its sonar to seek out infiltrators such as al-Qaeda agents within 12 miles of the US Coast? Or it cannot use its sonar to ensure safe navigation?
Ladies and Gentleman all hail Commander in Chief Judge Florence.
May I suggest to Judge Florence that she also permanently enjoin (under the same logic) the United States Armed forces from ever detinanting a nuclear device - and enjoin the President of the United States from ordering a nuclear detonation.
Another court decision bound for the ash help of silliness.
Actually...
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 10:20 ET by SyriusAl,
This wasn't a Naval operation off the coast to find
Al-Qaeda. I think that's the Coast Guard's mission, to protect our
shores.
The Navy has been using a special type of sonar to
try & find diesel/electric subs. They are tough to find & the
Navy is trying to figure out how to seek them out.
The real problem, determined by the judge, was the obstruction by the Navy. It was the Navy who bungled the case.
Syrius
"when i get something on my hand that smells like crap, i need to taste it." from a prolific poster.
The diesel/electric subs
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 10:24 ET by misterbee241The diesel/electric subs are the type Iran has.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/ships.htm
There is none so blind as they that won’t see. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745
So...6...as in six...total...
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 11:18 ET by SyriusMrB,
Before I would have argued something like this...
"So,
I'm trying to get a handle on your point. Thanks for the link, I feel
it's time to ramp up production and sound the alarms. Iran has 6
submarines off the coast with Al-Qaeda in the launch tubes to wreck
havoc upon California? I thought most of the rightwingers hate
California. Someone posted how it should be taxed & made into a
slave zone for the illegals.
Also, where is the link between
Iran & Al-Qaeda? I thought most of the Al-Qaeda hijackers came from
Saudia Arabia. Wasn't Cheney trying to link Iran's arch enemy Iraq to
Al-Qaeda? Logically, wouldn't our superior Navy be able handle Iran's
Navy if it came down to a war? Don't you trust the Coast Guard to
protect us?"
...but not anymore.
Your buddy,
Syrius
"when i get something on my hand that smells like crap, i need to taste it." from a prolific poster.
A number is not as
Mon, 01/07/2008 - 14:02 ET by Dan The Man 2A number is not as important as intent. Remember there were very few hijackers in 911 and they hijacked 4 planes 3 of which made quite a bit of damage. It only takes one nuke.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Actually...
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 11:13 ET by BruzillaWhen it comes to active sonar, there is no difference between finding a D/E boat or a nuclear boat. The newer nuclear boats are much harder to detect using passive sonar, as are the modern D/E boats, but when using active sonar there is little difference. Anechoic coatings have been around for a long time now, and are found on most boats. These have the greatest impact on detection range, not the drive type of the boat.
A mid-frequency sonar provides better target resolution than low-frequency sonar, which makes it easier to ID the contact, but you get much less range. But mid- or low-frequency sonar will reflect off a D/E boat just as well as a Nuc.
Also, the USCG has no ASW/USW assets, and does not support ASW/USW missions. The mission of the USCG is to protect the coast, and that mission includes drug interdiction, inspeaction of vessels, fishery protection, environmental protection, etc., but it's solely the Navy's mission to defend the coast from attack.
Medium frequency sonar use
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 18:43 ET by RoverThe low frequency sonars are even harder on the marine mammals than the MF sonars. In fact, these stats about the harm of MF sonars sounds contrived to me, but we HAVE been working with substantial restrictions in place on low frequency sonar use in exercises for years now.
The Coast Guard does have anti-submarine warfare sensors and weapons on their platforms, and participates in exercises. The last time I was on board a high-endurance Coast Guard cutter, I advised them on employment of their towed array sonar system. They had a Navy LAMPS helicopter embarked for the exercise. Person for person, their ASW folks were as good as their Navy counterparts. They did clearly see a mission in ASW, and trained for it. Defending the US coast is a job for the Navy AND the Coast Guard.
