Envrionmental Law and the Pentagon
I found an interesting post on a blog called Howling at a Waning Moon which can be found at this address. The post is about a month old but addresses an ongoing debate. The Pentagon is apparrently pushing to become exempt from following the Clean Air Act. They have become exempt from following the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act already. Why the exemptions you ask? The Pentagon owns 28 million acres across the nation that it uses for training/combat exercises and weapon testing. It does not want to be hampered by environmental law in carrying out these exercises and tests. The Pentagon claims its role to promote and sustain national defense as the justification for them being exempt from these laws. I understand the need to promote and sustain national defense but it seems odd to me that the institution that promotes and defends our nation's freedom feels the need to go above and beyond the law to do so. Here is another site that talks about the issue. Let me know what you guys think and any other info on it that you may find. I find it rather appalling to be quite honest.
posted by Anonymous @ 4:29 PM
2 Comments:
I would say that the Pentagon is looking at laws that could potentially conflict with their significant goal of protecting and defending our country. The law could make things difficult for them, but rather than trying "to go above and beyond the law," they're lobbying to have the law legally changed under our system of government.
If, on the other hand, they were subject to laws and ignoring them completely, we could accuse them of attempting to go "above and beyond the law" as you stated in your post.
Personally, I'm glad that they're going to Congress on this, though I haven't considered the issue enough to have a preference in terms of whether or not the exemption is granted.
I see it as Congress having the right to enact or amend a law, including exemptions to it. It's part of Congress's powers, whether we like it or not. And we have the right to lobby in opposition to the change.
Please note that I agree that the law should be consistent; this is an observation about what the situation is and how we can deal with it, instead of commenting on the way the system should work. It's the difference between a normative statement and a positive one.
Post a Comment
<< Home