digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Bush Exempts Navy from Environmental Law

news.yahoo.com — President Bush exempted the Navy from an environmental law so it can continue using sonar in its anti-submarine warfare training off the California coast — a practice critics say is harmful to whales and other marine mammals.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • EllieElliott, on 01/17/2008, -22/+31torture
    • Terr01, on 01/17/2008, -10/+5Uh... Could you be more specific instead of a single-word post?

      That said, it does resemble the sort of unilateral administration activities that they've been doing in other fields. From the article:

      "Bush has no authority to overturn a court injunction, officials said. With the exemption in hand, they are hoping a three-judge panel in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will vacate the injunction.
      "The president's action is an attack on the rule of law," said Joel Reynolds, director of the Marine Mammal Protection Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "By exempting the Navy from basic safeguards under both federal and state law, the president is flouting the will of Congress, the decision of the California Coastal Commission and a ruling by the federal court.""

      Signing statements all over again?
    • Gir53457, on 01/17/2008, -4/+10Yeah it's harmful to marine wildlife, but what happens when we have a naval warfare situation on our hands? (Cough cough, north Korea). Doesn't the Navy have some sort of computerized training simulation tool that enable them to train troops in the use of computer aided combat via some sort of amazing computer simulation tool? I'd call it a computer simulation.
      • fyngyrz, on 01/17/2008, -5/+15Do you understand how seldom active sonar is used in combat? Sending even one active sonar pulse is a big "hello, here I am, shoot me" signal.

        Strategy and tactics aside, it's ***** illegal, and it's just Bush acting as Supreme Dictator again. Just one more year. That's what I keep telling myself. Just one more year.
        • Gir53457, on 01/17/2008, -3/+4"Hello? I'm in the vaguely in the vicinity near you and am going to torpedo your ass while you try and triangulate my position."
          • fyngyrz, on 01/17/2008, -1/+3No, triangulation isn't the process. Think about it. If a sonar pulse, emitted from one location, is sufficient to determine where you are by a single echo - and it often is - then can you wrap your head around the idea that detecting the pulse directly also provides a similar amount of information?

            You get bearing directly, and there are many cues that provide range, at least, when the sonar emission is within the range of a mark 48 or other torpedo. Once launched down a bearing, the torpedo itself can go active, and send refined ranging information down the wire to the launch platform, plus it is smart enough to do some refinement of its own.

            The bottom line is, no, you don't want to go active.
        • Gir53457, on 01/17/2008, -1/+3I know it's pointless this day and age and that's why I suggested we use computer simulations to train instead of ***** with the whales even more.
        • Tilon, on 01/17/2008, -2/+2"Sending even one active sonar pulse is a big "hello, here I am, shoot me" signal."