And insofar as an injunction on use within 25 miles, I don't see that as much of a problem. From the sound of this post, she's made a determination about exercises, not actual operations against threats. If I felt there was a REAL hostile submarine approaching the US coast, I'd go active on him in an instant and let the judge try to make an issue out of it. I don't think she will, because first it would be stupid, and second, the President is the Commander in Chief.
Rover
Get a clue
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 11:13 ET by OldSailor88Syrius, I have worked specifically in this field for nearly 20 years. I have watched all of the official traffic and read all of the news coverage, and the Navy bungled nothing. The Judge doesn't have a security clearance nor the need to know a lot of what he passed judgement on. Trust me when I say that we go out of our way to ensure that we do not harm marine life during training. The problem here is exactly what others below this are posting. It's not the business of the judicial system to regulate this particular issue.
Ecce potestas casei!
What did you use to do? I
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 11:16 ET by BruzillaWhat did you use to do? I was an acoustic operator in P-3s and an analyst at ASWOCs/TSCs.
Bruzilla
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 12:15 ET by OldSailor88Sent you a private message. Check your inbox.
Ecce potestas casei!
Point taken...
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 11:33 ET by SyriusOldSail,
I'd have argued in the past like this...
"Your statement...
"Trust me when I say that we go out of our way to ensure that we do not harm marine life during training."
See,
that's exactly the problem with the case. There's been too much proof
presented at court to show the Navy in complete disregard of US law
(passed through Congress & signed by the President). To try to
claim it as a National Security issue & sweep it under the carpet.
It would not hold up in court (and didn't). What you just said, "Trust
me when I
say..." is at issue. Why not back it up?"
...but not anymore. I will now get into formation.
Your buddy,
Syrius
"when i get something on my hand that smells like crap, i need to taste it." from a prolific poster.
You've been tasting your hand too much.
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 11:44 ET by OldSailor88This can't be argued in a public or a private forum because you are in the same position as the judge.
Ecce potestas casei!
Run away the sky is falling!
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 12:07 ET by SyriusI didn't start this thread...
Syrius
"when i get something on my hand that smells like crap, i need to taste it." from a prolific poster.
I didn't run away. You didn't understand the point I made.
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 12:30 ET by OldSailor88You are in the same position as the Judge. It's a security issue. I am not arguing because I am not allowed to. End of story.
Ecce potestas casei!
Put up or Shut up...
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 18:54 ET by SyriusYour Old,
It doesn't matter, you've already discussed this topic on an open forum. You've ceased answering claiming National Security, oh please give it up. This is about US law and the Navy getting their a$$es handed to them in court. I believe the Navy needs to train the sonar operators, they just need to stop breaking the law. So go ahead, I'm sure the Judge would listen to you.
Syrius
First of all conservatives don't hail the virtues of
"open-mindedness". Secondly, conservatives listen to all points of
view and then decide which is most correct. mattm
Syrius, that's plain pathetic
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 19:02 ET by BlondeYou really, really need to stop posting, read, and understand what it is that happens here before you continue making an utter fool out of yourself. (It would help if you quit taking pointers from Leon, too, but I digress).
What do you not understand about "security clearance" information and that which is in the public domain? I've seen the submariners here discuss that which is in the open domain, and not discuss that which is not.
So your silly argument that OldSailor has already opened the discussion is fallacious. Furthermore, your replying to him numerous hours later, when he's not even here, is totally disingenuous.
Finally, I would warn you to rethink your disingenous cut & paste of botg's statement as your tag line. It is clearly a nasty botch job, and personally, I find it offensive. I would suggest to you that it's more than enough to get you banned from this site. Consider an apology.
Just a friendly note to our newest Kosbot.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Syrius = When
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 19:11 ET by BlazerSyrius = When sock-puppet's attack !
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Quite so, Blazer
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 19:14 ET by BlondeAttack of the sock puppets, repeatedly, against the wall. Until they're bloody and even dumber than when they started....if that's possible.
