Why is he asking us why it isn't the largest story in the country? He works for MSNBC now, why can't he make it the largest story in the country? <shrug>

South Park covered this back in '08

News coverage of the Wikileaks story has always focused on the fact that the 'peasants' dared to point, not that the 'Emperor is wearing no clothes'.

>> ^Duckman33:

Why is he asking us why it isn't the largest story in the country? He works for MSNBC now, why can't he make it the largest story in the country? <shrug>


He's still only a fill-in host, although a regular one now. I have hope though, he's so far been the only one to give a fair interview to Assange in the US mainstream media (does Democracy Now! count yet?).

So far his ratings have been crushing CNN's and even Fox's on certain occasions, he could gain enough of an audience to make that sort of impact.

He's not been too critical of some of MSNBC's reporting yet and lately even gone quiet on Joe Scarborough, but my guess is that's because he's trying to gain more of a foothold...

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Tymbrwulf.

U.S.: Break the contract and pay the penalty. You can't say that isn't a better use of our tax dollars than paying for little boys. I mean, if I'm paying for little boys to dress as girls and dance around, I'd better have front row seats...

I hope they at least wipe their penises when they're done.

Here's the cable in question: http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/06/09KABUL1651.html (paragraphs 1,4,5 and 6)

Here's the change.org story that caught TYT's attention: http://humantrafficking.change.org/blog/view/wikileaks_reveals_us_tax_dollars_fund_child_sex_slavery_in_afghanistan


Also, I've got to mention my contempt for Cenk over the following statement "look, they're fighting over in Afganistan, I'm not going to nitpick weather they had hookers" (1:17). We can guess that being sold for sex by rich foreign mercenaries to corrupt local police is a hellish experience. But suddenly if they are young women rather than young boys, it's no big woop. Certainly nothing to quibble over. They're fighting in Afghanistan for profit after all, surely that should come with some fringe benefits. Isn't that right Cenk? I have a hard time believing he's naive enough to think that the women there are safe and empowered sex workers, and not victims of human trafficking or sex slavery.

At least he did help bring attention to this story, so I'll upvote for that.

>> ^entr0py:

Here's the cable in question: http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/06/09KABUL1651.html (paragraphs 1,4,5 and 6)
Here's the change.org story that caught TYT's attention: http://humantrafficking.cha
nge.org/blog/view/wikileaks_reveals_us_tax_dollars_fund_child_sex_slavery_in_afghanistan

Also, I've got to mention my contempt for Cenk over the following statement "look, they're fighting over in Afganistan, I'm not going to nitpick weather they had hookers" (1:17). We can guess that being sold for sex by rich foreign mercenaries to corrupt local police is a hellish experience. But suddenly if they are young women rather than young boys, it's no big woop. Certainly nothing to quibble over. They're fighting in Afghanistan for profit after all, surely that should come with some fringe benefits. Isn't that right Cenk? I have a hard time believing he's naive enough to think that the women there are safe and empowered sex workers, and not victims of human trafficking or sex slavery.
At least he did help bring attention to this story, so I'll upvote for that.


I watch his show pretty regularly and have gotten fairly familiar with his mindset, I'd definitely say that he doesn't consider traffiking of females as not being a big deal compared to young males.

What he means here is that he doesn't consider it as bad if they were just 'going to the pros' with taxpayer money. They still shouldn't be doing that, given that it's public money, but he doesn't think that prostitution per-se should necessarily be illegal (Obviously, providing that it's concensual on the part of the prositute).

I'm quite interested to hear from the WikiLeaks naysayers on this one

Yeah, it's a terrible story, one of millions. Doesn't change the fact Assange is a narcissistic America-hating a$$hole who released classified info which endangered American lives and the lives of our allies. He should be liquidated (assassinated) as an enemy spy for his attacks on the USA.

Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides:

"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) ...

"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

and

18 USC 641: any person who "receives" or "retains" a "thing of value of the United States" knowing "it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted" is also guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison.

Classified information is valuable government property.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bacha bazi, DynCorp, Afghanistan, sex traffik' to 'bacha bazi, DynCorp, Afghanistan, sex traffic' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^quantumushroom:

I'm quite interested to hear from the WikiLeaks naysayers on this one
Yeah, it's a terrible story, one of millions. Doesn't change the fact Assange is a narcissistic America-hating a$$hole who released classified info which endangered American lives and the lives of our allies. He should be liquidated (assassinated) as an enemy spy for his attacks on the USA.
Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides:
"Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, ... (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) ...
"Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
and
18 USC 641: any person who "receives" or "retains" a "thing of value of the United States" knowing "it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted" is also guilty of a felony, punishable by up to ten years in prison.
Classified information is valuable government property.


You're a pathetic hypocrite. You claim foreigners aren't protected by US laws (ie: it's not illegal to torture and imprison Arabs), but you now want to charge an Australian with violation of US laws.

Do you ever think about these things before you write them?