          Which is why they use buoys and ***** too.
          • fyngyrz, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1You mean dipping sonar? As far as I know (it's been a few years now, but still...) those are very low power systems. The problem emissions we're talking about here are from ultra-powerful emitters mounted on platforms like destroyers and attack submarines. The issue at hand is, what is the actual benefit of transmitting extremely high powered sonar pulses?
      • WaltDismal, on 01/17/2008, -1/+9I just want to point out that the US Navy was running training exercises recently and two Chinese subs surfaced - previously undetected - in the MIDDLE of the exercise. It turns out they have undetectable rubber-plate coated subs, and the Navy got all shook up over it. So the Decider is fscking with the law just because he can, not because it will help anything. Although it's one way of compensating for a small Johnson.
        • Alpione, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2Here's a thought - as civilians, maybe we don't know every single issue at hand here. While I'm sure Bush would love to hurt whales just for fun (because he's pure evil, right?) I would imagine the Navy has requested this for a very valid reason...
  • tynansanger, on 01/17/2008, -27/+17Nuke a gay whale for Christ
    • jgtg32a, on 01/17/2008, -5/+7/sarcasm
      This is digg you have to have it otherwise you're going to get dugg down.
      • duffblue, on 01/17/2008, -3/+2Some people just don't understand : /
    • Gir53457, on 01/17/2008, -2/+3Naww. Sonar? They just annoy whales until they kill themselves. Literally. Whales will beach themselves to escape the noise.
  • SilentSpyder, on 01/17/2008, -24/+62*****
  • sotopheavy, on 01/17/2008, -11/+34Is there even another technology for detecting submarines besides trained dolphins lol? If our navy couldn't detect submarines, we would not be able to defend this country from attack period. If attacked our navy would be sitting ducks without sonar. Like it or not we do need a navy that can detect threats above and below the water for defensive purposes even if our current president doesn't want to use it that way.
    • Kindjal, on 01/17/2008, -11/+11Can you tell me how old Sonar technology is? Is there really a need to still test it. All that has been asked is to keep a no Sonar zone and watch out for mammals if they do their training.
      This is hardly too much to ask from a military the size and budget of the USA. The most important point is however that your dictator overturns any rulings even if he does not have the right to do so.
      • jgtg32a, on 01/17/2008, -4/+3Not so much testing a drilling the crew.
      • brdsofprey, on 01/17/2008, -1/+8You said "Can you tell me how old Sonar technology is? Is there really a need to still test it."
        Do you know how old X-ray technology is? Is there still a reason to test that? Do you know that there have been serious advances in x-ray and sonor technology in recent years that only come from this type of testing.
        I think that we should respect the sea and its inhabitants, but try to make a better point than it's old. And like DKCO said above, it's too bad that people can actually make a point that may have some validity but end up sounding like they have a grudge to bare.
    • Gir53457, on 01/17/2008, -3/+3Before sonar we used air ships quite commonly in the Navy to spot submarines. Right up till about midway through WWII.
      • autobotguy, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6i think airships can only detect submarines to a certain depth, i.e. a visible on. Also, the majority of them kind of got blown up/ shot down once anti-aircraft weapon technology got better. They were sweet for the day but not a very long lived technology.
    • yetAnotherCroc, on 01/17/2008, -5/+10News flash! It has been proven your navy can't find the smaller more modern subs. You had one of our subs over there for excercises for two years and couldnt find it once. We sunk the Reagan, The Los angeles and a few other ships in those excercises. And guess what? That was a ten year old class of our submarines. The new subs we are making now are designed to be even more silent, be able to stay submerged even longer and survive a direct hit by a torpedo. So your navy is in deep sh*t and they know it.
      • jasqwerty, on 01/17/2008, -2/+4Must be nice living in la-la land...
        • funktimus, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2unless the subs are in the groundwater...
        • yetAnotherCroc, on 01/17/2008, -2/+3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Gotland_%28Gtd%29
          • jasqwerty, on 01/17/2008, -3/+1Watch out guys, he's got a WIKIPEDIA link

            LOL...

            And Swedish capabilities of finding US subs?
          • yetAnotherCroc, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4I could have given you other links, including from your own military, but I'm at work and dont have time to go researching right now.

            Well we have only done a little bit of practice with you guys but apparently they also "sank" two of your subs in excercises. I dont think our detection systems are that spectatular. But it helps to be near undetectable in the water. Apparently the american subs could only detect the Gotland when using active sonar. And we all know how that would end in a real engagement.
          • jasqwerty, on 01/17/2008, -2/+3>>I could have given you other links

            You should probably get on that considering your wikipedia link doesn't even support the crap you've spouted off so far.

            >>And we all know how that would end in a real engagement.

            Well for the Americans I would guess due to the capabilities active sonar detection and comparative armaments.
          • Squid88, on 01/29/2008, -0/+0Diesel boats are quieter submerged than nuke boats makes DBs harder find while they are underwater, but even the most advanced DB has to come to snorkel depth to get air for both the crew and the engines. Nukes can stay under for years, like a shark we wait until your boats need to surface than strike- so much for swedish superiority
      • tricks574, on 01/17/2008, -2/+5Our navy might not be tops, but our air force has not allows a ground based u.s. casualty by enemy air support since the 50's or 60's, so while you are sinking our destroyers, we are bombing your capitol.
        • yetAnotherCroc, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6well I guess you can take consolation in the fact that not may would be crazy enough to try to invade the US. The reason they are worried is that they will soon start encountering this type of sub on campaigns in the middle east and Korea etc. Makes policing the world a lot harder when you don't have tactical naval superiority anymore. (Besides the Reagan is not a destroyer, its your biggest Aircraft carrier. So while you are trying to bomb our capitol we sink the landing pads for the bombers. :P And yes I know about long range air craft and airfields on Iceland and in Germany:P As I said, no one would be crazy enough to try it. But if push came to shoves the Swedish coastal waters might turn out to be tougher than you expect.)
      • pw378, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2No sub today will avoid active sonar. Everything in the water, from fish to rocks will echo back. If you have invented something that doesn't reflect sonar please let us know.

