<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Updates &#8211; August 8	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/08/updates-august-8/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/08/updates-august-8/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:29:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Tom T.		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/08/updates-august-8/comment-page-1/#comment-14562</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tom T.]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Aug 2007 02:31:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/index.php/2007/08/updates-august-8/#comment-14562</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[The flip side is that the Navy may not be in the best position to design US environmental policy.  According to the article, the Navy&#039;s own environmental assessment predicts &quot;permanent injury&quot; to 1/3 of the population of deep-diving whales off the West Coast.

There&#039;s a Honolulu newspaper article about this decision that reports that the Navy has plans in the works to move much of this training to the Hawai&#039;i area, where these whales apparently aren&#039;t an issue.  That might be a win-win.

I&#039;m curious what law the environmental lawyers used to bring suit.  The Endangered Species Act?  The article mentions a companion case brought by a California state entity under something called the Coastal Zone Management Act, but that doesn&#039;t sound like something that would be available to the NRDC.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The flip side is that the Navy may not be in the best position to design US environmental policy.  According to the article, the Navy&#8217;s own environmental assessment predicts &#8220;permanent injury&#8221; to 1/3 of the population of deep-diving whales off the West Coast.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s a Honolulu newspaper article about this decision that reports that the Navy has plans in the works to move much of this training to the Hawai&#8217;i area, where these whales apparently aren&#8217;t an issue.  That might be a win-win.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m curious what law the environmental lawyers used to bring suit.  The Endangered Species Act?  The article mentions a companion case brought by a California state entity under something called the Coastal Zone Management Act, but that doesn&#8217;t sound like something that would be available to the NRDC.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: ShaneTuck		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/08/updates-august-8/comment-page-1/#comment-14561</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ShaneTuck]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 20:23:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/index.php/2007/08/updates-august-8/#comment-14561</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Hello,

My name is Petty Officer Shane Tuck, and I have some information on the Navy&#039;s perspective on this issue. The Navy issued the following release regarding the court decision:

Aug. 6, 2007

Court halts Navy’s ability to train realistically off Southern California

SAN DIEGO, Calif. – Navy officials say they are deeply concerned by today’s federal court ruling that prohibits the Navy from training realistically before deploying Sailors and Marines potentially into harm’s way.

A U.S. district judge in Los Angeles granted a preliminary injunction -- requested by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental and animal protection groups -- that bars the Navy from using active sonar during critical joint task force training exercises and composite training unit exercises through 2009 in the ocean off Southern California.

“We are disappointed in the court’s decision and plan to appeal the imposition of an injunction,” said Mr. Don Schregardus, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for the environment. “The decision puts Sailors and Marines at risk by ordering the Navy to stop critical anti-submarine warfare training while we complete Environmental Impact Statements on our training ranges.”

Vice Adm. Samuel Locklear, the San Diego-based commander of the U.S. Third Fleet who oversees naval training in the Eastern Pacific, said, “To the extent this court decision prevents us from using active sonar, it potentially puts American lives and our national security at risk.”

The Navy has conducted similar exercises in the Southern California Operating Area for 70 years and has used similar active sonar technology for the past 40 years.

“In all those years, not a single stranding or injury of a marine mammal has been associated with the Navy’s use of MFA sonar in the Southern California Operating Area,” Locklear said.

Read full article at
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.cpf.navy.mil/news_images/0708/070806a.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.cpf.navy.mil/news_images/0708/070806a.html&lt;/a&gt;

For more information, I recommend viewing
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.whalesandsonar.navy.mil/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.whalesandsonar.navy.mil/&lt;/a&gt;

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello,</p>
<p>My name is Petty Officer Shane Tuck, and I have some information on the Navy&#8217;s perspective on this issue. The Navy issued the following release regarding the court decision:</p>
<p>Aug. 6, 2007</p>
<p>Court halts Navy’s ability to train realistically off Southern California</p>
<p>SAN DIEGO, Calif. – Navy officials say they are deeply concerned by today’s federal court ruling that prohibits the Navy from training realistically before deploying Sailors and Marines potentially into harm’s way.</p>
<p>A U.S. district judge in Los Angeles granted a preliminary injunction &#8212; requested by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental and animal protection groups &#8212; that bars the Navy from using active sonar during critical joint task force training exercises and composite training unit exercises through 2009 in the ocean off Southern California.</p>
<p>“We are disappointed in the court’s decision and plan to appeal the imposition of an injunction,” said Mr. Don Schregardus, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for the environment. “The decision puts Sailors and Marines at risk by ordering the Navy to stop critical anti-submarine warfare training while we complete Environmental Impact Statements on our training ranges.”</p>
<p>Vice Adm. Samuel Locklear, the San Diego-based commander of the U.S. Third Fleet who oversees naval training in the Eastern Pacific, said, “To the extent this court decision prevents us from using active sonar, it potentially puts American lives and our national security at risk.”</p>
<p>The Navy has conducted similar exercises in the Southern California Operating Area for 70 years and has used similar active sonar technology for the past 40 years.</p>
<p>“In all those years, not a single stranding or injury of a marine mammal has been associated with the Navy’s use of MFA sonar in the Southern California Operating Area,” Locklear said.</p>
<p>Read full article at<br />
<a href="http://www.cpf.navy.mil/news_images/0708/070806a.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.cpf.navy.mil/news_images/0708/070806a.html</a></p>
<p>For more information, I recommend viewing<br />
<a href="http://www.whalesandsonar.navy.mil/" rel="nofollow">http://www.whalesandsonar.navy.mil/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Deoxy		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/08/updates-august-8/comment-page-1/#comment-14560</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deoxy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 14:53:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/index.php/2007/08/updates-august-8/#comment-14560</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[on numbr 2: and the Navy will listen to this numbskull?  I sure hope not.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>on numbr 2: and the Navy will listen to this numbskull?  I sure hope not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: John Burgess		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/08/updates-august-8/comment-page-1/#comment-14559</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Burgess]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2007 12:39:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/index.php/2007/08/updates-august-8/#comment-14559</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[RE: #2

Would I be correct in assuming that submarine launched lawyers might not be an effective deterrent? Or that that might be classified as a crime against humanity, a pure terror weapon?
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RE: #2</p>
<p>Would I be correct in assuming that submarine launched lawyers might not be an effective deterrent? Or that that might be classified as a crime against humanity, a pure terror weapon?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
