I have a feeling this photo was doctored by liberal newsweek

[Seoulstriker]

http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/newsweekPhoto.jpg

was this photo doctored? what was doctored?

[Vance]

That cigarette looks way too huge....but who knows.

[Operation Ivy]

I doubt it, most of Iraq is like that with tall grass and vegitation,it is along the Tigirs and Euphrates(sp) Rivers, the only deserts in Iraq are in the North and South

[Vance]

I doubt it, most of Iraq is like that with tall grass and vegitation,it is along the Tigirs and Euphrates(sp) Rivers, the only deserts in Iraq are in the North and South
I don't think he meant the vegitation, I think he was talking about the soldiers appearance.

[Seoulstriker]

I doubt it, most of Iraq is like that with tall grass and vegitation,it is along the Tigirs and Euphrates(sp) Rivers, the only deserts in Iraq are in the North and South
I don't think he meant the vegitation, I think he was talking about the soldiers appearance.

exactly. my first reaction was this looks like vietnam. then i looked at the cigarette in a soldier's mouth.

here is another soldier in the same photo. tell me if anything looks strange (nothing to do with vietnam ;) )

http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/newsweekPhoto1.jpg

[Operation Ivy]

OoOoOoOoO i c what u mean now :cantbeli: ......i can sorda c what your saying,but i doubt it was doctured

[Seoulstriker]

here is the full page:

higher resolution image (http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/newsweekFull.jpg)

http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/newsweekFull1.jpg

[Seoulstriker]

it just doesn't fit at all. it has to be doctored. look at the cigarette and the carabiner. it has to be doctored. :|

[Vance]

What magazine was this from?

[Seoulstriker]

What magazine was this from?

newsweek. here is the much smaller image from their website:

http://a799.g.akamai.net/3/799/388/4a87be24a917f5/www.msnbc.com/news/2070914.jpg

here is the caption from the web site (very vietnamish):


Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says U.S. troops are in a 'who's going to outlast the other' fight with Iraqi guerillas



A stepped-up bombing campaign. A speedier plan for handing off power. As the body count mounts, Team Bush tries a new tack

[fred_engles]

Seoulstriker:
Could you explain exactly what about the photo leads you to suggest that it's doctored?

The fact that the cigarette is kinda large?

[jdbjdb]

he's in the non-smoking section

[Dalleer]

Hmm....my first emotion wasn't exactly "oh no, this is Vietnam again!" at all...

I just thought that it was a GI having a smoke while on the job, you need alot more to get me shaken.

[EvanL]

Its probably just a self rolled cigarette with a brass holder. I see them all the time when my friends roll smokes for themselves.
It seems that seoulstriker is trying to start up a liberal media conspiracy. ;)

[Ratamacue]

The only thing to me is that it seems to be "painted in," but I don't think that there's any foul play.

[JTFazz]

As you can see it is not too difficult to do... actually this one looks more realistic... if the photo/art editor of Newsweek can't do any better, then he needs to find another line of work. But, since it is so odd looking, it is probably real.

http://pto4.com/cigpic.jpg[/img]

[James]

One pill makes you larger,
And one pill makes you small,
And the one that mother gives you,
Doesn't do anything at all,
Go ask Alice, when she's ten feet tall...

"White Rabbit" - Jefferson Airplane.

Sorry... the photo, the conversation...

I suppose today our boys would listen to Rage Against the Machine or something, no?

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Doesnt look doctored to me. its just a dude having a smoke sitting in some weeds, nothing more nothing less.

[wholagun]

Perhaps its a king size ;)

[Caribou Kid]

looks like the autofocus was fixated upon the blades of grass, and the troops moving throught the pic (Are they climbing up out've a creek bed or gully?) are not in the correct focal length to have the details you are seeing be sharply defined. See how the tailend-charlie guy behind the cigarette dude is fuzzy, as well as the soldier in the immediate foreground whose Rucksack and American flag are also fuzzed? Yet the tall blades of grass are all crisp and sharply defined?

I still can't hear any strains of a Creedence Clearwater Revival tune, dude...Maybe it's me. Seen one ****ty stream full of weeds,mate, you seen 'em all. Maybe it's just the coffee stain BDU's that scream "iraq" to me. Now if he'd a had an old bottle of CLP in his helmet band, or a packet of smokes tucked there...
Or maybe had personalised graffitti on his helmet...