        The tests I believe you refer to were based on passive detection, which means listening very carefully for various patterns and sounds... not sending out active pings.
    • Lennalf, on 01/17/2008, -6/+19Yeah, remember when those extremists hijacked a submarine and flew it into the World Trade Center? Wait...

      Here are some things I find to be considerably more threatening to my life/liberty than submarines:
      - Carcinogenic pollutants in our air and water
      - Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles
      - Drug Enforcement Agency
      - Cars on the road after bar time
      - Clowns
      - B2 stealth bombers
      - Nuclear winter
      • pw378, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2If you cannot detect a submarine with several nuclear warheads sitting a few miles from all the major coastal cities, you will have your 'nuclear winter' concern fulfilled.
        • Lennalf, on 01/24/2008, -0/+1The "nuclear winter" I'm describing is more of a global phenomenon. If you set off enough nukes *anywhere* on the planet, it is going to be devastating *everywhere*...
    • sporg, on 01/17/2008, -7/+2The fact that anyone is seriously afraid of an enemy submarine attack is laughable.
      • overridemymind, on 01/17/2008, -0/+7Precisely. Because, you know... Submarines can't carry missiles or anything.... Oh... wait... Yes they can.
        • pw378, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2The fact you do no understand the Triad of national defense is whats laughable.... Submarines, missles, bombers. They each have a very specific tactical attack and defense advantage. Why do you think every major nuclear power (US, Russia, China, India, etc) all have submarines?? I suppose you know more then they do right...
    • dsmx, on 01/17/2008, -2/+5So environmentalists want to stop the navy using sonar now? Do they have anything to replace sonar?
      • angryredplanet, on 01/17/2008, -3/+6World peace
        • epyon8282, on 01/17/2008, -7/+5***** world peace & ***** you. Get your head outta your ass you liberal hippy douche.
        • dsmx, on 01/17/2008, -1/+3World peace won't stop the use of sonar, it is used by fishing ships as well. Also scientific boats use it to find hidden structures such as sunken cities and ships.
        • Digger1123, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2And then how will shipping vessels and fishing boats, etc. operate in heavy fog? Oh, thats right they wont, or they will and there will be some pretty big accidents.
    • an0nym0uz, on 01/17/2008, -2/+4To be honest, we wouldn't need to be so worried about getting attacked if t his Douchebag bush wasn't invading other countries for no reason besides OIL.
  • JulieBrownfield, on 01/17/2008, -13/+9Anything that might be used for war. Anything. If only he could hear us? Lets try sonar..."Mr. President you are nuts."
    • snatchmstr, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2Do you even have a clue what sonar is used for moron?
  • LmaoTzu, on 01/17/2008, -10/+26In the Navy
    Yes, you can sail the seven seas
    In the Navy
    Yes, you can put your mind at ease [from threats of environmental lawsuits]
  • p0s3r, on 01/17/2008, -36/+17Good. ***** you enviro-whackos.
    • pands, on 01/17/2008, -16/+3YEAH ***** DOLPHINS AND WHALES AND ALL THAT SEA *****
      • Opiate, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Were you trying to counter his statement or support it? I'm not really sure..
        • SpacePoet, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2I thought it was obvious that he is making fun of the idiot above him. I know these assholes pretty much sound like that, but rest assured, that was sarcasm.
    • SpacePoet, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1The greatest thing that we have as human beings is the Earth we live on, in a way, it's your home, and mine. Some people like to keep their home clean for generations to come so our children can enjoy what we have enjoyed, a clean and healthy planet. I'm assuming you have no kids, they tend to change your mind about the environment, that or a decent set of morals.
  • fearlessfx, on 01/17/2008, -15/+3Save the ***** whales.
    • ufia, on 01/17/2008, -1/+4I have had it with these ***** whales on this ***** submarine! Everybody strap in! I'm about to open some ***** screen doors.
  • munen123, on 01/17/2008, -12/+5"navy sux" - whales and dolphins
  • seefresh, on 01/17/2008, -40/+13Are you ***** kidding me? Who gives a *****. Humans > whales. If you disagree, you're a ***** human... digg it down.
    • kevinwiz, on 01/17/2008, -12/+11all species are equally deserving of this planet.
      • gpw11, on 01/17/2008, -9/+13Evolution and the food chain disagree.
        • angryredplanet, on 01/17/2008, -2/+5Evolution has nothing to do with a species right to a chance at life. It just means that over several epochs, genetic mutations that enable them to survive better are more likely to become the norm for that species (nothing in there about one species being superior over another). Everything is a part of the food chain. By extincting a species, you ***** with the balance that is the food chain by punching holes in it. When you ***** with large species like whales, we don't even know what effect that will have on subsequent levels of the food chain.

