1) "When the Afghan intelligence services kill Assange," Who exactly are you talking about? The Taliban or the current Afghan government? Neither have intellig

1) "When the Afghan intelligence services kill Assange," Who exactly are you talking about? The Taliban or the current Afghan government? Neither have intelligence services capable of doing this. The idea is ludicrous. 2) "Do you think that some random schmuck on the internet should have the power to decide what remains secret and what doesn't?" This is a poor way to phrase the question, since we are talking about a group of people engaged in releasing _specific_ information. They hardly have the ability to decide what is secret and what is not. They only get to choose to leak what they have on hand. "as I understand it the basic argument would be that things are so bad now that any type of release of docs is good." Well I believe that is a misapprehension on your part. I'm certainly not arguing for the release of any and everything. 3) Obviously abuse is subjective, but the only other alternative is to appeal to some authority to help us decide what is important. That's not working very well is it? In my opinion the military has at best skirted the truth and at worst lied about actions involving civilians. That seems like abuse to me and it seems lots of other people agree. "Call me an idiot, but wouldn't you want some kind of orderly process for releasing docs, even if you were for releasing all of them? What kind of half-assed system is this?" Well in my opinion wikileaks seems to be orderly; for one they take the time to vet material and engage in harm-minimisation -- if we take them on their work anyhow. Again, what is the alternative? The government? Some committee that the government will cooperate out of the goodness of their hearts? They have no inclination to be transparent, so the only alternative is to force them to be so by leaking. That's uncomfortable and risky, but a hell of a lot better than letting the bastards hide those awful truths. 4) Completely unworkable for obvious reasons. For one thing, secrets are only useful if they can be recalled accurately. People aren't going to remember them flawlessly. But even is this scenario were workable, it's the same situation. Anyone that knows the secret is capable of leaking it. Granted verifying it is harder without documentation, but nothing happens in a vacuum; a leak would be enough to get people probing for the truth and evidence to back it up. I understand the basic gist of what you are saying and I agree. It would be better if the current system could be improved, if abuses could be curtailed and there was more transparency. That is much better than having material leaked, absolutely. But it's not going to happen by itself. There is a complete lack of political will to change things. Like most important issues, a government's hand has to be forced; that's why leaks are necessary.