"At dawn today, troops of the 101st Airborne division were heli-inserted into a river delta to secure a village suspected of harbouring ...."

Besides....smokes and carabiners?...How would Newsweek twist that into something inflamatory or Viet-nam related? :|

[Dalleer]

I suppose today our boys would listen to Rage Against the Machine or something, no?

Well they should. I've always considered rage against the machine so appropriate for "these situations".

[96B]

Why the hell does it matter that he has a cig in his mouth at all? How does this image make the war look like Vietnam? Personally I dislike the liberal side of the media but I think you are being a little too paranoid this time my friend :P

[earl]

Well, first, Rage Against the Machine might be the least likely music for soldiers for to be listening to.. I mean, they certainly never supported the US Gov't or mainstream American ideals.

"Yes I know my enemies
They're the teachers who taught me to fight me
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are American dreams"

Might have made more sense for conscripts during Vietnam (Fortunate Son) but not so much now ;)

Anyway, I really don't think this photo is fixed up at all. The grainy look suggests a ISO 400 - 800 film for low light photography, and in a dark scene like this, any bright or reflective spots in the photo will overexpose, hence the bright and 'fat' cigarette, and the perfectly white biner. It's called burnout, when areas of a photograph overexpose so much that it becomes white and lose all detail. Happens especially with digital cameras like mine.

Why would anyone doctor a biner into the scene? If anything, that just gives you a clue to the camera/film settings which cause the cigarette to stand out so much. It's just a pictures and dude is just ready for a smoke.

Sometimes a cigarette is just a cigarette. (http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/film/lotrgroin.html)

[Seoulstriker]

Why the hell does it matter that he has a cig in his mouth at all? How does this image make the war look like Vietnam? Personally I dislike the liberal side of the media but I think you are being a little too paranoid this time my friend :P

well, my first thoughts when i saw the cigarette in the mouth of a soldier in tall grasses worrying about body counts were how this image looks very vietnamish. many of the pictures from that era had the qualities this picture has.

when i look at the picture in the magazine, two things stand out: the carabiner and the cigarette. on closer inspection, it looks as though the carabiner was 'whited-out' and the cigarette looks drawn in. the color balance and lighting and the detail and perspective of the cigarette lends credence to the 'doctored' accusation.

do soldiers really have cigarettes in their mouths when running through tall weeds?

BTW, look at the guy's mouth. doesn't it look like he is normally breathing while running but then the cig was moved into place? (look at the higher resolution image)

[Seoulstriker]

that's why i am having a poll: to see if the cigarette is as obvious as i see it. ;)

[Guttorm]

Well, I juste wonder... If they absolutly wanted to make things look bad, why adda caribner and a cig?

I does nothing.

The carabiner looks like it does because of the lighting, maybe the photographer used his flash.

The cig? He could be smoking. You know smokers, they HAVE TO HAVE it when THEY say so. :D

If newsweek (Or whatevere) wanted to damage the operation, theyd paste in a little boy being beaten.

[Seoulstriker]

Well, I juste wonder... If they absolutly wanted to make things look bad, why adda caribner and a cig?

I does nothing.

The carabiner looks like it does because of the lighting, maybe the photographer used his flash.

The cig? He could be smoking. You know smokers, they HAVE TO HAVE it when THEY say so. :D

If newsweek (Or whatevere) wanted to damage the operation, theyd paste in a little boy being beaten.

see, that's what i thought originally, but evidence of the possible flash is only in the carabiner.

look at the carabiner very closely. the only detail is the outline of the carabiner. do you see any evidence of the clasp?

it almost looks as though someone was 'practicing' 'whiting out' parts of the photograph.

what really get me are the color balance and brightness/contrast of the cigarette.


i think that newsweek is trying to be as subtle as possible. on the front page about a news story about the 'quagmire' in iraq, there is a possibly doctored picture that shouts out 'vietnam': tall grasses, words of 'body count', dark and sad faces, and a soldier smoking a cigarette while running through possible enemy fire.

[Guttorm]

The carabiner is blurred due to slow shutter time/the fact that it's moving and flash.

I don't think it's been doctored. If it HAS, it should be possible to find the original.