This one has no manners whatsoever.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
I 99% agree with Oldsailor
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 12:30 ET by BruzillaI 99% agree with Oldsailor that the Navy does it's best to protect marine life from harm, but that's not the same thing as saying the Navy does no harm. There is a very strong correlation between whale groundings and the use of some sonars. The reason I only agree 99% is that I was known to have an SSQ-62 active sonobuoy dropped near a passive sonobuoy that dolphins would be messing with. When I would ping that -62 the dolphins would beat feet out of the area, so I know they didn't care for it.
Where I see a problem is that the analysis of sonar contacts isn't a black and white thing, meaning it is or isn't a submarine. It takes a lot of training and practice to get a sonar operator to a point where they can reliably identify a submarine contact under combat conditions, and when you're manning the headphones and responsible for the lives of thousands of men and women in the battlegroup, on-the-job training just doesn't cut it. So for me it comes down to saving whales, inadequate training, and risking sailors, or hurting the whales, and neither saide of the argument is a very desireable one.
thank you...
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 13:39 ET by mvfreemanfor providing an informed opinion instead of a clueless knee-jerk reaction like too many posters here.
The end result is probably going to be that the navy will eventually be forced to find suitable training areas that aren't as cost effective as being 12 miles offshore.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-sonar4jan04,1,5472074.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage
The above story says:
"But the judge refused to bar the Navy from conducting exercises off the Tanner and Cortez banks, and the Westfall seamount -- undersea mountains that tend to attract whales. Nor would she set any restrictions on operations at night or in the fog or other times of low visibility, when spotting marine mammals may prove difficult."
So it's not like she compeletly shut down the exercises.
BTW, had a buddy who used to be a navigator on a P-3. It's been a few years. Still have a cool pic of a Tomcat that was flying next to him.
It must be a really great
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 10:21 ET by misterbee241It must be a really great and wonderful thing to be a judge. You get to be not only an expert in the law, but also an engineer, an environmental scientist, a marine biologist, a physicist, a mathemetician, a marine architect - I had no idea that law school had such a broad curriculum.
There is none so blind as they that won’t see. Jonathan Swift 1667-1745
Let's just hope
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 10:08 ET by dervishthat the judge applies her ruling to Russian and Chinese subs, too. As long as they promise to stay >12 miles away, no worries, eh?
/sarc
Subs aren't the problem. The
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 11:15 ET by BruzillaSubs aren't the problem. The last thing in the world any sub commander wants to do is make noise. The second he pings an active sonar everyone in the naval world knows right where he is.
Maybe the thing for the Navy to do
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 11:20 ET by sarcasmoIs to follow and "make friends with" the loudest possible whales/dolphins, or even try to imitate their calls if using sonar? (I know almost nothing about recent submarines, so for all I know they're doing this!)
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
Since when is National Security the pervue of the Judiciary
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 10:13 ET by richb313This needs to be stomped down hard. To allow the judiciary a toehold into how National Security is conducted is completely hazardous to our National Survival. Now I know that everything cannot be a matter of national security, but certainly how and when a certain type of sonar system is used falls within the framework of the Navy Dept. and not the Justice Dept. The Navy Dept. reports to the JCS who reports to the President, an Executive Department responsibility.
Usually all high powered sonars are tuned down or turned off when nearing coast lines anyway, just to be civil. But training in using these particular type of sonars still need to be done in shallow waters. The time to learn how to use them is not when trying to track a hostile target. Imagine if all the hostile had to do was go to shallow water to evade because they knew we could not follow them there?
The Supreme Court needs to reign in these jerks who made this ruling sooner rather than later.
Since when does a state own the ocean bordering it?