          Humans are not the be-all-and-end-all. Biodiversity helps us, as a species, stay alive. Realise that.
          • Digger1123, on 01/17/2008, -4/+0natural selection. Some animals are better than others, like Humans, or at least Conservative. Liberals wouldn't survive in this world if they were in control of their own country. No sonar on the ships, which would lead to many crashers, world peace, which would not work, it would go something like this: How much money do you want to stop this war? n Billion. Okay, we will wire it to your account. three weeks after this, the attacks would resume, with n Billion in funding behind them.
    • SpacePoet, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Whales don't kill each other for money. They are also the largest creatures on the planet, well almost as big as your ego.
  • cl2yp71c, on 01/17/2008, -15/+7Firing humans out of the torpedo launcher is also good training.
    Ole' dubya should go climb in.
  • ChazHollywood, on 01/17/2008, -9/+50The practice is also harmful to Chinese subs.
    • an0nym0uz, on 01/17/2008, -4/+2what does this have to do with the Chinese?
  • doodersrage, on 01/17/2008, -12/+1""
  • nsummy, on 01/17/2008, -9/+22This has been going on way before Bush. While I don't agree with the decision, you can't solely blame him. The title sure does help it get dugg though.
    • pintomp3, on 01/17/2008, -2/+8it has been going on for a while, but he decided to continue it's use despite increasing evidence of the harm it causes marine life.
    • angryredplanet, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6I still want to kick his ass.
  • Jo9100, on 01/17/2008, -14/+6this doesn't even surprise me. he's an *****, i know this since 8 years.
    • utahnkid, on 01/17/2008, -4/+2Ok.. I'm not a fan of criticizing other people''s grammar but come on.. Did you even read that ONE time after you wrote it?
    • Digger1123, on 01/17/2008, -2/+0He hasn't been in office for 7. Do you know math?
  • Petron10, on 01/17/2008, -19/+15How the hell is he able to do this? What is going on in this country when our president can clearly break a rule that was established for the good of the earth and simply has no care of the impending danger that creatures upon this earth will have to deal with.

    Right on EllieElliot.
    • Kindjal, on 01/17/2008, -3/+4Dictatorship?
      /hint
    • UncleCrapper, on 01/17/2008, -4/+15I don't know why some assholes dugg you down because I had the very same thought. How is that Bush can just sign an exemption to any law (unless the law gives him that authority)? Congress makes the law, the courts interpret the law and the President is obliged to execute the law. It's third grade social studies, people.
      • Sheryldx, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1It'S war time in america dude Bush can do wahtever he want without congress approval. Thanks to Cheney's law !
  • duffblue, on 01/17/2008, -19/+7***** the environment and ***** you.
    • sunamc, on 01/17/2008, -1/+6You sir are a moron.You are just apart of and just as dependent on the environment to survive, as every single organism is on this planet.
    • SpacePoet, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Please kill yourself, you have reached to precipice of your usefulness.
  • Joemedic, on 01/17/2008, -5/+5I feel extra sorry for the Chinese wales.
    • an0nym0uz, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3how does have anything to do with the Chinese?
  • artwork, on 01/17/2008, -2/+4Booo