[Seoulstriker]

The carabiner is blurred due to slow shutter time/the fact that it's moving and flash.

I don't think it's been doctored. If it HAS, it should be possible to find the original.


can you see any details of the carabiner besides the outline? you should be able to see the clasp or some sort of color.

i'm looking for the original. so far i can only find one other instance of the photo and it is from Newsweek's website.

[martinexsquaddie]

if its been doctored its been a waste of time nobodys going to care about a karbiner and a ciggie.
now if they'd put in a family machine gunned at a checkpoint by mistake or some allies blown up by mistake
oh a complete lack of WMDS
oh sorry thats not liberal bias those things really happened

[Argyll]

I have seen many troops use Karabiners to attach short slings to!
As for the cigarette,again I've seen pics of US troops smoking in situ's like that!!

[Seoulstriker]

i see. so it's just a case of poor photographing, i guess. :|

[rafaelcb]

It is not doctored. I saw the same scene on TV and that soldier was smoking that cigarrette. It is true that it stands out....

[Seoulstriker]

It is not doctored. I saw the same scene on TV and that soldier was smoking that cigarrette. It is true that it stands out....

they were filming at the same time?

i thought it was originally doctored because of the color balance and brightness/contrast. it definitely stands out.

[Uncle Sam]

It's a conspiracy dammit.....The Government wants the American people to believe that our G.I.'s......SMOKE !!!... and use CARABINERS... I knew it!!!

[Seoulstriker]

It's a conspiracy dammit.....The Government wants the American people to believe that our G.I.'s......SMOKE !!!... and use CARABINERS... I knew it!!!

dude. look at the carabiner. does it look like it was taken out of the photo?

http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/newsweekPhoto1.jpg

[Uncle Sam]

Seoulstriker wrote:
dude. look at the carabiner. does it look like it was taken out of the photo?HUH??

It is metal. When the camera flashed...it made it look brighter is all.

[Seoulstriker]

Seoulstriker wrote:
dude. look at the carabiner. does it look like it was taken out of the photo?HUH??

It is metal. When the camera flashed...it made it look brighter is all.

but there is not even a trace of metal gradient. it's just white. pure white. just as it would look if you took the eraser in photoshop and erased the carabiner.

BTW, the camera didn't flash: the brightness/contrast is equal at the foreground/focal point and background point. look here (http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/newsweekFull.jpg).[/url]

[Seoulstriker]

DoD wants soldiers to stop smoking. ;)


Subject: With Military Readiness on the Line, DoD Reminds Smokers 'D-Day' Is Nov. 20
To: DEFENSE-PRESS-SERVICE-L@DTIC.MIL

By Sgt. 1st Class Doug Sample, USA
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Nov. 19, 2003 — Smoking affects both the personal health and
readiness of military personnel, so DoD is encouraging those who smoke or use
smokeless tobacco to take steps to end their addiction by taking part in the
Great American Smokeout Nov. 20.

According to Dr. David Tornberg, deputy assistant secretary of defense for
clinical and program policy, smoking percentages are highest in the 18-25 age
group, which is a significant part of the military's ranks. He said that
smoking impacts military readiness by "cutting" into the physical endurance of
military personnel.

"There is a substantial reduction in physical endurance as a consequence of
smoking. And we just can't ignore it," Tornberg said. He added that cigarette
smoking can have a "psychological" impact on military personnel as well.

"When one starts smoking, there is the initial 'high' that one gets from
smoking a cigarette, and that's followed by fatigue (and) depression, which
leads to the individual to want to have another cigarette," he noted. "All that
is really a detriment to the physical condition and the mental well-being of
the fighting men and women."

Tornberg warned that the health dangers are great. "Smoking itself is
associated with a host of diseases and we're all familiar with the pulmonary
effects of smoking -- emphysema, chronic lung disease, chronic productive
coughs, the shortness of breath," he said. "But there are also 'silent
killers,'" he added, citing oral and nasal cancer, and heart disease. He said
all these diseases are "major killers in the United States" and linked strongly
to tobacco use.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention [http://www.cdc.gov], an estimated 46 million adults smoke, of which an estimated
425,000 people die every year from smoking- and tobacco-related illnesses. Each
year, smoking is responsible for one in five deaths. Treating tobacco -related
illnesses costs the United States more than $50 billion annually.

