Navy vs. Environmentalists
The issue will be taken up by the Supreme Court – whether the Navy’s job is to protect marine wildlife, or us.
So far, federal courts in
Sonar, which the Navy uses primarily to locate enemy submarines at sea, can interfere with marine mammals’ ability to navigate and communicate. There is some evidence that the technology has caused whales to strand on shore.
The government also says national security interests can trump those of marine mammals, and that its use of mid-frequency sonar in training exercises hasn’t caused any documented harm to dolphins or beaked whales.
The court ordered to Navy to shut off all sonar use within 12 nautical miles of the coast or within 2,200 yards of a marine mammal. By this ludicrous logic, the Army should have to clear its artillery ranges of all mammals before training, and the EPA might as well mandate fuel efficiency standards for tanks and F-16s. For that matter, maybe the military should be required to file an environmental impact statement before opening fire.
The Navy’s use of sonar is a direct function of the President’s war-making powers. The courts have no legitimate function in that arena and are quite simply attempting to balance the need for national security against environmental concerns.
Some environmentalists said the Supreme Court’s hearing of the case will finally settle what takes precedence – national security or environmental protection.
That seems like an easy question to answer, but it’s the wrong question. In fact, balancing national security against the environment is exactly what the courts have done so far and what they have proven utterly incompetent to do. The real question is whether the environmental regulations should restrict the Navy’s tactics at all. The courts have said so far either that the environment is more important or that the Navy does not need to train in peacetime for the job it would be required to do when a real threat occurs.
Perhaps the Supreme Court will do the right thing, but there is no reason to be confident of that – not from the court that just extended civilian due process rights to enemy combatants on foreign soil.
