It is not the place of judges to determine the meaning of scientific research or to asses the nature of military threats to our country. Unless one or both sides suppositions in this case are soundly discredited the judges should operate on the assumption that both are correct and then decide on the law and nothing else. Is this a case of national defense verses the protection of an endangered species? If so then I would certainly hope national defense wins that contest.

To be even more general, what happens when the enforcement of a law comes into conflict with a constitutional duty such as providing for the national defense? Courts have ruled many ways on this sort of question but I would offer a guess that our courts have usually ruled in favor of the performance of a constitutional duty. i.e. National defense trumps most laws unless the rights of citizens become seriously threatened. Whales are not citizens and until one can prove that aliens with environmentally destructive communication techniques are going to show up one day demanding to speak with a certain species, one cannot effectively argue that any citizens’ rights or well being are seriously threatened here the courts have no responsible way to go here but to favor national defense.

As for whether the case can be made for the need for this sonar, the Chinese navy’s newest submarines should be proof enough. For that matter the United Kingdom’s nuclear sub fleet should do it. Whether another nation is currently our enemy or likely to ever be is not the issue, nor should it ever be. As long as other nations have potentially dangerous weapons requiring the use of sonar to detect them there is a legitimate national defense need to use sonar. To think otherwise is to believe in fairy tales. The more things change the more they stay the same. The world has not changed. The way people perceive it has perhaps, but perception is a very thin reality at best. I am not saying we need to be paranoid. We just need to be prepared.

“…Let’s hope, before they hear this case, that they understand how dangerous sonar is …”

I agree FWIW, adding in the hope that somehow we can move beyond so-called special interests and have good science backed by facts presented, published, and aired.

Unfortunately “implicated” doesn’t mean much today, and neither does the word Scientists, because both have been used so extensively by every side’s PR machines to purposely create false impressions that would make a used car salesperson cringe. I think most would like to know, and the Supremes should (will?)l ask: Does it effect the whales, how severely, is there a remedy like changing frequencies, and what is the true cost either way? Today I have no idea.

I can say however that based on my personal knowledge, education, & experience, the following statement is probably false: “…Given our current technology, it is doubtful that the sonar is needed for our national security…”

Sound waves are about the only thing I’m aware of that will travel through the water long distances & bounce back - it’s basic science that you can’t use radar or regular radio waves or laser etc. that might be used above water or on land. And, if a breakthrough were to make an alternative possible, an alternative that few if any opposing Navies might possess, then it only makes sense that our Navy would be using it rather than pursuing training with Old Fashioned Sonar.

If I’m correct, both the public and the Supremes need to know that - just assuming we can do all these wonderful technology things is misleading to say the least. Just as it’s important to realize that in today’s world, scientists too can (& often do) have their own agendas, and can be just as honest or dishonest as the rest of us.

Ellen, I believe there are many scientists who say that sonar doesn’t affect whales and that they are not sure why whales beach themselves. Plus the Navy works hard to prevent using sonar when whales are present and no there isn’t another technology around to replace sonar.

Spoken like someone who has little knowledge of SONAR and no understanding that one can never predict the future needs of national defense. Liberals like Ms Ratner never cease to amaze me.

Why is it Bush’s fault? This was instituted at minimum back to Reagan and possibly back to Carter. Clinton supported it by no banning it.

Libs.

You are living proof of someone being educated far beyond their ability to comprehend. Has your brother gotten any terrorists set free yet, while soaking the taxpayer serfs? You and your kind really need to get out more often. Go to some of these third world countries, and spend some time there. That is the only way you will ever appreciate our great nation, and hopefully, stop trashing it every chance you get. You’re not worthy to shine President Bush’s shoes.

Where did this start-California. Well, there you go! The enlightened out there are against our military so they look to find ways to stop them. We just don’t understand because we aren’t enlightened like them. They are the only ones who want to do good. There is no room for compromise with an enlighened one. Can we be guaranteed that technology has progressed to the point Ms. Radner says? She is willing to take the word of the enlighened over people whose job it is to protect all of us-not just the whales, polar bears, caribou, etc.

OK, here’s a “$64,000.00 question.” What is the history of the occurences of beaching whales in the past PRIOR to the development of sonar? Has anyone talked to the folks who have lived on the coast “forever” and asked them what they’ve observed over the past decades? Let’s do some research of previous behavior before we allow the Green Nutcases to dictate what our military can use to defend us from foreign aggression. Oh…there I go making sense again. Can someone please pass me the Kool-Aide?

Save the whales. Ping an enviro-whacko. One ping and one ping only.

Just more environ-nitwit gobbly-gook. California needs to get a real life instead of the fantasies they offer to every treehugging nut job. Sheesh!!!

I would be shocked if she didn’t find some way to blame Bush for anything she didn’t like.

Another pathetic victim of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Just another ad-nausem political mantra from Ratner: “This is just another example of the Bush Administration disregarding … “.

In spite of the fact that sonar has been used since WWII, it seems that the first thing that occurs to her politically addled brain each morning is “how can I cast dispersions on ‘the Bush Administration, Republicans, etc.”. Such reporting that invariably ’spins’, twists and blends ‘politics’ into such reporting is certainly and overtly intellectually dishonest. Where is the support data, where are the ‘numbers’, …. other than “Bush did it”.

Ratner (regularly) loses the thrust of a possibly important environmental issue … by including her very obvious political bent as a ‘true believer’ who apparently doesnt have the basic capacity to comprehend ‘objectivity’.

One wonders how you will feel as your precious whales are frolicking in the ocean off the coast while the US is conquered by its enemies and then finds those same whales hunted to extinction because those who are against us don’t give a damn about those precious cetaceans.

“Given our current technology, it is doubtful that the sonar is needed for our national security. — This is just another example of the Bush Administration disregarding their responsibility to be a caretaker of the environment.”

If you have a replacement for SONAR lets see it. If you are saying that the technology exists today to replace SONAR than you are extremely dumb. You just lost all your credibility. When all the world’s navies agree to not use active SONAR then we should too. This has nothing to do with Bush. It has everything to do with the United States Navy and their ability to protect us. Get a life.

OK, I looked up the subject of beached whales throughout history and noted that: 1. this phenomenon has occurred for centuries; 2. mainly toothed whales exhibit this tendency; and 3. although the POSSIBILTY exists that sonar can cause injuries to cetaceans, it still has not been conclusively proven. If sonar harmed cetaceans, we’d see injuries in all of the species, not just a few. PLEASE! Let’s stop trying to blame the human race for every malady that occurs on the planet.

It is unfortunate, but Ms. Ratner is correct. ACTIVE Sonar (or pinging then listening for an echo from a target i.e. submarine) is not needed for prosicution of a target. PASSIVE sonar, or just listening is the preffered methode till just before the final attack, and a single ping will ussually suffice. There is currently no reason for ships to be cruising around pinging with thier active sonar systems.