  • gypsi, on 01/17/2008, -7/+7i wonder how many cooperative military/civilian industrial projects are in the pipe for bushie's financial portfolio eh?
    • angryredplanet, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2He must've got some free pens or t-shirts or something.
  • jasqwerty, on 01/17/2008, -4/+15LOL, people mad at this must have been ***** themselves when the japs said they're whaling again
    • SpacePoet, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1The Japanese I can excuse, they use the whales for products and food, the military destroys them for war games and nothing else.
      • Squid88, on 01/29/2008, -0/+0I guess the environmentals have a new philosophy, if you are only going to slaughter whales for food it is OK but if you are using sonar to train against the threat of submrine attacks the damn you.
  • cg06vx, on 01/17/2008, -12/+17So sacrifice the livelihood that you so enjoy, because the training of navel defense will scare off whales?
    You people have you priorities skewed. I would understand if it was a commercial enterprise, but if i had to chose between me and a whale, I'll pick my safety any day over a whale.
    • duffblue, on 01/17/2008, -6/+5Whales are stupid anyway. FIGHT THE OCEAN OVERLORDS.
    • angryredplanet, on 01/17/2008, -3/+6Conversely, the whale would also choose it's safety over yours. Moot point.

      Did you read the article? It's not an all out ban on sonar, just in areas near the coast that support cetacean and other mammalian life affected by sonar.
      • VitriolAndAngst, on 01/17/2008, -2/+3I'm surprised these "Military Uber Alles" types can even type.
        Without the thought that we have the most kick ass military, these boys couldn't go to the Mall with pride.
        Every decision is made based upon WHO COULD ATTACK US. When the threat has been 90% internal. The US doesn't have enemies -- just corporate interests. I'm sure the Chinese and Russians have just as bribed and corrupted leaders as we do. Subs are just another way to spend our money in ways that make us poor.
      • mike17032, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2Maybe they dont think its a good idea to open up known and documented holes in our coverage right off the coast.

        I dont think its a good idea either.
    • SpacePoet, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1It's not only scaring them, it is killing them, that is the reason for the outrage. Even I wouldn't give two ***** if it was just scaring them, because animals are smart and will work around that. Having your eardrums blown out so you can't navigate anymore is a lot worse.
  • DorXtar, on 01/17/2008, -1/+8Bush did this in direct response to a ruling handed down by a Federal Judge on January 3rd.
    http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_7877568
    http://www.sci-tech-today.com/story.xhtml?story_id ...
  • Ica7us, on 01/17/2008, -3/+2So I'm not ready to take credit for global warming -- so bury me for it. That being said, I'm also a salt water aquarium enthusiast, so I'm a big fan of the oceans being kept alive...so I'm a hypocrite. Meh.
    • SpacePoet, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1I know the feeling is blame, but it is taking responsibility for your actions in your immediate environment. Just do your part, recycle what you can, get a car that gets good gas mileage, and you're already doing better than most people on this planet... No need to feel like a hypocrite when you are already an animal lover, there is obviously some feeling of care in you.
  • alexandramw, on 01/17/2008, -5/+8I hate it when people are only concerned with themselves and their own safety and are not with the other creatures of this world...some humans are entirely selfish.
    • Matri, on 01/17/2008, -4/+7We'll see who's safety you're concerned with when you're staring down the torpedo tube of a Chinese sub.
      • sunamc, on 01/17/2008, -2/+3or starving due to depleted fish stocks.
        • thugok, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2I have a feeling that overfishing has a stronger impact on fish stocks, not the use of sonar.
        • sunamc, on 01/18/2008, -0/+2@Thugok.
          Sorry I should have been more clear. By my comment I was agreeing with what alexandramw had to say but I interpreted it to mean our apathy concerning the environment and our continued fear of other nations and the threat of war rather than worrying about greater threats such as the depletion of fish stocks due to unsustainable fishing practices, and the effect it will have on our growing population.
  • pintomp3, on 01/17/2008, -1/+4flipper has been placed on the no swim list.
    • chrissandvick, on 01/17/2008, -0/+3Actually flipper has been on the CIA payroll, codename NEPTUNE, since 1963. He likes his martinis wet with a side of anchovies.
    • SuperVepr308, on 01/17/2008, -1/+0HAHAHAHAHA!
  • soden240, on 01/17/2008, -4/+9Listen, I'll tell you right now that sonar will only harm animals at a VERY CLOSE RANGE. Yes, It can harm animals. It can harm people as well, divers in particular. I was a sonar technician aboard a destroyer in Japan for a few years. Now, 230 decibels into the water is very very loud. However, the sound loses its intensity very quickly after the first few thousand yards. Big deal? Not really, because the Navy is going to continue to use it's sonar to screen the waters for chinese(or north korean... they're all russian-engineered anyways) submarines that just so happen to wander so far... as they have had a tendency to do in the past.
    • wvdavis, on 01/17/2008, -0/+6As a STG you should know that sound travels four times faster and further in water than in air. You say "the sound loses its intensity very quickly after the first few thousand yards." So what's the Navy going to do? Send out a test ping (at a lower decibel) to let all of the animals clear the area before they go to full power. Not likely. Even if they did, due to the sensitivity of these creatures hearing, I doubt several thousands of yards is safe for them. I am sure while you were station aboard the ship you went to the bow and saw dolphins riding the bow wave or watched them as they swam along side for what seemed like miles. As a diver I know 230 will probably collapse any air cavity in your body. These mammals have similar cavities, they are also curious so they going to hang around the ship. Bottom line, there is no safe way for the Navy to run these high powered sonar devices. Sadly you are right; they will continue to run them, but I believe that training is one thing and tracking submarines is another. Besides they (the subs) have not came out to play in earnest since the late eighties.
      • Squid88, on 01/29/2008, -0/+0So the subs haven't come out to play since the late eighties you say, which subs would be those be...The Russian Akulas, the Chinese Tangs, the North Korean Romeos, still playing today. Training is one thing tracking submarines is another, how do our STs track if they dont know how how do they learn by training. But I guess as a diver you just dive in deep water without training how first.
  • ronaldinho, on 01/17/2008, -2/+7If the navy has been doing fine within the Coastal Zone Management Act before, then I don't see why we should exempt the navy. I think the injunction that a no-sonar zone to be erected will work out well and is a good ruling, and Bush's exemption has no effect on it directly (yet).
  • bradcrc, on 01/17/2008, -3/+15I'm against harming animals, but until an alternate technology is available, if they need sonar, they should keep using it.