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 10:32 ET by amberThis is a problem. The oceans are bordering the United States of America and are shared by all of it's citizens. Yes, yes, this is a federal judge, but this stuff goes on in Florida (no off shore drilling) and other states that border oceans or gulfs. Unfortunately, this also means that states like Alaska, who are in control of their own land and want to do things like drill for oil on their land are under federal restictions to do so.....This is insane. People no longer care that we have a responsability to protect our country. If I had the money, I would go buy an island somewhere, grab the US constitution, add a few laws about judges who break the law, and start over for myself.
Noone wants to hurt whales or make them go deaf, but ...
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 10:38 ET by thoridfly... there had damn well better be exceptions for certain situations and threats.
Nature is a SERVANT of Man, not vice versa ... EVERY decision concerning nature, the environment, or wildlife must ALWAYS put the safety and well-being of humans FIRST AND FOREMOST.
I disagree...
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 12:01 ET by SyriusJust to give you all a little lesson...
The dominion given to humans over Creation is not for its tyrannical,
instrumental use implementing whatever plans human beings might devise,
but for the special purpose of stewardship. For the world is not ours,
but God's (Psalm 24:1-2).
Go ahead...tell me again-
"... there had damn well better be exceptions for certain situations and threats.
Nature is a SERVANT of Man, not vice versa ... EVERY decision
concerning nature, the environment, or wildlife must ALWAYS put the
safety and well-being of humans FIRST AND FOREMOST."
Crap is flowing I can smell it...
Syrius
"when i get something on my hand that smells like crap, i need to taste it." from a prolific poster.
How are you, Legion, and the spirit of error getting along?
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 16:32 ET by gideonmjamesYou call that crap a lesson ... God made the earth FOR MAN?!
WHO did He make it FOR, bonehead?
Any "environmental" law written is to be made with MAN'S safety, security, and well-being foremost in consideration, not some damn sucker fish, grey wolf, or dead-gum whale.
"Crap is flowing I can smell it" ... yeah, right off of your post.
"When i get something on my hand that smells like crap, i need to taste it." - Lord Syrius
Prove it...
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 17:57 ET by SyriusGiddyUp,
I could argue...
"Once again I'll repeat it since you did not read it...
Just to give you all a little lesson...from the bible...which everyone seems to quote on this site...
"The dominion given to humans over Creation is not for its tyrannical,
instrumental use implementing whatever plans human beings might devise,
but for the special purpose of stewardship. "For the world is not ours,
but God's." (Psalm 24:1-2)."
Here's another tidbit...
http://totheword.blogspot.com/2004/09/biblical-stewardship-of-earth.html
God's calling he'd like to have your brain back for reprogramming.
A number of laws were not only to protect man but to protect man from himself. Go ahead- do the slow twist as you continue to hang yourself with your own rope of logic."
...but I'm not.
Syrius
First of all conservatives don't hail the virtues of
"open-mindedness". Secondly, conservatives listen to all points of
view and then decide which is most correct. mattm
Federal Judge and the Military
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 11:16 ET by GoodieThe Hell with the Judge, keep doing what you need to do to protect the Country. "OOPPS, uh Sir, I think we just sent a Tomahawk towards the Judges Chamber"...."Damn, another one went to the Seattle PI Building"....
Is it just me, or does
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 11:29 ET by JoeBobIs it just me, or does anyone else not understand why a whale that's getting its ears hurt by a sonar would continue to approach it? My dog runs for cover when the smoke detector goes off. I figure this is because its ears hurt. What am I missing here?
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
Your missing the fact...
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 11:47 ET by SyriusJoeBob,
I'd have argued...
"The Sonar destroys the
sensitive hearing the whale uses in locating prey. If you wanted to use
the analogy of your smoke detector's alarm and the effect on your dog,
the Navy's sonar would have disrupted and destroyed your dog's hearing
so much that your dog would just run into the wall and then probably
die.
Try not to simplify the argument. The Navy was caught
breaking the law of the US. No one is above the law. Except maybe the
Prez but we'll see..."
...but no more.
Your buddy,
Syrius
"when i get something on my hand that smells like crap, i need to taste it." from a prolific poster.
