Saving the Whales

Cornfed Hick

Ancient Mariner
There has been an interesting legal battle brewing in Los Angeles between the United States Navy and environmental groups.  It involves the use of certain kinds of sonar equipment which, if used when whales are near, can confuse them and cause physical harm, even death.  (My law firm represents one of the environmental groups.  In essence, we are literally trying to save the whales.)  The issue is not whether the Navy can test the sonar -- the argument is simply that it should adopt certain safeguards such as not using the sonar when whales are within a known proximity.  The Navy doesn't like these restrictions.  President Bush and another executive agency granted the Navy exemptions from certain environmental regulations.  Today, a federal judge said that President Bush's exemption was "constitutionally suspect," and ruled that it did not provide a basis to undo the injunction that the judge had previously imposed on the Navy.  Here is the Court's order, if you are interested:  http://www.cacd.uscourts.gov/CACD/RecentPubOp.nsf/bb61c530eab0911c882567cf005ac6f9/cadea7e2e9aac8e0882573e5008217bd/$FILE/SA07CV00335-FMC.pdfis

Whatever side of this debate you may support, it is an interesting example of the Constitutional balance of powers at work. 
 
Indeed it is. Keep us posted on the development, because as you stated, regardless of our position, I'm more interested as to how it is carried out. Thanks!
 
George W. Bush has overstepped his congressional boundaries?!  No, that could *never* happen.

Hopefully he doesn't just instruct the Navy to ignore the judiciary.
 
The latest chapter, this time in the federal appeals court.  In short, another win for the whales.  The next chapter may be in the U.S. Supreme Court:

Appellate panel backs a lower court decision but allows a 30-day reprieve from the toughest rules so sonar training can go forward.

By Kenneth R. Weiss, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

4:18 PM PST, March 1, 2008

A federal appeals court has rejected the Bush administration effort to exempt Navy sonar training from key environmental laws, backing up a lower court that imposed extensive safeguards to protect whales and dolphins from harmful sonic blasts.

Even so, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals gave the Navy a 30-day reprieve from the most far-reaching protections -- such as shutting down sonar when whales are spotted within 2,200 yards -- so it could conduct a pair of training missions this month off Southern California and to give it time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The Navy is carefully considering additional review, including possible review by the Supreme Court," Lt. Cmdr. Cindy Moore said Saturday. Once the monthlong reprieve ends, the Navy spokeswoman said, the ruling "leaves in place significant restrictions on our ability to train realistically."

The decision, released late Friday night, is the latest in a string of legal defeats for the Navy in Los Angeles and Hawaii as it tries to avoid court-ordered restraints on how it trains sailors to hunt for submarines with a type of sonar that has been linked to the death of whales and dolphins.

The cases pit the interests of national security and troop readiness against the enforcement of environmental laws and the safeguarding of federally protected marine mammals.

The case in Los Angeles has taken on additional overtones of a constitutional struggle between the judicial and administrative branches of government.

After losing repeatedly in court, the Navy persuaded President Bush and the White House to exempt its Southern California training missions from the environmental laws that underlie the case.

Calling it "constitutionally suspect," U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper in Los Angeles rebuffed this legal maneuvering and concluded that the Navy's long-planned schedule for eight more training missions this year did not warrant "emergency" arrangements invoked by the White House to get around the law.

The appeals court late Friday backed up Cooper's decision, ruling that she "carefully balanced the significant interests and hardships at stake to ensure that the Navy could continue to train without causing undue harm to the environment."

A three-judge panel said it reviewed "with the utmost care" the classified affidavits submitted by various admirals about how the training exercises are needed to certify a sufficient number of aircraft carrier strike groups as ready for battle in the Persian Gulf and other hot spots.

But the panel said the evidence in the case, much of it submitted by the Navy itself, supports Cooper's conclusion that the additional precautions to avoid marine mammals "will not likely compromise the Navy's ability to effectively train and certify its West Coast strike groups."

