Sell
Research and Tools
Parts & Service
- Auto Parts
- Service & Repair
- Quick Searches
- Auto Repair
- Oil Change
Judge overreaches in banning Navy's sonar use
By: JIM TRAGESER - Staff Writer | ∞
It's unlikely that even the most left-leaning, military-hating member of Congress meant to ban the Navy from using sonar to protect our country when passing various laws to protect our wildlife.
Yet a federal judge recently ordered the Navy to stop using certain frequencies of sonar during upcoming training exercises off the Pacific coast, agreeing with activists who sued, saying that sonar might cause harm to marine wildlife .
Regular readers of this column know well how devoted your loyal correspondent is to issues of conservation. From opposing the idiotic proposal to run a new freeway through the San Onofre State Beach to an equally dumbfounding plan to run high-power electrical lines through the Anza Borrego Desert State Park, this space has been devoted to defending wildlife preservation.
But for a federal judge to try to manage our national defense based on maybes and what-ifs is lunacy of the highest order.
While President Bush on Wednesday issued an executive order exempting the Navy from the judge's order on national security grounds, we need more finality on this issue. Frankly, no district judge should be able to dictate national policy on any issue, period. Any decision of that magnitude should only be made by an appeals court. (There is nothing in the Constitution preventing such a policy, either. Congress has the power to set up courts and assign their jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2. Congress has so far resisted the temptation to put any laws off-limits to judicial review, but such power remains.)
In the short term, the Navy should -- nay, must -- continue its appeal of this ruling, to the Supreme Court if necessary. It is immorality of the most vile sort to send our young men and women off to combat without proper training. And prohibiting them from using sonar is certainly a denial of such training.
While the Navy is doing everything it can to restore sanity to national defense policy regarding sonar training, it's up to Congress to fix this problem over the long haul. For starters, both the House and Senate should take votes expressing their displeasure with the extreme lack of logic in the judge's decision. Congress' intent is key to interpreting any legislation, something this judge clearly neglected to do in issuing her order.
And Congress should go further than that and specifically lay out how the military should balance environmental concerns with national security.
While we are at peace with most of our neighbors in this world right now, including any nations that could conceivably send submarines to our coast with hostile intentions, there are no guarantees about what the future holds. Clearly, our military needs the freedom to do its job properly and completely in defending us from potential enemies.
To put in place a permanent, publicly disclosed policy that we're not going to use sonar in certain areas off our coast is so utterly irresponsible that it's inconceivable Congress or the higher courts will allow such a dangerous decision to stand.
Hopefully, our local representatives can put aside their election-year differences and help set this policy straight.
-- Contact columnist Jim Trageser at (760) 631-6628 or jtrageser@nctimes.com.
More Stories
John wrote on Jan 17, 2008 9:25 AM:Oh JT - stick to writing record reviews.
Fear and Paranoia wrote on Jan 17, 2008 9:27 AM:The prime motivators in allowing our military to degrade our natural resources in the pursuit of a pipe dream safe world.
Flailing against the wind? wrote on Jan 17, 2008 9:28 AM:Or just breaking wind?
Dear John wrote on Jan 17, 2008 10:53 AM:Can't find substance to disagree with the man, so just hurl personal insults, eh?
Karl wrote on Jan 17, 2008 11:50 AM:Nice one "Dear John". My sentiments exactly.
Karl ... Marx is it? wrote on Jan 17, 2008 12:29 PM:So you think it's a good idea to publicly announce which parts of our coast we won't be using sonar in? Even though the animal rights fanatics admit their studies are inconclusive about harm to the animals? Amazing ... rotflmao
John wrote on Jan 17, 2008 4:22 PM:Oh come on... Publicly announce? Do you really believe the Navy will publicly announce anything not approved by a PR agency and government censors? Pardon me - but I grew up in the Navy and it has colored my perception of the honesty they employ. The fact is - this would not have been a public issue if the Navy had not over-stepped it's bounds and ended up in court. Now JT and Karl and Bush want to cover there tracks with another paranoia smoke screen. At some point the Navy needs to be on a leash so they don't run ruff shod over our irreplaceable resources. They are not stewards of the planet. If we let them have EVERY advantage they will diminish our environment to a point that nothing will be left to fight for. Forgive me for name calling JT and bloggers - But for a president to try to manage our national defense based on maybes and what-ifs is lunacy of the highest order.