Which comes first, the
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 12:01 ET by JoeBobWhich comes first, the discomfort or the damage? I know that, for humans, discomfort (at around 90-100db) comes before even temporary damage (110-120db for prolonged periods), pain (130db), or permanent damage (160db). My dog can't leave the house when the smoke detector goes off. Should I take the batteries out of my smoke detectors (and disable their useful function) because my dog lives in the house? Or are you saying that the Navy is waiting until the whales get close before they turn the sonar on, sort of a "gotcha" thing?
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
Don't worry about the batteries...
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 12:29 ET by HermanoStop burning the food!
You've got a point.
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 13:22 ET by JoeBobYou've got a point. Maybe the dog was running for cover because I was hurting its nose, not its ears. :-)
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
For those not familiar with
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 13:24 ET by BruzillaFor those not familiar with naval exercises, they aren't a shift on the fly operation. You have to locate and reserve an area of the ocean, you have to arrange for a ship(s) and target(s) to be in the area, and all of this takes a lot of pre-planning and pre-approvals. Unfortuantely, the whales don't get the tasking messages, and if they blunder into the op area, there's usually no way for the exercise participants to pack up shop and move to a new area. The exercise has to get cancelled or the whales get zapped.
Fair enough point. I've
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 13:42 ET by JoeBobFair enough point. I've heard of fish being scared out of a habitat area by noisemakers or small expolosions prior to underwater demolition taking place. Possibility here? Spool it up slowly?
Applicable side story: Once was 3hrs into the night on a tie-down test of an F16, when base commander's wife was reported to have asked her husband, " Isn't that damn thing ever going to take off?"
Without recognizing the ordinances of Heaven, it is impossible to be a superior man. - Confucious
Here's the problem. What
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 16:20 ET by BruzillaHere's the problem. What isn't getting said, and to Oldsailor's point, planners usually take into account the possibility of marine mammals being in an area. This is not only to protect the mammals, but also because a submarine or ship that blunders into a whale can be heavilly damaged. The problem is what to do about the stray pod that blunders into the op area.
The sonars in question have an effective range of about ten miles, but that's only the distance the sound energy can go and still provide a decent sonar return. The sound can radiate for hundreds or thousands of miles depending on water conditions, and while it's close to impossible for a ship to spot a whale pod ten miles out, it's really impossible to spot a pod a hundred or a thousand miles out. And while there's a lot of research that shows marine mammals are effected by sonars, there's little data on what Sound Pressure Level (SPL) values can/can't cause damage. So a whale ten miles away might be fine, and one within two miles is in danger, or whales 100 miles away could be in danger. Nobody knows, which is what makes it so darn difficult for planners and the folks on the ships, who have been working hard to protect whales long before this lawsuit, to determine what's safe and what's not.
In the end, the Navy has a mission to perform, and they're going to perform it. I disagree with Syrius that the Navy is trying to break laws. The truth is that until someone does the research and says "X number of SPL dbs within this range are dangerous" the needs of the Navy are going to be the determining factor for when sonars are powered up or shut down.
Whales be damned...
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 11:32 ET by Clear thinkerIf the Navy has to use this sonar to protect our shores, I suggest the whales go elsewhere. Maybe Sea World!
This is like being staked out naked on a beach with you bare bottom facing the water moments before a ship full of gay men come to the same beach.
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
Authority of Federal Court
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 11:40 ET by allanfThe issue here is the authority of the Federal Courts. If District Judges are granted authority over military operations, the military will have serveral hundred judicial commanders in chief.
You still don't get it...
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 12:24 ET by mvfreemanThe Federal Court is enforcing a federal law passed by CONGRESS in 1973 which states in part "All Federal agencies were required to undertake programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species, and were prohibited from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action that would jeopardize a listed species or destroy or modify its "critical habitat" [section 7];"
"The Departments of Interior, Agriculture, and Defense were to seek to protect listed species,"
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esasum.html
The navy could get an exemption...