Joel Reynolds, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the decision was the first major victory in the appeals court on these sonar cases. "The court is saying that the Navy cannot violate the law with impunity and the president cannot waive it. When the Navy tests and trains with sonar, it can and must do so in an environmentally responsible way," he said.

Added Richard Kendall, another lawyer representing conservation groups in the case, "We proved, based on the Navy's own records, that it is able to train and obey the environmental laws at the same time."

The Navy maintains that its own well-established protocols, such as posting lookouts on deck and reducing the intensity of sonar power when whales are seen swimming too close, provide sufficient protection.

Navy officials said there is no evidence of a fatality of whale or dolphin associated with sonar training missions off Southern California.

After the last training in January, a northern right whale dolphin washed up on Navy-owned San Nicolas Island with blood in its ears -- a symptom seen in the fatalities of deep-diving whales that washed ashore in the Canary Islands and the Bahamas after military sonar exercises.

Researchers have yet to determine a cause of death for the dolphin. The most recently completed tests have ruled out poisoning from algae-produced neurotoxins such as domoic acid, according to Teri Rowles, head of the nation's Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response Program.

The Navy also says the court order that expands the Navy's marine mammal safety zone of 220 yards to 2,200 yards would disrupt exercises to track quiet diesel submarines, because Navy commanders would have to shut off sonar five times as often.

The appeals court, in its 108-page opinion, conducted an extensive analysis of the Navy's math, suggesting that it had been exaggerated.

Reviewing Navy reports of the previous six sonar training exercises, it found that the Navy had to shut down the sonar 27 times and that the expanded safety zone would have required an additional 21 shutdowns, or two to three additional shutdowns per exercise. Such exercises last a week or more.

The opinion noted that the Navy has accepted the 2,200-yard safety zone in other sonar exercises, as do NATO warships. The Australian Navy's safety zone is 4,400 yards.

Still, the judges gave Navy commanders this month to fall back on the 220-yard safety zone if a whale shows up during a critical point in the training exercise.
 
            Far away from the land of our birth
            We fly a flag in some foreign earth
            We save the whales like our fathers before
            These colours don't run from cold bloody war


Even Maiden mentioned whale preservation... uncanny!  :blink:
 
As there was at least mild interest in this topic when I first posted it, here's an update.  The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard argument on the lower court's injunction governing the U.S. Navy's use of sonar within the vicinity of whales.  My colleague argued the case on behalf of the NRDC (i.e., for the whales).  As the decision is still pending, I shouldn't really comment further on the argument.  Attached, however, are editorials from the New York Times and Los Angeles Times about the case:

NYTimes--

October 11, 2008
Editorial
The Navy, Whales and the Court

We hope the Supreme Court has the sense to assert its authority over military activities that can cause environmental harm far from any battlefield. Some of the justices’ comments this week sounded as though they were feeling far too deferential to the military.

The court is considering whether to reverse lower-court decisions that the Navy must restrict its use of sonar in training exercises to protect whales and other marine mammals. Two lower courts have ruled that the Navy could conduct exercises off the California coast provided it employs mitigation measures, such as suspending or reducing sonar emissions when sound-sensitive marine mammals are nearby.

The Federal District Court in Los Angeles found that the Navy could effectively train with the restrictions. The appeals court offered the Navy a path to relief if that judgment proved wrong. Unfortunately, the Bush administration sought to evade restrictions by declaring what looks like a bogus national security emergency. Now it is asking the Supreme Court to overturn the restrictions.

Judging from comments at a hearing on Wednesday, many justices seem inclined to do that. It was dismaying to hear Justice Stephen Breyer assert that “I don’t know anything about this. I’m not a naval officer.” It was discouraging that Justice Samuel Alito found it “incredibly odd” that a district court judge had concluded that her restrictions would not compromise the Navy’s training when the Navy claimed they would.

The courts typically give deference to the military, but such reticence does not seem warranted in this situation, which hardly rises to the level of a military emergency. The district court judge drew on the Navy’s own records of past exercises and other evidence submitted by the Navy to reach her conclusion that mitigation measures would not unduly constrain training.

Few justices are truly expert in most of the issues they confront. Yet they have no qualms about ruling on cases that involve complex political, social, economic, scientific or medical issues. The courts have rightly stepped in to second-guess the government’s handling of terrorism cases in the midst of the so-called war on terror. Surely the Supreme Court has the ability to judge whether the military should be allowed to flout environmental laws with a dubious claim of national security.

LA Times--

Message for the justices: Save the whales!
October 11, 2008


Smart as they are, whales and dolphins make lousy attorneys, which is why they were represented by sharks from the Natural Resources Defense Council in a case heard Wednesday by the Supreme Court. Yet even if the plaintiffs couldn't be present, their lives are on the line in a case that also has deep implications for defining the powers of the executive branch when national security issues are at stake.

The Navy set out last year to conduct training exercises off the Southern California coast using mid-frequency sonar, a powerful tool for hunting submarines. Unfortunately, it's also a powerful tool for scrambling the brains of whales and other marine mammals, which can be deafened and even killed by such sonar. Though federal law requires the Navy to perform studies of the environmental impact of its exercises, it refused to do so -- and also refused to take common-sense precautions to protect marine life, as it had been doing in other waters.

A suit by the NRDC resulted in injunctions and court orders for the Navy to take such precautions. So the brass went to a higher authority: President Bush. He issued a directive exempting the exercises from environmental laws in the interest of national security, and his White House Council on Environmental Quality granted the Navy an exemption because "emergency" conditions were in place. Never mind that Congress never gave this agency the power to overturn court orders.

This case presents only the latest example of the Bush administration overstepping the bounds of executive branch authority. The heart of the question for the Supreme Court is how much deference judges should give to military and executive opinions about national security. Traditionally, courts give a good deal of leeway to the military because the public interest in a strong, well-prepared national defense force outweighs mundane regulatory concerns. But that doesn't mean the courts should abdicate their authority every time a president issues a directive.

Federal courts have ordered the Navy to be on the lookout for marine mammals during its exercises, turn down the sonar when they get close and refrain from operating at night or under certain weather conditions. The notion that this compromises national security seems like a bad joke, especially because the Navy has been taking similar precautions off the Atlantic Coast and Hawaii with no apparent impact on its sailors' readiness. Given that the coastal waters of Southern California are among the most biologically diverse in the world and contain endangered species that would be threatened by unrestrained use of sonar, requiring the Navy to obey the law isn't too much to ask.
 
I hope this goes well for the NRDC.  Seems a clear case, but it also seems as if the Justices don't feel like going against the Navy/Executive Branch in this one.

I'll be watching for updates.
 
Well, I can guarantee you how seven of the nine justices will vote on this one.  Honestly, I do hope that the Court tells the Navy to back off.  The USA isn't going to get caught unawares by a submarine in this day and age, and I am sure that in any active threat situation, we would be more than willing to let the USN (and other NATO navies) hit the SONAR back up.  Cool that your colleague is arguing the case, though.  I think it would be amazing to present a case to such a body as the SCOTUS.
 
The USA isn't going to get caught unawares by a submarine in this day and age

Maybe. I don't think that global situation is that secure, and IMHO we'll (the world) have a major war in next 20 years. But that's offtopic. What i meant to say, you ain't gonna use that SONAR. Passive acoustic sensors and magnetic anomality detectors should do the trick, as they're doing it for the last 50 years. Firing up your SONAR is saying, hey i'm here, blow me up with that 300knot VA-111 Shkval II.

In any case, i'm for the wales. If we lose them, we'll have a premium problem on our asses (ref. Star Trek V)  :D
 
Zare said:
Maybe. I don't think that global situation is that secure, and IMHO we'll (the world) have a major war in next 20 years. But that's offtopic. What i meant to say, you ain't gonna use that SONAR. Passive acoustic sensors and magnetic anomality detectors should do the trick, as they're doing it for the last 50 years. Firing up your SONAR is saying, hey i'm here, blow me up with that 300knot VA-111 Shkval II.