Tornberg said the Defense Department has a number of health promotion programs
in areas such as smoking cessation, stress reduction, weight management and
physical conditioning in place to help military personnel quit smoking. "The
total package of our health promotion efforts all improve the likelihood of a
successful outcome for those attempting to quit smoking, and committed to doing
so." He also recommends direct counseling as a way to get smokers to quit.

"A five-minute approach from a counselor, a physician or friend can result in a
5 percent success rate in quitting, but if that is combined with effective
medication to address nicotine craving and to substitute for the nicotine
itself, we can have a 30 percent success rate," he said. "In fact, combined
with a global health promotion program in stress management and support system,
that percentage can reach as high as 50 percent."

Tornberg also pointed out other means for smokers to quit: Identify "trigger
actions" that lead to craving to smoke and change habits and look for
distractions that will take their mind off the intense desire to smoke.

Also, he said that there are a variety of products to help those wanting to
give up smoking, such as nicotine replacement and anti-craving medicines.

However, the most important step for smokers to make is to announce their
intention to quit, he emphasized. Tornberg said that smokers should let their
peer group know they plan to quit and then seek their support. "Try it on a
buddy basis or some significant person in their life, to use them as a
reinforcement," he pointed out.

And he said, just "take it one day at a time."

"Plan to focus on today," he noted. "Today is the day they're not going to
smoke a cigarette and that approach will also take care of it each subsequent
day."

Tornberg said that for those who are able to quit, the health benefits can be
felt almost immediately. The first and foremost benefit is better sleeping at
night, he said. "Smoking affects concentration, it affects irritability, some
of that's associated with the restless sleep associated with smoking."

Other immediate effects include not inflicting family and friends with the
effects of second-hand smoke, he said.

The long-term effects of quitting can lead to some reversal of damage to the
heart and lungs. Tornberg said that over a period of time the body can begin to
heal itself, "if you take the trauma of cigarette smoking away."

"That's a tremendous benefit from stopping, that your body can regenerate, that
you can achieve a new baseline of lung function and health, even if damage has
already occurred. So it's very beneficial to quit wherever in the smoking cycle
you are, and quit today."

Tornberg is hopeful the "today" for many smokers to quit will be Nov. 20, the
day of the Great American Smokeout. "If you talk to people who have
successfully kicked an addiction to substances, particularly nicotine, they
take a point in time that that's the day they're going to quit. And they
marshal all their resources, psychological support from friends to make that
day an important day."

"So to succeed in quitting, it's important to have a commitment to a start date
and the Great American Smokeout offers that," he said. "It offers the support
of so many other smokers who are also trying to kick the habit and take it one
day at a time."

More on quitting smoking is available from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention [http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco]. Information on the Great American Smokeout and other tobacco
cessation and treatment programs can be found on the American Cancer Society [http://www.cancer.org] Web site.

[Uncle Sam]

OK, I'm no photo expert. All I'm trying to say is, It doesn't look doctored to me..maybe touched up, but I don't think they added anything.

Maybe the carabiner was dirty, and they cleaned for him... woot

[Seoulstriker]

OK, I'm no photo expert. All I'm trying to say is, It doesn't look doctored to me..maybe touched up, but I don't think they added anything.

Maybe the carabiner was dirty, and they cleaned for him... woot

this photo makes no sense. :|

[Uncle Sam]

Ya know, he is in motion, and when you take a picture of something in motion, it tends to look a little fuzzy or brighter, maybe that's what happened. And, these are objects that totally clash with the backgrounds, so they tend to stand out a little more.... :fork:

[Seoulstriker]

Ya know, he is in motion, and when you take a picture of something in motion, it tends to look a little fuzzy or brighter, maybe that's what happened. :fork:

unfortunately for you, there would be signs of motion blur, but the original image was a solid white carabiner. there should be some semblence of color and texture, but there isn't.

[Uncle Sam]

And, these are objects that totally clash with the backgrounds, so they tend to stand out a little more

[Uncle Sam]

This is getting way to "conspiracy theory" for me..Like I said, I'm no photo expert...

[Argyll]

Stainless steel Karabiners look white because of the natural light.
I Use them every week,as part of my job,unless you were very close up,the chances of picking up any detail such as the holding weight details,would be very inelligable!
Also look at the way the strap is pulled down under the weight of the sling and M4,also as a photographer,I'd say that the photo was pretty good in the useage of the colour contrast!

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I have got to agree with Argyll I have some photos of me working with a trawl with stainless split links on it, the sun must have been behind the camera as I am squinting and the links do look white they would look really white if I enlarged the photo.

[Seraphim]

Cig does look messed up but the biner is there.
There is no flash from the camera...

[Argyll]

You a fisherman Bally?
I work in the Fish Farming Industry!!

[radon]

even if the photo was fake it doesent matter much, it was then only bad for newsweek. it would matter more if the soldiers there were smoking pot with saddam or something else

[Seoulstriker]

even if the photo was fake it doesent matter much, it was then only bad for newsweek. it would matter more if the soldiers there were smoking pot with saddam or something else

yeah, i know. Newsweek is getting really weird right now. they can't even get the facts right: they say that GOP senators blocked more Clinton nominees than the DNC senators are blocking right now. they fail to realize that the democrat senators are filibustering nominees to prevent majority votes (first time in history) :bash: .

[EvanL]

even if the photo was fake it doesent matter much, it was then only bad for newsweek. it would matter more if the soldiers there were smoking pot with saddam or something else

yeah, i know. Newsweek is getting really weird right now. they can't even get the facts right: they say that GOP senators blocked more Clinton nominees than the DNC senators are blocking right now. they fail to realize that the democrat senators are filibustering nominees to prevent majority votes (first time in history) :bash: .

Dude why do you ****ing care so much?

[earl]

I just want seoulstriker to re-read my post, because I answered his white carabiner concerns:

"I really don't think this photo is fixed up at all. The grainy look suggests a ISO 400 - 800 film for low light photography, and in a dark scene like this, any bright or reflective spots in the photo will overexpose, hence the bright and 'fat' cigarette, and the perfectly white biner. It's called burnout, when areas of a photograph overexpose so much that it becomes white and lose all detail. Happens especially with digital cameras like mine. "

The scene looks like it was in low ambient light... see how there's no direct sunlight? It's probably very overcast. You are fooled into thinking it's brighter outside becuase the camera/film was set to capture the most light (grainy, fast exposing film for low light, and a slightly slow shutter speed). Note that nothing is perfectly crisp, there's a tiny bit of motion blur everywhere. Read a national geographic or two. In dark scenes they never use a flash - it looks bad and disturbs the subject. There's lots of similar grainy photos in the 'culture' stories.

When the camera is set to collect so much light, there's too much coming from bright points like the biner, so even light of the shading and detail on the biner is too much, and overexposes.

Yeah? Welcome to www.militaryconspiraciesdebunked.net ;)

[Uncle Sam]

EvanLloyd wrote:
Dude why do you f*** care so much?

Well, Isn't that... The million dollar question...

I agree

[Seoulstriker]

I just want seoulstriker to re-read my post, because I answered his white carabiner concerns:

"I really don't think this photo is fixed up at all. The grainy look suggests a ISO 400 - 800 film for low light photography, and in a dark scene like this, any bright or reflective spots in the photo will overexpose, hence the bright and 'fat' cigarette, and the perfectly white biner. It's called burnout, when areas of a photograph overexpose so much that it becomes white and lose all detail. Happens especially with digital cameras like mine. "

The scene looks like it was in low ambient light... see how there's no direct sunlight? It's probably very overcast. You are fooled into thinking it's brighter outside becuase the camera/film was set to capture the most light (grainy, fast exposing film for low light, and a slightly slow shutter speed). Note that nothing is perfectly crisp, there's a tiny bit of motion blur everywhere. Read a national geographic or two. In dark scenes they never use a flash - it looks bad and disturbs the subject. There's lots of similar grainy photos in the 'culture' stories.

When the camera is set to collect so much light, there's too much coming from bright points like the biner, so even light of the shading and detail on the biner is too much, and overexposes.