"Provisions were added to Section 7, allowing Federal agencies to undertake an action that would jeopardize listed species if the action were exempted by a cabinet-level committee convened for this purpose;"
So either the Bush administration or the navy or both don't seem to see this as that high a priority or they would have formed said committee. But then I'm sure the media would have these up everywhere:
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&svnum=10&hl=en&q=whales+harmed+by+sonar
And then the hue and cry would be to get the navy to move to other training areas otherwise it would be a PR fiasco.
You're barking up the wrong tree, it would be up to Congress and not some federal judge to change the law.
Statute
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 16:00 ET by allanfThe statute reads as follows:
In this instance, if the Secretary of Defense has authorized an exemption, then the judge is way off the reservation. If the Secretary of Defense has not authorized an exemption then the Navy and DOD need to get their acts together.
Have your ever?
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 12:02 ET by okiehawk44Why does this country need all the lawyers (and by extension judges) it has? Is it because lawyers begat lawyers who begat more lawyers? This whole thing is ludicrous. Just a fanciful thought. Wouldn't it be nice if anytime a lawyer loses a case or a judgement is overruled, that individual loses his/her license to practice law?
NAVY TO JUDGE:.......KISS
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 12:56 ET by TOENAVY TO JUDGE:.......KISS OUR A**!!!!!!!
NAVY TO JUDGE:.......KISS
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 12:56 ET by TOENAVY TO JUDGE:.......KISS OUR A**!!!!!!!
How does the judge expect this to be enforced?
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 13:50 ET by c5thenA typical liberal decision. It is just about entirely unenforcable.
And...it place the saftey of sailors and the security of the nation in second place to an assumed possible harm to some marine mammals.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
It's happened before...
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 14:20 ET by mvfreemanIt is just about entirely unenforcable.
No it isn't: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0827-07.htm
The military is under civilian control.
placite the saftey of sailors and the security of the nation in second place to an assumed possible harm to some marine mammals.
By the navy's own admission:"The Navy said the series of 14 exercises would temporarily deafen whales 8,000 times and cause permanent injuries in more than 400 cases."
While it will affect short term training schedules the navy will have to find suitable training areas that are more costly to operate from but it will not affect the long term security of the country.
Enforcement
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 15:49 ET by allanfUS Naval personelle fall under the UCMJ not Federal Courts. A sailor cannot be disciplined in Federal Court for performing his duties.
In other words, if the Captain of a US Navy Warship wants the sonar on, it gets turned on.
Get a clue...
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 16:13 ET by mvfreemanUS naval personnel fall under the authority of the Secretary of the Navy, which is a civilian office. And he is bound by federal law just like anyone else.
So when he issues the order to comply with a federal court ruling to the Chief of Naval Operations that will get handed down to the rest of the chain of command.
After that any commander who uses sonar in any way not in accordance with the new rules will find himself captaining a desk if not facing a courts-martial for not following an official directive.
Understand?
Get a Clue?
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 16:53 ET by allanfThe statute reads as follows:
In other words this is far from a simple tale. The Secretary of the Navy has broad responsibilites and broad latitude. Apparently, the Secretary of Defense can declare an exemption for National Security purposes.
So the Navy will comply to the extent it feels complying does not jeopardize national security.
And therein lies the problem
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 17:06 ET by mvfreemanThe SecDef has not requested any exemptions.
It's a PR nightmare. And they obviously have other training areas available or they would surely have requested an exemption by now.
Challenge
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 17:13 ET by allanfThe statute also allows anyone to challenge an exemption.
I don't know whether the Secretary of Defense has issued an exemption. If the Secetary did issue an exemption on national security grounds, then a court's contrary determination is very problematic, and may in fact conflict the the Secretary's sworn duty to the Navy.
no mention of any exemptions to ESA
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 17:27 ET by mvfreemanI found this:
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=9706
It says that the exemption is for the Marine Mammal Protection Act only and has no affect on the Endangered Species Act requirements.