In any case, i'm for the wales. If we lose them, we'll have a premium problem on our asses (ref. Star Trek V)  :D

Well, that's what I meant.  There's lots of other ways to catch a whale.  I mean a submarine.  And it was Star Trek IV.  Star Trek V was the one with Spock's half-brother and they met God.
 
LooseCannon said:
Star Trek V was the one with Spock's half-brother and they met God.

Amazing how a single line serves to perfectly describe the irredeemable piece of shit Star Trek V was.
 
By coincidence, I'm reading William Shatner's autobiography right now. Very funny book from a very funny man. Anyway, he discusses that movie in more depth than any other Star Trek movie (because he was the director in addition to acting). And once you hear his story on it, you understand why it's a piece of crap. I'm not going to retype the whole thing here, but the basics are...

Shatner and Nimoy have contracts where, whenever either of them is given something for doing Star Trek stuff, the other gets it too. Nimoy insisted on directing ST IV. That meant that instantly, Shatner was slated to direct ST V. He had a good story initially: a passage through Hell based on Dante's Inferno, and the big guy they meet at the end is the devil. But the studio refused that story, so it had to be rewritten many times until it became the pile of crap you know. Shatner did the best he could with a final story he knew was dumb. It was also his first major directing experience, and he admits now he did it badly.

So yes, the movie sucks. But Shatner's story goes to show how bad movies get made. They start good, and then studios interfere. Hate the movie, but don't diss The Shat [sup]1 2[/sup].

After all, remember that William Shatner is one of the 5 highest Gods in the pantheon of the Church Of Adrian Smith:
1. Adrian Smith
2. Lemmy
3. Steve Harris
4. William Shatner
5. Bruce Dickinson

[sup]1[/sup] I know no one dissed The Shat. I'm just sayin', that's all.

[sup]2[/sup] And stop calling him The Shat. His name is Robert Paulson William Shatner.
 
And it was Star Trek IV.  Star Trek V was the one with Spock's half-brother and they met God.

My mistake. Star Trek IV was fun. Especially Chekov who asked US road cop "where can we find a nuclear vessel" with pure Russian accent  :D

ST5 was very low, but ST6 is among the best. In my book, the only one of Kirk movies that can be compared to First Contact and Nemesis.

After all, remember that William Shatner is one of the 5 highest Gods in the pantheon of the Church Of Adrian Smith:
1. Adrian Smith
2. Lemmy
3. Steve Harris
4. William Shatner
5. Bruce Dickinson

I'd also list Jean-Luc "Karl Marx" Picard and Kathryn "Prime Directive" Janeway as a competitors to the list  :halo:
 
I don't know if I'd classify Nemesis as a "great" Star Trek movie.  For me, that's Wrath of Khan, Undiscovered Country, and First Contact.  But I did enjoy it, thus placing it in the second tier with Generations and Voyage Home.  I tolerate Insurrection and Search For Spock (mostly 'cause of Christopher Lloyd).  I despise The Motion Picture and The Final Frontier.
 
The Wrath Of Kahn, The Voyage Home, The Undiscovered Country and First Contact are absolutely brilliant, with special emphasis on the latter two. Generations and Nemesis are cool, but lack something... the others had a lot of wasted opportunity -except for The Final Frontier, which was just a waste.
 
Huh.  I had to re-read my address bar to make sure I wasn't in forum.trekfans.com

Anyway, I'd agree with most of what was just said, Wrath was my fav-- had they the visual effects available today, it would kick ass right now.  First Contact was also great, tho, personally, I think Insurrection was a pretty good flick as well.  Generations, IV, VI, and Nemisis were good.  Same on I, & V, not such a huge fan.
 
Zare said:
I'd also list Jean-Luc "Karl Marx" Picard and Kathryn "Prime Directive" Janeway as a competitors to the list

And mistakes like that are why you don't have a position in the Church hierarchy. :P
 
And mistakes like that are why you don't have a position in the Church hierarchy.

I'll burn your Church of Adrian Smith in the name of Adrian Smith.
 
Back
Top