I see this argument often now: Wikileaks is dangerous because our government needs to have some secrets. It's an absolutist argument. Wikileaks is not releasi

I see this argument often now: Wikileaks is dangerous because our government needs to have some secrets. It's an absolutist argument. Wikileaks is not releasing all secrets because they don't have all secrets nor are they likely to ever acquire all secrets. So this discussion is not "either Wikileaks is good because nothing should be secret or it's bad because some secrets are necessary". A rational view of this discussion breaks down into two primary paths: 1- Is enough being done by Wikileaks (and partners and government) to minimize threats to individuals named in the leaked documents? Any rational review of the evidence to date determines that it does appear that enough is being done in this regard even without the government agreeing to involve itself (no evidence that any individuals have been harmed by the leaked documents and apparent active attempts by Wikileaks to seek guidance and pursue internal review in order to redact specific information). 2- What are the implications of the actual information that is being released? Ultimately, this is the key discussion topic. The rest (save #1) is just noise that some are using to intentionally minimize the relevance of this discussion topic. In regards to your two choices, the first doesn't exist, never has and there's no indication that it ever will and the second, overstated first because the amount of information released pales in comparison to the amount of classified information in toto, is by all measures preferable to the only realistic alternative: minimal classified information leaked and minimal public engagement, providing ample cover for government misdeeds. Therefore, it is fortunate.