    The part of this that really is concerning is that Bush continues to function as a king or dictator, and ignore the rule of American law. Unbelievable that he continues to do so with no accountability or even media attention. "The president's action is an attack on the rule of law," Pretty amazing that this continues to happen.
    • DorXtar, on 01/17/2008, -0/+8The use of sonar is not the issue. The issue is, the Navy has a new type of sonar that is designed to "reach-out" farther. This new type of sonar is causing problems with marine life. The navy can keep using it's old sonar, but the new sonar tech obviously needs some tweaking if it's causing animals miles away to become disoriented and die. They don't "need" to use the new sonar, even though they keep pushing the idea that the new sonar is the only sonar that they should be using "in the name of national security". I agree with you about the king/dictator comment. A federal judge already handed down a ruling. The presdient can't just simply pick and choose what rulings he likes.
    • jdepp, on 01/17/2008, -0/+5In an end-of-times scenario when they're on a mission to nuke 100 million Russians / Arabs / Europeans / etc in the name of national security, then we'll permit them to take a couple of whales as collateral damage. In the meantime on "war games" or exercises they should act like they're interested in the world having a future and mute their system to the point where it doesn't harm wildlife.
    • moletimer, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Bush doesn't just ignore American law (and thus the constitution), he does and always has ignored international law - classic sign of a dictator.
      • Squid88, on 01/29/2008, -0/+0The President can't crap without congressional approval, Slick willie was almost impeached for having sex yet Bush cant be brought up for ignoring American Law? Why, because his actions have gotten congressional approval even going to war. Newsflash for International Law, the US constitution does not reguire international approval for anything.
  • XanderDee, on 01/17/2008, -6/+7So the rule of law means nothing to United States? Bush I say you should stop elections too cuz wtf if you can just set aside the law like that then whats stopping you from taking over.
  • Frostman3D, on 01/17/2008, -5/+7In our country, supposedly NO ONE is above the law. Bush has nibbled away at the constitution like a fat man on a bag of Doritos.
  • vango, on 01/17/2008, -1/+2link is dead, heres another source
    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sonar17jan ...
  • slayernine, on 01/17/2008, -4/+10Wait so you guys are in favor of not using sonar? This is one of those matters where its either us or the animals, and as much as I love our furry friends I will go with protecting the life of my fellow man.
    • 11oops, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2Not necessarily. We are, however, in favor of not having our President decide which laws are to be followed and by whom. As best phrased by UncleCrapper in an earlier comment "Congress makes the law, the courts interpret the law and the President is obliged to execute the law. It's third grade social studies, people."
    • SpacePoet, on 01/17/2008, -0/+2The development of this new 'Super Sonar' is beyond the old sonar technology we already have and is harming the oceans creatures that use sonar and have delicate receptors. How far can we go with this technology, will it make a difference to you if we kill every creature on Earth so you feel safe?
      Also, do you think the terrorist are submarine capable?
      • geofftsjy, on 01/17/2008, -1/+0you're right. terrorists probably aren't submarine capable. They probably aren't areship capable either. They certainly don't have any kind of an airforce. So lets dismantle all US warships, jet fighters, torpedos, radars, sonars, etc... I mean cuz terrorists are the only people we should be defending our shores against...

        Or better yet...we can make sonar free zones where any submarine can lurke undetected and then lets annouce those locations to the world... Lets even make those zones as close to the US west coast as possible...
        At lest the commander and Chief has more sense than you...
      • Squid88, on 01/29/2008, -0/+0I don't want to burst your environmental bubble but the terrorist aren't aircraft capable but managed to send two planes into the WTC and one into the pentagon. With nations like North Korea, China, and Iran submarine capable a terrorist could aquire one for the right price
  • ahawks, on 01/17/2008, -2/+4I just came back from vacation in Hawaii. While there, I went on a snorkeling thing ran by the Pacific Whale Foundation. The snorkeling was amazing, but that's beside the point.

    When we were done, they gave us a little talk about what they do and why. They mentioned that the Navy's sonar is harmful to whales and dolphins.

    I wouldn't have cared about this article, if I hadn't been on that boat.

    http://pacificwhale.org for more info.
    • geofftsjy, on 01/17/2008, -1/+0Too bad you didn't go for a boat ride on the RMS Lusitania. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania >

      I'm sure if you had been on that boat you would have cared about this article for a different reason...
      • ahawks, on 01/18/2008, -0/+1Yes, because a naval attack 102 years ago is relevant in the global political scene today.
        During WWII, military action shifted focus from naval to air.

        And I don't think anyone is asking them to turn OFF the sonar, just to abide environmental LAW and reduce it to levels that are safe to the endangered species that it affects.
        • geofftsjy, on 01/18/2008, -0/+0Yea. Why study history? History may not exactly repeat itself...but it does rhyme. Do you know what sonar is used for? Its partly to try to locate enemy ships... the Lucitania is a perfect example of what happens if you get caught by a U-boat with your pants down. Thats as true today as it ever was but now the U-boats carry long range nukes too...
          And you are right, we should listen to hippies who give boat tours on matters of national defense rather than military defense experts...

