SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: stockman_scott who wrote (39627)3/16/2004 9:11:43 AM
From: T L Comiskey  Read Replies (1) of 89467
 
BUSHGREENWATCH
Tracking the Bush Administration's Environmental Misdeeds
bushgreenwatch.org
***************************************

March 16, 2004

BUSH CIRCUIT COURT NOMINEE ON HOLD?

Readers of BushGreenwatch continue to marvel at the strange case
of William Haynes II, the Pentagon's top lawyer, who advanced
the memorable argument that when the U.S. military bombs
migratory birds on an important Pacific ocean nesting island,
birdwatchers should be pleased.

Under Haynes' reasoning, he wrote in a legal brief, killing
birds makes them more scarce, and "bird watchers get more
enjoyment spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a common
one." Haynes added that bombing was good for the birds too,
since it protected them from "human intrusion."[1]

The case stemmed from an exemption the Defense Department had
won to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The exemption enabled the
Pentagon to use the Pacific island for live-fire training
exercises. The island is an important nesting site for migratory
birds, including great frigatebirds, red-footed boobies and
Pacific golden plovers.

The public interest law firm Earthjustice successfully argued in
federal court that bombing the island violated the Act. The
judge in the case rebuked Haynes and his team, writing "The
Court hopes that the federal government will refrain from making
or adopting such frivolous arguments in the future."[2]

The court set a December, 2003 deadline for the Defense
Department to submit a plan for minimizing damage to the birds
-- a deadline the Pentagon has missed. In late February, a
spokesman said the plan would be ready "soon," but none has been
forthcoming.

Meanwhile President Bush has nominated Mr. Haynes for a seat on
the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- a lifetime appointment
-- and his nomination could come up for a floor vote in the
Senate any day now. (On his Senate questionnaire, Haynes listed
the bird-bombing case as the second most significant of his
career.)

Last Thursday, however Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) pledged to
put a hold on Haynes' nomination unless he agrees to appoint an
independent counsel in the Pentagon's office of the Inspector
General (IG). An IG is an independent watchdog within a
department, whose role is to look out for fraud and waste.

The Defense Department currently has the government's only
Inspector General office without an independent legal counsel.
The current arrangement will expire this Sunday, when the IG
will be free to appoint his own counsel, unless Haynes objects
-- and Grassley is watching.

###

SOURCES:
[1] Center for Biological Diversity v. Pirie, 191 F. Supp. 2d
161 (D.D.C., 2002)
[2] Ibid.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext