The government (or perhaps the people in the government aren't human but alien invaders and don't deserve human rights), and everyone, has some right to secrecy and privacy. The alternative is well, in your signature. The problem about secrecy, is that secrets are impossible to vet. It would be nice to have someone trustworthy doing this who knows what to turn a blind eye to. Unfortunately, I do not believe that such a thing exists, yet a need for it does. I don't think the war leaks are that bad, but I do think that wikileaks has a worrying agenda (I could be wrong, it's just my viewpoint). I do not believe that it is entirely objective, and in the long run this may cause problems. It is obvious that there is some "leftist" (in a general respect to the word) element to wikileaks. Leftism isn't always bad, I like some of those ideals of liberty myself, but can result in things such as an attitude that all war and conflict is unnecessary, the strong are always in the wrong and that authoritative bodies unconditionally have a malign motive. You end up with the bizarre form of desperate pacifism that delivers violent emotional manipulation you see in bodies such as PETA. I believe that the activities of wikileaks are not simply intended to enlighten people about some of the aspects of reality usually hidden to us for example the realities of war, but to affect our allegiance to its will with the goal of specifically raising public support against the west to undermine its military endeavours and government unconditionally. Why? Well much like the Devil (good thing for him he's fictional), people love to blame their difficulties in life on the government, or whoever is "at the top". People love to herd scape goats. This is more problematic because unlike the devil, the government is sometimes to blame, but not as often as you might hear it. Objection to governmental control can even make things worse, if the government is on the whole benevolent and attempting to control to constructive ends. To those who complain at every iota of control they must endure, answer this: What else? Lawlessness? Anarchy? You for President? I personally don't agree with every military action the west takes, however I am not fooled by information about the suffering at the front line. Because if there's one reality that wikileaks cannot provide, it is what the future reality would be without certain military action, that is, taking no action against aggressors, one which in some cases my imagination permits to be far worse. In respect to this, you have to be very careful about releasing "secrets" and leaks. First, consider that not everyone is perfect. Those receiving secret information are imperfect, and instead of recognising this as a human characteristic, they're going to assume that decision making in retrospect is identical to decision making in the present situation of such an incident, and hold the "wrong doers" to a standard of perfection beyond that the human species exhibits and use these random mistakes to bolster their personal opinions. Those on either side of the front line, up the chain of command; they're all human, they're going to make mistakes. Even in retrospect you're rarely going to fully understand the situation they were in. In short, the right information doesn't always lead to a reaction that is synchronous with its reality. Anyone in such a position should take care not to fall into the trap of using information to manipulate especially using the natural static that human error causes. The reason to be careful when arguing these matters... You can't justify releasing everything that is leaked. Sometimes you can justify the leak, but not the motive for it. Things are much more complicated than two lines in a comment box would permit. Could you honestly justify it if wikileaks release hundreds of thousands of a nation's private criminal records, or medical records? People would be out for blood. I would be if appropriate action weren't taken by the government in such a case even if not affected by such a leak, literally, it would be war (not against the government but against those the government failed to deal with). Preventing the steps that lead up to that is a government's duty. Consider how that scenario makes you feel, and consider, that although not in all, in some cases the government may be justified to feel the same and perhaps sometimes even on your behalf. Riot like behaviour would be the eventual result of giving an organisation a carte-blanche to disseminate information, the kind of slayings we hear from revolutions past. As much as are governments, peddlers of recent history, such as "the media" and wikileaks must to be exposed to such scrutiny. The matter of it is that there is no unilateral moral justification for "the government" or "da man" to have supreme secrecy, but neither is there one to deny secrecy to military and authoritative organisations because there's more to it than simply a disruption of their functions against those whose actions as destructive to society. The release of each leak needs to be decided on a case by case basis with a little more in mind than "me no likey war or government, they powerful, me sucky and weak, me convince others they abuse power to take it from them, then maybe me get it because me would be so better me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me for leader of world". I do love checking out leaks, because I love an exercise in objectivity. However, what would be entirely subjective, is that if I assumed that due to I myself being responsible, others in my "class" (social, not academic) magically would be. If there's one thing I greatly disagree with when it comes to leftist ideals, is the notion that as if by some kind of miraculous law of nature, all the "Davids" out there, the little people that contemporary "hippies" like to side with perhaps because being at the bottom of society or the wrong end of the stick they can equate with, are some how all universally due some undue credit.