There's also this exchange between White House counterterrorism adviser and Saudi King Abdullah, where Abdullah suggested putting chips in detainees after Brennan discussed America's intention to shut down Guantanamo:
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.
While the contents have implications, each leak seems to garner greater focus than what is revealed. Even though this is the third leak of its kind, the world continues to be shocked by the magnitude of information and the possible implications of the information revealed.
Politicians and other world leaders have called for prosecutions or action against WikiLeaks. For example, Rep. Peter King, a Republican of New York, now requests that WikiLeaks be designated a "foreign terrorist organization." Ignoring his past with the IRA, he presses for intimidation and oppression of an organization that is showing the true nature of US foreign policy.
To put the leak in perspective, each newspaper that published articles on the leak published at least one op-ed explaining the decision to publish the information. Such pieces provide explanation for why it is not the press' job to protect government. (Something the New York Times and other newspapers in the country have significant trouble understanding as they are consistently on the side of people in power; the Times, while given special access, chooses to brief the US government ahead of publishing to minimize the devastating impact of the contents).
Myths of endangering lives have been propagated with each leak, but that myth, which was attached to the leak of the Iraq War Logs and Afghan War Logs, the leaked "Collateral Murder" video, and with what is being referred to as "Cablegate," is slowing losing its ability to stick. As McClatchy' s Nancy Youssef writes, "American officials in recent days have warned repeatedly that the release of documents by WikiLeaks could put people's lives in danger. But despite similar warnings before the previous two releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death."
The US knew nearly six months ago that the cables were
coming. WikiLeaks went through a rigorous process of reviewing material and the
State Department had ample time to do damage control. WikiLeaks did not engage
in illicit activity to obtain the cables; someone leaked the information to
them, possibly Pfc Manning, who is under arrest and will eventually face a
military trial as he is believed to be behind much of what has been released on
US wars and foreign policy by WikiLeaks this year.
Will this leak frighten US diplomats and other leaders into being less truthful when sending out a cable? Probably not. The Washington Consensus will be defended and there will be no reason to cower and hold back what one thinks in reaction to meetings. Access to cables that was i ncreased after 9/11 will likely become more stringent and the U.S. will likely become more vigilant against the press and all types of whistleblowing.
That's because what the world is dealing with is a US government that behaves like a corrupt
policeman; that, as WikiLeaks' statement on the leak notes, spied on allies and the UN, turned a blind eye to corruption and
human rights abuses in "client states," engaged in backroom dealing with
supposedly neutral countries, lobbied for US corporations, etc.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