Hey Karl wrote on Jan 17, 2008 4:24 PM:If you are not an animal rights fanatic like you claim some of us are - are you a sonar fanatic or a defense fanatic? Sounds like you were hurling personal insults to me.
Karl wrote on Jan 17, 2008 5:08 PM:Huh? What did I say to offend? I was merely areeing with Dear John that John was hurling needless insults. "Karl ... Marx is it" I really don't understand your post, please explain. As for "Hey Karl", I'm really sorry I offended you. Where in my post did I claim that someone was a " animal rights fanatic". Am I a "sonar fanatic or a defense fanatic? Sounds like you were hurling personal insults to me." Again I apologize but let me hurl one last insult. Consult your physician, your meds have run out.
Reardon wrote on Jan 17, 2008 5:16 PM:John: The Navy is not tasked with being "Stewards of the Planet." they are tasked with "National Defense" Waht part of the Navy did YOU serve?
Hey Karl wrote on Jan 17, 2008 5:51 PM:No chemical labotomies for me. But I should learn to read better. I thought you were Karl Marx. I didn't understand that was another blogger - or was it? Good night.
John wrote on Jan 17, 2008 10:57 PM:Reardon (submarine dude): National defense does not automatically trump good conservation practices or common sense. The Navy does a fine job of national defense, but they are sloppy when it comes to taking care of our wildlife. Since I'm an American citizen and I'm helping to fund the military budget (except for all the cash we are borrowing from China), I'm tasked with speaking out about the Navy's lousy environmental practices and Bush's ham handed intervention in a legal ruling that protects marine mammals. Not a big animal rights activist - just think the Navy is wrong on this one and they have alternatives. AND I think the threats of catastrophe resulting from regulating the sonar activities to mitigate damage to the whales are whoppers. Since you asked... I was a dependent. I was raised in a multi-generational military family and my dad is a retired naval officer. I saw enough to steer clear of the military and started my own company 22 years ago. When I'm not working and generating tax revenue to pay help pay for your retirement, I like to chime in on these blogs.
Submarine Sonar Sailor wrote on Jan 18, 2008 5:13 AM:John, I think you're being a little harsh. I do agree as a tax paying citizen (thanks, I plan on enjoying my retirement in a couple years) that you do have the right and responsibility to speak out against our government. It seems that Reardon and I can look at this argument from another perspective: I've been operating submarine sonar for nearly 10 years, and am confident that we take every precaution to ensure the safety of marine life. I can think of many occasions of NOT using active sonar when passive sonar picked up whales or dolphins. Are you familiar with the countries that fish with TNT? To me, that seems much more detrimental to the marine environment than safety-of-ship sonar.
Marx ... Groucho, I think wrote on Jan 18, 2008 7:54 AM:Sorry, Karl - misread the comment. Mea culpa.
As for John - the judge in this case specifically defined, in her very public decision, the offshore corridors where she is prohibiting mid-range sonar use. Were a terrorist capable of handling a sub, they now know exactly where to bring it up near the coast. Do you think that's responsible with as much fissionable material unaccounted for in the world as there is? If LA or San Diego gets nuked by terrorists, at least the dolphins won't have a headache ...
Harry L wrote on Jan 18, 2008 8:55 AM:The various laws to protect the environment had good intent but are outdated and been twisted to tools that any group with a good lawyer can use to delay or halt virtually any proposed Federal action they do not like. NRDC versus the Navy, in this case, has become a battle between whose lawyer can convince a judge how much damage is being done to whales or defense of the country. It's hard to believe either view at this point - perhaps less court battles and more effort on how to increase effective ways to discover "real" effects would be nice.
John wrote on Jan 18, 2008 4:31 PM:Sub Sonar Sailor - thanks for the gentle nudge back towards civility. I appreciate you sharing your perspective and broadening mine. I agree there are many other more pressing issues in the big scheme of things.
Lefty golfer wrote on Jan 22, 2008 3:22 PM:Banning sonar is just the first act of activism our judges have long ago abandoned in favor of the conservative lemming law. This judge has simply placed a cliff for the lemmings and...there go! Over and into the drink. Lets go back to the days when the Republicans ran everything and did such a great job of it - Iraq, Afghanistan, New Orleans...need I go on? Let the Navy practice sonaring in Newark Bay - nothing has lived in that body of water for over 100 years...and who knows, maybe they'll find Jimmy Hoffa!
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement