Strykers keep rolling, despite ruling


Advertiser reports that: "Army training with its 19-ton Stryker vehicles is going forward — at least for now — despite a federal appeals court decision last week that the Army violated environmental law in planning for the arrival of the fast-strike unit."
The legal friction is part of the continuing clash of cultures that exists in Hawai'i between its sizable military and strategic location in the Pacific, and those who oppose the military.

David Henkin, an Earthjustice attorney representing three Hawaiian groups in their suit against the Army, said if negotiations between the groups and the Army fail to produce an agreement soon, he will seek a temporary restraining order or equivalent to halt all Stryker training and work.

BTW, the article's "those who oppose the military" characterization is, I think, not accurate. Personally, I don't oppose the military per se, and I think the same is true of many others. And we certainly don't oppose the individual men and women, including many Hawaiians, who serve in the military. We do oppose the military for specific reasons and in specific places. We oppose the military imposing its will on Hawaii in violation of the law. We oppose the military ignoring environmental protection requirements and ignoring the courts. We oppose the military destroying cultural sites and natural resources. We oppose the military leaving toxic and explosive messes and not cleaning up after itself. We oppose the military continually expanding its presence and claiming more and more land. We oppose the militarization of public schools through recruiting and the public university through the UARC. And some oppose the military presence in Hawaii specifically because we see it as a prolonged occupation. But most folks I know are not "those who oppose the military" just for the sake of opposing the military. That is oversimplified and inaccurate.

Doug also comments:
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the default position for the Army after the ruling last week should have been "stop," and the remedy to continue during the interim should have been for the Army to seek a suspension/stay from the Court. What's the point of ordering a supplemental EIS if the "proposed" action to be studied is allowed to proceed before the EIS process is completed?!


Posted: Thu - October 12, 2006 at 09:27 AM    
   
 
Categories
XML/RSS Feed
Search
World Court Case DVD
Larsen Case on DVD
Larsen DVD
Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom at the
Permanent Court of Arbitration
The Hague, 2001
DVD Mini-Documentary & Booklet
Order your copy
FREE HAWAII STICKERS
Free Hawaii
Over at the Free Hawaii blog, Koani Foundation is giving away "Free Hawaii" stickers and pins, and will post photos of them displayed in interesting places. Spread them far and wide!
HAWAII DOCUMENTS
HAWAII LINKS
HAWAII BLOGROLL
HAWAII FORUMS
HAWAII PODCASTING
PROGRESSIVE BLOGROLL
TV Worth Watching
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
The Colbert Report
NOW with David Brancaccio
Foreign Exchange with Fareed Zakaria
Countdown with Keith Olbermann
Russell Simmons presents Def Poetry
Real Time with Bill Maher
Washington Journal on C-Span
PBN Friday with Howard Dicus
Portfolio
Archives
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
Browse archives by date
CURRENT IMAGE
Support Organ Donation
DONATE LIFE
Comments powered by
Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com
TECHNORATI
SUPPORT THIS BLOG
If you find this weblog valuable, please consider making a secure donation via PayPal to support its ongoing maintenance:

Mahalo!
Or contact me about sponsoring this blog in exchange for space in the Sponsored Links area above.
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Oct 12, 2006 12:24 PM
Powered by
iBlog


©