Yeah? Welcome to www.militaryconspiraciesdebunked.net ;)

ahh, i see. i was comparing those two spots to the background. thanks! :hug:

[Seoulstriker]

even if the photo was fake it doesent matter much, it was then only bad for newsweek. it would matter more if the soldiers there were smoking pot with saddam or something else

yeah, i know. Newsweek is getting really weird right now. they can't even get the facts right: they say that GOP senators blocked more Clinton nominees than the DNC senators are blocking right now. they fail to realize that the democrat senators are filibustering nominees to prevent majority votes (first time in history) :bash: .

Dude why do you f*** care so much?

is it too much to expect publications to report the truth?

[marktigger]

can i ask how many of you think its wrong for a soldier to be smoking on patrol?

i noticed in arifjan a huge number of US troops wandering round with cigarettes hanging out of their mouths and them saluting and officers also smoking returning salutes. If they had been British one of our senior NCO's or warrant officers would have ripped them a new asshole.

personally I think it looks apalling and shows great disrespect to the uniform the soldiers are wearing. From the point of view of saluting and returning salutes it shows great disrespect for the officers comission from the president/Queen and for those returning the salute it shows great disrespect for the person who saluted.

[RealUltimatePower]

Ok is anyone else seeing this but look closely at the guys helmet. Do you see any faint writing on it? Strange but it looks added into the picture and not something drawn on it by the troop. Can't make out what it says though.

http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/newsweekPhoto1.jpg

[Vance]

It's from a magazine, so I assume it's the writing on the other page.

[RealUltimatePower]

AHHHHH touche

[Seoulstriker]

It's from a magazine, so I assume it's the writing on the other page.

yes, it's the other page of the magazine imprinted on the other one. :)

[fred_engles]

yeah, i know. Newsweek is getting really weird right now. they can't even get the facts right: they say that GOP senators blocked more Clinton nominees than the DNC senators are blocking right now. they fail to realize that the democrat senators are filibustering nominees to prevent majority votes (first time in history)Not to go too far off topic, but what's the big deal? Filibusters in the senate have been a recognized part of Senate perception practically since its founding (and, since cloture is a comparatively more recent rule, a filibuster would have been basically unstoppable for much of that history). Further, the Senate is given explicit constitutional authority to confirm judges ("with the advice and consent..."). So what's the problem?

I might add that while I'm not sure whether republicans ever filibustered a judge before, there were definitely a number of judges blocked via such tactics as "secret holds," which are much less democratic in spirit than a filibuster.

[Seoulstriker]

yeah, i know. Newsweek is getting really weird right now. they can't even get the facts right: they say that GOP senators blocked more Clinton nominees than the DNC senators are blocking right now. they fail to realize that the democrat senators are filibustering nominees to prevent majority votes (first time in history)Not to go too far off topic, but what's the big deal? Filibusters in the senate have been a recognized part of Senate perception practically since its founding (and, since cloture is a comparatively more recent rule, a filibuster would have been basically unstoppable for much of that history). Further, the Senate is given explicit constitutional authority to confirm judges ("with the advice and consent..."). So what's the problem?

I might add that while I'm not sure whether republicans ever filibustered a judge before, there were definitely a number of judges blocked via such tactics as "secret holds," which are much less democratic in spirit than a filibuster.

democrats have broken with 200+ year old senate tradition and began blocking judicial appointments by filibuster. essentially, they are preventing the U.S. president from doing his job. you see, filibusters can only end with a 60 member vote. ONLY A MAJORITY VOTE IS NEEDED TO CONFIRM JUDGES!!!

they are preventing the president from doing his job. this isn't checks and balances.

republicans have blocked democrat nominees by a simple majority vote. none of this 60 vote bull****.

what is this 'secret hold' you speak of? are you referring to leaders of the committees to hold nominations from getting to the senate floor? that is standard senate practice. that's how they normally prevent idiotic laws from one senator from wasting senate time.

[fred_engles]

First off, that rule with 60 votes needed for cloture, but 50 votes to confirm: That's the case from practically everything in the senate, not just judges! Again, the 41 senatore filibuster is an decades-old tradition in the senate, central to the way the senate works, and has been used by both democrats and republicans for decades.

Secret holds (http://wyden.senate.gov/media/2002/04172002_secretholds.html).

[Seoulstriker]

Again, the 41 senatore filibuster is an decades-old tradition in the senate, central to the way the senate works, and has been used by both democrats and republicans for decades.


yes, the filibuster has been used for decades, but this is the first time in senate history where presidential judicial nominees essentially need more than a majority vote to get 'confirmed'. yes, i know that once they get 60 votes, there will be an up-down vote, but that requirement subverts majority rule.