There is no mention in any news story covering this that this suit was a challenge to an ESA exemption.
No luck on google
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 18:00 ET by mvfreemanFrom what I have read the committee that issues the exemptions has only been convened three times in the history of the ESA:
"The committee has been convened only three times—for the snail darter fish in Tennessee, the spotted owl in Oregon and the whooping crane in Nebraska."
It's about National Security
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 14:40 ET by tymanThe bottom line is this. The judge(?) thinks the health of marine life is more important than us. This is typical. Maybe we should stop boating as well. I'm sure many whales have been hurt by fisherman, propellers etc. Let's stop them all before we are doomed. Have you hugged a whale lately?
change the law
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 16:42 ET by mvfreemanCongress should change the law (Endangered Species Act) if it is of such vital importance.
Read it for yourself:
http://usinfo.state.gov/infousa/government/branches/docs/IB10144_2006Jan25.pdf
And at the time this was written the congress was still in republican hands.
But the actual bottom line is this: " Exemptions; Emergencies. Proponents of a federal action may apply for anexemption from the prohibition against jeopardy for that action (not for a species). Under
the ESA, a high-level committee (commonly called the “God Squad”) decides whether to
allow a project to proceed despite likely harm to a species. To date, this process has been
IB10144 01-25-06
CRS-4
little used and only one exemption (Grayrocks Dam, WY) has been granted and carried out.
The committee is required to accept the President’s determination (under specified
circumstances) on an exemption in declared disaster areas. In addition, 50 C.F.R. §402.05
provides for ESA procedures in case of emergencies. The committee must also grant an
exemption if the Secretary of Defense determines that an exemption is necessary for national
security (16 U.S.C. §1536). DOD has claimed that requirements under the ESA conflict with
its readiness activities, but DOD has not requested any exemptions to date
So stop putting all the blame on a single federal judge who is following the ruling of an appeals court which has already upheld the ruling and wanted her to craft narrower restrictions in accordance with a law that congress wrote.
The Statute
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 16:59 ET by allanfThe statute reads:
Apparently, the Secretary of Defense determines whether there is an exemption or not.
How have you determined that Sec Def and not granted an exemption?
This case would have been tossed...
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 17:14 ET by mvfreemanout of court if there was an exemption in place.
The groups who brought suit in this case wouldn't have had a leg to stand on as the law clearly states that an exemption would have made their objections a mute point.
Review the Exemption
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 17:27 ET by allanfSee my post above. From what I gather of the statute, the court gets to review the exemption. That is very problematic stuff.
Judicial review
Sonar
Fri, 01/04/2008 - 18:34 ET by richb313I am a former submarine sonarman so I know a little of what I talk about. I have also made my life at sea working in the ROV industry since the 1980.
There is no substitute for training at sea under real conditions. As previously stated active sonar is the only reliablr way to find a diesel electrict boat when running on the battery. They are quiet. In fact they are so quiet they are a literal sound hole in the ocean. When you get close enough you can tell where one is because they block out background noise, but you have to be real close. Therefore passive sonar is useually not successfull when tracking a Diesel Electric Sub. Active Sonar is quite useful. I will not get into ranges methods or frequencies as it is none of anyones buisness anyway.
As a matter of routine Naval Ships would always limit the power or secure thier active sonar when approaching close into coasts and pulling into port. Then the whole debate began about sonar damaging whales etc. I am sure that if you lit off a high powered sonar and a whale were close that damage could occur, but once you get a few hundred yards from the sonar head spherical losses have so depleted the signal that I doubt any physical damage could even be possible.
The real debate is this. Is training our sonar operators, which takes a lot of time and needs to be done in the real world conditions in which they will find themselves operating in less important than the unproven damgae caused by sonars to marine life. I come down on letting the Navy train thier people in the most realist manner possible. It is the shallows where a diesel boat will run to avoid or evade. That is exactly where training needs to be done.