> Wikileaks does not seem to discriminate between these things.
And how can someone without a clear view of the whole picture distinguish between both? And who do you want to arbitrate what should and what should not be secret?
And how can someone without a clear view of the whole picture distinguish between both? And who do you want to arbitrate what should and what should not be secret?
Guantanamo Bay interrogation manual? Moral significance; leak.
Possible US use of chemical weapons? Moral significance; leak.
US order of battle for 2009? No moral significance; don't leak.
And in the interest of fairness:
Al-Qaida interrogation manual? Leak.
We need a picture of both/all sides' dirty laundry, and Wikileaks doesn't really give that.
Just don't expect Wikileaks to be a one-stop-shop for leaked documents.
And, BTW, I doubt Al Qaeda has such a document. That's not their style to document everything. One may interpret that as one of their major tactical strengths.