Okay. I'm not sure what your point is. I've been the one arguing that some state secrets are acceptable and their disclosure can have a net negative impact on the world here.
My point is a simple one: controlling information in an effective way happens at the source.
Blaming wikileaks for the leak is just as stupid as celebrating a defector from a rogue nation state. That's just a change of viewpoint, the mechanism is the same.
If a government is operating clandestinely (and plenty of the material in these cables gives indications of not so clean dealings) then they have themselves to blame, do not create information that can embarrass you in the future, and if you do keep it on a need-to-know basis. If all that comes to light is how the various governments behaved impeccably and had our best interests at heart then there is nothing to fear right ?
Sooner or later all information will spread and will be used against you. Non-proliferation starts with disbanding research and with making all possession of such material illegal, not only when it suits you.
And so on. It's a principled stance, not one that tries to use these things as just another way to gain the upper hand as a nation.
Ask yourself why a person at this level in the government should have access to all this information and proportion blame accordingly. Keep in mind that the main reason people are upset is because the shady nature of their backroom dealings will become public not because 'lives will be in danger', surely more lives were lost by going after non-existent weapons of mass destruction than there ever were lost due to terrorism. If human lives were so important then surely Dr. Kelly would have been listened to, and Hans Blix to boot.
It's all just spun for what it's worth, and plenty of times for more than it's worth because 'our' governments are the good guys, or so we are led to believe.
> If all that comes to light is how the various governments behaved impeccably and had our best interests at heart then there is nothing to fear right ?
You keep making this assertion that the leaks will either expose something that's important for the public to know or that it will be totally benign while leaving no middle ground between the two.
I couldn't imagine going into business negotiations with the opposite party being privy to all the internal metrics in my head and not expect it to seriously disadvantage me. That's not malicious, it's looking out for my own best interests, and I wouldn't expect any different of a nation.
Similarly, there are cables that include information to the effect that Official Jack and Secretary Jane from Country X have a personality conflict that's useful to be aware of when you're dealing with them, but embarrassing for all parties involved if aired publicly. Again, that's not maliciousness, it's just basic courtesy.
>Ask yourself why a person at this level in the government should have access to all this information and proportion blame accordingly.
Sure, it's a problem. There are discussions going in other threads on the topic. I don't see how the fact that it's possible changes whether the release of the information is a good or bad thing from a global perspective, however.
>It's all just spun for what it's worth, and plenty of times for more than it's worth because 'our' governments are the good guys, or so we are led to believe.
My concern, in actuality, is less about the impact on the US itself as it is how the leak could affect other, less stable nations around the world.
