WikiLeaks: "How to Track Detainees"

[Solly Mack]

March 2009

Counterterrorism Adviser (John) Brennan's meeting with Saudi King Abdullah


"¶7. (S) HOW TO TRACK DETAINEES: "I've just thought of something," the King added, and proposed implanting detainees with an electronic chip containing information about them and allowing their movements to be tracked with Bluetooth. This was done with horses and falcons, the King said. Brennan replied, "horses don't have good lawyers," and that such a proposal would face legal hurdles in the U.S., but agreed that keeping track of detainees was an extremely important issue that he would review with appropriate officials when he returned to the United States."


This was the suggestion made by our ally, Saudi King Abdullah.

[Arctic Dave]

1. What do you think your cellphone is?

The best tracking device is the one people willing ask for.

[TexasObserver]

16. Maybe you're keeping yours in the wrong place.

Mine is not a part of my person. I can leave it behind, if I choose. Or remove the battery, if I choose.

[Arctic Dave]

17. Most people don't.

Also, most new phones are sealed so you cannot take out the battery.

Most new cars have Onstar on them just in case you forget your phone. For your protection of course.

[Pavulon]

2. Smart man. Technology exists to track people without implanting

transmitters. Hey where did those tracking numbers for the UPS bombs come from?

[sabrina 1]

6. Is there any crime committed under the pretext of National Security

that you would not support? Who, eg, is this King talking about when he says 'terrorists'? If we are to believe any of what this government has told us, the terrorists were Saudis mostly. Of course Bush and his gang of criminals lied and claimed they were Iraqis.

So what was this war for again, and why are we still spending a fortune to keep an army of mercenaries there and troops to protect our military bases?

[Pavulon]

7. Name the crime. Is there any method you are willing to undertake to

pursue people who want to kill Americans.. Saudi gave us the info on the bombs sent from Yemen.

[sabrina 1]

8. The unlawful killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for oil?

And we didn't need the Saudis to tell us about Yemen. Or didn't you know that? The guy who was in Yemen when Bush took over was trying to warn his government back then about Yemen. He was taken off the case. John O'Neill, 'the man who knew too much'. Of course we weren't interested in finding terrorists anywhere other than the oil producing Iraq, so that was probably why. The 'terrorists' had to be the excuse for that illegal invasion.

Were you cheerleading the Iraq invasion I guess is my question? A massive crime, which will be recorded in history as such.

[Pavulon]

9. Iraq was a giant fuckup. dont put words in my mouth, especially childish ones

There is no crime only bad policy. Get used to it, accept it, move on.

You arent even aware of the Yemen based attack on cargo are you?

[sabrina 1]

10. You didn't address my point that we did not need the Saudis

when our own experienced intelligence organizations could have taken care of that problem way back when, but were prevented from doing so. The Cargo attack or any other would not have been a concern if the people charged with our national security had not been prevented from doing their jobs. THAT IS A CRIME, in fact it is called 'treason'. When someone works against the interests and safety of this country that is a crime.

Speak for yourself when you make the ridiculous claim that there are 'no crimes' although I'm not surprised to see it coming from YOU. Thanks for making my point so clearly.

Your sad belief that elected officials are above the law, is even worse than that of the rightwingers I used to waste time with. At least they conceded that it was possible for government officials to commit crimes, just not their guy.

Our laws do not protect elected officials from prosecution for war crimes, do they? 'No one is above the law'. And if we sink to the third world mindset you just illustrated in your claim that the American government 'cannot commit a crime' (how monarchical of you btw) then what happens to third world countries will and is beginning to happen to this one. Someone else will do the job of prosecuting our war criminals for us.

It's possible that you are kidding, but if not, your views are pretty, damn scary in a democratic country.

[Pavulon]

12. The Saudis are better equipped to gather info in Yemen, where they speak the language

share a religion, and have thousands of years of history. So who committed treason in yemen?

They are not above the law, when they actually break it. Bad policy is not a crime you are going to make headway with. Never going to happen.

Lastly you are wrong, we dont live in a pure democracy, we live in a representative democracy. That means the rabble dont get a say on every event.

When the rabble get direct access you have a California gay marriage ban, all rabble based..

So I repeat, no one who made Iraq policy will EVER see a charge. Sorry, reality is on my side.

[sabrina 1]

13. You are wrong on Yemen, the Saudis did nothing to

stop anything in Yemen which our own intelligence were on top of when Bush first took over. If they knew anything, they weren't doing anything about it. But experts on terror within our own Intel Agencies DID know, and it is likely that this is why they were pulled off the job, because if they had not been, 9/11 probably would have been stopped, the same way Clinton stopped an even potential plot during his administration.

Nice to know you have more confidence in the Saudis, from where the 9/11 terrorists mostly came, to protect our nationl security. I'm afraid they failed, where our own guys warned Bush what was about to happen.

As for anyone being prosecuted, and your claim that these crimes were merely 'bad policy' you need to start mixing with the American people a little more. We, the people, don't care what those in power decide what is or is not a crime. We know what is a crime, and want criminals brought to justice. That may or may not happen, but one thing is for sure, the U.S., hyopcrites that they are, better never again issues statements about third world dictators chopping people's heads off. They could only drool at the numbers of dead Iraqis and Afghans the U.S. has managed to rack up.

[Joanne98]

3. Oh no the CHIP!

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

5. It's coming, to be used on our food supply. It's for your own good.

TRUST US.

[TheWraith]

11. Would you like to clarify that paranoia laced statement? nt

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Chips? In Our Food?

Holy fuck!

[sabrina 1]

4. Iraqis, if he's going along with the 'terra' fairy tale, equal animals to him.

But he's a Saudi, nice allies we have.

He surely knows that his own country was responsible for 9/11 and he must be very grateful to his U.S. allies for bombing the wrong country and letting his country off the hook.

But then that is what he expected of the oil-obsessed U.S. government. Who is really running this country? I know it is not the American people.

So it WAS all about oil. Remember how angry people used to get when we would say that?

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Why do you think they call it blueTOOTH, huh?

Heh Heh Heh Heh.