If you misuse the term, you make it more difficult for legitimate whistle blowers to get the protection they deserve.
Since you went there:
Oxford dictionary says: "A person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity."
What is illicit? : "Forbidden by law, rules, or custom."
Is what the cables actually revealed customary? Probably.
By the definition set forth in the law[1][2], but it's not just crimes. There is a list of specifically acceptably things.
1: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-103/pdf/STATUTE-103-Pg...
The fact that it's even feasible to release confidential information about government action implies that there is some ability for individuals to interpret the law. Otherwise, if the government does it, you just have to accept it as legal.
Sometimes even governments' actions are illegal.
That recognition does make it easier (than it was) to counter, but there are still challenges, and they're unlikely to disappear soon.
(Note, I'm not arguing that I think any particular actions are or are not criminal. I'm too ignorant of the details to meaningfully speak one way or the other.)
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Using a euphemism doesn't make torture any better.
People have different definitions of what constitutes torture. There is also a legal definition of torture (which may be vague, but will be determined judicially if it comes to that). By definition, torture is against the law. As people have different definitions of what constitutes torture, some acts will meet the legal definition, while others will not even though they meets the definition held by someone else.
I happen to agree with you that "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a euphemism for torture. By defining certain acts as such, it gives proponents of using such acts a legal basis of arguing that they're not torture, whether it's ultimately justified or not.
Does that make sense? I'm not asking whether or not you agree with the distinction (which would be hard to do as I haven't defined which acts fall under either). I'm just asking whether the argument follows, that you understand why the language matters.
A similar distinction is made for killing in war and murder. Some people believe all killing is wrong and murder. That said, there's a legal distinction between the two. Which term is applied is legally important.