A federal judge in Los Angeles on Monday rejected the Bush administration's attempt to exempt Navy sonar training from key environmental laws, saying that there's no real emergency to justify overruling court-ordered protections for whales and dolphins.

U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper also suggested that President Bush's effort to maneuver around an earlier federal court order was "constitutionally suspect," although she made no ruling on that issue. Judge Cooper also rejected out of hand the Administration's assertion that some of the whales "had frickin laser beams attached to their heads" and could be classified as enemy combatants.

Full story.

yeah and watch out for the female killer whales with down's syndrome

What about the female whales with PMS?

Good night, those are real weapons of mass destruction!!!!

female fish are deadly! we have a couple of clown fish and the male is not long for the tank with the way the female is attacking!

Yes good think Los Angels courts put this to rest. God forbid our troops would be trained in modern warfare. Perhaps they need knife fighting training for underwater vessel-to-vessel submarine combat.

I am sure there are posters on BOL who regularly have vessel-to-vessel "combat" lol.

perhaps MB, but those posts and threads end up on the ash heap of history

While other waste products remain in full and fragrant view.

well is my little violin?

Put your hackles down, Harry. So, the Navy has to steam a few more miles to a more suitable location. What's the big deal?

Bugs,

Just a small question, how do we know whether or not, there is a suitable location. I cannot read the entire article, but having been on the East coast and rode submarines, there were certain areas close to the New London Op Area that were suitable to conduct these kind of test. When the whales were migrating through we could not use the area. So we would have to "steam" a "few" miles, down to the Carribean to operate in suitable location due to the acoustic characteristics.

What did this entail, extra days at sea steaming (approx 6) instead of being in port with the sailors families and being able to perform upkeep on the boat in preparation for deploying. Loading of additional food (inport you very seldom feed the entire crew, at sea there are 4 meals served a day based on watch rotation). If the departure date or return date happens to be on a weekend, the cost of civilian support personnel is outrageous (if you depart on a weekday, then that could be an extra day away). Plus this does not just affect the crew of one sub, there is no telling how many support units are involved.

Don't get me wrong, I do have feelings towards the whales, but to change op areas, consist a lot more than just steam a few more miles somewhere.

Good point. I don't know how far away the next best location might be. But I also don't know if the location they are banned from using is the best location either. Maybe they are just trying to cut corners and save some time and money -- and that's admirable. But if the only thing they are losing is time and money, then what's the big deal? They should just go somewhere else.


So, what's wrong with that, other than some inconvenience, time, and money.


Hey sometimes I have to travel for my job. That means time away from my family and the possibility that I'm not close at hand if needed by them or my company. This is not that much different.


I'm not denying the inconvenience factor. I'm just suggesting that the incovenience is worth the price if it saves some whales.


Sure, it's easy to make fun of people when they say "Save the whales." But tell me, what's wrong with saving a few whales if it can be done and the only price paid is some incovenience, time, and money?

I would save the whales, but i don't have enough room in my freezer.

Bugs,

I agree that it is an incovenience, however, the intent of my post was that to move op areas is more than just steam a few miles away.

As you disected my post, the only item that I think that you may be a little off base is the separation from home. You stated that there was much difference between what the Sailors have to endure and what you do with your travels. I think that there is a huge difference. You may have just been comparing the additional time for conducting the ops a having to spend maybe an extra 6 days at sea or maybe not. I would assume that with your job, you do not spend more than 200 days away from home out of a year, when your on the rode you can call and speak to your wife and children, and the list could go on. Being assigned to a ship or sub, you can pretty much expect to spend more than half the year away from home, on a sub you don't always have email or snail mail and never a phone call. I will speak for myself that I volunteered for all that and that was my choice and I accept that. I don't hold any ill will to anyone who didn't volunteer, that was their choice, but I don't think that you can compare the two.

I don't think there is any comparison to civilian and armed forces time spent away from home. My civilian husband does spend more than 200 days away from home but anytime he wants to quit he can do that. If he wraps up a job early he can come home, he can come home on weekends sometimes if he can get away and his life is not in danger.
Personally, I would rather the military not spend extra money and time just to avoid the whales, I would rather they had as much time as possible to keep their equipment in perfect working order and I would rather that the military men and women had as much time as possible to spend with friends and family.
I love the whales, but the protection of the people of the US is more important to me than the protection of sea life.

Seadevil and Trail Hiker, I understand what you're saying. We're on opposite sides of the fence on this issue, but that's OK.

Personally, I'd rather the military spend a little more and still keep their equipment and training up to standards *and* save some whales at the same time.

The real conundrum (in my mind) deciding what is the best way to look out for our posterity.

To me it boils down to: "Do we expend all of our resources to protect our current way of life for our children and children's children, or do we try to balance the rights of our posterity to be able to preserve some of life's little pleasures (such as whales) at the cost of spending a little more money in the here and now?"

Is that such a bad thing?

Another way to look at it is to ask the question "Are there any other US laws that military units may ignore if it makes their training more convenient?"

Dump fuel or other wastes in sewer systems?
Practice urban warfare in, well, urban centers? ('Honey, do you want to catch Spamalot after I launch this SAM at the Chrysler Building?')
Practice strafing runs along public highways? (Last year a high school in my area was accidentally strafed with dummy 20mm rounds by an Air Force pilot who was a little off course.)
Launch SSMs at commercial fishing vessels?

fog of war barbarian, fog of war

"Fog of war" doesn't apply to stateside training. And I'm certain you already knew that.

Lighten up, Francis.

You first, little missy.

AML - You remind me of my husband

You're married to Niles Crane?

No, a smart @ss.....

Oh, I see. Being snarky is only funny when the cool kids do it.