Crazy Ivan
Just want to point out the ridiculously fast reversal of the 9th Circuit and vacatur of the district court's preliminary injunction in the Navy Sonar case. Our tree hugger-in-residence, Max Power, probably thinks this is the end of Environmental Law.
I understand why the courts are reluctant to second guess the military. But I don't understand the Navy's position here. Submarine exercises? Who's going to attack us using a sub? The Russians can't even launch a new sub without massive casualties. I guess that's sort of the reason why the Navy has to run around the Pacific pinging away with active sonar in training exercise...they don't have any real targets left. I just don't see the national security threat. Or any threat.
In related news, there may be a way to quickly reverse the Bush Admins latest gutting of consumer and environmental regs.
I understand why the courts are reluctant to second guess the military. But I don't understand the Navy's position here. Submarine exercises? Who's going to attack us using a sub? The Russians can't even launch a new sub without massive casualties. I guess that's sort of the reason why the Navy has to run around the Pacific pinging away with active sonar in training exercise...they don't have any real targets left. I just don't see the national security threat. Or any threat.
In related news, there may be a way to quickly reverse the Bush Admins latest gutting of consumer and environmental regs.
Labels: SCOTUS
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 10:15 AM
19 Comments:
Everyone agreeing with Armen's post should give one ping only.
I guess the 9th Circuit doesn't always go starboard after all. (Okay, I'm done.)
This reversal should really make waves.
Although I didn't read the case, and I'm the last one to discount environmental effects (really the last one; I vote only on what's best for the environment--I'm looking in your direction, Prop 2), there is a national security threat here and there is value in having the best Navy in the world, no matter their training techniques.
China is just sitting across the ocean waiting to become the world's next superpower. If you think their government isn't actively pursuing our submarine technology in the black markets and through espionage, you probably voted for Nader in 2000 (i.e., you're way too much of a peace-loving liberal hippy). The truth is that the US is a far safer country today because our Navy, and submarine technology, is vastly superior to any other country's. It's extremely important we keep it that way.
Although I'm sure there are more environmental ways to conduct testing and to keep our Navy tip top, let's not believe that just because there are no other countries capable of matching our Navy, there won't be in the future, and we can let our training and readiness to respond to threats slip. It's that kind of thinking that left the CIA unprepared to predict or deal with the aftermath of 9/11
I thought I heard, well, singing, sir.
1. Carbolic, I think you meant the 9th Circuit doesn't always go port (starboard is right, port is left).
2. I agree with Stu; if history has taught us anything, it is that the most dangerous threat is the one we don't anticipate. I'm sure there are less well known examples, but the ones that come to mind are Pearl Harbor and 9/11.
Just because we aren't aware of countries coming after us with submarines doesn't mean we shouldn't be prepared for that situation.
Personally, I value the lives of humans above those of whales. Call me crazy, but whales being slightly disoriented, or whatever effect the sonar pings have on them, is justified if it saves even 1 human life.
I agree with Disco Stu. Training and preparedness is important, even if the potential threat is not immediately clear. Nations don't do training exercises for no reason. For example, Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan.
12:09: dammit. But you post fails for lack of quotation.
subs are a top choice for covert missile attack capabilities--and could be used by any number of hostile governments or terrorist organizations that don't have robust ICBM capabilities
Guys at my high school used to use subs for covert missile attacks all the time. It was no big deal.
Wow -- I am loving the comments about 9-11 being unpredictable. Maybe if the U.S. stopped bombing every 3rd world country to pieces we wouldn't have to worry about covert threats and spending ridiculous amounts of money on an ineffective military.
9:47 - You seem to suffer from a heavy case of retardation. You might want to get that looked at.
10:44, the hard part about playing 9/11 truther chicken is knowing when to flinch.
Good to see that random ass Teddy Roosevelt quotations are now precedential
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/washington/13scotus.html?hp
I hope my grandchildren live to see the Bush Doctrine cited as persuasive authority in about 90 years.
The most frustrating part is the majority's repeated assertion that the Navy has been conducting these exercises for forty years in California without any recorded injury. This was addressed in the original opinion: 1) they haven't had MFA sonar this powerful for anywhere close to 40 years, more like 5-10; 2) since they started using it, there have been numerous recorded mass beachings all over the world; 3) the scientific community, including the Navy's own scientists, have reached a concensus that there is a causal connection between the use of MFA sonar and the death or serious injury of endangered whales; and 4) most if not all injuries or deaths would go undetected because the bodies would never reach the shore. And, of course, shortly after they started their latest exercises there was a recorded beaching in Southern California. I wouldn't expect the Court to let facts get in the way of reaching the result they want, though.
The other frustrating part is that they completely ignore the merits and focus on the balance of hardships (in contrast to Ginsburg's dissent). They even say that even if the Navy loses on the merits there still shouldn't be an injunction, basically saying that there is no remedy for their violation of NEPA, EPA, the CZMA, etc.
They then criticize the lower courts for failing to explain why the harm to marine mammals is anything more than speculative (well, it is supported by the Navy's own study as well as over 1,000 pages of scientific evidence in the record) but then accept without question affidavits from Navy personnel saying that training will be ineffective if the Navy adopts the challenged mitigation measures. How exactly are the self-serving statements of a defendants' employees less speculative than the defendant's own studies and research? The Navy has never not employed those mitigation measures in the past (mostly due to court orders), are they admitting that they have no properly trained sailors?
I think too many people are buying into a false dichotomy between marine and human life. The choice is between responsible, if perhaps less than the most convenient possible, use of MFA sonar, causing some injury, and using it with reckless abandan and causing permanent injury to 1/3 of the population of an endangered species. I'd vote for responsible use, with safety zones just like the Canadian and Australian navies use for MFA sonar, and I hope that's the policy Obama puts into place in January.
Silent submarines are a real and serious threat (China and Iran already have them and I have no doubt they'd use them under the right circumstances), but we don't need to cause species to go extinct in order to train sailors how to detect them.
Sorry, the nytimes link is:
http://tinyurl.com/5zmck6
FYI, BLF is ACTUALLY HAPPENING this Saturday, despite the worst promoting job in the history of Boalt Hall events.
To 10:44. Calling someone a retard for expressing her opinion is completely unnecessary and immature. But I suppose having studied international relations at Harvard and having been in the military myself gives me no credibility whatsoever, right? Hmm.
Right.
Then I would like to hear where you get your beliefs from. Oh wait, let me guess. Mommy and Daddy? If you think you know more about the military than someone who has lived and breathed it, then you are the retard.
Can someone please start a thread about how many f-ing emails a day we get about Prop 8. Enough already! It passed. Move on. Or get involved, but stop pressuring everyone else to. I voted no and I think it's wrong. But I don't need to get 10 emails a day about it.
Ok... one last thing that we all should have learned from this: next time ...write a g0ddamned memo!
(I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist, but remember, I .... was never here.)
Post a Comment
<< Home