Well put. I think there is an inherent tension between the state and the governed, which is amplified when there is secret information involved. A military of

Well put. I think there is an inherent tension between the state and the governed, which is amplified when there is secret information involved. A military officer sworn to obey the chain of command is not a perfect vessel for secrets, which is why there are all sorts of levels of trust/clearance, etc. Why? Because most humans can be counted upon to exercise their individual moral judgment on matters of grave importance. The grouping of minor leakers into the category of armchair anarchists diminishes the role of independent moral discretion that may have motivated their actions. Even if it's poorly formed/articulated, I think the leakers have a sense of the moral consequences of their compliance with secrecy rules, which explains why they risk punishment to bring forth the leak. Though derived from a chaotic and political mess, state actions (war plans, etc.) must be treated by the state as essentially sacred (and to go against it must be considered a "high crime"). Once in a while a person has the opportunity to see state actions through his/her individual moral lens and also feels empowered to act upon that feeling. As misguided as that feeling often is, I think that its presence is a major force in the prevention of tyranny.