[fred_engles]

And why would a straight majority vote be more important for judicial nominees than on any other senate vote?

[Seoulstriker]

And why would a straight majority vote be more important for judicial nominees than on any other senate vote?

because this is not a legislative issue: it's a judicial issue where the POTUS has the responsibility of appointing judges.

[fred_engles]

it's a judicial issue where the POTUS has the responsibility of appointing judges......and the senate has the responsibilty to confirm those judges.

Clearly, the fact that the Constitution gives the senate confirmation powers means that it is an issue where the legislature is legitimetly involved, and NOT purely the realm of the POTUS. I fail to see the distinction you are trying to draw.

[Seoulstriker]

it's a judicial issue where the POTUS has the responsibility of appointing judges......and the senate has the responsibilty to confirm those judges.

Clearly, the fact that the Constitution gives the senate confirmation powers means that it is an issue where the legislature is legitimetly involved, and NOT purely the realm of the POTUS. I fail to see the distinction you are trying to draw.

the constitution gives the power to the senate to confirm or deny judicial appointees. senate democrats, the MINORITY, are denying the senate's RESPONSIBILITY TO CONFIRM OR DENY JUDICIAL NOMINEES.

[fred_engles]

So let me get this straight:
1) Normal senate rules essentially require 60 votes to pass a bill, with those 60 votes needed to end debate on a bill -after which a simple majority must approve- according to senate rules that have been in place in 1975 (from 1917 to 1975, it used to be (http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps12426/www.senate.gov/learning/brief_13.html) 67 votes). This is how practically all senate votes are conducted (the two exceptions I can think of are impeachment cases, and constitutional amendments, which require larger majorities, as explicitely set forth in the constitution).
2) The senate has the right to vote on the confirmation of federal judicial appointees.
3) For some reason, standard senate procedure does not apply to judicial votes, which must immediately be placed to a direct up and down majority vote.

The legal justification for #s 1 and 2 are fairly clear. I know of no legal or constitutional basis for point #3. Which you care to enlighten me? Or is this a rule that was simply made up on the spot, because of republican frustration?

[Seoulstriker]

So let me get this straight:
1) Normal senate rules essentially require 60 votes to pass a bill, with those 60 votes needed to end debate on a bill -after which a simple majority must approve- according to senate rules that have been in place in 1975 (from 1917 to 1975, it used to be (http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps12426/www.senate.gov/learning/brief_13.html) 67 votes). This is how practically all senate votes are conducted (the two exceptions I can think of are impeachment cases, and constitutional amendments, which require larger majorities, as explicitely set forth in the constitution).
2) The senate has the right to vote on the confirmation of federal judicial appointees.
3) For some reason, standard senate procedure does not apply to judicial votes, which must immediately be placed to a direct up and down majority vote.

The legal justification for #s 1 and 2 are fairly clear. I know of no legal or constitutional basis for point #3. Which you care to enlighten me? Or is this a rule that was simply made up on the spot, because of republican frustration?




He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.



"advice and consent of the senate" == check and balance.

what the senate is supposed to do regarding judicial nominees:

have a hearing and decide whether or not to let the nominee pass to the general senate. the senate then has an up/down vote. majority confirms the nominee.


what the senate is doing right now:

they had a hearing to let the nominees go to the full senate. a minority of senators decides to be the FIRST IN THE HISTORY OF THE SENATE to prevent the normal up/down vote in the full senate. the judicial nominees must go through the process again and again and are filibustered every single time.



i wouldn't go as far to say that senate democrats are trying to destroy the principles of the US consitution, but they're getting close: they are preventing the POTUS to fulfill his duty in nominating judges according to the USC.



3) For some reason, standard senate procedure does not apply to judicial votes, which must immediately be placed to a direct up and down majority vote.

well, judges are not legislated, right? they are appointed by the POTUS. judicial nominees are supposed to be given consent by the senate. THE JUDICIAL NOMINEES ALREADY HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE SENATE'S CONSENT, yet they are not yet judges.

[EvanL]

Way to hijack a thread ****ers.
Deal with this through an email or PMs.

