Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Allows Sonar Use
gollum123 writes "The US Supreme Court has removed restrictions on the Navy's use of sonar in training exercises near California. The ruling is a defeat for environmental groups who say the sonar can kill whales and other mammals. In its 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court said the Navy needed to conduct realistic training exercises to respond to potential threats. The court did not deal with the merits of the claims put forward by the environmental groups. In reinstating the use of sonar, the top US court rejected a lower federal judge's injunction that had required the US Navy to take various precautions during submarine-hunting exercises. The Bush administration argued that there is little evidence of harm to marine life in more than 40 years of exercises off the California coast. It said that the judges should have deferred to the judgment of the Navy and Mr Bush. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said overall public interest was 'strongly in favor of the Navy.' 'The most serious possible injury would be harm to an unknown number of the marine mammals,' Chief Justice Roberts wrote. 'In contrast, forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained anti-submarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet.'"
This just after hearing that Obama plans to continue the hunt for "Bin Laden". Looks like nothing's changed for the better except for the now-low gas prices!
A whale would kill you and your whole family if given the opportunity. Did I say "whale"? I meant "nigger".
My guess is they considered the science, not the Chicken Little hyperbole.
Environmentalists (as opposed to conservationists) depend on emotional appeal rather than science and rational analysis to further their agenda. Ergo, the court rightly dismissed their claims for the bullshit that it is.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
Well environmentalists don't have facts, they have feelings and emotional appeal. As opposed to conservationists. Therefore, it was hard for SCOTUS to review their side, if they don't have any facts to put forth.
Whales aren't an important physical resource; removing them would cause a short rebalance of the food chain, that's about it. We don't use whale oil to power ships anymore. Kind of like Galapagos turtles, except they have a real effect outside of one tiny island; the world will get along without them just as well, it's hard to kill or horribly maim the biosphere.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The supreme court and president say sonar is needed and won't be that bad for the whales, but everytime I try to set up a machine to make "ping" noises in the white house or homes of the justices, they have their secret service details tackle me and arrest me, then the police charge me with trespassing, indecent exposure, or some other mumbo jumbo.
Government hypocrisy at its finest I tell you!
Seriously? And this sentence isn't emotional appeal with a lack of science how?
Both of these questions are emotional and lack science.
... generally accepted link...
There's a sciency notion for you. I hear there's a "generally accepted link" between toads and warts too. Give me a PhD in ecology!
How "generally" does a "link" have to be "accepted" before it's irrefutable proof of cause and effect? Very, very generally indeed, I suppose.
And as a side point, what would emotionally charged environmentalists have to gain by stopping sonar exercises around whales?
Dead sailors and a weakened America. I'm sure that's enough for it to be worth it to them.
They'd also like to set a precedent where they speak for the animals and they can therefore control an arbitrarily large part of everyone's daily lives by deciding what we can do and what we can't. Then we can all go to them for their blessing with any planned project or action. They'll give us a yea or nay based on their unique bond with the animals. It's potentially very lucrative.
And the government will pay attorney's fees, which is good if you're an attorney. Then the attorneys can donate to the non-profit that brought the lawsuit. Everyone gets paid. Thanks whales!
Yeah, because detecting submarines carrying nuclear missiles isn't as important as saving the whales. I'm with you 100%, buddy.
Actually, the very opposition to letting the Navy drill and learn how to fight is, actually, proof that environmentalists want dead sailors and a weakened America. If you drill and practice you sailors live, and if they do not, they die. It's pretty straightforward. You can't pretend that there is no choice between animals and humans because there is. Saving the whales might be honorable, but, ultimately, if the whales live, sailors die. That's just the way it is.
The whole point of having sonar practice near the coast is that the world is loading up with a new class of ultra quiet diesel submarines and the Navy has to operate in these waters so they can project carrier born aircraft farther inland.
So, if you say the Navy can't practice using this sonar to find these new types of subs, then, you are basically leaving troops unprepared for war. I mean, what if the USN is operating off of Iran or Venezuala for some reason and they fire off a torpedo and sink a carrier because the Navy could never find the sub as they had no practice? I highly doubt you would see any environmental group own up to this consequence, any more than they would admit that CO2 taxes are going to mean significantly higher energy bills for less energy for all Americans. Environmentalists can't save the earth they want if they told the truth.
This is my sig.
Wow, questioning the patriotism of people with a different view than yours, wonder where you learned that?
Why do you hate America so much? Are you a coward? Would you rather we were in a country that wasn't free? Where if you don't pay a fine for having more than 1 child they just kill your baby? You're a sick twisted unamerican freak and have no business using the American internet.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You dwindling in power and relevance, but Americans are not quite yet an endangered species.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
I think you're seriously exaggerating the potential for a real war.
You dwindling in power and relevance, but Americans are not quite yet an endangered species.
So admit that you make that choice, whales are more important than Americans. Why can't you come right out and say it?
You know, this whole alliance with Europe thing is a failure. We should have stayed with Russia after World War II. The whole world's going leftist anyway, so the difference in economic systems doesn't matter as much, and as allies go, the Russians say what they mean and mean what they say and when it comes time to fight, they fight. Hopefully President Obama will improve relations with Russia by backing down on NATO expansion, setting the stage for a future American president to abandon NATO in favor of an alliance with Russia.
This is my sig.
otherwise I'd say it would be a good way to force a government to think harder about diplomacy, which might be a secondary agenda for 'environmentalists'.
Yes, and that makes them anti-Americans. When you steal a tool out of someone's toolbox, that makes you anti-them. Why can't environmentalists just admit they are anti-American and move on with it?
This is my sig.
you lucky bastard :)
Wow, questioning the patriotism of people with a different view than yours, wonder where you learned that?
You don't need to learn it. When someone tells soldiers to shoot their commanders, it figured that patriotism is not really their main motivation. Also when they go to Iraq to act as human shields to support an enemy nation. Burning flags, praising Fidel Castro, blaming America for everything anyone ever did wrong in the world, wanting us to be more like Europe, threatening to move to Canada every election, how many incidents does it take to raise a question?
Why should there even be a question? America-haters are not patriotic.
Congrats on parroting a well-worn talking point though.
Since you claim the environmentalists want dead sailors and a weakened America, please cite your proof...
One indication that they want dead sailors is that they're taking an action that might result in dead sailors. That's why the court ruled against them. If they don't want dead sailors, why are they endangering the sailors? They'd rather sailors die than whales get "injured". That's the whole point of the story.