          "Lusitania met a disastrous end as a casualty of the First World War when she was torpedoed by the German submarine, U-20, on May 7, 1915. While carrying many American passengers, the great ship sank in just 18 minutes, eight miles (15 km) off of the Old Head of Kinsale, Ireland, killing 1,198 of the 1,959 people aboard."
          102 years ago? such a specific number for such a wrong calculation... 1915 + 102 = 2017...Its 2008, not 2017... I hate to be the one to have to tell you that.
  • jdepp, on 01/17/2008, -3/+3the navy should adapt their systems to be more sensitive and need a lower sound pressure. the only time they will use this system in anger is zero or one times, zero if we keep peace and one if it heralds the start of a nuclear war and the annihilation of us all. So yes, I think they should agree to protect whales in the meantime.
    • soden240, on 01/17/2008, -2/+0use it in anger? lol... the navy pings their sonar all damn night and day on the ocean, at full power most of the time, for training. The only way it is even close to an act of war is when you directly aim it toward a submarine that isn't part of an exercise.
  • arplayer2k, on 01/17/2008, -3/+4Douchebag in Chief has yet surprised us again. He is waging a war on terror on Flipper and his friends. Apparently they won't disclose the location of a stockpile of WMD's "Under the Sea."
  • BirdCatcher, on 01/17/2008, -7/+2here is a look at the terrible effects sonar has on whales
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
    • ahawks, on 01/17/2008, -0/+4For those who don't have some automated means of detecting/blocking that link, BirdCatcher would like to RickRoll you.
  • DestroyFascism, on 01/17/2008, -4/+2Bush has excused himself and his party of friends for 7 years, so he wants to excuse the navy now? ok ok soon it will be children, won't it bush? yeeees Children......I know why cheeny had a man safe....it ain't for documents!
  • lavantin, on 01/17/2008, -5/+6While we're at it, let's take away rifles from the Army and Marine Corps because the loud noise could scare away animals from training areas. I consider myself liberal, but good God people.
    • SpacePoet, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Actually we do. Normal sonar would be the normal guns. No one is complaining about normal sonar. This new 'Super Sonar' is like a howitzer in your backyard, and gee whiz, what do you know, they don't fire tanks or howitzers near populated areas. Does that make sense?
      • Squid88, on 01/29/2008, -0/+0Normal Sonar is that the hull mounted or the towed array, because you environmentals keep switching around.
  • heystoopid, on 01/17/2008, -3/+1So the top sub hunters in the US Navy are still looking for the noisy Oz built Collins Class submarine HMAS Rankin !

    How sad is that when the best US Navy SONAR operators cannot even find their friends in the deep blue ocean wide !

    Little wonder that the big submarine repair dock at Groton , in Connecticut was extremely busy during the cold war as it would appear collisions in the style of that like the USS Grenville were far more common then most people thought !
  • ats314, on 01/17/2008, -4/+5In a related story, ***** George Bush.
  • warlokaz2004, on 01/17/2008, -5/+3using environmental regulations to handcuff the military is a familiar tactic of the antiwar left -- but the military is a textbook case of emminent domain -- while a law or set of laws designed to make it harder for YOU to build a condo on "Dolphin beach" might be in place with a just reason, the President has both the right (and expectation) to put forth an executive order or presidential finding exempting the military. The idea being your condo on 'dolphin beach' might mess up the eco system for your personal use/gain, while any impact a ship at sea makes must be factored against the fact the ship is protecting our nation.
  • CressCrowbits, on 01/17/2008, -2/+4Hang on guys, we need to keep using Sonar! I mean, otherwise, how are we going to spot all those Al Qaeda submarines?

    /sarcasm
    • HunterBriley, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1If you think we are only looking for Al Qaeda you really need to brush up on your knowledge of what is actually going on in the world.
    • SpacePoet, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1So, we are back in the cold war with the Russians? Or are we fighting China to stock those Wal-Marts ourselves?
  • aihuman, on 01/17/2008, -3/+2someone kill this ***** already.
  • nastronomical, on 01/17/2008, -4/+3Of course the usual beta males, enviro-idiots and foaming at the mouth cowards will chime in with 0% knowledge or understanding. Damn diggers...you guys once again prove yourselves to be the weakest of the weak once again.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 01/17/2008, -2/+4Another day of Bush -- another thing in America corrupted and ruined.
    It's like the Trail of Tears following this guy and hoping like Hell he leaves office in 2009.
  • trlrtrsh62, on 01/17/2008, -3/+2This is actually laughable. More hysteria from the environmental wackos. But what is really laughable is that the 9th Circus Court of Appeals gets to rule on it. three extremely illiberal judges in the People's Republic of San Fransico.
  • bigjimslade, on 01/17/2008, -1/+3Good decision.

    "Critics say" != proof.
  • OsakaWilson, on 01/17/2008, -2/+2This should read, "Bush Declares USA Exempt From International Law
    • Opiate, on 01/17/2008, -0/+1Not that I support Bush but I certainly hope so, who writes these international laws anyways not elected officials that's for sure. This isn't even an international law or I doubt U.S judges would have ruled on it.
  • zzt711, on 01/17/2008, -1/+1Someone needs a nice BIG kick to the head...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.