[Seoulstriker]

Way to hijack a thread f***.
Deal with this through an email or PMs.

it's my thread and i can take a tangent if i need to. :hug:

[EvanL]

Listen Seoulstriker. I dont care if its your ****ing thread, its not your site, and i dont think anyone else in here is very interested in listening to your petty argument which has nothing to do with the title of this thread.
Save it for somewhere else, or start a new thread to do with this.

[fred_engles]

Do you have any legal/constitutional support for your statement? You bolded the word majority, but it doesn't appear in the constitutional passage you cited.


well, judges are not legislated, right? they are appointed by the POTUS. judicial nominees are supposed to be given consent by the senate. THE JUDICIAL NOMINEES ALREADY HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE SENATE'S CONSENT, yet they are not yet judges.

well, i'd say that advice and consent of the senate = debate and an eventual vote, just like any law before the senate. As long as there aren't 60 votes, senate rules hold that debate can continue forever. Hence, the filibuster.

Here's my position condensed: I say that there's no evidence that the senate's power to give "advice and consent" to federal judges is anything different than a regular senate vote, with the same rules, including holds and filibusters and committee hearings and all the normal senate procedures. You say that judicial nominations are somehow unique and therefore must be given their own special procedure, without debate and a direct yay-or-nay vote. I'd say the burden of proof would be on you to prove that judicial appointments have these unique rules; otherwise, my position, that judicial appointments are not unique, would be true by default.

btw: I'd say that "advice and consent" implies more than a simply yay-or-nay vote, since that would be simply "consent." I take "advice" to imply a right to debate.

[Seoulstriker]

Listen Seoulstriker. I dont care if its your f*** thread, its not your site, and i dont think anyone else in here is very interested in listening to your petty argument which has nothing to do with the title of this thread.
Save it for somewhere else, or start a new thread to do with this.

actually, it does have to do somewhat with the subject: original newsweek and how it can't get the facts straight.

[Seoulstriker]

Do you have any legal/constitutional support for your statement? You bolded the word majority, but it doesn't appear in the constitutional passage you cited.


well, judges are not legislated, right? they are appointed by the POTUS. judicial nominees are supposed to be given consent by the senate. THE JUDICIAL NOMINEES ALREADY HAVE A MAJORITY OF THE SENATE'S CONSENT, yet they are not yet judges.

well, i'd say that advice and consent of the senate = debate and an eventual vote, just like any law before the senate. As long as there aren't 60 votes, senate rules hold that debate can continue forever. Hence, the filibuster.

Here's my position condensed: I say that there's no evidence that the senate's power to give "advice and consent" to federal judges is anything different than a regular senate vote, with the same rules, including holds and filibusters and committee hearings and all the normal senate procedures. You say that judicial nominations are somehow unique and therefore must be given their own special procedure, without debate and a direct yay-or-nay vote. I'd say the burden of proof would be on you to prove that judicial appointments have these unique rules; otherwise, my position, that judicial appointments are not unique, would be true by default.

btw: I'd say that "advice and consent" implies more than a simply yay-or-nay vote, since that would be simply "consent." I take "advice" to imply a right to debate.

so shouldn't consent be a full 100 member agreement?



BTW, they are not debating the judicial nominees: they are reading the telephone book and children's stories.

BTW2, the senators who are filibustering officially give no reason why they are filibustering, but they are doing it because the nominees are minorities. bush get minority judges??? i thought republicans were biggots! do you know why the senate democrats are filibustering?

[EvanL]

http://www.xbox-connection.com/hostedimages/seoul.jpg

[EvanL]

Guess who????? :P rofl

[Seoulstriker]

Guess who????? :P rofl

as ahnold would say, "You son of a bitch!"

:hug:

[EvanL]

Guess who????? :P rofl

as ahnold would say, "You son of a bitch!"

:hug:

Dude it wasnt me. It was Liberal Newsweek i swear.

[Seoulstriker]

Guess who????? :P rofl

as ahnold would say, "You son of a bitch!"

:hug:

Dude it wasnt me. It was Liberal Newsweek i swear.

:lol:

[ßå$tĮТHÏ¿ð]

Wow you guys are still talking about Newsweek and this bloody f*cking picture? Can you say "beating the dead horse"????? :roll: