Should the courts be allowed to dictate how the Military conducts training?

Question

The Navy is not permitted to use sonar off the coast of California in an upcoming training exercise. A federal judge ruled there was a "near certainty" that the Navy's active sonar was harmful to the environment. Environmentalists say the sonar can injure or even kill whales, forcing them to beach themselves on land. Should the courts dictate how the Military trains to defend this Country when there is no absolute proof of destruction to the environment?

EDIT: Train as you fight, fight as you train. If the military is not allowed to train, especially new inexperienced personnel, how are they able achieve and maintain proficiency in warfare areas if the courts dictate what they can and can not do? If you do not hear a sub coming, you definately will not "see" it coming. Restricting the use on sonar would allow foreign submarines to move undetected. Would that North Korean submarine moving undetected off the coast of California obey our environmental laws. I am all about laws and following them, but sometimes you need to bend or break the laws. Is national security one reason?

Answer 1

The courts are not dictating how the military conducts training. The courts are not requiring or prohibiting any practice or training theory.

The courts are prohibiting the use of a specific device, because use of that device violates other federal laws.

The military doesn't get an automatic exemption from all federal laws. And as far as the law is concerned, the factual issue of whether there is harm was defined during that trial.

That's the point of trials -- to define factual issues in specific situations to determine what laws should apply. The navy lost the trial, and it was determined as a matter of legal fact that the equipment in question was harmful, and thus use of that equipment was in violation of federal environmental laws.

You may not like the result at trial, but that's the way the law works.

Answer 2

No they shouldn't, however, during this time of training, there may be a migration of a whale herd or herds through where they are planning on conducting the training, we don't know that, and it might be the mating time too, who knows, but in all actuality, in defense of the Nation, we would be clearing the beaches of the whales they say will beach themselves, so no, or, it can be a conspiracy to get the Navy to stop using its sonar for a while while another country secretly sneaks in its subs or WMD somehow, or maybe the people that approached the Navy on this or the courts oin this are being paid by a foreign government to not let us use our sonar at this time so they can test out one of their new secret weapons, who knows, but no and I mean NO court should say what the military can and cannot use in defense of our Nation, next thing you know , they will be telling the Air force that it cant fly any more sorties because it effects the geese flying north and south and that's why we have so many here, because they are confused and disoriented, Hey, did I just say that, lets take that to court,

Answer 3

The courts are not concerned with HOW they conduct training, but WHERE. And the judge wouldn't have made that ruling if there were no absolute proof. The Navy can use sonar, just not in that place. And personally, I'm glad the courts can step in when the military is so gung-ho that they overlook damage to the environment or even their own personnel. Thousands of soldiers and sailors were exposed to high levels of radiation from atomic tests during the Cold War, with horrific results, all in the name of training.

Answer 4

No the number one job the federal government which the federal courts are a part of is the protection and defense of this nation. This judge decided to ignore his/her sworn duty and not protect the people of this nation. Further this judge overstepped there authority by crossing in to matters which do not concern it. Because this court does not have jurisdiction in matters of national security this judge was not authorized to make a ruling like this one way or another. This judge then as a result tried to grab power and that makes this judge dangerous. The only civilian court which has say in this is the highest court in the land the US Supreme Court.

I have to edit. The Navy should train 12 miles offshore so the treasonous decision of this judge will not matter.

Answer 5

Absolutely not!

I have seen some of the effects of altered military training due to congress and the courts. The changes made to boot camps to make it easier do not prepare the soldiers and marines for war. So what if sonar makes a few whales go deaf? If it can save a human life or two it is worth it.

Answer 6

The courts are allowed to make judgements about the use of public area, in this case concerning our environmental concerns. You may not agree with those concerns, but rest assured that the courts were given a fair amount of scientific support on which to make their decision.

It is up to the Navy, as to all Americans, to readjust their activities to abide by court restrictions. This isn't a matter of the courts "dictating how the Military conducts training" than the illegality of murder being a matter of the courts "dictating how we resolve marital differences."

Answer 7

This device is not some type of wonder weapon, the Navy has other devices to detect subs, and what makes you think N.K. has to be "off" the coast of California to launch?? or has the capability to launch missiles from their subs??