« Back to story "Overlooked: Sonar and Navy"

Story Comments

Posted by: miklkit 1 year, 6 months ago

This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.

All Comments Share Story Report

  • Neutral
    miklkit1 year, 6 months ago

    This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

    You didn't read the article, did you?

    By the Navy's own estimate, 170,000 marine mammals have been affected by its sonar exercises over the last two years. The military branch still argues that the exercises are vital to training. But when the Supreme Court hears the case this fall, the justices will not weigh in on whether the dolphins and whales are being harmed. As the New York Times point outs, the court is really considering "the balance of power between the executive branch and the courts in resolving such issues. In an effort to sidestep the courts, the Bush administration invoked national security to exempt the Navy from strict adherence to the two federal environmental laws that underlay the court decisions."

    (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 4) (recursion depth : 1) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
    Reply

    5 Replies

    loading loading ...
    • Neutral
      lfergie8121 year, 6 months ago

      This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

      mikkit

      Touche' Some people get so involved with defending Bush that they lose sight of the actual topic of the article. Sure the case goes back to 1997 but that is not what's being discussed. The Navy knows that the sonar is harmful to sea animals but that isn't the issue. Bush is trying to use "national security" to stop the courts from making unfavorable decision concerning government dealings. As you implied, he doesn't want the Constitution to stop him from acting outside the law.

      (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
      Reply

      3 Replies

      loading loading ...
      • Neutral
        miklkit1 year, 6 months ago

        This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

        Outside the law = outlaw.

        (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
        Reply
        loading loading ...
        • Neutral
          bigurn1 year, 6 months ago

          This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

          Being affected does not equate to harm. It was part of an environmental impact study.

          (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 6) (recursion depth : 3) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
          Reply

          1 Reply

          loading loading ...
          • Neutral
            miklkit1 year, 6 months ago

            This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

            Autopsies done on whales shows hemorrhaging around the brain. In other mammals with a similar brain size (us) this is usually attributed to blunt trauma. You know, car wrecks and baseball bats. The Navy has developed a weapon so powerful that it can kill over hundreds of square miles. Beware of unforeseen consequences. This was recognized and laws were enacted. Now you republicons want to turn this mass murder ( their brains are at least as large as yours and mine) into a test of their theory of the unitary executive. You are morally and ethically bankrupt. How will you ever wash the blood off of your hands?

            (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 7) (recursion depth : 4) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
            Reply
            loading loading ...
        • Neutral
          hyperbola1 year, 6 months ago

          This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »

          This is just one more example of the Bush administration crying "national security" to cover up crimes and corruption.

          The main difference here is that because the case precedes the Bush administration, they were unable to follow their usual practice - claiming "national security" to prevent the crimes from even being investigated.

          (comment_max_expanded_depth : 55) (comment depth : 5) (recursion depth : 2) (max_comment_reply_depth : 40) (comment_max_render_depth : 55)
          Reply
          loading loading ...

        Post Reply

        You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.

        People Who Liked This Comment (5)

        People Who Didn't Like This Comment (2)

        Submit a Story

        Advertisement

        Story Tags ?

        Hey! If you Sign In, you can add tags to this story!

        Dropping This Article

        No one has dropped this story.

        Groups Watching This

        No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your groups?

        Also Submitted By

        No one else has submitted this story.